- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
. . . who deplore the abject failure of the English education system?
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,304
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
You're spouting that Facebook myth again.
So much C02 is good, way too much C02 is bad.
At least we solved the acid rain problem (if it was ever a problem in the first place).When you breath in too much CO2
Fred Hoyle made an interesting comment regarding the heat trapping effects of CO2 back in the 1970's
The frequencies of IR that are trapped are trapped almost completely by only very small amounts of CO2.
More CO2 =/= More trapping. (Well, not until we are talking many orders of magnitude# more like back in the Archean where the Atmosphere was very different to what it is today and the seas were at around 70C)
By analogy, a thin layer of cling film can make a very effective polytunnel. Using a sheet of polythene that is twice as thick will not make the polytunnel twice as hot...
# Much more than orders of magnitude really, The Archean atmosphere was rather more like Venuses. Known carbonate rocks contain several "Atmosphers" worth of trapped CO2. The Oxygen locked up in Iron oxide deposits represent several "Atmospheres" more. As Hoyle pointed out. Somewhere in the earths crust there must be very large amounts of fossilised carbon of which Coal/Oil and Gas can only represent an almost microscopic proportion...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,279
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
I like the fact everyone is arguing over something no one really has a clue about. Climate change in hundreds of years time will just end up being the new version of religion. Overpopulation will kill this planet long before climate change has anything to do with it.
I have no idea what is bookface. I was talking about the myth c02 is bad for the atmos.
Do you have these great sources of information on why CO2 is good for the atmosphere then? Ideally in the context of the 21st century, as that's where we are.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,381
- Location
- ST4
You live in the world, use the internet yet you don't know what Facebook is (despite knowing to call it 'bookface' for comedic effect)? Yeah, way too obvious. I'm out.
True.
People, regardless how frugal they may try to live, will always cause harm to the planet.
When you breath in too much CO2
"The world is on fire" "Climate Emergency" **** off Greta, come back when you have the balls to debate someone real rather than circle jerk with libertards
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
nvm.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better. Also I hate the way certain things have become the be all and end all over things like innovative solutions for instance all the focus is now on electric cars because that is what the activists have decided is best and far too little time is spent on things like revolutionary changes to increase fuel efficiency and new ways to reduce pollutants in ICEs, etc. trying to go all out in banning certain types of packaging when the replacements have environmental concerns of their own versus clever ways to being able to recycle or reuse packaging, etc. for instance some companies have started making jiffy bags where once opened and/or once beyond a state of re-using as a jiffy bag you can quickly disassemble them for easy recycling of parts you'd normally not be able to due to the construction and other parts can be repurposed once disassembled for other uses such as part of one layer can be removed, refolded, stuck and used as a normal envelope rather than disposed of as normally would have been the case.
Don't let the door hit you in the butt
And that is the most sound-minded comment I have read so far. But the reality is we are told to buy more, spend more, waste more. It is not a financially viable option to promote frugalness for the multinational corporations that provide us with energy or consumables.
Every bodies jobs for a start rely on everyone buying stuff.
Overpopulation is the problem. If you have to much of anything it causes problems, in this case it's people.
Its like how we give aid to poor parts of Africa because they cant support themselves. But then they all have 10 kids, so the problem never goes away.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,279
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
One of my biggest bugbears is those help Africa adverts. I am all for helping the poor and needy but having several kids without thinking of the complications and being unable to support yourself is where natural selection should just take its course.
It is a debt-based system if people stop buying crap they don't need with cash they don't have the system literally will crumble. Buy buy buy!
A small example is supermarkets; if you only bought what you needed and carried it home in your own bag the supermarket makes less money. If they provide you with unlimited bags that cost them 0.01p each (which you really pay for via increased food prices) but you fill your trolley with crap you don't need knowing the bags are unlimited. For decades they have known the plastic bag along with all the packaging the food you purchased comes in isn't recyclable and will either be burned at the tip or put into landfill and can take between 10-1000yrs to decompose depending.
Are they the bad guys or are you?
You didn't make them, you didn't offer them limitless for free, you didn't provide them to the world knowing they were nonrecyclable and will inevitably cause severe harm to the environment. You did not benefit financially from them you simply gained convenience at the expense of your bank account by spending more knowing the bags were free and it would not be a struggle to get your crap home. But you get the blame for destroying the environment with plastic pollution. Now you must pay 10p per bag. What happens to the bag when it rips?
You can apply that formula to almost every industry.
A small example is supermarkets; if you only bought what you needed and carried it home in your own bag the supermarket makes less money. If they provide you with unlimited bags that cost them 0.01p each (which you really pay for via increased food prices) but you fill your trolley with crap you don't need knowing the bags are unlimited. For decades they have known the plastic bag along with all the packaging the food you purchased comes in isn't recyclable and will either be burned at the tip or put into landfill and can take between 10-1000yrs to decompose depending.
Are they the bad guys or are you?
You didn't make them, you didn't offer them limitless for free, you didn't provide them to the world knowing they were nonrecyclable and will inevitably cause severe harm to the environment. You did not benefit financially from them you simply gained convenience at the expense of your bank account by spending more knowing the bags were free and it would not be a struggle to get your crap home. But you get the blame for destroying the environment with plastic pollution. Now you must pay 10p per bag. What happens to the bag when it rips?
You can apply that formula to almost every industry.