Do you REALLY want to do something about CO2 emissions?

Or if we don't stop all that, we could just plant a shit load of trees and cultivate some algae.  They suck up a lot of CO2.

~Zoo

Hell, if we just move AlGore's family into a FEMA trailer we'd cut down on a whole pile of emissions.

Man affects the earth's climate like a flea affects a dogs direction.

Or if we don't stop all that, we could just plant a shit load of trees and cultivate some algae. They suck up a lot of CO2.

Not really. Not even remotely enough to offset what we are putting into the air.

there are more trees in the usa than there was in 1776

True, but it sure couldn't hurt.



Is that actually true? Either way, there also weren't a bunch of internal combustion engines.



Well, get enough fleas then the dog starts gnawing on its ass.

~Zoo

then stop driving your car.

To address the questions, for three years I did an experiment and lived off the grid. I drove only once a week (my cabin is thirteen miles off the road) and used wood from my own trees to heat and cook with. We used oil lamps and a propane refrigerator. During the last year we had fulltime residence there, we put in solar panels and an invertor. No more oil lamps at least.

Now that we live in town, my AC is set for 81 degrees, we use ceiling fans, use, energy saving lightbulbs, and I run, walk, or ride my bike most of the time. We have the advantage here of having a nearby mountain range, I hike that range often. I can tell you that the color of the air in the city as seen from that vantage point has deepened from a light gray, to yellow to a brown over that last ten years as our population has risen. Seeing this has convinced me that we need to change our ways. Our next vehicle (we only have one) will be a hybrid, I will continue to use my body as much as possible and not a vehicle.

See ya.

Anything that decomposes creates CO2.  You left out factory farms in your list of CO2 production caused by humans.  Not only do all the livestock produce methane gas, but they also produce CO2 from decomposing waste.  The slaughterhouses also produce CO2 since they have "compost" areas from animal parts that they don't use.  Americans eat way too much meat now.  From the USDA: "In 2005, total meat consumption (red meat, poultry, and fish) amounted to 200 pounds per person, 22 pounds above the level in 1970."   How many people do we have in the US?  Around 303 million?  That's 6,666,000,000 pounds of meat more than 1970.  That is the same as about 5,800,000 cows (entire cows, not just the meat). 

I think that people pollute, but I'm not convinced that we cause global warming.  I think that we cause a lot of our own health problems by our pollution, but I think the suns activity has more to do with the warming trends than humans do.

But, nonetheless, I don't think it is bad for people to try and do a bit to cut down on pollution in whatever way they can.  I drive a lot, but I try to live green otherwise.  Examples:
1) We compost our food scraps (whole house is vegetarians, so it's all veg based) to use in our summer garden or to fertilize our yard.

2) We heat our house with a CO2 neutral source- we have a corn stove.  The exhaust produces less CO2 than the corn consumes while growing, but it's CO2 neutral when you account for the pollution from growing it and transporting it.

3) We use a lot of compact fluorescents and only have lights on when we need to. 

4) We use a/c sparingly.  Even in the summer, we typically don't have over a $65 electric bill.

5) We drive too much, but we drive fuel efficient vehicles.  We also commute together to work.  it's not perfect, but it's better than each of us driving an SUV to work, especially since our cars get twice the mileage as an SUV.

6) We installed low flow shower heads on our showers.  Same shower- just uses less water. 

7) We throw out less than 1/2 bag of garbage a week.  A lot of this is due to the way we eat.  We cook from fresh ingredients, so most of the "waste" gets composted.  Most of our other waste is cardboard, which goes to recycling (one of the products that *does* actually get recycled).  So, there ends up not being much to pitch.

8) I buy a lot of Organic.  They can't use petroleum fertilizers on Organic, nor can they use pesticides.  I think both are bad for you and our water ways.  I'll probably learn at some point that the whole Organic thing is a bunch of bull, but why not try it and see if it helps?

Move closer to your job. Don't say you can't. You can. You just don't want to

I don't agree with that.  If I were to up and move closer to work right now, I would lose my ass on my house due to the real estate market in Michigan.  People also relocate, or their offices move.  Moving isn't a trivial expense.  What's the point in moving closer to work if you end up bankrupt to do so?  Or, if you end up moving from an energy efficient house into an apartment, which are notorious for being very energy inefficient?

I don't think that people need to be "perfect" to make a change in the amount of pollution that we cause, I think that we just need to cut down on our wastefulness. 

then stop driving your car

Funny thing is, I'm not driving my car at all.  When I'm on campus I walk everywhere, and even when I'm home I don't drive around very much at all...just to necessary things.

~Zoo

Karma - Let me be clear, I don't think people need to do any of the things I list above because I don't believe that any of those things make one iota of difference to global climate.

I also know that you don't think that CO2 produced by humans is having measurable effect on climate change.   

And our lack of faith in the CO2 global warming hypothesis is based not on emotion but rather having evaluated the relevant data.  People like you and me live our lives based on rational thought. We look at evidence and data and make up our own minds.  And if we hold a belief, we take constructive action to do someting about it.

But time and time again the left-wing of our society chooses to hold beliefs simply because they think believing a thing makes them better people. They do not recognize that beliefs are empy without following those beliefs with deeds.

The onus is on those who have chosen to drink the cool aid and behave sanctimoniously and piously about their belief that CO2 from humans causes global warming and that it's the end of the world.

I believe that most people who have faith in the hypothesis do so out of the same emotional motivations that made people believe witches and spirits controlled the weather. But in this case, those people don't have witches or spirits to blame for the weather. They only have themselves. 

The beauty of human produced global warming is that it is unique in that the emotional left-wing of our society can finally be held responsible for their beliefs.  We can watch and see if they match their beliefs with deeds and the answer is already there -- they don't.  Even Al Gore couldn't be bothered in the many years he's pushed these beliefs to put solar panels on his mansion. That is, they won't even make token gestures to fool the gullible that they match their beliefs with deeds.

Normally, the left's poorly researched, emotional diatribes require other people to pay -- usually the people who don't agree with them. 

But not here, not with global warming. Here, we can demonstrate quite clearly that most left-wingers are posers. Their self-esteem is based on their beliefs rather than their deeds.  And through the CO2 global warming hypothesis they are exposed as the shallow, disengenuous posers they really are.

even if they surpass you, they will be far - faaaaaaaaaaaaar- from being higher than you for CO2/capita. And they aren't going to lift a finger if USA doesn't either. Lead by example.

And I heard a lot that "global warming is just a socialist plot to weaken america" on this website. If it is such of a weakening to america, then why most the european countries that managed to mee Kyoto's accords actually have a better economical health than America? U.K. is doing pretty well, as far as I've seen.



you're not even trying. Get a better fuel-efficient car. Try co-driving (I don't know the name in english. You know, when you share the car of someone else to get to work?). Ask for more public transportations in your community, like suburbian trains, buses and metro.



You can cut your energy expenses by about 40% by using an energy-efficient water heater, or a modern A.C. Or use them less. You try to fall into parody, which is kinda stupid examples.



Actually, flying is worse (I think). What about train?


And I do know that if you sum up all the CO2 emmission in the world, the nature itself is emmiting about 80% of the greenhouse gases. What is actually threatened is the BALANCE between the emmissions and the Earth's capacity to absorb. The same that global warming is a problem of balance between heating and cooling.

This balance is working on inertia, and even changes right now would take years before seeing any effects. But no changes now would still take years before seeing real actual dangers to mankind. Right now, we are simply seeing minor signs: drying of rivers (St-Lawrence is lower than ever), islands getting smaller, melting of polar ice cap.

There should be no "panic", but the quicker we start working on the problem, the easier it will be solved.

With any luck, when we will begin - really begin - solving the problem, simply solving the balance will tip strongly in our favor, and the corrections will be way quicker than planned - like with the Ozone layer -. But I would not make a bet on it.

Please link me to one of the regular users making that assertion, cikomyr. Because if it's there, I haven't seen it. And I read a good chunk of what's written on this site.

What you are doing is exactly what I have protested against. You refuse to even allow debate on the subject, instead accusing those holding opposing views of partisan politics, when all we are asking is to look hard at the data.

And you don't have to look long and hard to see where Al Gore is FAR more wasteful than the average American, but chooses to gloss over it because he purchases "carbon credits" under the idea he can pollute all he wants, as long as he writes a check. If we were in imminent danger, doesn't it seem Mr. Gore would be leading the way in being environmentally responsible?

I am curious, I've heard constant reference to Mr. Gore's wastefulness and lack of personal accountability. Can someone show me how?

Be well.

It's been well documented, Sodaiho, not only here, but elsewhere on the Internet. Al Gore himself has not denied the charges, he has simply rebuffed them by arguing that he and Tipper live a "carbon neutral" lifestyle based on the fact they purchase as many "carbon credits" as they need to offset their wasteful living.

Since I do respect you, though, I'll give you a few links for your reading pleasure:

WWW Link

WWW Link

WWW Link

I would also like to take this time to point out a little bit of trivia, that Mr. Gore was Vice President for a total of eight years, yet despite the "urgency" of climate change legislation, he didn't seem that concerned about pushing it while he had the influence.

Hey Gid,

Thank you for these three links. I have read them. It would seem the crux is that Al Gore really should not live in a mansion, albeit and old one in which he has put in solar panelsis and is otherwise renovating to become more energy efficient. Instead what? A new house the Average Joe lives in? And he flies jets, even private jets? I guess he should walk and swim to London? New York?

I think the replies in your second link were interesting and balanced. As one responder pointed out, anyone can buy carbon credits and do some things that make a difference. It would be a good idea if we all did.

Lastly, I suspect anyone in the forefront of such a issue would be well advised to take a look at their own behavior, and apparently Gore has, but not enough to assuage his adversaries, but if he went the lengths of say, Gandhi, they'd be calling him nuts. From my own ppoint of view, hwe has not done enough in his own life, but then, I'm a monk, what can I say.

See ya!  

With any luck, when we will begin - really begin - solving the problem, simply solving the balance will tip strongly in our favor, and the corrections will be way quicker than planned - like with the Ozone layer -. But I would not make a bet on it.

But, how can anyone really say that what humans do actually makes a difference in "global warming" or the "ozone" or anything at all?  I think that we are polluting the hell out of ourselves, but that has nothing to do with the idea of man made global warming.

Yep, the climate is changing.  However, why do people think that they have so much power over mother nature to think that it is caused by us?  Could it simply be because the sun is more active?  (Remember all the sun spots that have been recking havoc on satellite transmissions?)

I grew up in northern MI.  During the 70's, we would get so much snow that you would literally get snowed in over night and not even be able to see the cars in the driveway.  Each year, the seasons have been getting less and less extreme.  However, other parts of the US have seen changes in weather, too, and it's not all a warming trend.  Why is it not possible that the Earth is simply continuing to change as it always has?  I mean, many parts of the world were covered in ice, and the land masses were in different places.  Were humans responsible for those changes, too?

I think that we (humans) are horrible polluters, and we're killing ourselves by living in our own pollution.  However, I also feel that Mother nature is stronger than any of us, and is just doing what she does.  The Earth changes, and we have very little effect on the end result.

In the end, it won't matter.  People want things to change, but they won't change themselves.  There are too many Gore's in the world- Do what I say even though I don't do it myself. 

sodaiho,

The idea is patently absurd, if you think about it. Waste as much as you want, just as long as you write a check? That does nothing to help the planet.

As for Mr. Gore, have you not heard of commercial airlines? If you must fly, it would make sense to fly with more people so you create less of an impact. And the energy he is using at his house could be fed into the grid if he weren't so self indulgent. I must note this is only ONE of Mr. Gore's houses.

He's demanding the rest of the planet live like luddites, but he's justifying his own excess. Come on, sodaiho. You have lived off the grid, you know what it means to live an eco-friendly lifestlye. How do you justify the excesses of people like Al Gore, who demand we are in a crisis yet refuse to make personal sacrifices? Aren't they precisely what is wrong with this nation?

Back to carbon credits...what exactly are they doing? Making other people rich, feeding the greed of those who capitalize off of the environmental movement for profit. They're everything you decry in most of your philosophy, yet you're willing to give a pass to them here?

Why am I supposed to freeze my kids out in the winter to save a few pennies on our electric bill, which has never been over $75 in a given month, while Gore spends thousands of dollars a month on his?

Until LEADERS of the environmental movement live like there's a crisis, they'll have a hard time convincing me, for one, of the sincerity of their position.

That's about what we are. An annoying itch on the ass of the world.

even if they surpass you, they will be far - faaaaaaaaaaaaar- from being higher than you for CO2/capita. And they aren't going to lift a finger if USA doesn't either. Lead by example. And I heard a lot that "global warming is just a socialist plot to weaken america" on this website. If it is such of a weakening to america, then why most the european countries that managed to mee Kyoto's accords actually have a better economical health than America? U.K. is doing pretty well, as far as I've seen.

Wow. That's a really dumb statement.

First, I don't grant that CO2 is a problem.  My objection to CO2 limiting has nothing to do with "socialist" plots, rather it has to do with my opinion that it's stupid and pointless and will costly.

Secondly, on what planet are you from where higher unemployment and lower GDP growth means better? The economies of western Europe suck relative to the United States.

Third, have you looked at the CO2 emission growth from Western Europe? It's not going down. It's increasing. They're not even close to abiding by the Kyoto accords -- and they signed them.

you're not even trying. Get a better fuel-efficient car. Try co-driving (I don't know the name in english. You know, when you share the car of someone else to get to work?). Ask for more public transportations in your community, like suburbian trains, buses and metro.

This represents a profound ignorance of the United States.  Public transportation works great for cities. But the US isn't like Europe. Look at a map of the United States. It doesn't even remotely have the population density to make public transportation practical. In fact, if it were implemented, it would result in more pollution because few people would use them because of the time inefficiencies. (I love your statement about suburbian trains, talk about being out of touch).

And I do know that if you sum up all the CO2 emmission in the world, the nature itself is emmiting about 80% of the greenhouse gases. What is actually threatened is the BALANCE between the emmissions and the Earth's capacity to absorb. The same that global warming is a problem of balance between heating and cooling. This balance is working on inertia, and even changes right now would take years before seeing any effects. But no changes now would still take years before seeing real actual dangers to mankind. Right now, we are simply seeing minor signs: drying of rivers (St-Lawrence is lower than ever), islands getting smaller, melting of polar ice cap.

And here I thought the sun might be involved in determining fluctuations in temperature too.   But no, it's the balance between our emissions and the earth's aborbition capacity of CO2.  And your evidence of this is...what?

Thank you for these three links. I have read them. It would seem the crux is that Al Gore really should not live in a mansion, albeit and old one in which he has put in solar panelsis and is otherwise renovating to become more energy efficient. Instead what? A new house the Average Joe lives in? And he flies jets, even private jets? I guess he should walk and swim to London? New York?

He did not begin to make his house more efficient until after he got called out on this.  During the time he was making "An inconvenient truth" he had a house that used 20X as much energy as the normal house.

The private jets and such I can give Gore a pass on. But the fact he did zilch prior to being called out about his own lifestyle speaks volumes.

Hey there Draginol,

The 20X use issue is interesting. As I read the report in (I think it was Gid's first link) the Gore home used as much as typical home in that region per sq. ft. No more or less. I will grant you that he should have done better, that he didn't, who knows. But, we should not kill the messinger because his feet are dirty.

See ya!

Sometimes I think I'd be better off in that mountain monastery of mine. Its so much quieter there. On the other hand, if I were there, I wouldn't be here talking with you.

A bow to you.

Be well.

lets see


bush is anti environment. his ranch is Geo thermally heated and cooled. he got lucky and his house was built over a hot spring.


al gore is for the environment. one of his houses he spends more than the people in my neighborhood. that would be he spends more in a month than we do in a year.

Yes, that would be correct Daniel, big houses require more power than little houses.

Big houses are not necessary, and if you REALLY think we are headed for armegeddon with Global warming, why are YOU not concerned about your energy usage? (you being whatever clown talks the talk, and cant be bothered to walk the walk).

I am not concerned, so I will be happy to take over Al gore's Palace.

And they say it is not a religion.

Yea, uh huh.