Stupid Environmental Laws

[SteelPH]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/09/autos.emissions.reut/index.html

We're talking about CARBON DIOXIDE here. You and I exhale this EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES. This is nothing but political BS, it will NOT help the environment one damned bit. For those who believe in global warming due to "greenhouse gasses", um, the sun heats the earth. The sun is more active now than it has been in the last 1,000 years. This has a hell of a lot more to do with the Earth's temperatures than car exhaust does.

There's a real simple answer. If you want less CO2, PLANT MORE FUCKING TREES AND STOP BULLDOZING RAINFORESTS. Trees turn CO2 into oxygen. Less trees = more CO2 in the air!

[wildweasel]

Footman: My thoughts exactly!

[Psyonisis]

,

[SYS]

Yeah it's pretty fucking stupid. What's even worse is how hogs are massed produced. You see these giant corporations mass produce the majority of hogs in America. All these hogs means tonnes and tonnes of hog shit. So how do they dispose of it do you ask? By dumping it in lakes, ponds, swamps, and bogs, poisoning the wildlife that inhabits those ecosystems. Now if they passed legislation to have this hog shit disposed of properly in an evironmentally conscience manner, the companies that mass produce hogs would go out of business. Which is good because they've been stealing all the business from small family owned hog farmers, who cause no pollution.

[deathbringer]

OMG STUPID ENVIROMNENTAL LAWS:

Dont burn tires in your back yard

Dont cut open little kittens with razor blades while they are still alive

Dont pour old motor oil into rivers

OMG THESE PETA ASSHOLES R COMMIES! ITS UNAMERICAN!!!!!!!11

[Sharessa]

deathbringer said:

Dont cut open little kittens with razor blades while they are still alive

VIVIsectVI

[m0l0t0v]

Trees turn CO2 into oxygen.

This brings us to a common missconception...

Plants create O2 yes, but they also turn the same amount of oxygen into CO2 again.

day: 6CO2 + 6H2O --> C6H12O6 + 602
night: C6H12O6 + 602 --> 6CO2 + 6H2O

Plants produce 02 as a by-product to produce glucose. To break down the glucoce the need the same amount of O2. So the rainforests have no effect what so ever on the amount of O2 in the air. If you were to take down all the trees on earth there would be no significant different in the O2 level. (except if you were to burn all the trees of course)

Only growing plants produce more O2 then they use, because they 'store' the glucose. So if you want to increase the O2 level, the best thing to do is cut down all the trees on the planet and let them grow again :-P

The sun is more active now than it has been in the last 1,000 years

That would explain the increase of temperature, but not the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere...

The best way to get ride of the excess CO2 is be allowing it to be taken up by plants. So again the best solution would be to save the world is to cut down all the trees and allowing to grow again...

SAVE THE WORLD: KILL THE RAINFORESTS

:-)

[Bucket]

Good show.
And trees usually "exhale" quite a bit of CO2 when they die. That's somewhat related to the above figures in wintertime. Rainforests have piles of dead trees 10 feet deep.

So, you're getting a nice shot of CO2 no matter WHAT happens to those damn trees. At least as it is, a family could be provided a nice house or dining room set while it's happening. YOU try harvesting lumber from a tree that died of "natural causes" and is rotted out from the inside.

[Fredrik]

I listened to a rather interesting radio program several weeks ago where a Swedish professor of meteorology analyzed known data and made a pretty convincing argument for how the 20th century temperature increase is unprecedented and why it is likely due to human intervention.

Essentially; the temperature increase in the last 100 years is abnormal — we've had temperature fluctuations in the past but none in recorded history as great as this one, this one has been much more rapid than the changes associated with the coming and going of ice ages, and natural factors don't quite add up to explain it. I would provide figures and details if I had written them down, but I didn't. I should start doing that :)

I found myself in agreement with everything he said. This professor didn't know for sure, and admitted so. I also agree with him here. The "likely" attitude to me seems a lot more sound on a complex issue like this than the "this and that is BS" (no matter what side is alleged to represent the BS).

It is also much more pragmatic to assume that the more pessimistic global warming predictions are right. Dismissing them is shortsighted.

Even if climate researchers of the pro-anthropogenic point of view should turn out to be wrong, there is no reason not to play on the safe side. We have nothing to lose on reducing our use of gasoline. We'll lose a lot if global temperature, as predicted by some studies, increases by up towards 6 kelvins in the next century.

CO2 emission limits on cars are a very good thing. We already have the technology to build fully functional emission-free cars, and development due to increased demand would likely improve efficiency. The only two missing links are awareness of the problem and infrastructure.

[Sephiroth]

well car exhaust, burning, industry and life all make CO2. before it was just life. when you do add up all the cars and such alone that is alot of CO2 and when you have 8 million people in 1 city, shit thats is alot. hell 8 million is more than the population of my entire country! pumped into the atmosphere, then add in life processes and others (like industry). CO2 is a problem, but i am more conceren with other gases and chemicals.
CO2, and water should be the only byproducts of a good efficient engine, however thats "on paper"

I really do support limiting cars and such for one reason, we ARE fucking our selevs big time. Cars need to be made more fuel efficient. and companies need to stop hording technologies that prevent such evolution. it may sound bitchy for such rules but remember manufacture care only about 1 thing, money today. They dont give a rats ass what happens later, how many die, or if the economy collapsed.

[Quasar]

You know, there's a whole lot more in the rain forests than just trees. There are plants and animals in there that we have not even discovered -- they do not and cannot live anywhere else. The suggestion that we should continue unabated in our mad destruction of all the Earth's natural ecosystems is downright stupid.

And rainforests in very few cases are being cleared to make room for homes. They have mostly been burned and bulldozed to make way for roads and to provide yet more space for wretched cattle to graze. If the same space were used to grow grain, world hunger wouldn't be a problem, it would be an implausibility. Instead we insist on the most inefficient and profiteeristic methods of doing everything.

Someday we as an entire species are going to pay in blood for every last bit of what we've done to the planet. Life is not an inevitability, and it can be destroyed by the kinds of foolish things we do.

[deathbringer]

CO2, and water should be the only byproducts of a good efficient engine, however thats "on paper"

LPG for me!, or Gasohol, it doesnt give performance as good as petrol, but burns much 'cleaner', plus its cheaper because there's more of it, so we can all have cars (and i mean cars not pickups!) with 5-litre V8's in again that produce as much pollution as a 1.1 petrol engine does now...and they'll sound a lot cooler too

[SYS]

Considering the majority of the earth is inhabited by self centered assholes who would rather live lavishly than bother to conserve anything, it's safe to say this planet is doomed in 500 years. No need for an invasion of hellspawn, they already occupy this planet.

[Sephiroth]

i drive only about 3 miles to work, thats it for the most part. so i only fill up every other weekend. my brother on the other hand always has to drive his car, and he has to drive fast, so he fills up like almost every 3 days.
simply put we are screwing our selves, and other countries, i honestly think there should be a limit of power and fuel use on classes of vehicles. yea i love fast cars but it is really pointless and now expensive.
but hey, people wanna drive fast with only 10 miles to a gallon, its their dollar

[The Ultimate DooMer]

footman said:

[url]This is nothing but political BS, it will NOT help the environment one damned bit. For those who believe in global warming due to "greenhouse gasses", um, the sun heats the earth. The sun is more active now than it has been in the last 1,000 years. This has a hell of a lot more to do with the Earth's temperatures than car exhaust does.

There's a real simple answer. If you want less CO2, PLANT MORE FUCKING TREES AND STOP BULLDOZING RAINFORESTS. Trees turn CO2 into oxygen. Less trees = more CO2 in the air!

Precisely. In any case, when has any US government wanted to help the environment anyway?

Fredrik said:

Even if climate researchers of the pro-anthropogenic point of view should turn out to be wrong, there is no reason not to play on the safe side. We have nothing to lose on reducing our use of gasoline. We'll lose a lot if global temperature, as predicted by some studies, increases by up towards 6 kelvins in the next century.

We have nothing to lose, but the oil companies do...

CO2 emission limits on cars are a very good thing. We already have the technology to build fully functional emission-free cars, and development due to increased demand would likely improve efficiency. The only two missing links are awareness of the problem and infrastructure. [/B]

And the freedom to develop such cars. (which doesn't exist in the US, and probably nowhere else except Japan)

[deathbringer]

yea i love fast cars but it is really pointless and now expensive.
but hey, people wanna drive fast with only 10 miles to a gallon, its their dollar

OMG 2 DOLLARS A GALLON!

Come on, thats cheaper than water!

and now back to the other topic...

[darknation]

you people would absolutely freak if you saw petrol prices here in the UK.

Roll on atomic cars!

[Bucket]

If you included every other tax and government fee in terms of acquisition and trade laws and so on, you'd find that gasoline costs Americans $15 per gallon.

[Sharessa]

deathbringer said:

OMG 2 DOLLARS A GALLON!

Come on, thats cheaper than water!

and now back to the other topic...

Which reminds of a really sad fact I read about once. Printer cartridge ink is actualy more expensive than petroleum. Hell, it's even more expensive than gold. I think it's even worse than platinum.

The conclusion? Ink jet printers are a huge scam. Buying a $5,000 laser printer is vastly more economical than anything that uses ink.

[Captain Red]

darknation said:
you people would absolutely freak if you saw petrol prices here in the UK.

Roll on atomic cars!

replace UK with Australia and that statement would still be true.

[Sharessa]

Every single country in the world has more expensive gas than America. We're just whiny pussies.