CO2 is not a pollutant

[RobBob]

a climate change expert with the advocacy group Environmental Defense.

 

is that like an animal expert with PETA??

 

 

Remember, I'm all for reducing mankind's effect on the environment...the fair way, by reducing population growth.

[Ursa_Eagle]

Although I don't think that's the only way it should be done, I'll have to agree with RobBob that it's prolly going to be the most effective. Even with great conservationism, a larger population will consume a larger amount of resources. (That's not to say that we as a species certainly couldn't do a little better than we are now.)

[Jim]

The richest 20% of the world's popluation have 150 times the income . . . and the world's wealthiest nations, which have 20% of the world's population, consume 70% of its resources" (John Miller "The Wrong Shade of Green" 1993). The industrial world also accounts for 90% of the CO2 emmsions.

 

Today a car that gets approximately 27.5 mpg, like a Volkswagen New Beetle, will emit 54 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of gasoline over its lifetime. An SUV that gets 14 mpg, like a Lincoln Navigator, will emit over 100 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. A Harper's Magazine writer took the massive Ford Excursion, the biggest of all SUVs for a test drive. During a drive around a city, the mighty Excursion was only getting 3.7 miles per gallon. It is estimated the Excursion will produce 134 tons of carbon dioxide during its lifetime.

 

 

[murraysovereign]

Sphinx said:

But when a river floods and a town is submerged, it water a pollutant? Not by most people's denfinitions.

 

No, of course not. Which is exactly my point - even though something doesn't fit the standard definition of "pollutant", too much of it can be a bad thing. Water is generally pretty benign stuff, but a wall of water 100' high rolling down the valley toward your home would certainly be seen as a serious threat to your safety. Not a pollutant, but not good either. So if you could do something to minimize the chance of having a 100' wall of water wiping out your home, you wouldn't do it, on the grounds that water is not a pollutant?

[Sphinx]

murraysovereign said:

Sphinx said:

But when a river floods and a town is submerged, it water a pollutant? Not by most people's denfinitions.

 

No, of course not. Which is exactly my point - even though something doesn't fit the standard definition of "pollutant", too much of it can be a bad thing. Water is generally pretty benign stuff, but a wall of water 100' high rolling down the valley toward your home would certainly be seen as a serious threat to your safety. Not a pollutant, but not good either. So if you could do something to minimize the chance of having a 100' wall of water wiping out your home, you wouldn't do it, on the grounds that water is not a pollutant?

But this is EXACTLY my argument against J_B's assessment that CO2 IS a pollutant. It isn't. And when I tried to get some reasoning out of him, he clammed up and spewed shit.

[RobBob]

The richest 20% of the world's popluation have 150 times the income . . . and the world's wealthiest nations, which have 20% of the world's population, consume 70% of its resources" (John Miller "The Wrong Shade of Green" 1993). The industrial world also accounts for 90% of the CO2 emmsions.

 

Today a car that gets approximately 27.5 mpg, like a Volkswagen New Beetle, will emit 54 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of gasoline over its lifetime. An SUV that gets 14 mpg, like a Lincoln Navigator, will emit over 100 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. A Harper's Magazine writer took the massive Ford Excursion, the biggest of all SUVs for a test drive. During a drive around a city, the mighty Excursion was only getting 3.7 miles per gallon. It is estimated the Excursion will produce 134 tons of carbon dioxide during its lifetime.

 

Once again we have Jim available to present the liberal view that we should engage in self-flagellation, because WE are at fault. I submit that WE should be in a position as a wealthy capitalist nation to come up with a plan to level world population growth to zero, using (peaceful) economic and political incentives.

 

Regardless of the smokestack facts that people quote about North America and Europe, these populations have leveled off in reproduction. Meanwhile, populations in Asian nations continue to burgeon a la the 1800s. And many of these households build a homefire each day that emits more dioxins than a modern US waste incinerator.

 

I have no problem with good economic incentives, here and globally. You can tax SUVs all you want, if you can get the votes to do it, but we ARE a capitalist democracy, and Jim and his ilk will be unsuccessful in forcing the rest of us to purchase the vehicles that HE wants us to drive.

[Jim]

And as usual you're overeacting. If you read my post I don't offer any solution. Just some facts and people can make their own judgement.

[RobBob]

"overreacting" because you nearly always quote an activist rather than an impartial scientist

 

[Jim]

RobBob said:

 

...and Jim and his ilk will be unsuccessful in forcing the rest of us to purchase the vehicles that HE wants us to drive.

 

 

Hmmm. Don't think I said any of this. Just added some facts regarding population and rate of consumption, and gave some SUV stats as an example. So maybe your panties are in a bunch because ????

[lummox]

yo mother fucker sphtinx. when that co2 come outa you is sure is a pollutant you stank mouth beehotch.

[catbirdseat]

We know that CO2 is probably the strongest absorber of infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Even though it is a very small percentage of all the gasses, it is the main factor in atmospheric heat storage. Since we don't know yet exactly what the consequences are to doubling or tripling its concentration, the prudent thing to do would be to try to keep it at the same concentration as it is now.

 

The problem is that there is no cost free way to do limit CO2. About the only way is to improve efficiency of our homes, cars and factories. Sometimes the money we save on fuel will pay for the investment, although sometimes the payback time is long.

 

One way to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted per unit energy is to favor fuels that have the most hydrogen in them. Natural gas has the highest hydrogen to carbon ratio at 4 to 1. Light hydrocarbons like oil have a ratio of about 2 to 1. Coal has essentially no hydrogen and produces the greatest amount of CO2 per unit energy. Unfortunately, we have lots of cheap coal in this country and a growing shortage of natural gas. Indoneisia has huge reserves of natural gas, but there is at present no practical way to get it to the US.

 

At one time gas liquification was being developed so that large tankers could be used to transport it. People fear what would happen if one of the ships should explode while in port, so there is no port where ships can unload to a pipeline even if the gas could be delivered.

[RobBob]

gave some SUV stats as an example. So maybe your panties are in a bunch because ????

because you are an SUV-stickerer...

[Jim]

catbirdseat said:

Since we don't know yet exactly what the consequences are to doubling or tripling its concentration, the prudent thing to do would be to try to keep it at the same concentration as it is now.

 

The problem is that there is no cost free way to do limit CO2. About the only way is to improve efficiency of our homes, cars and factories.

 

What a novel thought eh?

[j_b]

catbirdseat said:

One way to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted per unit energy is to favor fuels that have the most hydrogen in them. Natural gas has the highest hydrogen to carbon ratio at 4 to 1. Light hydrocarbons like oil have a ratio of about 2 to 1. Coal has essentially no hydrogen and produces the greatest amount of CO2 per unit energy. Unfortunately, we have lots of cheap coal in this country and a growing shortage of natural gas.

 

we have used high grade light crude oil over heavy crude oil whenever possible over the 100years. oil reserves are now composed of a much greater proportion of heavy crude.

[allthumbs]

oh yeah, who says so?

[Greg_W]

j_b said:

 

Environmental groups are now considering suing the EPA to force the regulation of greenhouse gases.

 

Oh, what a great way to run a country, by coercion and threats by minority extremist groups.

 

Fuck the Earth Liberation Front (and the Animal Liberation Front) and the Sierra Club and all those other fucking fuckers!

[erik]

Greg_W said:

j_b said:

 

Environmental groups are now considering suing the EPA to force the regulation of greenhouse gases.

 

Oh, what a great way to run a country, by coercion and threats by minority extremist groups.

 

Fuck the Earth Liberation Front (and the Animal Liberation Front) and the Sierra Club and all those other fucking fuckers!

 

fuck the nra for sueing to reinstall automatic weapons, fuck the nra for suing over semi automatic weapons, fuck the nra for holding pro gun rallys after major disasters resulted from semi automatic weapons.

 

hmmmmmmmmmm looks like this road goes both ways.

 

 

[Greg_W]

Jim said:

The richest 20% of the world's popluation have 150 times the income . . . and the world's wealthiest nations, which have 20% of the world's population, consume 70% of its resources" (John Miller "The Wrong Shade of Green" 1993). The industrial world also accounts for 90% of the CO2 emmsions.

 

Today a car that gets approximately 27.5 mpg, like a Volkswagen New Beetle, will emit 54 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of gasoline over its lifetime. An SUV that gets 14 mpg, like a Lincoln Navigator, will emit over 100 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. A Harper's Magazine writer took the massive Ford Excursion, the biggest of all SUVs for a test drive. During a drive around a city, the mighty Excursion was only getting 3.7 miles per gallon. It is estimated the Excursion will produce 134 tons of carbon dioxide during its lifetime.

 

 

Gotta ask, here, so the fuck what? Who cares that the world's wealthiest countries have such and such a percentage of wealth. Why does that even enter into a "scientific" discussion unless your real goal is social engineering, redistribution of wealth, and an attempt to demonize wealth, success, and progress. Go live in a cave Jim.

[catbirdseat]

Here you go Greg. I believe we should build as many nuclear power plants as we possibly can. Does that sound like a radical environmentalist?

 

Nuclear power produces zero carbon dioxide, and we now have Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada in which to put the waste. We've spent billion of dollars to develop that site, so let's use it dammit!

 

We could use the clean electricity to produce hydrogen fuel for use in the fuel cell vehicles that Bush has been talking about.

 

 

 

[Greg_W]

erik said:

Greg_W said:

j_b said:

 

Environmental groups are now considering suing the EPA to force the regulation of greenhouse gases.

 

Oh, what a great way to run a country, by coercion and threats by minority extremist groups.

 

Fuck the Earth Liberation Front (and the Animal Liberation Front) and the Sierra Club and all those other fucking fuckers!

 

fuck the nra for sueing to reinstall automatic weapons, fuck the nra for suing over semi automatic weapons, fuck the nra for holding pro gun rallys after major disasters resulted from semi automatic weapons.

 

 

hmmmmmmmmmm looks like this road goes both ways.

 

 

You are incorrect on EVERY COUNT of what you just said, Erik, every one. Do some research, Erik, you are uneducated in this matter of which you are ATTEMPTING to present yourself as informed.

 

[j_b]

trask said:

oh yeah, who says so?

 

heavy crude takes more processing, it is thus more costly to produce gasoline from it. given the choice, which type of crude would you have used to make a profit?

[allthumbs]

erik said:

Greg_W said:

j_b said:

 

Environmental groups are now considering suing the EPA to force the regulation of greenhouse gases.

 

Oh, what a great way to run a country, by coercion and threats by minority extremist groups.

 

Fuck the Earth Liberation Front (and the Animal Liberation Front) and the Sierra Club and all those other fucking fuckers!

 

fuck the nra for sueing to reinstall automatic weapons, fuck the nra for suing over semi automatic weapons, fuck the nra for holding pro gun rallys after major disasters resulted from semi automatic weapons.

 

hmmmmmmmmmm looks like this road goes both ways.

 

Fuck you Erik, you hypocrite. You own guns, you secretly support the NRA, you've a history of voting Republican, you are a conservative. Quit stirring shit.

[erik]

attempting??? shit bitch i am just trying to get a reaction out of you. we bringin guns to hijack some booty or what?

 

 

and anyways, i dont have time to learn about some gun nuts small dick fantasy world, i gots nintendo to play!

 

[allthumbs]

snort this beyotch, you know you want it

[Necronomicon]

To all you Right-wing cock-gaggers:

 

1) Place large plastic bag over your head.

2) Take a rubber band off of a bunch of broccoli.

3) Stretch the rubber band over your head and around your neck, securing your new plastic "hat" in place.

4) Enjoy the mellow buzz of a CO2 rich atmosphere!