America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 months ago by Ewok126. 371 replies replies.
8 Pages12345678>
Climate Change & The Paris Agreement
Brewha Online
#1 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
With so many on the forum that disagree that industrial emissions are a cause of climate change - or that climate change even exists - I point out that over 100 countries are coming together to combat it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

Does anyone have a reasonable explanation why we should not be moving forward with initiatives to curb climate change?




Paris Agreement: essential elements

The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake take ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.

The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Additionally, the agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives. The Agreement also provides for enhanced transparency of action and support through a more robust transparency framework.
Covfireman Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 806
The agreement isn't strong enough on the pouting countries and to strict on the developed countries . It's poorly crafted and doesn't change what those countries do . Unless Asia ,india, Latin America and the middle east are encouraged to pollute less why should devolved contrived do more ? If we need to do more why cripple industries here and let goods produced cheaper solely because they were made without environmental controls . Why punish Americans for someone else's pollution?

The only way to fix this is to tax those cheap goods produced from those countries. That will make them less affordable and then goods produced here will be competitive. We can't compete when we are the only ones playing by the rules . It's not a painless solution . Almost everything we buy would increase in price .



TMCTLT Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,309
Brewha wrote:
With so many on the forum that disagree that industrial emissions are a cause of climate change - or that climate change even exists - I point out that over 100 countries are coming together to combat it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

Does anyone have a reasonable explanation why we should not be moving forward with initiatives to curb climate change?




Paris Agreement: essential elements

The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake take ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.

The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Additionally, the agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives. The Agreement also provides for enhanced transparency of action and support through a more robust transparency framework.



Let us know when you get the REAL OFFENDERS to comply....

And can one ASSume that the highlighted area means " financial support once again from the U.S. ????
Mr. Jones Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 8,969
I wrote a huge response and LOST it on my cheap
P.O.S. LG SMART PHONE:

Condensed version.

Global warming is real but a combination of
Dozens of things combined.
We will never stop it in a unchecked industrialized world and unchecked overpopulation.

Short of a worldwide EPIDEMIC like "the plague"
that takes out 3/4's
Of the Current population...global warming will
Continue.

The ILLUMINATI have studied eugenics for decades
And they are working from several angles to achieve
Depopulation...
That NERD BILL GATE'S is behind the bad vaccines
Going to the Third World test subjects.
Monsanto and DUPONT have developed a GMO FOOD GENE That effectively sterilizes anybody who eats it.
The military are experts at chemtrail dispersal
And the H.A.A.R.P. RADAR in Alaska is really screwing with the climate and weather patterns.

Whoever erected those weird stone monoliths
In GEORGIA ( TED TURNER) is behind all this
Depopulation.
tailgater Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
Mr. Jones wrote:
I wrote a huge response and LOST it on my cheap
P.O.S. LG SMART PHONE:

Condensed version.

Global warming is real but a combination of
Dozens of things combined.
We will never stop it in a unchecked industrialized world and unchecked overpopulation.

Short of a worldwide EPIDEMIC like "the plague"
that takes out 3/4's
Of the Current population...global warming will
Continue.

The ILLUMINATI have studied eugenics for decades
And they are working from several angles to achieve
Depopulation...
That NERD BILL GATE'S is behind the bad vaccines
Going to the Third World test subjects.
Monsanto and DUPONT have developed a GMO FOOD GENE That effectively sterilizes anybody who eats it.
The military are experts at chemtrail dispersal
And the H.A.A.R.P. RADAR in Alaska is really screwing with the climate and weather patterns.

Whoever erected those weird stone monoliths
In GEORGIA ( TED TURNER) is behind all this
Depopulation.


Blink
tailgater Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
Brewha wrote:
With so many on the forum that disagree that industrial emissions are a cause of climate change - or that climate change even exists - I point out that over 100 countries are coming together to combat it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

Does anyone have a reasonable explanation why we should not be moving forward with initiatives to curb climate change?




How disingenuous can you get?
I read these same forums and I haven't concluded that "so many" here feel industrial emissions aren't "a" cause.
And it is my opinion that when you hear someone question the existence of climate change, they are questioning the unspoken "man made" prefix.

Brewha Online
#7 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
TMCTLT wrote:
Let us know when you get the REAL OFFENDERS to comply....

And can one ASSume that the highlighted area means " financial support once again from the U.S. ????

Well, on the list China has the largest reductions (20%) scheduled.

The text is a cut and past from the UN web site. But you know the story with the UN....
Brewha Online
#8 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
tailgater wrote:
How disingenuous can you get?
I read these same forums and I haven't concluded that "so many" here feel industrial emissions aren't "a" cause.
And it is my opinion that when you hear someone question the existence of climate change, they are questioning the unspoken "man made" prefix.


Disingenuous???

You should do your research:
https://www.cigarbid.com.../Is-Global-Warming-Real

65% of the forum counts as "so many".
tailgater Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
Brewha wrote:
Disingenuous???

You should do your research:
https://www.cigarbid.com.../Is-Global-Warming-Real

65% of the forum counts as "so many".


Don't have time to tally the votes.
I'll trust you on this one.
You're saying that 65% of those who posted in that thread believe there is zero climate change and man has zero influence on climate.
Am I reading you right?

Because I didn't think over half felt man had zero influence and that there has been zero climate change to begin with.

The "debate" on climate change is so polarized because one side doesn't even allow for discussion.
The words "settled" and "consensus" are thrown around somewhat loosely, and there is often a severe lack of understanding. When someone says "the climate change myth" that doesn't imply that man has zero influence. Just that the influence can be over stated, and "man made" should not mean "fossil fuels" until we're able to calculate this specific influence relative to our other man made influences.








victor809 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,181
Just gonna say, I really appreciate your sense of humor tail...

That's serious Kauffman- esque joking... complaining about "one side not even allowing for discussion " then pretending the phrase "climate change myth" is some sort of nuanced statement...

It's great. I know you must have done that on purpose. There's no way you could have been serious about that...
Brewha Online
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
tailgater wrote:
Don't have time to tally the votes.
I'll trust you on this one.
You're saying that 65% of those who posted in that thread believe there is zero climate change and man has zero influence on climate.
Am I reading you right?

Because I didn't think over half felt man had zero influence and that there has been zero climate change to begin with.

The "debate" on climate change is so polarized because one side doesn't even allow for discussion.
The words "settled" and "consensus" are thrown around somewhat loosely, and there is often a severe lack of understanding. When someone says "the climate change myth" that doesn't imply that man has zero influence. Just that the influence can be over stated, and "man made" should not mean "fossil fuels" until we're able to calculate this specific influence relative to our other man made influences.

Well, should you find time to click the link you will see that the thread has a pole and the numbers are tallied for us. The upshot of which is that 54% of the forum - ostensibly - feel that even if climate change is real, it is not caused by man. And 11% don't think it is happening, at all. Other then in the minds of the libtards, that is.

Of cource the point of this (genuinely) is to have a dialog.

Is Climate Change a Global Conspiracy? Are over 100 nations banding together to convince us all to......bolster the bicycle industry?

If emissions are not really the problem, why focus on it?

DrafterX Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
I didn't vote... Mellow
dkeage Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 03-05-2004
Posts: 13,104
DrafterX wrote:
I didn't vote... Mellow

Thanks Kaepernick...
DrafterX Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
OhMyGod


I meant the climate change thread vote thing... I did my duty... Mellow
mikey1597 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,048
I just farted,,, my little contribution to the climate change.



You're welcome
DrafterX Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Did you pay taxes on that..?? Huh
mikey1597 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,048
Sure I did.
frankj1 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 17,630
is it in a jar?
cuz I heard they're bombing MACS.
DrafterX Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
I didn't hear about that... we're bombing Macs..?? Huh
tonygraz Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 8,634
With fart jars ?
mikey1597 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,048
frankj1 wrote:
is it in a jar?
cuz I heard they're bombing MACS.



oh I have an aged fart in a jar from years ago
frankj1 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 17,630
if you call it "vintage", it will be worth double.
marketing magic.
Covfireman Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 806
I had a shart the other day . I didn't save though . I'll send the next one to macs .
Brewha Online
#24 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
Looks like a lot of the botl have been capturing greenhouse gasses for sometime.....
DrafterX Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Think
I wonder what the Titanic survivors think about global warming... Think
gummy jones Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 5,857
if the globalists at the un say it then it must be true

death to israel and stuff...
Brewha Online
#27 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
DrafterX wrote:
Think
I wonder what the Titanic survivors think about global warming... Think

Well.................

Uh........





So, I hear people in ice water want hell......
tailgater Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
victor809 wrote:
Just gonna say, I really appreciate your sense of humor tail...

That's serious Kauffman- esque joking... complaining about "one side not even allowing for discussion " then pretending the phrase "climate change myth" is some sort of nuanced statement...

It's great. I know you must have done that on purpose. There's no way you could have been serious about that...


I do love to jest.
But alas, it was not purposeful.
I do, however, see your point. Only so much can be conveyed in a single post.
Unless you're JPotts.

tailgater Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
Brewha wrote:
Well, should you find time to click the link you will see that the thread has a pole and the numbers are tallied for us. The upshot of which is that 54% of the forum - ostensibly - feel that even if climate change is real, it is not caused by man. And 11% don't think it is happening, at all. Other then in the minds of the libtards, that is.

Of cource the point of this (genuinely) is to have a dialog.

Is Climate Change a Global Conspiracy? Are over 100 nations banding together to convince us all to......bolster the bicycle industry?

If emissions are not really the problem, why focus on it?



Why post, if you choose to ignore what has already been stated?

The term "Climate Change" should always mean change. of the climate.
But it has come to mean "man induced".
Can we at least agree on this? Because if it doesn't mean man-induced then there can be no protocols. No government think tanks and taxes and carbon credits, et al.

Conspiracy? Not really. Rather, just an opportunity to capitalize on some otherwise sound ideas.

And emissions? Because you can't tax the other stuff.

And for the record calling it a "conspiracy" is a means to squash reasonable conversation. You don't even know when you're doing it. The mainstream media thanks you.


Brewha Online
#30 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
tailgater wrote:
Why post, if you choose to ignore what has already been stated?

The term "Climate Change" should always mean change. of the climate.
But it has come to mean "man induced".
Can we at least agree on this? Because if it doesn't mean man-induced then there can be no protocols. No government think tanks and taxes and carbon credits, et al.

Conspiracy? Not really. Rather, just an opportunity to capitalize on some otherwise sound ideas.

And emissions? Because you can't tax the other stuff.

And for the record calling it a "conspiracy" is a means to squash reasonable conversation. You don't even know when you're doing it. The mainstream media thanks you.

That sir is a good question - why post.
Some folks may have changed their mind. Some may find a new discussion more illuminating. And as has happened here before, much to my chagrin, people have changed my opinion with their thoughts (A stand out is a resident LEO who explaned why cops tend to shoot to kill - good insight, I would not otherwise have had).

I agree that the true level of mans effect on the climate change that is going on is, at the least, debatable. While I do bow to the shrine of science, it is known to be fallible.

Now, in fairness, I would hold that there is sufficient credible evedance to conclude we are the bad guys where the current shift in climate is concerned.

"Conspiracy" has a inaccurately bad connotation. But for us lefties, turnabout is fair play.
But if the nations of the world and banding together on this for dishonest reasons, it is certainly worth talking about.
tailgater Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
Brewha wrote:
That sir is a good question - why post.
Some folks may have changed their mind. Some may find a new discussion more illuminating. And as has happened here before, much to my chagrin, people have changed my opinion with their thoughts (A stand out is a resident LEO who explaned why cops tend to shoot to kill - good insight, I would not otherwise have had).

I agree that the true level of mans effect on the climate change that is going on is, at the least, debatable. While I do bow to the shrine of science, it is known to be fallible.

Now, in fairness, I would hold that there is sufficient credible evedance to conclude we are the bad guys where the current shift in climate is concerned.

"Conspiracy" has a inaccurately bad connotation. But for us lefties, turnabout is fair play.
But if the nations of the world and banding together on this for dishonest reasons, it is certainly worth talking about.


The level of man's contribution, as well as the identifiable source (fossil fuels being just one).
And science is important.
But not everything in science is as infallible as, say, Einstein's Constant for the speed of light...
Herfing
Brewha Online
#32 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
tailgater wrote:
The level of man's contribution, as well as the identifiable source (fossil fuels being just one).
And science is important.
But not everything in science is as infallible as, say, Einstein's Constant for the speed of light...
Herfing

Now I that is outstanding. Few people know of Magueijo's theorems. Add to that, that most folks are not conversant on Special Relativity, much less General Relativity.

The typical argument is that Newtonian Physics was is proven wrong by Einstein. But he only showed that Newton was wrong where high energy physics comes in to play. Almost every device you ever touch or see works perfectly under Newtonian physics - except the GPS in you car. Relativistic corrections are required to make it work accurately.

But Newton, like Einstein was not wrong - there are always exceptions. These guys were overwhelmingly right - with small but notable exceptions.

I can accept this level of fallibility, can you?
gummy jones Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 5,857
this level of fallibility will cost trillions and stifle world economies, especially in developing regions
Brewha Online
#34 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
gummy jones wrote:
this level of fallibility will cost trillions and stifle world economies, especially in developing regions

You don't know that.

New industries and technology boom the economy and create specialty job where none were needed before. But if your rich, it is only costly investment.

But you just keep calling it false until the water reaches your bottom lip....
DrafterX Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
A list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.


Think
tailgater Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
Brewha wrote:
You don't know that.

New industries and technology boom the economy and create specialty job where none were needed before. But if your rich, it is only costly investment.

But you just keep calling it false until the water reaches your bottom lip....


Gummy may not "know that". But neither do you know that government protocols will produce the desired effect.

And to kindle the flames, let me remind you of the key word: Government.


Brew, this could be very simple.
Treat me like a fifth grader.
Show me a pie chart.
On that pie chart, show what causes "climate change".
And under that thin slice (if we're being honest) called MAN, break it down into specific segments.
Then we'll be able to see the fossil fuel impact.

And again, we can discuss the results once presented. But instead we're organizing politicians to tax the bajeebies out of us based on non-specific impact of one piece of the pie.
So to speak.

Brewha Online
#37 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
DrafterX wrote:
A list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.


Think

Right - so the insufficiently regulated banks that are "too big to fail" take the US tax payer for Billions - but out of of the thousands of green companies you find a list of a few dozen and post it as relevant.

How is Tesla doing?



Btw - I think your total is less than the Trump bankruptcies.....
Brewha Online
#38 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,037
tailgater wrote:
Gummy may not "know that". But neither do you know that government protocols will produce the desired effect.

And to kindle the flames, let me remind you of the key word: Government.


Brew, this could be very simple.
Treat me like a fifth grader.
Show me a pie chart.
On that pie chart, show what causes "climate change".
And under that thin slice (if we're being honest) called MAN, break it down into specific segments.
Then we'll be able to see the fossil fuel impact.

And again, we can discuss the results once presented. But instead we're organizing politicians to tax the bajeebies out of us based on non-specific impact of one piece of the pie.
So to speak.


So what source would you consider credible for a pie chart?

I think you have disregarded the governments of the world as unfairly biased. Scientist cannot be trusted. Is there anyone left? God sakes man - you even think NOAA is lying with malice and for thought.

Honestly, I think your position boils down to "no one can be trusted". So why ask for further assessment?
Covfireman Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 806
Why not use the stats from NSIDC national snow and ice data center ?
bgz Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 4,551
Is this the bi-annual global warming argument?

OMFG TEH PLANET!

k thnx bye
DrafterX Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Brewha wrote:
Right - so the insufficiently regulated banks that are "too big to fail" take the US tax payer for Billions - but out of of the thousands of green companies you find a list of a few dozen and post it as relevant.

How is Tesla doing?



Btw - I think your total is less than the Trump bankruptcies.....




we could look at plenty of other types of bad gubment spending too... I was trying to stick to the topic tho.... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
we could even ponder what ethanol is really doing for us..... Think
tailgater Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,927
Brewha wrote:
So what source would you consider credible for a pie chart?

I think you have disregarded the governments of the world as unfairly biased. Scientist cannot be trusted. Is there anyone left? God sakes man - you even think NOAA is lying with malice and for thought.

Honestly, I think your position boils down to "no one can be trusted". So why ask for further assessment?


Nice deflection.
You rant on in dozens of posts, laying down facts and figures to make your point. You've done this in two different threads.
But when asked for specific details that might justify the government intervention, you determine that I won't consider it credible.





mikey1597 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,048
California targets dairy cows to combat global warming
The Seattle Times 12 hours ago

GALT, Calif. (AP) — California is taking its fight against global warming to the farm. The nation’s leading agricultural state is now targeting greenhouse gases produced by dairy cows and other livestock. Despite strong opposition from farmers, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation in September that for the first time regulates heat-trapping gases from livestock operations and landfills. Cattle and other farm animals are major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. Methane is released when they belch, pass gas and make manure. “If we can reduce emissions of methane, we can really help to slow global warming,” said Ryan McCarthy.



Are ya fuggin kiddin me!!
DrafterX Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
Feeding the Homeless and Illegals is expensive... gotta maintain the sanctuary cities somehow.. Mellow
mikey1597 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,048
maybe we should drink more mice milk...... they have teats so's you can milk them and no way do they fart more than a cow
opelmanta1900 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 5,826
mikey1597 wrote:
California targets dairy cows to combat global warming
The Seattle Times 12 hours ago

GALT, Calif. (AP) — California is taking its fight against global warming to the farm. The nation’s leading agricultural state is now targeting greenhouse gases produced by dairy cows and other livestock. Despite strong opposition from farmers, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation in September that for the first time regulates heat-trapping gases from livestock operations and landfills. Cattle and other farm animals are major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. Methane is released when they belch, pass gas and make manure. “If we can reduce emissions of methane, we can really help to slow global warming,” said Ryan McCarthy.



Are ya fuggin kiddin me!!


I'm not a fan of the governor... at all... but he has it right here... I've actually long stated that regulating methane from dairies and emissions from big rigs would probably take care of half the air problems here in California...

Back in 1999 i had 2 buddies involved in the construction of one of California's first "super dairy's"... these things are horrific ... look into them... they're terrible for every imaginable reason, and methane output is at the top of that list...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 5,826
I should also say I'm a big supporter and fan of farming and agriculture... I'm not against dairies in any way... but I'm against any kind of agriculture that takes large portions of land and uses it for a single crop or purpose... there are plenty of studies out there showing how harmful this is to the environment...
DrafterX Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 78,613
ever drive thru Amarillo..?? Huh
gummy jones Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 5,857
Brewha wrote:
You don't know that.

New industries and technology boom the economy and create specialty job where none were needed before. But if your rich, it is only costly investment.

But you just keep calling it false until the water reaches your bottom lip....


you get off on being as condescending as you can
even when unprovoked

must be quite the burden to be that much smarter than everyone else
Users browsing this topic
Guest
8 Pages12345678>