Originally posted by dannyUchiha...And, as is well known, it comes always to this point: try also to convice all those millions to use condoms, to accept that the abortion is a human right etc.;
I think you're right, overpopulation is the root of the problem. Everything else is just side effects.
The sad news is that the population is growing at about 77 million persons per year. I don't care what other people think, but this growth rate has to slow down.
I have just read the following from this weeks newScientist magazine issue No 2673 pages 30
“switching from the average American diet to a vegetarian one could cut emissions by 1.5 tonnes of CO2eq per person”
So if we all went vegi, not only would there be less methane release but also less CO2 release.
And, in addition, from page 31:
“producing animal meat is incredibly inefficient. Only 5 to 25 per cent of the nutrients are converted into meat.”
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI assume that 1.5 tons of CO2/person is also per year, right?
I have just read the following from this weeks newScientist magazine issue No 2673 pages 30
“switching from the average American diet to a vegetarian one could cut emissions by 1.5 tonnes of CO2eq per person”
So if we all went vegi, not only would there be less methane release but also less CO2 release.
And, in addition, from page 31:
“ ...[text shortened]... meat is incredibly inefficient. Only 5 to 25 per cent of the nutrients are converted into meat.”
I was thinking about CO2 from cars and just a quick analysis, ' a pint's a pound the world around' so a pint of fuel or one pound of fuel turns into about 3 pounds of CO2. So if you get 8 miles per gallon, that is one pint per mile, just for the sake of argument, then driving 20,000 miles in one year means you put out 3 pounds of CO2 per mile so 60,000 pounds per year or 30 tons. Now if we triple that gas mileage to 24 MPG then we are pumping out 10 tons/year into the air. 48 MPG means we would pump 5 tons per year. So it seems even if we are getting close to 50 MPG we would be still pumping over 3 times the amount we would save not eating meat so we can only effect 25 or 30% the amount going into the air by our diet.
We gain the most by going to more fuel efficient cars it looks like to me.
So by getting 50 MPG we would still be pumping 6.5 tons of CO2 per year per person, adding the two sources together.
It's interesting that we are that close even, I would have guessed our eating would be a lot less than that. 1.5 tons per year=0.5 tons of fuel in gasoline anyway but it is saying we would be eating about 1000 pounds of food per year, all things being equal. 3 pounds a day. Do we actually eat 3 pounds a day?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse…we would be still pumping over 3 times the amount we would save not eating meat so we can only effect 25 or 30% the amount going into the air by our diet.
I assume that 1.5 tons of CO2/person is also per year, right?
I was thinking about CO2 from cars and just a quick analysis, ' a pint's a pound the world around' so a pint of fuel or one pound of fuel turns into about 3 pounds of CO2. So if you get 8 miles per gallon, that is one pint per mile, just for the sake of argument, then driving 20,000 miles in one of food per year, all things being equal. 3 pounds a day. Do we actually eat 3 pounds a day?
..…
If that calculation is right, then I would say reducing anything like 25% of our carbon release or even just 1% just by changing our diet makes it worth while -I mean, how hard can it be just to change your diet? -I didn’t find it hard at all (I have been a vegetarian since adulthood mainly for environmental reasons).
I am all for making cars more energy efficient, but I think the best way to minimise our CO2 emissions is too look at ways of reducing ALL sources of CO2 -not just the “main” ones. If a particular source contribute just 1% of the total, 1% is still 1%!
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe thing is, the levels of CO2 are several times too high. A 1% change wouldn't do diddly squat except maybe make people more healthy🙂
[b]…we would be still pumping over 3 times the amount we would save not eating meat so we can only effect 25 or 30% the amount going into the air by our diet.
..…
If that calculation is right, then I would say reducing anything like 25% of our carbon release or even just 1% just by changing our diet makes it worth while -I mean, how hard c ...[text shortened]... t just the “main” ones. If a particular source contribute just 1% of the total, 1% is still 1%![/b]
I am an almost veggie as it is, I eat mainly veggies and fish, I can't remember when the last time I had red meat, I don't do that because of the environment, but because it's healthy. So I suppose I am already doing my bit on that front.
I didn't think eating meat would be so damaging to our environment. I don't think everyone has the will to go all veggie, but if everyone cut back on their meat consumption by 50%, that would be a reduction of 0.75 ton CO2 per person per year.
I think this reduction would be a great first step towards the "veggie world" goal.
Originally posted by sonhouseA possible solution would be to introduce methane-breathing bacteria to the arctic.
When the arctic starts thawing out due to present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the tundra and seabeds start oozing methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than CO2. It's already starting to happen.
This can be the killer move putting us on track to really heat up the climate
Which may be why things go on for a while like they have now and has b ...[text shortened]... se changes can take place in a few years or less:
http://www.physorg.com/preview139315982.html
1 edit
Originally posted by YugaI think that would be unlikely to work for a very simple reason -if it could be done then nature would have beaten us to it a long time ago because methane-eating bacteria would have evolved long ago to derive their energy from feeding on the methane in those artic conditions.
A possible solution would be to introduce methane-breathing bacteria to the arctic.
I would guess that the main reason why this cannot happen is because the only place there where the methane levels would be of sufficiently high concentration to make this work is where it is trapped under the soil surface where the supply of oxygen would be insufficient for the bacteria to potentially oxidise the methane to derive energy from it in some kind of “methane-bases” respiration.