Burkey
Well-Known Member
Which is what?
Are you saying that if we doubled the amount of methane in the atmosphere it wouldn’t warm? Is that your position?
Sponsored
Sponsored
Are you saying that if we doubled the amount of methane in the atmosphere it wouldn’t warm? Is that your position?
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 32
- Messages
- 6,813
- Reaction score
- 3,161
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
Hello; There are many sources of methane naturally. Alway has been. If I have the sequence of events correct before there was an oxygen rich atmosphere there was a methane in the air. Swamp gas is methane from anaerobic bacteria feeding in the mud on the bottom of ponds, lakes and other places without oxygen. Termites produce a methane byproduct, perhaps the greater of methane producers among living animals.
That methane is often associated with crude oil deposits is also natural because coal and oil deposits are from accumulations of dead organic matter.
There are a couple of important points about methane. One is the that methane has to labeled as part of the evil duo of climate change along with Co2. That way they can go after them without having to be reasonable. No need for me to list the various parts of the agendas again.
That cows became a target may be more an offshoot than part of the initial movement. The true believers cannot simply say something sensible such as methane from cows is worth the trade off because of the benefits such as food and milk. Also cows can be targeted where buffalo and termites cannot be brought under their thumb of control. Can you imagine the outcry if all the Yellowstone Bison were targeted to be slaughtered?
Now as a homeowner I can get on board of eliminating termites. As a student of biology/ecology I understand the function they perform of recycling dead cellulose.
Methane and Co2 have been a part of natural cycles for most of earths history. Full working cycles have developed around them. The issue is the effect of different concentrations of both.
Some have bought into the notion we are doomed because of these natural gases.
Here is a question. Sat all the cattle are gone. What will be done with all the pastures of grasses they used to eat. There are maybe 100 acres of cow pasture next to my place. Just a few days ago another large pasture was mown for hay. In the next few days that cut crass will be rolled into the large round bales to be winter fed for the cattle around here. Will we substitute lawn mowers in to cut down the fields? Will the fields be allowed to be grazed by wildlife? Will the fields be allowed to turn into woodlands by the process of natural succession. Will the fields be turned into housing and the fertile soils cover over by pavement? I have a feeling there can be worse outcome than having cattle around.
- Banned
- #2,808
The whole thing is a farce, if any of this was a life or death of the planet issue, the burning hell hole in Russia and the coal mines in PA,USA that are burning for decades would be the first things to be stopped.
This whole agenda is about control. and why they are focusing on the personal vehicles and not the items that put 91% of the green house gasses into the air.
Those with a brain see this and know if we all went ev tomorrow it not do a god damn thing to the green house gasses as the ev just moves where the pollution comes from and doesn't reduce it. So it isn't about pollution or emissions, or green house gasses or saving the earth.
If oil is so evil, why even ev's using tons of plastic?
Why the bumpers plastic that is made from oil and can't be recycled when a metal one can.
Same with interior metal covered in cloth/cotton instead of plastic as you are not going to hit it in a wreck the air bags will stop you from that<wink wink>
Or the plastic covers that do nothing but make the engine/motor unit look pretty.
Or the head lights tail lights? that if glass can be recycled unlike the plastic crap.
IF it was really about saving the world and oil was as evil as they claim.
Ev's would have metal bumpers, metal interior with cloth or leather covering it, lights would go back to metal and glass. wheel well splash liners would be metal, I could go on for days.
Plastic cups would be banned or taxed to the moon to move you back to glass. Food would be packaged in glass again and not plastic crap.
Anyone with a brain is asking these questions and see's right through the narrative b/s.
Last edited:
Burkey
Well-Known Member
1. Who the bell said that oil is evil? When exactly did oil become sentient?
2. You complain that they’re attacking private transport, which according to you, will have little to no impact whilst simultaneously pointing the finger at plastics, which have absolutely nowhere near the impact of the thing that you think we should be ignoring…
This is satire right?
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 32
- Messages
- 6,813
- Reaction score
- 3,161
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
Massive Offshore Wind Project Gets Underway With Permission To ‘Take’ Endangered Whales (msn.com)
Hello; Gleen from this what you will. Some likely will be outraged over the idea of endangered whale deaths. Some may decide having "clean" power is worth the sacrifice of other living things.
If I had to make a point it would be that lots of human endeavors have negative side effects for wildlife. I would make a big deal out of human population increases over time as that has been an agenda, I'll be it a failed one, of mine.
To put it another way. There are known side effects of using fossil fuels. Might be that by the time we humans understood some of these side effects we were dependent on the energy they provide. So, for decades we have been cleaning up the use of these fuels.
The same sort of thing will happen with "green" energy sources. Some are already known such as the mining for rare minerals. Other things will be learned as these massive projects go forward. The "green" energy and BEV crowd will have to justify these side effects.
Hello; Gleen from this what you will. Some likely will be outraged over the idea of endangered whale deaths. Some may decide having "clean" power is worth the sacrifice of other living things.
If I had to make a point it would be that lots of human endeavors have negative side effects for wildlife. I would make a big deal out of human population increases over time as that has been an agenda, I'll be it a failed one, of mine.
To put it another way. There are known side effects of using fossil fuels. Might be that by the time we humans understood some of these side effects we were dependent on the energy they provide. So, for decades we have been cleaning up the use of these fuels.
The same sort of thing will happen with "green" energy sources. Some are already known such as the mining for rare minerals. Other things will be learned as these massive projects go forward. The "green" energy and BEV crowd will have to justify these side effects.
Sponsored
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 32
- Messages
- 6,813
- Reaction score
- 3,161
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
Hello; Plastics come from a portion of crude oil. I may be wrong about the history of plastics but think while refining the useable fuels and oils there was left over product with little practical use. An example might be how early on when the were refining base oil to get kerosine there was a throw away waste product called gasoline.
Point being to get the plastics we also get the oils and fuels. At least using current oil refinery setups. I do not know if the big oil refineries can be configured to make only benign things such as plastics and no volatile fuels.
Hello; Pretty much have to figure when advocates tell us burning fossil fuels, including oil products, will doom the earth in a warming climate disaster we have come to see that as being called evil. I think that has to include you.
tripleyellowmustang
Well-Known Member
You are guilty of selective environmental outrage. The irony of it all. But, “Muh global warming.”
https://www.earthday.org/fact-sheet-plastics-in-the-ocean/
“The amount of plastic trash that flows into the oceans every year is expected to nearly triple by 2040 to 29 million metric tons.[3]”
“There is more microplastic in the ocean than there are stars in the Milky Way.[7]”
“There are five massive patches of plastic in the oceans around the world. These huge concentrations of plastic debris cover large swaths of the ocean. One patch in particular, known as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” covers 20 million square kilometers of water.[8] That’s bigger than the combined area of the United States’ five largest states![9]”
“By 2050 there will be more plastic in the oceans than there are fish (by weight).[10]”
“As of 2021, there are at least 363,762,732,605 pounds of plastic pollution in the world’s oceans.[11]”
“Over 1 million marine organisms are killed each year due to plastic pollution in the ocean. Animals who eat plastic often starve because the plastic prevents them from properly swallowing food.[13]”
Last edited:
tripleyellowmustang
Well-Known Member
You’re better than this Burkey.
Sponsored
K4fxd
Well-Known Member
No, just pointing out a double standard. I like coal power it is cheap
and it is clean due to smoke stack scrubbers and particulate filters.
Forcing people to buy EV's is evil, well forcing them to buy anything is evil.
tripleyellowmustang
Well-Known Member
Yes, this will be the next environmental emergency that will require trillions of dollars to address, and in the meantime, the Gores, Gates and Kerrys of the world will be able to enrich themselves while sounding the alarm of this newest crises, which they are already keenly aware of. It’s a never ending investment opportunity for them.
Last edited:
Burkey
Well-Known Member
They aren’t forcing them to buy EV’s. They’re INCENTIVISING it. They’re also incentivising people to buy new OR secondhand cars, whether they be EV or ICE….
The incentive might be more in favour of the EV, but theres still an incentive to buy ANY car.
It would be “force” if the government said “ You MUST buy a new car and it MUST be an EV”.
The government isn‘t even forcing people to buy a car, of any type.
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 32
- Messages
- 6,813
- Reaction score
- 3,161
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
Hello; We get it. It is much like the argument you made about the shot mandates during Covid. Your take is pretty much someone has to be holding a gun to our head for it to be force. Such is one way to look at it to be sure. An offer we cannot refuse so to speak.
That the mandates are not yet in full effect by a calendar date is technically correct. That will start in 2030 or 2035 when no new ICE can be sold by car makers. Several things are happening now of course. The incentives of course. But the cost of a BEV is so much higher than a comparable ICE that I do not see such working for other than folks already wanting one.
Another thing is the EPA and maybe other alphabet agencies are making up new rules for emissions and fuel economy which will push the car makers even further away from ICE. Then there were the strategies used to increase the cost of ICE fuel.
If the agendas work as you advocates hope there will be a tipping point where car makers may not have any other choice but to make BEV's or perhaps some hybrids. Such seems to be part of the plan. I used this example before. In the wind sailing ship days, there is a story of a ship captain who feared his crews might revolt and try to sail back home instead of pushing on inland. He burned the ships so they could not turn back.
Just a couple years ago there were many of us warning of how Covid lockdowns and other such grand plans were fraught with serious risk. We were ignored and the things went full steam ahead.
Sponsored
