Discussions

SparkyJones said "Still sticking with breathing is the biggest culprit....I mean we can blame cow farts/excrement for methane then humans win the carbon dioxide race...     Edited by SparkyJones, 2016-04-25 19:58:51"

Breathing is simply releasing carbon into the atmosphere that was absorbed by plants which you ate. So it's no net difference (actually you absorbed a little carbon, because some of that carbon you ate went into making you grow). Burning fossil fuels is releasing carbon which has been trapped underground for millions of years, so there is a net difference. Breathing and burning fossil fuels aren't really comparable.

I've said this once and I'll say it again, I have no idea what the Liberals plan to do with the money from the carbon tax. Will they ever give a straight answer? Am I right? Anyway...  
 
The poor don't drive gas guzzling SUVs or buy ludicrous amounts of things. The poorest people are the ones that contribute to global warming the least. The wealthiest, the ones with the largest carbon footprint, will pay the most toward a carbon tax. That's not to say that the Liberals will have a way around it so the rich get off the hook for free. Who knows?  
 
The point is this: A carbon tax is supposed to fund the transition to a low carbon or carbon neutral society. It's also an incentive to lower your personal carbon footprint, but no one is going to force you to do that. You'll just end up paying more if you don't.

The only way to slow climate change is to lower fossil fuel consumption. Sadly we are probably doomed either way we look at it. If we quit using fossil fuel the population will have to be trimmed because all the increases in food production are the result of fossil fuels. Crops grown without the use of fossil fuel would yield one quarter of present yields so many people would have to go without food. The urban car culture would be doomed because people would have to return to subsistence food gathering.  
We have two choices....The status quo or a serious reduction in our current life style. A carbon tax won't change our current habits so we will be stuck with the status quo and a meaningless carbon tax.

FYI  
 
Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”  
 
 
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.Vx9kf9TEirU  
 
same UNited Nations, same issue, maybe farts and burps do have more pollution then industry.  
 
 
Edited by loeog, 2016-04-26 07:58:22

...its not just our co2 emmissions that matter.  
 
1 pound of methane is equivalent to 21 pounds of co2 and our addiction to red meat means we have an awfully large methane foot print as well.  
 
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html  
 
Hopefully the tax is used to promote/generate/explore less harmful alternatives but until public opinion changes and deniers come to their senses, I am afraid this is just a tax grab. Time will tell.  
 
Climate change is a risk/reward scenario with 1 of 4 outcomes:  
 
1. Human caused climate change isn't happening and therefore no need to do anything about it.  
 
2. Human caused climate change isn't happening and any money spent is a waste.  
 
3. Human caused climate change is happening but we shouldn't spend money fighting it as we can't change it.  
 
4 Human caused climate change is happening and we should spend money to fight it.  
 
Whats the worst case of the 4?  
 
1. Everyones happy.  
2 Nothing to worry about but lots of money wasted.  
3. Environmental disasters on a global scale, health deterioration on a global scale, mass immigration as low lands around the world flood (think India underwater), loss of farmlands as the environments change. Huge financial burdens as storms become more severe and frequent, as well as the burdens of the above scenarios.  
4. Spend lots of money now to try and alleviate some of the above scenario.  
 
If I have to spend some money now to help avoid #3, I'm okay with that. I cant prove that it will happen but I sure wouldn't mind buying some insurance against it.  
 
Marpet

loeog said "FYI     Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”       http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.Vx9kf9TEirU     same UNited Nations, same issue, maybe farts and burps do have more pollution then industry.       Edited by loeog, 2016-04-26 07:58:22"

Yes, gas produced by livestock is a serious issue. But luckily we can multitask and work on both the fossil fuel issue and the livestock issue simultaneously.  
 
Scientist has be been working on cutting live stock emissions for sometime. Currently genetic engineering is looking very promising as is modify the food stock.  
 
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/getting-creative-cut-methane-cows  
 
However, just like fossils fuels, in the end humanity probably needs to cut back on the amount of meat we eat.  
 
I always find it weird when people say they wont cut down on fossil fuel use because their are other issues. That's like saying you wont worry about carcinogens until we cure the common cold.  
 
Growing rice is also a big issue. But guess what? Yup we are working on that one as well.  
 
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/genetically-modified-rice-makes-more-food-less-greenhouse-gas/  
 
We can, should and are working on multiple issues at one time. There is no reason to wait until another problem is solved before working on fossil fuels.

Right, Facebook is always a good source for accurate and rational science information.

MrKellyGraham said "    loeog said "FYI     Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”       http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.Vx9kf9TEirU     same UNited Nations, same issue, maybe farts and burps do have more pollution then industry.       Edited by loeog, 2016-04-26 07:58:22" Yes, gas produced by livestock is a serious issue. But luckily we can multitask and work on both the fossil fuel issue and the livestock issue simultaneously.     Scientist has be been working on cutting live stock emissions for sometime. Currently genetic engineering is looking very promising as is modify the food stock.     https://www.sciencenews.org/article/getting-creative-cut-methane-cows     However, just like fossils fuels, in the end humanity probably needs to cut back on the amount of meat we eat.     I always find it weird when people say they wont cut down on fossil fuel use because their are other issues. That's like saying you wont worry about carcinogens until we cure the common cold.     Growing rice is also a big issue. But guess what? Yup we are working on that one as well.     http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/genetically-modified-rice-makes-more-food-less-greenhouse-gas/     We can, should and are working on multiple issues at one time. There is no reason to wait until another problem is solved before working on fossil fuels. "

And will you be a genetically modified "hater" next time Monsanto tries to introduce something genetically modified to increases crop production per acre and lower the total greenhouse footprint?  
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by loeog, 2016-04-26 19:57:36

loeog said "    MrKellyGraham said "    loeog said "FYI     Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”       http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.Vx9kf9TEirU     same UNited Nations, same issue, maybe farts and burps do have more pollution then industry.       Edited by loeog, 2016-04-26 07:58:22" Yes, gas produced by livestock is a serious issue. But luckily we can multitask and work on both the fossil fuel issue and the livestock issue simultaneously.     Scientist has be been working on cutting live stock emissions for sometime. Currently genetic engineering is looking very promising as is modify the food stock.     https://www.sciencenews.org/article/getting-creative-cut-methane-cows     However, just like fossils fuels, in the end humanity probably needs to cut back on the amount of meat we eat.     I always find it weird when people say they wont cut down on fossil fuel use because their are other issues. That's like saying you wont worry about carcinogens until we cure the common cold.     Growing rice is also a big issue. But guess what? Yup we are working on that one as well.     http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/genetically-modified-rice-makes-more-food-less-greenhouse-gas/     We can, should and are working on multiple issues at one time. There is no reason to wait until another problem is solved before working on fossil fuels. " And will you be a genetically modified "hater" next time Monsanto tries to introduce something genetically modified to increases crop production per acre and lower the total greenhouse footprint?             Edited by loeog, 2016-04-26 19:57:36"

...that hasn't been modified.  
 
Nothing you eat has missed the touch of modification in some way. If you think the peas you plant in your garden this year are somehow "natural" then your deluding yourself.  
 
Science and research are the only things keeping the vast majority of us alive today.  
 
Marpet

https://amp.twimg.com/v/3904d6c0-5a1b-4a80-b920-00a2a7e356e5