Enviromentalist: Can't satisfy 'em, can't shoot 'em.

[DeepIron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7261214.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/...els/index.html

Ok, so this particular biofuel is not sustainable. The point I think, is that it demonstrated that it is feasible to look at biofuels as replacements for petroleum based fuels... The aircraft ran 1 engine on "refined coconut oil" to put it simply.

But, the "green people" don't like it. There is evidently no satisfying these people. We can't drill for more oil because it harms the environment and we can't grow green crops for biofuels because that will harm the environment too... Digging for selenium for solar power screws up the land and wind turbines spoil the view of nature. Sheesh...

Increased use of biofuels could also prompt food shortages, campaigners warn, as greater areas of farmland are turned over to biofuel production.

The 'greens' complain that there are too many airports, seaports, shopping malls, etc... So, if you have fewer people, wouldn't you need fewer structures?


I do believe that if the "greens" have it their way, we'd all be on foot. Of course, that would necessatate eating more to sustain human energy levels.

Then they'd complain about the farts...

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Then they'd complain about the farts...

Why, don't you know that cows are a major source of methane? They're a serious greenhouse gas problem in Ontario here, seeing how there's more of them in the province than people

[3Jane]

Once again a complex series of issues is beaten down to two dimensions by a lumpen hammer. Ah well.

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Why, don't you know that cows are a major source of methane? They're a serious greenhouse gas problem in Ontario here, seeing how there's more of them in the province than people

Funny you mention that CCIP... I live in Gooding County, an area located in south central Idaho. Huge dairy industry. More dairy cows than people as well.

B.E.L.C.H. As global warming increases, and most agree it has regardless of the cause, ruminant raisers are going to become conversant in a new field of science called "Bovine Emissions Lately Considered Hazardous," or B.E.L.C.H.
The study of B.E.L.C.H. will revolve around a simple formula: greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef produced.
It is obvious, if the world truly wanted to reduce methane and nitrous oxide (two of the big three greenhouse gases), they could destroy all ruminants. For the sake of the economy and human survival, we should first have a mass eradication of all wildlife species that produce those two gases.

Oh well, better than goats I guess...

Once again a complex series of issues is beaten down to two dimensions by a lumpen hammer. Ah well.

Ah yes. But it was a "recycled" lumpen hammer...

[XabbaRus]

They all want us to packup and go live in caves.

Maybe if we taped up the mouths of all the eco-freaks do you think Global Temperatures might fall? That's it they have to keep themselves in a job. Shut them up and you'll remove 50% of the hot air around the planet. Shoot the politicians and we'll freeze, another 50% gone.

[kiwi_2005]

I remeber a few years back when our govenment tried to bring in a fart tax or nick named 'The back door tax' :rotfl:Apparently cows let out a methane gas that is bad for our atmosphere. Farmers were to be taxed $300 per yr for this. Its the truth believe it or not, they didn't get very far - protest, nasty emails, the minister being the butt of all jokes all added up where the govenment backed down.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003....davidfickling

[DeepIron]

Maybe if we taped up the mouths of all the eco-freaks do you think Global Temperatures might fall? That's it they have to keep themselves in a job. Shut them up and you'll remove 50% of the hot air around the planet. Shoot the politicians and we'll freeze, another 50% gone.

Where's my parka?


One of the most interesting arguments I've heard regarding methane from ruminents is this: Before the buffalo were almost completely wiped out, they greatly outnumbered the number of dairy cattle in the US. Vast herds used to roam the plains, eating grasses and farting to their hearts desire. And the amount of methane produced in no way was detrimental to the environment...

The problem with modern dairy cattle is not in their numbers, it's in their diet, which is tilted towards milk production and hence, full of proteins and high carbs. Bigger, deadlier farts... I know several of the dairymen around here and we've actually discussed this very topic because of the attention bovine gas emissions are getting these days.

What do most people get when they eat a big bowl of chili which has a high protein content? Hmmm?

[Skybird]

Biofuel is a "solution" that not so much has been brought up by environmentalists, but by green politicians caught in the mainstream political maelstrom, and "standard" established politicians. If your solution to plague is cholera, do not wonder if people complain.

the ammounts of land needed to plant for later biofuel is so huge that it brings problems with today's agriculture, if it really should make a significant contribution to all the world's traffic needs. It also means monocultures, with the attached risks. and it means fertilizers EN MASSE. these are produced with - oil. The soil also gets depleted massively. And finally it means a reduction of food production, which already is to be feeled even in rich germany, for there is a higher demand in China, as well as more farmers in the EU planting for fuel, not food: prices regarding some foods have exploded last year.

Biofuel is no convincing solution for me, and never was. that can only be an option for nations like sweden, and Brazil, eventually. but france, Germany, Britain? No, never. Problem is that politicians do not care for effective solutions, but quick action that secures them PR bonusses. If the program in question makes sense or not, is almost unimportant. seen that way, democracy more and more turns into a threat to our survival, where stupidity is aceptable if the majority agrees on being stupid, and decides against steps needed to ensure survival. If you want to bash somebody - don't bash environmentalists, but politicians practicing pseudo-environment-protection not to scare their voters with the really needed measures: and these would mean a significant change of our behavior. Nobody wants to hear he needs to change. Better wait for India making the first step, or China, or the third world countries - which think that europe should be going in lead. The same Europe that waits for India - etc etc etc. meanwhile Washington does nothing - just keeps grinning.

As a species, we are so very very smart and clever a homo sapiens that I sometimes wonder if we really have reason to be sure that we deserve to survive. When I think about what is to be amdired in what man can do, and has acchieved, mostly single individuals deeds and thoughts and arts come to my mind. As a species, a global civilisation - we are a desaster, causing havoc on earth. Before we scan space for intelligent life, we better scan for signs of intelligence on planet earth, I think.

don't take flying for grnated. Buy smaller, more economic cars. Don'T ship vegetables around the globe - etc. Ban PS-heavy fuel-killing luxury limousines. I read in Japan, in many product categories items get rated for energy consummation and envirnment friendliness. The best candiate is choosen as a reference - and then the rivals have two years time to reach that standard or surpass it before their inferior prioducts get banned. to obey the best energy and environment standard available, in this system is not voluntary, or a question od democratic debate and agreement - it is obligatory and mandatory, nevertheless allows economic competition. These are some of the measures that would make sense. but that means changing yoiur behavior and your long-loved living habits. And that is the simple reason why there is no efficient environment protection, only hyper-activistic policies that makes no sense, but keep the crowds pleased by raising the illusion of green policies, and getting votes that way.

so in the end, it is not only not the environemtlaist you should bash, or the politicians - it is yourself, we all, every single one of us. You make these madness possible by accepting it. It must be you to end it by refusing to follow the crowd and legtimize the politicians that way to impolement such policies - that are designed to trade you colourful glass pearls to keep you happy and get your legitimizing vote even more.

We are consumer whores, and stupid voting cattle. And we are cheap to get. Enjoy your strawberries from Marocco in winter, your holiday flight to Canary Islands, and your 40 seconds car drive to the baker while your bike is waiting in the cellar. Even whores must eat and have a holiday at some far away place, right?