Random thought of the day

I wonder how much CO2 emissions would be decreased if the global cooling/warming/climate-change whiners were to stop exhaling all that CO2.


3 thoughts on “Random thought of the day

  1. About 10 years ago I told an extreme greenie who was giving me a hard time about harming the earth that if he really cared about humans using too many resources and producing too much CO2, he would kill himself and reduce the human impact. The look on his face was priceless.

  2. I don’t know; about 1 or 2 pounds of CO2 per day per person? Something in that order, if I had to guess. You’re the engineer and the chemist. I don’t even know how many calories (Kilo calories, actually, are used in dietary figures) we use each day, since it’s never interested me, but I figure you could work back from that and come pretty close. How much sugar and starch and whatnot, do you have to burn to reach the Caloric number, and how much carbon is released in the process? It shouldn’t be too complicated to get close.

    Sit and do nothing, and you’ll be doing the planet a favor. There’s been that bumper sticker out for years now; “Save the Planet. Kill Yourself” to which the hippies replied with their own; “Save an Elk. Kill a Land Developer” thereby openly advocating murder, you know, for peace. Actually that was more in response to; “Save an Elk. Kill a Wolf” but it doesn’t matter.

    But why are we talking about fools? Are they really that interesting? I must correct my behavior by discussing more of the people and things that are good.

  3. We’d have to include the methane production too, and the water vapor emmissions.

    On the other hand, we might safely conclude that if humans weren’t eating up their current share of the planet’s flora and fauna, something else would, and that it would therefore come out as something of a wash, if not a complete wash. We grow food on large tracts of often irrigated land, taking carbon out of the air that would not have been taken out otherwise, and we metabolise it, putting it back into the air. Big woof. Mostly I guess it is our consumption of fossil fuels that is the more significant, if it is “significant” at all in the long ages of the planet’s future, and who could define what will be “significant” in a billion years, but then we’ve beaten that dead horse of an issue every which way possible.

Comments are closed.