If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KGW Portland)   State Rep. thinks that heavy breathing caused by cycling leads to global warming. Kittens sigh in relief   (kgw.com) divider line 168
    More: Fail, Northwest, bike shop, cultural bias, KGW  
•       •       •

9003 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2013 at 7:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-03 11:24:54 AM  

badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.


Before the Industrial Revolution, there was carbon in the biosphere, and there was carbon locked away in fossil fuel reserves.  There was very little movement of carbon between these two reserves (the odd rock oil spring, and a lagoon getting buried in mud once in a while).  The level of CO2 in the atmosphere was stable, and the climate was at equilibrium.  Our society was adapted to the conditions then.  Everything we breathed out, and every campfire we lit produced CO2 that ultimately came from the biosphere.  That's was carbon neutral means.  Our fuel source had to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into an organism of some sort (trees, grain, cows, etc).

Then we started digging up coal and oil and burning that instead.  All that carbon, which had been sequestered from the biosphere for millions of years, suddenly ended up in the atmosphere, and the equilibrium was disturbed.  This is a real phenomenon.  This is not a conspiracy of scientists trying desperately to hold onto their grant money.  Anyone who could possibly think that has never actually met a scientist.

Climate change will not kill the planet.  The biosphere will survive and adapt like it always does.  However, disruptions to our food supply will have massive consequences to society.  It's very much a case of not shiatting where we eat.  If we as a civilisation can't act responsibly and look farther ahead than the next commercial break, maybe we deserve to regress to barbarism.
 
2013-03-03 11:27:08 AM  

JonPace: TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?

yep. Chemical reactions How do they work?
 
2013-03-03 11:30:09 AM  

Joe Blowme: I Ate Shergar: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

You evidently don't understand how the carbon cycle works. Allow me to explain.
Carbon dioxide in your breath is produced from the food you eat - i.e. plants and/or animals that have fed on plants. Said plants get their carbon from CO₂ in the air. Normally the sum total of carbon in the air and living things would remain more or less unchanged, as it continues to cycle from one to the other and back; burning plant matter - such as wood or biodiesel - doesn't affect this, since it's effectively the same, from the cycle's point of view, as eating it. This is what "carbon neutral" means - it doesn't change the amount of carbon in the cycle.
There are two ways this can be changed, however. The amount of carbon in the cycle can go down if some of it is converted into a non-edible, non-biodegradable form - like coal or oil. There used to be way, way more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now; life as we know it would not have been able to exist under those conditions. The fact that so much has been removed over millennia is why the planet currently has an atmosphere - and a climate - we can tolerate. Burning fossil fuels dumps that extra carbon back into the cycle.

so at what % of atmosphere does co2 have to be befaore we all die?


Well, if you're really interested,  here are a few figures, along with the symptoms. (Don't worry, though, it's not going to happen yet.)
 
2013-03-03 11:34:14 AM  

Joe Blowme: gilgamesh23: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

Here is the difference: the carbon dioxide I exhale may have come from a steak or a salad, but either way the carbon came out of the atmosphere. I'm just putting it back into circulation. The fossil fuels we burn release carbon that came out of the ground, and hasn't been a part of the biosphere for millions of years. The species that currently live on this planet have adapted to cooler temperatures than were around those millions of years ago, because as carbon has been fossilized the temperatures have become cooler. The planet is no longer a humid, fern-covered world populated with giant lizards and dragonflies the size of your arm. It's now a world of mammals and trees with ice-covered poles and varied climates.

If this doesn't make sense, that's more on you than me.

So if we do this we can burn all we want?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 350x277]


Ideal answer: yes.

Real answer: Waaaaaaaay too complicated to be feasible.  The amount of CO2 released per day vastly outstrips what we can sequester with tree-planting and smokestack capture, plus there's the fact we need to be taking out excess carbon dioxide to bring the levels back to what they were before everything started going tits-up.
 
2013-03-03 11:35:18 AM  

Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?


I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.
 
2013-03-03 11:36:58 AM  

Enemabag Jones: What can people from Washington state  tell me about his district?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/default.aspx?District=20


I'm from BC, so most of what I know about Washington state comes from late-night sketch comedy shows, but the impression I get is that if it's not the Sea-Tac-Olympia corridor, it's darkest pigfarker country.

(I was gonna make a smart-assed remark about coal mine fires, but that's the wrong Centralia.  Washington's the wrong geology for coal, anyway.)
 
2013-03-03 11:39:51 AM  
It's just a thinly veiled attempt to draw money from people who aren't getting shafted by state taxes related to automotive use.  The absurd pseudo-scientific justification is just a cover.  Cyclists aren't paying taxes on gasoline, aren't getting ticketed for speeding or parking for too long in a 2-hour space, aren't paying to register vehicles, etc.  The state wants a slice of the action from these people.
 
2013-03-03 11:40:27 AM  

edmo: Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also. What can we do about that?

Raise water rates
Tax swimming pools
Drain the oceans

Yell at clouds


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-03 11:59:34 AM  

Krieghund: firefly212: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers. I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use? One of the major sources of road funds is gas taxes. If you aren't driving you aren't paying gas taxes. So now they are just asking you to pay a small fraction of what you would pay in gas taxes to build things that you would use.


www.bigbrownboxblog.com.au

From another redlit article on this tard.

"That people who bike don't pay for roads is demonstrably untrue. Most roads people bike on are paid for by counties and municipalities. In Seattle, gas taxes pay just four percent of the SDOT budget (as of 2009). Most of the rest comes from sources everybody pays, no matter how they get around. On a state level, gas taxes only pay for one quarter of the WSDOT budget. "
 
2013-03-03 12:08:29 PM  
Republican?

/Like I had to ask
 
2013-03-03 12:23:39 PM  
Any douche who pays $500 or more for a bicycle is truly a douche and needs to pay his fair share of the douche tax.

/Bi cyclists are such a road hazard, they should be required to wear flashing yellow lights and a large license plate to help identify him when the rescue service is scraping him off the pavement after he cuts off a few cars.

These are what we call bikers, so quit being a douche sympathizer by calling bicyclists that.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-03 12:26:55 PM  

Krieghund: firefly212: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use?

One of the major sources of road funds is gas taxes. If you aren't driving you aren't paying gas taxes.

So now they are just asking you to pay a small fraction of what you would pay in gas taxes to build things that you would use.


NO your wrong. Gas taxes pay ONLY for about 25% of ONLY the interstate highway system which comprises ONLY about 1.2% of the roads in the USA.

The more you know!
 
2013-03-03 12:27:55 PM  

sheep snorter: These are what we call bikers


Yes,but this thread isn't about dirty meth-addled criminals, it's about cyclists.
 
2013-03-03 12:29:32 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: It's just a thinly veiled attempt to draw money from people who aren't getting shafted by state taxes related to automotive use.  The absurd pseudo-scientific justification is just a cover.  Cyclists aren't paying taxes on gasoline, aren't getting ticketed for speeding or parking for too long in a 2-hour space, aren't paying to register vehicles, etc.  The state wants a slice of the action from these people.


Cycling requires calories, so the city/county/state gets their cut when the cyclist has to buy food.
 
2013-03-03 12:29:39 PM  

gilgamesh23: Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?

I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.


Let's bury it in the marianas trench subduction zone.
 
2013-03-03 12:35:23 PM  

sheep snorter: These are what we call bikers, so quit being a douche sympathizer by calling bicyclists that.
i.imgur.com


Now I'm confused.  Which ones are the non-douches?
 
2013-03-03 12:37:20 PM  

dv-ous: workaholicandy: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

except that it didn't

http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/ECF_CO2_WEB.pdf  if you want to read it

It doesn't if you're by yourself.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/

But if you are talking about MPG per person, a car or bus that's loaded to capacity actually is more efficient.


Another fail. The ignorance in this thread runs deep. I'm sure you have sources to counter mine on this right?
 
2013-03-03 12:49:09 PM  
Some days I feel like I'm talking to kindergarteners.

/No, Jimmy, that's not how climate change works. Let me take out the maps  again and explain...
 
2013-03-03 12:50:25 PM  

Enemabag Jones: What can people from Washington state  tell me about his district?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/default.aspx?District=20


This billboard is along the side of I-5.

i105.photobucket.com
i105.photobucket.com
i105.photobucket.com

They ain't gonna make the cover of Sanity Fair.
 
2013-03-03 12:54:26 PM  
i105.photobucket.com

What the hell?
 
2013-03-03 12:55:24 PM  

SpdrJay: The other activity that promotes global warming is masturbation.

This practice clearly needs to be regulated and taxed.....


"...from my cold, dead hands!"
 
2013-03-03 12:59:50 PM  

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


I saw the same study and the maths only works out if the cyclist eats beef or similar `high co2` food and the car driver is alone in the vehicle, if they are vegetarian or the car has multiple occupants then less co2 is produced.
 
2013-03-03 01:01:57 PM  

Enemabag Jones: What can people from Washington state  tell me about his district?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/default.aspx?District=20


It's a part of Alabama that you pass through driving between Seattle and Portland.
 
2013-03-03 01:02:50 PM  
On another point though, they want to tax co2 at the rate of x per ton, well a person puts that out in a year so should people be taxed at x per year each?

can`t remember the value of x right now...

/maybe the politician thinks he is proposing something to tax the carbon dioxide cycle? BAdum TISH
 
2013-03-03 01:08:51 PM  

thamike: [i105.photobucket.com image 350x241]

What the hell?


Not kidding.  Google "Alfred Hamilton Billboard" or "Chehalis Billboard" for more interesting examples.
 
2013-03-03 01:12:07 PM  

FloydA: thamike: [i105.photobucket.com image 350x241]

What the hell?

Not kidding.  Google "Alfred Hamilton Billboard" or "Chehalis Billboard" for more interesting examples.


It wasn't the hatred that was shocking so much as the assumption that Mexico doesn't compete in the Olympics.
 
2013-03-03 01:12:37 PM  

Eapoe6: Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"


Please do tell us, Eapoe6, what you have to say on any of the above that has not already been comprehensively debunked.
 
2013-03-03 01:31:19 PM  

Bondith: Climate change will not kill the planet.  The biosphere will survive and adapt like it always does.  However, disruptions to our food supply will have massive consequences to society.  It's very much a case of not shiatting where we eat.  If we as a civilisation can't act responsibly and look farther ahead than the next commercial break, maybe we deserve to regress to barbarism.


"The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are farked....the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!" -- St. Carlin of Morningside
 
2013-03-03 01:32:59 PM  

Kensey: Eapoe6: Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"

Please do tell us, Eapoe6, what you have to say on any of the above that has not already been comprehensively debunked.


Here's a pro tip for you. When you see the word "debunked" in reference to an idea, pay more attention to that idea. Shut off your TV and think for yourself. Ask who the peers are reviewing the journals. They are not gods in lab coats. I will continue to hold out hope for you.  You're better than a media parrot.  Have some confidence in yourself.
 
2013-03-03 01:33:51 PM  

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


True, but this is an argument against our globalized food economy, not against bicycling. The exact same effect is caused by literally any calorie-burning activity, and many times over by the obese, who then add to those emissions by driving everywhere they go.
 
2013-03-03 01:35:48 PM  

Eapoe6: Kensey: Eapoe6: Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"

Please do tell us, Eapoe6, what you have to say on any of the above that has not already been comprehensively debunked.

Here's a pro tip for you. When you see the word "debunked" in reference to an idea, pay more attention to that idea. Shut off your TV and think for yourself. Ask who the peers are reviewing the journals. They are not gods in lab coats. I will continue to hold out hope for you.  You're better than a media parrot.  Have some confidence in yourself.


Ah, here we have a wild specimen of the genus Retardus Paranoius.

Hint: Scientists aren't the comic book supervillians you think they are.
 
2013-03-03 01:38:00 PM  

Eapoe6: Kensey: Eapoe6: Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"

Please do tell us, Eapoe6, what you have to say on any of the above that has not already been comprehensively debunked.

Here's a pro tip for you. When you see the word "debunked" in reference to an idea, pay more attention to that idea. Shut off your TV and think for yourself. Ask who the peers are reviewing the journals. They are not gods in lab coats. I will continue to hold out hope for you.  You're better than a media parrot.  Have some confidence in yourself.


So the answer to my question is "nothing"?
 
2013-03-03 01:43:43 PM  
Republicans. They strain gnats out of their wine and swallow camels (stuffed turducken style).

One, humans produce about 300kg of CO2 a year by breathing. This is well under the limit that humans can produce without causing global warming. Also, like the use of wood, this is part of the natural cycle of oxygen and carbon dioxide and is compensated by the intake of carbon dioxide by the plants we eat and the animals that eat them. It is not adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere the same way that releasing buried CO2 from fossil fuels does, or the way that destroying carbon sinks such as forests and coral reefs does. Humans do many things to alter the natural balance of CO2 release and sequestration but this is not one of them.

Two, bicycles are not something to be encouraged by TAX INCREASES. This kind of TAX INCREASE is not productive. After all, by using less GASOLINE, bicyclists help to keep the PRICE OF GASOLINE down. Clearly, REPUBLCANS ARE FOR HIGHER TAXES AND HIGHER GASOLINE PRICES AND TAXING MORE PEOPLE MORE TO KEEP UP THE PRICE OF GASOLINE.

Three, this guy looks like a douche, talks like a douche and associates with douches, therefor he must be a douche.

I am OK with higher taxes (if they are fair and needed) and with higher gasoline prices (it's very foolish to subsidize gasoline consumption like they do in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.--even the USA and Canada, which are relatively small producers do this to the tune of $620 billion a year in supports to the fossil fuel industries which is at least six times as much as the governments in questons extract from your pockets to support alternative, clean, green power and fuels.

But this is sheer foolishness. Even though gas taxes are not paid by people who are not using gas (except indirectly in the cost of every good and service we buy, which makes them highly regressive, like sales taxes and excise taxes and even, oddly enough, property taxes) this seems fair, just, correct, and moral to me. You should be rewarded for doing good and punished for harming the environment and society. We may need transportation but we don't need to be wasteful or distort consumption through foolish taxes or laws.

It is foolish, injust and just plain crazy to ask cyclists or pedestrians or electric car drivers to shoulder the burden of fossil fuel subsidies when they are peddling their little feet as hard as they can to make the world clean, safe, happy and properous by using less fuel, thus leaving more fuel for OUR EVIL REPTILIAN ALIEN OVERLORDS AND OTHER REPUBLICANS to buy at lower prices.

In other words, we gave our share of the gas taxes on our way to the office, home, shopping, etc. Charging cyclists and pedestrians more for their bikes and shoes and non-use of fuel would be a kind of DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE MIDDLE CLASSES AND WORKING PEOPLE, which is of course quite natural, because REPUBLICANS ARE FOR HIGHER TAXES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASSES AND WORKING PEOPLE. They just don't want to do their patriotic duty themselves by paying taxes or serving their nation. As the suburbanites say, that's for THOSE OTHER PEOPLE, NOT PEOPLE LIKE US.

Which is why Michael Moore was being really mean when he went around asking PEOPLE LIKE US in Congress how many children they had fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, he also asked Democrats. Damn few congress critters are paying for their wars and their dictator oil with their own blood or the blood of their children and grandchildren. That's somebody else's patriotic duty, not the duty of PEOPLE LIKE US.

Pharisees, Sadducees, Douche Bags, White-Washed Tombs, Hypocrites. What would Jesus call Republicans?
 
2013-03-03 01:48:16 PM  

Eapoe6: Here's a pro tip for you. When you see the word "debunked" in reference to an idea, pay more attention to that idea.


If you mean start looking at which other dubious ideas are affected by the debunking of the first idea, that's a good pro-tip.  If you mean that debunked ideas are the best kind of ideas in disguise, I don't think I want to be whatever kind of professional you are.
 
2013-03-03 01:53:02 PM  

Joe Blowme: I Ate Shergar: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

You evidently don't understand how the carbon cycle works. Allow me to explain.
Carbon dioxide in your breath is produced from the food you eat - i.e. plants and/or animals that have fed on plants. Said plants get their carbon from CO₂ in the air. Normally the sum total of carbon in the air and living things would remain more or less unchanged, as it continues to cycle from one to the other and back; burning plant matter - such as wood or biodiesel - doesn't affect this, since it's effectively the same, from the cycle's point of view, as eating it. This is what "carbon neutral" means - it doesn't change the amount of carbon in the cycle.
There are two ways this can be changed, however. The amount of carbon in the cycle can go down if some of it is converted into a non-edible, non-biodegradable form - like coal or oil. There used to be way, way more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now; life as we know it would not have been able to exist under those conditions. The fact that so much has been removed over millennia is why the planet currently has an atmosphere - and a climate - we can tolerate. Burning fossil fuels dumps that extra carbon back into the cycle.

so at what % of atmosphere does co2 have to be befaore we all die?


Well, there was something called the Permian Extinction. Prior to this there were a ton of mammal-like reptiles roaming around. The O2 levels decreased, the CO2 and methane increased. Vulcanism raised the temperature. The Siberian Traps, for example, release a very high percent of CO2 compared to other volcanic areas because of the rocks around there. As the ocean temps rose, methane normally trapped along the banks of deep-sea continental shelves escaped. The only land animals of consequence to survive were from very high altitudes, with huge lung capacities adapted to low oxygen content. There were a LOT of them, so it kind of throws people off. 76% of land vertebrate species died but there's all these big reptiles all over the damned place. 90% of them were one type of reptile.

The book Gorgon! is a fantastic look into it and easily accessible to many readers, if you can find a copy.  There's still people looking for some sort of positive evidence of an impactor because it makes extinctions so obvious but the stuff I've read and the geologists I've talked with have pointed primarily at changes in methane, CO2 and oxygen levels in the atmosphere as the primary culprits, accompanied by increases in global temperature (about 6 degrees C at the equator, more at higher lattitudes, iirc). So at least one big extinction event is thought to be the result of shifts. It's been several years since I read that book but the major themes from it stick with me because it is one of the few that actually shows the type of thing that other scientists see happening around us today.
 
2013-03-03 01:55:31 PM  

stirfrybry: gilgamesh23: Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?

I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.

Let's bury it in the marianas trench subduction zone.


Yes, that sounds easy, cheap, and not prone to any major catastrophes.
 
2013-03-03 02:09:27 PM  

gilgamesh23: Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?

I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.


You know, there is actually a much simpler solution. It's not quite as long term - you'd have to keep doing it for longer.

Grow and bury trees. Trees suck up a lot of carbon, and if you ensure the tree doesn't rot or burn above ground, CO2 sequestered. Obviously some will seep out, but that's why you just keep doing it. It's not like trees are a finite resource - you can just keep growing 'em.
 
2013-03-03 02:15:27 PM  

LavenderWolf: Grow and bury trees. Trees suck up a lot of carbon, and if you ensure the tree doesn't rot or burn above ground, CO2 sequestered. Obviously some will seep out, but that's why you just keep doing it. It's not like trees are a finite resource - you can just keep growing 'em.


I had an idea to take all the carbon-offset taxes the hippies were paying and use them to pay Chinese peasants to grow and harvest bamboo by hand, and then bury it in abandoned coal mines.  Bamboo grows stupidly fast, you can use treated sewage from any of Chinas innumerable cities to avoid depleting the soil, and China has both the raw manpower and utter disregard for workers' rights that this scheme requires to be effective.
 
2013-03-03 02:22:10 PM  
So people who ride bikes that cost over $500, breathe more?
 
2013-03-03 02:26:23 PM  

bratface: So people who ride bikes that cost over $500, breathe more?


Must be draining.
 
2013-03-03 02:26:25 PM  

thamike: FloydA: thamike: [i105.photobucket.com image 350x241]

What the hell?

Not kidding.  Google "Alfred Hamilton Billboard" or "Chehalis Billboard" for more interesting examples.

It wasn't the hatred that was shocking so much as the assumption that Mexico doesn't compete in the Olympics.



Ah, yes, well... the gentleman in question is not on particularly intimate terms with facts and reality.
 
2013-03-03 02:28:22 PM  
Condoms, vibrators, and other accoutrements of sex should be taxed too since sex, heavy breathing and global warming all go together
 
2013-03-03 02:42:25 PM  

sheep snorter: Any douche who pays $500 or more for a bicycle is truly a douche and needs to pay his fair share of the douche tax.


3/10 but I fear you are serious. If so, make a list of all of the things you've ever purchased over $500. In someone's opinion, you are a douche for 90% of those purchases, and that someone's opinion is worth just as much as yours.
 
2013-03-03 03:09:04 PM  

LavenderWolf: gilgamesh23: Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?

I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.

You know, there is actually a much simpler solution. It's not quite as long term - you'd have to keep doing it for longer.

Grow and bury trees. Trees suck up a lot of carbon, and if you ensure the tree doesn't rot or burn above ground, CO2 sequestered. Obviously some will seep out, but that's why you just keep doing it. It's not like trees are a finite resource - you can just keep growing 'em.


Yes, this is a great idea. I'll tell you what, get out your shovel and start digging, because if you use heavy equipment to perform this task you'll surely discharge more CO2 than what you're burying.

NEXT!
 
2013-03-03 03:09:47 PM  

Repo Man: You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?


Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.
 
2013-03-03 03:12:33 PM  

Kensey: Repo Man: You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?

Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.


This only shows how little you know about bicycles. Well done.
 
2013-03-03 03:16:17 PM  
Global warming is caused by feeding mongo beans
 
2013-03-03 03:45:03 PM  

TwowheelinTim: Kensey: Repo Man: You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?

Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.

This only shows how little you know about bicycles. Well done.


I got around Charlottesville with a bike much like the one linked for several years, because I had no car.  I'm certainly not a bike hipster, I guess you got me there, but I'm not sure what your actual point is.
 
2013-03-03 03:49:49 PM  

badhatharry: Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.


Yes it is.

If one vastly increases the amount of a chemical into the environment which indisputably results in harm, then clearly it is pollution.

1) Most of the extra carbon dioxide ends up in the oceans where some of it by normal chemical equilibrium gets turned into carbonic acid.    This has had a profound effect and it is killing the coral and other organisms.

2) The carbon dioxide that is retained in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas that MUST increase the temperature if one believes the laws of physics (unless one also does something else that causes lowered temperatures).  This is a very undesirable for human civilization which has a HUGE vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

And yes human activity has vastly increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

/Again, animals breathing does not result in extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
2013-03-03 04:05:27 PM  

badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.


You make the assumption that poor people don't buy $500 bikes but your wrong. I know plenty of poor people with $500 bikes. Spending $500 to buy a nice solid bike, that may need $50 per year in upkeep as opposed to the thousands in upkeep and gas one might dump into a $500 car, is often the wisest financial move anyone could ever make.
 
Displayed 50 of 168 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report