Your dog is a greenhouse gas polluter

The Supreme Kourt has spoken. Carbon dioxide is now classified as
pollution. It is a greenhouse gas. All greenhouse emitters are polluters.
Your dog is a greenhouse gas emitter. Therefore, your dog or cat is a
source of polution. Expect Kalifornia to be first among the several states
to exterminate your pets, starting with po'r folks' mongrels and working
their way gradually up the food chain.

Come to think about it, politicians are greenhouse emitters, also. I
imagine there will be an exemption in the law for them, but I'm not too
sure about us.

 

Right on, too much gas from all politicians!
Too many big company leaders are also like politicians.

 

I suspect one thing that will be affected or even outlawed is, as you
mentioned, the food chain. The bovine cow (your source of hamburgers,
steaks, meat, etc) is a huge producer of carbon dioxide and methane
gas. My prediction is that California will outlaw the single animals
and herds and a few other communist states will follow. Soon ALL beef
will be produced in other countries. Soon our food will be higher than
it is in Japan.

 

Lots of people have blamed it on the dog;>)

Homo sapiens is the only species which has ever mined fossil reserves and
substantially changed the atmospheric composition. We are, perhaps,
God's most advanced and least successful of all his creatures.

 

Hah! And then the same people who dreamed up the original non-problem
(environmental damage from cows farting) and created the real problem
(jobs moving offshore) will find some way to blame everyone but
themselves for "jobs moving overseas".

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

well, i guess, if you look at yourself that way? God bless you anyway. i
just dont have a guilt complex..............now when they stop ALL the
volcanoes from venting, and of course all the cows from flatulating, all
the whores from belching and everyone on earth holding their breath for 5
decades they can take a fresh reading and see where we need to go from
there. until then internal combustion is THE way to go!..............BTW:
homo sapiens are ALSO the only species, so far, that had the ability to
use fossil fuels as an energy source...............im sorry you dont feel
you are part of a 'successful' experiment. luckily, I
DO!..................kjun

 

well, i guess, if you look at yourself that way? God bless you anyway. i
just dont have a guilt complex[/QUOTE]

I dont have a guilt complex either. I feel that I try to behave rather
responsibly.

 

Every now and again, I just love a feed of beer and pickled eggs.... That
would probably put me far ahead of Rover in the "tailpipe emissions"
department....

Come to think of it, I'm a real bad actor....

Here in Alberta, we have a huge coal fired generating station and my house
can gobble electricity at an alarming rate.... I'm beating the crap out of a
lot of electrons just writing this....

And other fossil fuels.... No cars in our immediate family but three
trucks - all of them 4X4s.... We get "pump island shock" on a regular
basis... and my gas BBQ.... damn near as big as a hall closet....

On our frosty Alberta winter nights, there's nothing like a crackling wood
fire in the hearth..... ever wonder how much carbon is released into the air
with a toasty wood fire??? And, on our balmy (for us) Alberta summer
evenings, a crackling wood fire in the campsite can help keep bugs away....
ever wonder how much carbon is released into the air with a toasty wood
fire?

We needn't change our life styles..... all we need to do is to refrain from
defeating the emissions controls on our vehicles, keep them in a good state
of repair and to live our lives as if there was, indeed, a tomorrow...

Georgie-girl... you are such a waste of oxygen....

 

And, on our balmy (for us) Alberta summer

From the time of the cavemen, burning a wood fire never materially
influenced the environment.
The oceans and forests were able to maintain equilibrium with the carbon by
taking it out of the
atmosphere and returning it as plant growth.

It was when men started taking fixed fossil deposits out of the earth and
burning them at enormous
rates that the environment may have lost the ability to maintain the
equilibrium.

We need more than operational emission controls.

 

CONSIDER:
Al Gore's house uses 20 times the electricity of the average American
home. His solution to the problem is to set up some environmental
clearing house to which you could pay big indulgences to lower your
"carbon foot print" score.

CONSIDER:
In March of this year, at the University of Washington, the "Associate
State Climatologist" was stripped of his title by the "State
Climatologist" because the former distributed emails to colleagues
questioning a report that the snowpack in the Cascade mountains had
decreased 50% in the last 50 years. The Associate Climatologist had
reviewed the data and discovered that the fraudulent calculation was
done by looking at the numbers for each year (with its normal
variations) and picking the one point (in mathematics, called a local
peak, or maxima) about 50 years ago that had the absolute highest
snowpak measurement that had occurred (even though the normal variatons
gave much lower numbers in years preceeding that particular year) and
using the absolute lowest number (a "local minima) in recent years (even
though much higher numbers had occurred in later years). "I'm not
trying to squelch debate by any means," Mote (the State Climatologist)
said. "Obviously we're going to use whatever number the scientists at UW
say is accurate," Nickels (mayor of Seattle) spokesman Marty McOmber
said. (ref:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003618979_warming15m.html)

The left is so absolutely FOS on this issue that it would be funny if it
weren't dangerous.

You guys get the nut jobs out of your ranks, and people might just start
listening to you if you can make your case in a sane manner - which at
this point appears doubtful (becaue your arguments have no credibility).
Since you can't make credible arguments without faking the data,
people are hopefully going to believe the valid and credible arguments
against your case.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Because "global warming" is a false science and a man-made religion unto
itself, and in order not to be thrown under the bus by those who hire
and fire and control funding, one does not mention anything that exposes
the falacy, and cherry picks data that supports the belief (as was done
at the University of Washington). The solar maximum is an "inconvenient
truth". One also doesn't raise questions when one such as Al Gore is
made a high priest of the religion and is given awards and is nominated
for a Nobel Peace Prize in spite of his own house using 20 times the
electrical power of the average American home.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Why is it that nobody ever mentions the fact that we are at the solar
maximum?

 

Hi Bill,

Let's take a slightly different look at this. Al Gore purchases 100%
"green" power through the TVA's "Green Power Switch" program (as it
turns out, he purchases more renewable energy than he uses). The
additional $5,184.00 he spends on green power each year allows the TVA
to invest in new supplies of wind, solar, etc. that will provide clean
energy for (presumably) thirty years or more. This is not the same as
buying $5,000.00 worth of gasoline, where the benefits of the purchase
are lost once the product is consumed; in this case, it expands the
amount of clean energy that is generated, well beyond what Mr. Gore
would use himself (i.e., what he pays in the first year covers off his
own consumption in that and each subsequent year, his second year
purchases fund the construction of additional renewable resources that
in turn offset someone else's consumption, and so on and so on).

The balance of his energy use (e.g., natural gas, transportation
fuels, etc.) is offset through carbon credits; these carbon credits
finance investments in renewable energy and other technologies that
will likewise reduce carbon emissions for many years to come; here
again, these purchases will provide an ever expanding array of
benefits with each passing year, well beyond what would be required to
offset his own personal needs.

In addition, Mr. Gore is renovating his home to make it more energy
efficient and he has successfully fought the city of Belle Meade for
the right to install solar panels on his roof (due to his efforts, a
civic ordinance that had prevented this was struck down on April 1st).
Once these panels can be installed, he will be able to supply a
portion of his energy needs through self-generation.

Can anyone tell me of another politican or media pundit that is doing
more to help this planet?

Cheers,
Paul

 

Paul,
According to these two articles (picked at random from a Google search
on the subject):
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html

"Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee
Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric
bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house
devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the
national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours."

They didn't say he "pre-paid" for 221,000 kW-hrs as credits - they say
his 20 room house *CONSUMED* 221,000 kW-hrs in 2006.

By your logic, if someone under TVA used 1,100MegaW-hrs a year in their
house, then would they not be doing 5 times the amount of good that AL
Gore is doing - after all - their paying for that much energy would give
TVA that much more money for future improvements. What about the person
that uses a lot less power than Al Gore - by your logic, they are
damaging the environment because they are depriving the TVA of money
they could be using for improvements in efficient energy generation?

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are rationalizing for what would be
considered by the "Greenies" as extravagent use of energy. If someone
else that the Left didn't liked used that much power, they'd bash him,
but if Al Gore does it, then it's OK because it allows the energy
company to build more energy-saving production. Well - the same thing
could be said for anyone who used 20 times the normal power for their
house. IOW - if someone uses more power than someone else, it depends
on their politics whether it is a good or bad thing? What am I missing
there?

Did he or did he not use 20 times the electrical energy of the average
American house in 2006? No matter what he does to make his home more
energy efficient, it will not make 20X less than 1X.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I am neither of the left or of the right, and certainly dont falsify data.
Luckily,
environmental science is not my field.

I think the arguments of the mass of environmental scientists are, however,
pointing in the same direction. Small corrections, yes, but IMO the science
is factual, and the problems are real.

 

Give Gore a rest, Putney... I dont know him. I doubt you do either.
What are your qualifications to decide that global warming is false
science??

 

Hi Bill,

There are two points I raised with regards to Mr. Gore's electricity
consumption: One is that Mr. Gore purchases 100% green power (wind
and solar) which means the electricity he uses is carbon neutral
(those renewable-generated electrons won't necessarily go to him
directly, but will be shared by all TVA customers). That squares with
his message that we need to reduce our carbon emissions and it doesn't
really matter to me if he uses 10 or 20 or even 50 times more
electricity than the average consumer, so long as it causes no
environmental harm (and it seems to me it shouldn't -- in fact, I'm
proposing to you that it's quite the opposite).

Secondly, I had suggested the extra $5,200.00 he spends on green power
each year would cover off not only his own consumption (excessive as
it may be), but an additional twenty (average) households in each of
the years thereafter. The assumption here is that his first year
purchase would establish an ongoing stream of renewable energy
sufficient to offset his needs in this and all future years and that
subsequent payments in years two, three and beyond would expand this
renewable portfolio, thus creating an ever larger pool of clean energy
for all to share.

Now I don't honestly know how the TVA program works. If the TVA
purchases renewable energy from outside suppliers, their renewable
base won't grow in the manner I just described (purchases in
subsequent years will simply go towards buying more power from these
very same sources). Nonetheless, as Mr. Gore reduces his electricity
consumption by improving the energy efficiency of his home and as he
begins to generate some portion of his needs internally, his draw on
the grid will diminish, but the stream of benefits that were set in
place by his initial green purchases will continue to flow at their
prior pace regardless. That being the case, his electricity purchases
won't be carbon natural -- they'll be carbon negative in that this
renewable energy will offset someone else's electricity consumption in
turn.

Hope that makes sense as I've explained it.

Cheers,
Paul

 

I doubt that any use is carbon negative. It is not just the operation of
the power plant, but a lot of auxiliary equipment, transmission lines, etc
that has to be used with the power and the greater the consumption, the
greater the infrastructure support needed. Not to mention all the materials
used in construction the Gore house and its care and maintenance.

 

Hi Edwin,

You raise a good point. In the truest sense, no human activity is
carbon neutral and that's certainly true of power generation (e.g.,
nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams use a heck of a lot of
concrete and concrete is an energy intensive material).

Without the benefit of hard numbers, my guess is that wind power has a
pretty good ERoEI ("energy returned on energy invested") and so too
solar (especially these new ultra-thin, flexible solar cells that are
now just coming to market). The advantage of renewable energy over
its fossil fuel counterparts is that its operational emissions are
extremely low (taking into consideration any ongoing maintenance
needs) and after the initial "payback" period with respect to embodied
energy, it's pretty much clear sailing.

Cheers,
Paul

 

Hey Paul:

Have you and Al and Michael been smokin the same weed (also a
pollutant)?

My son's girlfriend had a chance to run Moore over and didn't even no
who the fat slob was.