blike Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 Should the government impose mandatory limits on greenhouse gases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted August 8, 2002 Share Posted August 8, 2002 :toilet: It would cripple our already vulnerable economy. Maybe something that could be phased in might work. Bad management and greed got us in this situation. There used to be a very efficient electric train system throughout Orange County and Los Angeles, Ca. but big auto industry and tire industries lobbied and had the whole system scrapped and replaced with buses. It was a big scandal but it still happened. This was back in the fifties. Big money is hard to fight.:flame: Juat aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Who cares! We'll all be dead, or really old so we won't care anyway, when there are major problems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 You do know about the ozone layer, and the Antarctic shelf, right? Oh, and the droughts and floods. Let's not forget those. They're good indicators of things to come, and how quickly disasters can crop up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 here here sayo we SHOULD impose restrictions, maybe not for tomorrow, or lata this week, but we will deeply regret it in 50 or 100 years. you say now its a limitation on our earth, but one day because of it, there will be no habitable earth, what will you say then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 If the very noticeable shift in weather patterns in Britain over the past 10 years (I mean Britain, come on. There's obviously something deeply wrong here) is anything to go by, the whole system is changing already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badchad Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I agree with you Sayo, although opponents of restrictions will point to data that suggest otherwise (which doesn't necessarily mean it's correct). Isn't it possible though that our weather patterns follow a humungous cycle that can't yet comprehend? For instance the day to day weather is constantly changing (we have an unseasonably warm day in december, a cold day in June, etc.) What if the weather patterns move in such a large cycle that we're having an "unseasonably warm century" or a "cold decade" etc....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Isn't it possible though that our weather patterns follow a humungous cycle that can't yet comprehend? Yes, that's entirely possible. But given that the outcome is going to be "carry on as normal" or "planet is shafted", and we don't know which, you'd think civilisation would want to play it a bit safer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 actualy, if I`m not mistaken, either in Australia or New Zealand, they have a "tax" on methane emmisions from cattle (farts). I`m not quite sure how it works, but it`s quite true here, I found this: http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~wolfman/Essays/Cow.html see, I WAS being serious afterall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveyboy Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 actualy' date=' if I`m not mistaken, either in Australia or New Zealand, they have a "tax" on methane emmisions from cattle (farts).I`m not quite sure how it works, but it`s quite true here, I found this: http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~wolfman/Essays/Cow.html see, I WAS being serious afterall How much methane does a cow produce then. Does it really add to a greenhouse effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I voted yes. I think we should have strict regulation on all forms of pollution and environmental issues. Not the kind that will completely cripple business, but well thought out plans that will significantly lower pollution. There are plenty of measures that would cost a mere pittance to big business and cause a significant decrease in pollution. The U.S. would already have these laws if big business didn't have so much influence on the government. America's refusal to make adequate laws about environmental issues has also influenced the rest of the world that is not as willing to make more laws that would put them economically behind the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 How much methane does a cow produce then. Does it really add to a greenhouse effect. LOL, I`ve no idea in all honesty, I`ve never been that close to measure a bovine fart but yes, Methane is a serious greenhouse gas, and of course it`s the accumulation of these little cow indiscretions over several heads of cattle over many farms that creates the problem, or at least part of the problem. I`m fairly sure that Sheep are taxed in a similar way too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoorNumber1 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 How much gas does a farting cow produce? Enough. We have an awful lot of cows in this world, ya know. A good question would also be "how much methane gas does a city full of farting humans produce?" I suggest we put a fart tax on people who sit around on their couches eating potato chips and contributing to global warming. 5 cents for every burst of methane laden wind, eh? On a slightly more serious note, I just read an article a few days ago about huge greenhouse gas emissions coming from a Brazilian dam because they basically flooded an entire forest that is now rotting underwater. Kind of sucks, when you think about it. Our stupidity is really catching up to us. Or, more truthfully, other people's stupidity is starting to affect all of us around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveyboy Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 LOL' date=' I`ve no idea in all honesty, I`ve never been that close to measure a bovine fart but yes, Methane is a serious greenhouse gas, and of course it`s the accumulation of these little cow indiscretions over several heads of cattle over many farms that creates the problem, or at least part of the problem. I`m fairly sure that Sheep are taxed in a similar way too.[/quote'] We have all been looking in the wrong place. Its not factories, cars etc that are causing global warming, its mass farming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlackGirl Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 If some people had more of a problem with methane than others would their tax be higher? - Who regulates a tax like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I voted no, because some plants/animals naturally emit greenhouse gasses. Natural disasters also give off a lot of gas. Mt. St. Helens probably put out more greenhouse gasses than the entire midwest USA has this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 but does that mean we stop being responsible for our output? that is not an excuse at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 How much methane does a cow produce then. Does it really add to a greenhouse effect. Well, nature contributes about 95% of the greenhouse effect, and cow and sheep farts are a big part of it. There's even a vaccine to help stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 I voted no, because some plants/animals naturally emit greenhouse gasses. Natural disasters also give off a lot of gas. Mt. St. Helens probably put out more greenhouse gasses than the entire midwest USA has this year. As excuses go, that one is pretty retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now