Why then do we act as if we can pump it into the atmosphere almost at will, with no consequences?
Would you drive a car with no brakes?
I do not think anyone should drive a car with no brakes...... We can ACT any way we want ,,, But there Will be consequences,,,, People should really think about visiting some of Earths' Glaciers this year for their vacations...,,, Take Lots of pictures!!....{ Make Sure your brakes are working first}.....
Would you drive a car with no brakes?
Yes, everyone should fly and drive to see the glaciers. That plan will decrease the level of CO2 you are so worried about?
Report Abuse
We should definitely breathe less.
Those of us who are concerned about it - don't do it. Those who are concerned about the rat race - don't think it will effect them - let someone else worry about it. Making $ is more important to them. They are ego-centric.
I think it is not that too many people do not realize what they are doing is bad. The problem persists mainly because almost everybody wants the other guys to stop doing it first!
I know some folks who drive %26quot;fixies%26quot; bicycles with no brakes and one gear. They use the power of their legs on the pedals to slow down.
But they're only carrying themselves! OK analogy over.
I think there is a lot more at stake for our world. Micheal Pollan, NYT Columnist calls the denial and wanton pumping the %26quot;cheap energy%26quot; mindset. Some of us have lost the ability to make an abstract connection between our little contribution to a big problem, because we have specialized so much in our society.
All we're expected to do is go to work, do one thing and vote. Other people will grow the food, provide the fuel, etc.
Cheap energy has made this possible... but it isn't very cheap anymore is it? Not when we consider the toll it's taking on our %26quot;living room%26quot; and of course the economics that are slowly waking up %26quot;the giant.%26quot;
thank god this is a free country because ive driven many cars with no brakes to get them to the shop or wherever i was fixing them..however i would never tell u that u cant drive it but i would never tell u to drive it either...use common sense like ...trees use co2....cali needs power but they think windmills will hurt birds...they seem to fly on rails right thru them i guess..or nuclear power..nope thats not good enuff either...o well im out of ideas
NEVER!!!!!!
Take a few minutes to learn about Vilfredo Pareto. You can find him on Wikipedia. His ideas led to use of the %26quot;Pareto Chart%26quot; as a standard in process improvement for industry. What you will learn is that improvement of something is best performed by identifying the top 10 contributors and taking action to correct the top 3. Then you repeat the identification step and see if you need to go after the new top 3. To attack CO2 without first identifying it as being in the top 3 is an example of extreme waste. Those resources (time and money) could have been used to do something with a real impact rather than just knee-jerk reacting to very incomplete data. I only care about increased CO2 if you can prove it is in the top 3. Since you can't even prove it is in the top 10,000 things that change global temperature I am not ready to jump to your cause. A car with no breaks is a perfect description of the global warming politics that has been pushed down every ones throat. So far as any human has proven, we can pump CO2 into the atmosphere with little or no consequences.
Wake up ,u have been scammed on GW. CO2 is not the problem but how nature recycles CO2. They never say anything about the fact that Plants are recycling the CO2 into O2. It is also the reason that u are paying so much for gasoline. U did it to yourself . Look at the oil Co. making billions of dollars on our backs. Help them rob the poor even more.
It's not the longevity of this selective absorber that makes it imposing. Most proponents do not relate to chemistry very well. By nominal standards it's a short lived gas, but the crystalline properties are omnidirectional. It falls into the realm of a gray area in chemistry. That is when a compound is formed with H2O a perfect reversible equilibrium is reached. The problem becomes the isolation of the product. This constitutes that lack of understanding of the down draw mechanics of the ocean. There are other gases that have a greater WP because of the molecular size and the interactions to other gases. Some are man made others aren't.
co2 is just plant food. It is not %26quot;persistent%26quot; as it is consumed by trees.
Because there really are few consequences, and most of them are beneficial. Plants grow better, less death from cold, more prosperity, longer growing season, etc.
Stop with the hyper sensitive and ridiculous whining.
There are always some people who will follow Bush's reckless and selfish attitudes towards the general public. These people are so self centered that they would go to any lengths to disagree with logic even so far as to go to war but at your expense. If you tell them the smog hovering over our cities are killing some of the people who have lung trouble they will call it a hoax and will even hinder any improvements to remedy the problem.
Brakes merely provide acceleration along the -x axis of one or more objects with respect to another object or objects. That capability is not unique to brakes. Therefore I'd be perfectly willing to drive a car with no brakes provided it were equipped with any suitable means for providing a similar effect. For example, hybrid cars utilize a regenerative drivetrain to provide such effect instead of brakes of the traditionally entirely lossy variety, yet hybrid car buyers do not irrationally fear that they are buying a vehicle without %26quot;brakes.%26quot;
