Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Cars impove the air
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Feb 27 12:08:38 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  no shit !

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/02/26/0227edcows.html


 
Posted: Tue Feb 27 12:15:20 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  shoot - it asks for a registration after your first visit, and I accidentally closed the first time. Anybody got a cut+paste they can do?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Feb 27 12:30:29 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>shoot - it asks for a registration after your first visit, and I accidentally closed the first time. Anybody got a cut+paste they can do?
>

ajc.com > Opinion
Cars improved the air ... that's no bull

By DWIGHT R. LEE
Published on: 02/27/07
The motto of all environmentalists should be "Thank goodness for the internal combustion engine."

The abuse heaped on the internal combustion engine by environmentalists was never justified. But a recent story on cow flatulence in the British newspaper, The Independent, makes the environmental benefits from gasoline-powered engines even more obvious. Based on a recent study by the Food and Agricultural Organization, The Independent reports that "livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

Long before global warming became an environmental concern, however, the move from the power provided by animals to that provided by gasoline had greatly improved the environment. The emissions that came out of the tailpipes of horses were much more lethal pollutants that those now coming out of the tailpipes of cars. Horse emissions did more than make our town and cities stink; they spread fly-borne diseases and polluted water supplies that killed people at a far greater rate than the pollution from cars and trucks ever have.

Photochemical smog is clearly a health risk, but not nearly the health risk of cholera, diphtheria and tetanus that have been largely eliminated with the help of gasoline powered transportation.

Before the internal combustion engine it wasn't just cows, sheep and pigs emitting pollution down on the farm. Tractors and other types of gas-powered farm machinery eliminated the horses, mules and oxen that had provided most of the power necessary to grow and harvest our food and fiber. This not only reduced the problem that still exists from animal waste that environmentalists, with justification, still complain about. The internal combustion engine also eliminated the need to produce food to fuel millions upon millions of agricultural beasts of burden. It has been estimated that in 1900 it took about 93 million acres of land to grow the food for the farm animals that were replaced by current farm machinery. Most of that land has now gone back to woodlands, greatly increasing the number of trees that are reducing the problem of global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide.

The above consideration should have been enough to warrant an environmental shrine to the internal combustion engine. And now we find that by eliminating all those farm-yard animals, the internal combustion engine also eliminated vast amounts of methane-producing flatulence, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide produce by burning gasoline.

Even though the internal combustion engine is less polluting than what it replaced, it is obviously not pollution-free. Efforts should, and will be made to make it even less polluting than it is, and some day internal combustion will be replaced by an even less polluting technology. But history will look kindly on the internal combustion engine as a major contributor to the steady progress toward a healthier environment that has been made over the centuries.






 
FN Posted: Tue Feb 27 14:10:59 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Based on a recent study by the Food and Agricultural Organization, The Independent reports that "livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

So this means cars don't pollute how?

>Long before global warming became an environmental concern, however, the move from the power provided by animals to that provided by gasoline had greatly improved the environment. The emissions that came out of the tailpipes of horses were much more lethal pollutants that those now coming out of the tailpipes of cars.

Jesus blasphemous christ

Hif, what the fuck are you feeding your brain by reading this dribble.

So the guy's saying there were as many horses as there are cars now and that horse farts cause cancer and smog?

>Horse emissions did more than make our town and cities stink; they spread fly-borne diseases and polluted water supplies that killed people at a far greater rate than the pollution from cars and trucks ever have.

Says who?

>Photochemical smog is clearly a health risk, but not nearly the health risk of cholera, diphtheria and tetanus that have been largely eliminated with the help of gasoline powered transportation.

Whaaaah?

Cholera and the likes were "largely eliminated with the help of gasoline powered transportation".

Try the damn toilet and "don't shit in what you drink" policies.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, but by jolly there's more to come. I'm ever so excited.

>The internal combustion engine also eliminated the need to produce food to fuel millions upon millions of agricultural beasts of burden. It has been estimated that in 1900 it took about 93 million acres of land to grow the food for the farm animals that were replaced by current farm machinery. Most of that land has now gone back to woodlands, greatly increasing the number of trees that are reducing the problem of global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide.

So how does this compare to the enviromental damage that has been caused by mining coal to replace those animals and by pumping up gasoline.

>The above consideration should have been enough to warrant an environmental shrine to the internal combustion engine.

Haha.

You surprise me hif if you're taking this seriously. It's too much.

>Even though the internal combustion engine is less polluting than what it replaced, it is obviously not pollution-free. Efforts should, and will be made to make it even less polluting than it is, and some day internal combustion will be replaced by an even less polluting technology. But history will look kindly on the internal combustion engine as a major contributor to the steady progress toward a healthier environment that has been made over the centuries.

If I was worried that anybody who has half a brain would take this guy seriously I'd probably cry and die a little, fortunately the only thing I have to do now is laugh


 
addi Posted: Tue Feb 27 14:43:30 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  He doesn't seem to take into account any of the dependancies that the internal combustion engine caused...the huge energy and resources needed to produce and maintain their production (not to mention all the auxiliary industries necessary to support them), the reduction of wild lands to build thousands of miles of asphalt highways, the need it created for greater reliance on foreign oil, etc...

I like cars. I like engines. I just think this guy lets the negative effects of internal engines off the hook too easily...by only focusing on a narrow aspect of their use, and not the whole picture.

>"Most of that land has now gone back to woodlands,"

would love to see some numbers backing up that claim. to me it seems more realistic to say most of that land has gone to strip malls, suburban developers, and landfills.


>But history will look kindly on the internal combustion engine as a major contributor to the steady progress toward a healthier environment that has been made over the centuries

okay..now I think detroit got a hold of this guy
: )



 
Ahriman Posted: Tue Feb 27 15:07:43 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Cause smog was started by mules.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Wed Feb 28 00:49:27 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i found it interesting that the article was from the ajc. are you an atlantan too, hif??

did i miss something?

PS-- cars still pollute: i think we all get that. BUT... maybe we should all stop over-consuming meat...???

now that's a crazy thought. who knew that someone could help the environment by eating less meat...


 
Mark Posted: Wed Feb 28 05:36:47 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  people fart too... let's replace all people with combustion engine powered robots. Since there are so many humans to replace, it will make the environment a lot healthier :)


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Feb 28 05:47:11 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think the point of the article is that if you are going to make bold and outrageous claims, you need to have well thought out scientific research to back them. This article is an example of how not to do this.
RE: Methane- It is a gas that much better at storing heat and stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period time (between 9-15 years). Naturally, it stored in large amounts in the oceans, reaching a system of balance similar to that of CO2. This oceanic balance is a large source of natural CH4 release, along with natural fire. Anthrogenic (human-caused) methane release methods include natural gas and petroleum production/distribution systems, landfills, agriculture, mining, mobile, heating, factory, and other combustions, water treatment, and industrial productions. Anthrogenic methane release is responsible for about 63% of atmospheric methane.
In short, bullshit on you.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/127.htm
(specifically 4.2.1.1 on CH4, methane)


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 28 07:12:10 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>i found it interesting that the article was from the ajc. are you an atlantan too, hif??

I noticed the "ajc" tag on that too. No wonder I no longer subscribe to our paper.
Hif is a kentuckian...but gosh darn it, that's okay.

>BUT... maybe we should all stop over-consuming meat...???

I, for one, am going to start doing my part. From now on I'm only going to whisper softly to my meat...and occasionally lick it.


 
beetlebum Posted: Wed Feb 28 07:33:13 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  on an entirely different note, because i refuse to see a thread stay on topic, i was cutting up jalepenos and red peppers for an onion marinade for fajitas tonight (mexican food + cervezas/margaritas = happiness), and the burning sensation is now under every one of my cuticles, putting my fingers in an awful lot of pain.

i stuck my thumb in my mouth because it was burning so badly, and now my tongue is burning. if that's not hot, i don't know what is. and by hot, i mean excruciatingly painful. heh.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 28 07:43:01 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:

>i stuck my thumb in my mouth because it was burning so badly, and now my tongue is burning. if that's not hot, i don't know what is. and by hot, i mean excruciatingly painful. heh.

there's a lesson to be learned here.
don't prepare mexican food yourself. Always go out to a resturant. It's safer.

actually...i know that's a killer. maybe running lots of water over your hands would help.
My wife was once making stir fry and a seed from the extremely hot dried peppers she was using somehow got up her nose. She was in great pain for hours afterwards, and it happened right before she had an interview at a law firm. She had to explain to the guy interviewing her that the reason for her watery eyes, coughing, and red face was from a pepper seed in her nose.
She didn't get the job.


 
Beep Posted: Wed Feb 28 09:50:55 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I hate the way that people arguing against global warming stereotype everyone on the opposition to be backwards hippies.
The fact that cars produce less harmful gas than cwos or whatever, may well be true. But how about everyone driving around in cars that produce no harmful emmisions whatsoever? It's possible.

How about the fact that all the energy big companies waste is also wasted money? Hang on a sec.. These tree huggers might be on to something..

a fortnight ago I was at a talk from my local MP, he was telling us about this guy that goes and helps out companies with eco-issues.
Their disposal of waste was costing them 3million a year. after 6 or so months this guy had turned a 3million loss into a 10million profit.
Dang, I need to find myself a tree to hug..

ps. Mexican food is great.
pps. I'm liking the use of random american odd-wordness, dang, gosh darn it..


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 28 10:18:46 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>I hate the way that people arguing against global warming stereotype everyone on the opposition to be backwards hippies.
>
I wasn't aware of that happening, but I have been aware that the global warming crowd have insisted that the argument is over regardless of the facts, and they will state that anyone who denies global warming might be caused by man must be an idiot. There's your stereotype.

>The fact that cars produce less harmful gas than cwos or whatever, may well be true. But how about everyone driving around in cars that produce no harmful emmisions whatsoever? It's possible.
>
Lots of things are possible, but are they feasible at this time ?


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 28 10:43:21 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>I hate the way that people arguing against global warming stereotype everyone on the opposition to be backwards hippies.

And I hate how the backwards hippies are always blaming it on the companies to do bear the burden and responsability.

>The fact that cars produce less harmful gas than cwos or whatever, may well be true. But how about everyone driving around in cars that produce no harmful emmisions whatsoever? It's possible.

Yes, you can have cars drive on plant oil for example, but you're forgetting that that takes loads of energy to produce as well, just like how corn can be turned into plastic (that is sort of bio-degradable if you know how, to boot) but the energy consumption is huge.

>How about the fact that all the energy big companies waste is also wasted money? Hang on a sec.. These tree huggers might be on to something..

How about the tree huggers driving around is their 50 year old cars

>Their disposal of waste was costing them �3million a year. after 6 or so months this guy had turned a �3million loss into a �10million profit.

BS untill I see numbers on it.

Waste disposal always costs money, even when it is turned into something you can recycle/sell on.


 
J. Posted: Wed Feb 28 10:51:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
DWIGHT R. LEE <<<== What are this guy's credentials?





 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 28 11:00:05 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:
>
>DWIGHT R. LEE <<<== What are this guy's credentials?
>
Professor of economics at the University of Georgia


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 28 12:45:20 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Professor of economics at the University of Georgia

Simply frightning.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 28 12:47:10 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Professor of economics at the University of Georgia
>
>Simply frightning.

but...but...they have a good football team

: )


 
J. Posted: Wed Feb 28 13:18:48 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>suenos said:
>>
>>DWIGHT R. LEE <<<== What are this guy's credentials?
>>
>Professor of economics at the University of Georgia

If he's a scientist, a chemistry professor or an environmental engineer with 20+ years of experience working in pollution control field, I'd take his article under a different light.

But all this from a professor of economics?

Geez.

More power to freedom of speech. God bless America.





 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 28 14:59:15 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>suenos said:
>>>
>>>DWIGHT R. LEE <<<== What are this guy's credentials?
>>>
>>Professor of economics at the University of Georgia
>
>If he's a scientist, a chemistry professor or an environmental engineer with 20+ years of experience working in pollution control field, I'd take his article under a different light.
>
>But all this from a professor of economics?
>
>Geez.
>
>More power to freedom of speech. God bless America.
>
Would you not agree that he's at least as qualified as Al Gore to pontificate on the subject ?


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Wed Feb 28 15:34:38 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  No because Al gore referes to klimatologists and such, This professor or whatever does not, if he did, it would be the same I guess

Then I must feel ok that I'm learning how to drive a car and not a mule...
Those darn mules! I always knew they were up to bad stuff...
I've been attacked by 2 mules once, wasn't funny, ...

Ps: It's silly, of course this guy wants you to keep driving your car, he's a professor of economics, he'd just be sad if we stopped, maybe even start crying a bit.

* I don't even want to add something contradictory caus' I heard christophe laughing all the way up here, and now I can't stop either, I blame you chris ! *





 
J. Posted: Wed Feb 28 16:10:08 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
What about China? Aren't they one of the top five environmental polluters in the world? Yet it seems like nobody wants to do anything about their lousy hazardous emissions waste management program.

I'd love to ask this professor to talk about Global Warming issues with 500+ million Chinese who have never owned a toothbrush in their lives. (Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you read it right, 500+ million people in China who never brush their teeth!)

I am having a real attitude about this global warming stuff.

I happen to like my car a little too much and I will continue to drive whatever vehicle I am damn well pleased for as long as I can afford it.

This woman ain't gonna walk to work, period.

After all, I've paid enough taxes.

And Mr. Al Gore... who cares about his qualifications to talk about anything?
He's too pretty to look at. *LOL*




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 28 17:33:05 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:
>
>What about China? Aren't they one of the top five environmental polluters in the world? Yet it seems like nobody wants to do anything about their lousy hazardous emissions waste management program.
>
>I'd love to ask this professor to talk about Global Warming issues with 500+ million Chinese who have never owned a toothbrush in their lives. (Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you read it right, 500+ million people in China who never brush their teeth!)
>
>I am having a real attitude about this global warming stuff.
>
>I happen to like my car a little too much and I will continue to drive whatever vehicle I am damn well pleased for as long as I can afford it.
>
>This woman ain't gonna walk to work, period.
>
>After all, I've paid enough taxes.
>
>And Mr. Al Gore... who cares about his qualifications to talk about anything?
>He's too pretty to look at. *LOL*
>
What really pisses me off is that they are trying to silence the opposition, not debate them, just silence them.
Al Gore certainly won't debate this issue with anyone, he'll be glad to preach about it, but he will never debate anyone on the subject.

Just a couple of weeks ago, someone tried to recommend that all meteorologists that disagree with the global warmingists should have their licenses revoked.


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 28 17:55:52 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>suenos said:
>>What about China? Aren't they one of the top five environmental polluters in the world? Yet it seems like nobody wants to do anything about their lousy hazardous emissions waste management program.

China isn't the US or the EU. Like the US it doesn't give much more than a rat's ass about enviromentalism ("good" or "bad" is another story) but the difference is most US companies are efficient enough to make up for it a little while in China they're mostly still burning coal, literally.

>>I'd love to ask this professor to talk about Global Warming issues with 500+ million Chinese who have never owned a toothbrush in their lives. (Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you read it right, 500+ million people in China who never brush their teeth!)

How does this relate to global warming. Unless a bad breath = greenhouse gas.

>>I happen to like my car a little too much and I will continue to drive whatever vehicle I am damn well pleased for as long as I can afford it.

Which is your right, although I do understand people who'd say it isn't (but I don't agree with them).

>>This woman ain't gonna walk to work, period.

Fair enough. There's public transport, or heaven forbid, a bike.

Not that I feel like everybody should be riding a bike but taking a train + bike ride every once in a while won't kill you.

>>After all, I've paid enough taxes.

This makes sense how.

>What really pisses me off is that they are trying to silence the opposition, not debate them, just silence them.

Sounds familiar?

>Al Gore certainly won't debate this issue with anyone, he'll be glad to preach about it, but he will never debate anyone on the subject.

Don't know about this, if he doesn't then that's a bad thing although probably you'd say he's wrong for doing so because he isn't a climatologist when he'd debate with a professional climatologist who's on a petrol company's payroll.

>Just a couple of weeks ago, someone tried to recommend that all meteorologists that disagree with the global warmingists should have their licenses revoked.

Yeah hif and the republican voters and probably some of its officials as well are sprinkled with people who want to ban biology teachers who preach evolution without putting creationism at the same scientific level, so pretty please, don't act too appaled about it.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 28 18:46:55 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I really don't believe this.

You talk down a man that literally had the 2000 election stolen from him. He had the balls BEFORE we invaded to publically voice opposition to that amazingly assinine decision. He speaks out for taking action to help the environment, and walks the walk himself. He has more intelligence in his right pinky than our current pres....and you start talking smack about him here?!
amazing.
you've got an entire white house full of lying morons that give us reasons daily to shake our heads in bewilderment...and instead you bring up Gore.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 28 21:48:04 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I really don't believe this.
>
>You talk down a man that literally had the 2000 election stolen from him. He had the balls BEFORE we invaded to publically voice opposition to that amazingly assinine decision. He speaks out for taking action to help the environment, and walks the walk himself. He has more intelligence in his right pinky than our current pres....and you start talking smack about him here?!
>amazing.
>
The election stolen from him ?
He couldn't even carry his own state !

It was so easy for him to oppose the war, he had nothing at stake. How many dems voted against the war ?

He doesn't walk the walk either, not with that $30,000.00 utility bill at his home.

Yet, I keep hearing the liberal mantra that Dubya lied to get us into the war, yet there is no evidence of that.
Of course you will bring up the WMD thing, but of course everyone on the planet believed they were there, but Bush was the one lying about it. Uh huh, yeah, sure.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 28 22:07:19 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  pardon me...it's late. I'm tired. no patience now.

fuck bush. As far as I'm concerned (and millions of other americans) he's directly responsible for thousands of needless deaths, and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars, and for strengthening the number of terrorists.

time will show that he will be viewed as one of the most inept presidents this country has had.

this is falling on deaf ears I know. it just feels better to get it out.


 
Ahriman Posted: Thu Mar 1 01:16:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not deaf....or blind...or dumb...like anne frank....oooo another clerks 2 reference.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 1 06:37:59 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>pardon me...it's late. I'm tired. no patience now.
>
>fuck bush. As far as I'm concerned (and millions of other americans) he's directly responsible for thousands of needless deaths, and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars, and for strengthening the number of terrorists.
>
>time will show that he will be viewed as one of the most inept presidents this country has had.
>
>this is falling on deaf ears I know. it just feels better to get it out.
>
Your entitled to your opinion, but how exactly does denigrating Dubya elevate Algore to . . . .anything ?


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 1 06:48:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Your entitled to your opinion, but how exactly does denigrating Dubya elevate Algore to . . . .anything ?

valid point. it doeasn't really. I think I made the jump to Bush because I couldn't see the logic in denegrating a flawed, but good person trying to help the planet when there are so many more politicians in power that deserve our wrath, e.g., dubya (IMO).
Perhaps for this thread it wasn't a justifiable leap, but we've never been sticklers for always staying on a precise thread topic here anyway.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]