Sources of Greenhouse Gas And A Quick Math Lesson

February 5th, 2008
submit to reddit Share

Considering that there has been a lot of talk on this site recently about environmentalism, return on investment and big versus small impacts I thought I’d provide some background information on sources of pollution, namely greenhouse gases. It’s important to note that many sources of global warming gas sources are also large producers of other pollutants ranging from sulfur dioxide to ozone to dioxins.

One thing that is important to consider is that CO2 is not the only global warming gas of importance. It certainly has the largest impact, but this is due to the enormous volume produced, not its potency. Other gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide also have a very appreciable impact on global warming. The emissions of these gases is low by volume but considerably higher by effect, due to the higher potency in terms of global warming effect. Estimates range from 15% to 20% of total effective global warming gas emissions. Though significantly smaller than CO2, this is certainly large enough to be concerned about and reducing these emissions can make a big difference. The chart shown to the right is of the US, but it’s a pretty good representation of much of the world and helps give a general impression of the scale of the problem. Worldwide, Co2 accounts for slightly less proportionately than it does in the US. (source)

The next chart is from Wikipedia and can be found here. It factors in carbon dioxide as well as other major greenhouse gases. The data for this chart indicates that non-CO2 emissions may be responsible for as low a proportion as 72% of the effective greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Sources will vary slightly in the estimates of greenhouse gas emissions depending on methodology and data collected, but they are generally in agreement within reasonable margins.

 

Although not the entire picture when it comes to global warming, CO2 is clearly the most dominant source of the effect. It is also associated with fossil fuel use, which presents numerous other problems ranging from supply to other emissions which cause enviornmental damage and effect health. As such, reducing CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use in general tends to have benefits beyond climate change. The following excellent chart shows the relative amounts of CO2 production from manmade sources. I found it on Energy From Thorium, but this is the original source. (My one issue with the chart is that coal fires seem to be excluded. They may be factored in with other uses of coal) **correction: The chart bellow includes non-CO2 greenhouse gases from various man made sources as well as CO2**

 

Considering this data, there are a few things which immediately become apparent:
Electrical generation is clearly the elephant in the room, clearly exceding all other sources of CO2 and greenhouse gas in general. Coal-fired electricity is also disproportionately heavy in CO2 production. Coal makes up only about 60% of worldwide electrical generation but it dwarfs natural gas combustion, which produces more water than CO2 when burned due to the high hydrogen content of methane. Of course, coal is a filthy fuel in general and causes numerous other problems.

Transportation is significant in terms of CO2 production, but considerably less than electricity. It also may surprise some the relative amount passenger cars contribute, which is significant but less so than other sources. Clearly the largest sources of CO2 are fixed site sources, power generation, industrial, heating and other. This is an important aspect to keep in mind because it goes back to the importance of electricity in the equation. Moving to cleaner industrial processes will necessitate an energy source which does not produce CO2 and electricity is the logical choice, but only if it is generated cleanly. If clean electricity can be provided in bulk, it then becomes possible to move to more electric-centric processes and reduce CO2 in industrial, commercial and heating applications. For example, replacing fossil fuel burning metal furnaces with plasma arc smelting and moving toward electric heating methods. This should not be a difficult transition to make, considering that electric systems have other advantages in terms of maintenance and capability. The key is providing an economical source of clean electricity.

With only this data avaliable it becomes pretty obvious what the most successful mitigation stratigy will be. It can be broken down into five major priorities.

1. Eliminate singular large sources which are the most economical to tackle and have the highest single carbon footprint.

2. Phase out fossil fuel electric systems with the highest priority being the elimination of coal fired power plants.

3. Begin to phase out fossil fuel based industrial processes in favor of clean electric energy.

4. Move toward an electric-centric transportation model including electrified rail, public transportation, plug-in hybrids and eventually fully electric or hydrogen vehicles.

5. Only after all these have been tackled should priority shift to other sources of smaller footprint and with less apparent solutions and alternatives.

Cost Risk and Benefit:

This might not seem like rocket science but it’s something that many do not seem to get. Sources which have a high cost of mitigation, a high probability of being unsuccessful and a relatively low benefit should be the lowest priority. A good example of this would be aviation. The carbon footprint of aviation is certainly not insignificant, although it is considerably lower than numerous other sources. The benefit of eliminating aviation CO2 would be small but helpful.

However the options for doing so are rather limited:

Reduce the amount of air traffic - Unless you plan on doing so very dramatically (50% or more) this will not do much. Reducing aviation by such a dramatic amount would have enormous costs. Tens of thousands of jobs from airlines and support jobs would be lost, travel would be dramatically reduced, possibly destroying the economies of tourism-base areas. Populations located in areas not entirely served by other transportation would be hit hard. Companies defendant on fast shipments would be devastated. An increase in travel by other means could negate much of the gains.

Increase standards for effeciency - Unlikely to do much. This might shave a few percent off of an already relatively small sector, especially because most reasonable measures to improve effeciency are already being used. Since fuel is a major expense in aviation, most jet aircraft already use the highest effeciency high-bypass turbofan engines and are designed to be as light as reasonably possible. There’s very little room here for improvement. There may be some gains, but at best they would be very modest.

Use other fuels - You can’t run a full sized aircraft on batteries. They’re simply too heavy and nowhere near the energy density needed. Only small slow limited-range aircraft have been demonstrated to work with electricity. Hydrocarbon fuels, it turns out, are about the only way to provide the kind of energy needed efficiently and are very well suited to the need. Boron-based fuels had been experimented with in the past and could reduce CO2, but they tend to gunk up jet engines and they create a trail of thick toxic black smoke which has other enviornmental impacts.

About the only thing you could run an aircraft on other than hydrocarbons is hydrogen fuel. This presents a huge problem, however, as the volume needed is enormous. This would increase the weight and drag of the aircraft so much as to limit only to shorter routes for most aircraft. Long haul flights would need to devote most of the aircraft to fuel with little room left for passengers. Safety is not established and hydrogen is not an energy source but only an energy carrier, so in order for this to be clean, you still are left with the need for a massive source of energy to produce the hydrogen to begin with. It also is difficult to store, inefficient to produce and generally not very easy to transfer and use. It is likely that the lower energy density and increased drag would also reduce the speed of air travel. The aircraft shown is a concept for what a short-haul hydrogen aircraft might look like.

 

Conclusion: The cost is enormous. The idea of replacing any portion of the world’s aircraft with the thing to the right borders on the absurd. The problems which are presented are huge and the system is useless without avaliable clean energy. Aviation also cannot be reduced significantly without huge costs and possibly more problems created than solved.

The benefit of eliminating aviation Co2 is small. The benefit of reducing it by a nominal amount is tiny.

Therefore, it is not worth worrying about. At least not until all the other sources with a very favorable cost-benifit analysis have been tackled. Only then should resources be diverted to aviation. This same principal can be applied elsewhere.

And yes, environmentalists do whine about aircraft. They do so less than about cars but a hell of a lot more than about coal fires.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 5th, 2008 at 11:32 am and is filed under Bad Science, Education, Enviornment, Good Science, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



40 Responses to “Sources of Greenhouse Gas And A Quick Math Lesson”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    Good graphic, makes the point very clearly.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    Brian Says:

    But it’s not about cost or benefit. It’s about lifestyle change. It’s about telling other people what they should and should not do, no matter what the costs or benefits.

    Ultimately, it’s about feeling good about yourself for making a difference — not in any way that substantially affects what is released in the atmosphere, mind you — but by making people stay home, and that’s what’s really important. Besides, while they’re stuck there, they can check out the Greenpiece website, and perhaps donate a few dollars online.


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    Brian Says:

    Oh, and if you want to focus on reducing aircraft petroleum use, then focus on something like this:

    “The AGV (Automotrice Grande Vitesse) train will travel at up to 360km/h (224mph), powered by motors placed under each carriage, the company says.

    The absence of locomotives at either end allows it to carry more passengers.”

    In France, that’s the latest in nuclear-powered mass transportation — and it qualifies under number 4 in DrBuzz0′s list.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Fair point: A viable alternative can have a favorable cost/benefit. However wanting to replace it completely or have aircraft run on hydrogen is still a dumb idea.


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    ellindsey Says:

    It is at least theoretically possible to make nuclear-powered airplanes. Probably not a practical solution for passenger air travel though.


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    DV82XL Says:

    Nuclear-powered aircraft would be pointless even if practical. The work that was done in that area in the Fifties hoped to place aircraft on station at altitude for weeks at a time, transportation assumes regular landings.


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    drbuzz0 Says:

    The idea of nuclear aircraft was something like the idea of ballistic submarines. They’d be made huge because the stratigic value is that they would be on station for long periods of time and hard to take out because they could be at high altitude and avoid nuclear attacks to inflict retaliation.

    The idea was found to be impractical. The aircraft would have to be enormous for various reasons not just the reactor.

    If you really wanted you *could* make a small nuclear aircraft with something like a radioisotopic heat source or even a very small nuclear reactor like those tested by nasa. There really aren’t any advantages to this though. With aircraft you don’t usually need power for a real long period of time and weight is always a big concern.


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    Marshall Says:

    Brian says: But it’s not about cost or benefit. It’s about lifestyle change. It’s about telling other people what they should and should not do, no matter what the costs or benefits.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Costs? Benefits? Who cares! It’s all about telling other people what to do.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    Charles Barton Says:

    The energy sectors in which there are clear solutions are power and transportation. Power can be provided by reactors. Solar and wind have serious problems because of intermittency, because of cost, and because of siting problems. Surface transportation can be electrified, with cars and light trucks powered by by batteries and ultra-capacitors. Railroads can be electrified perhaps ultra-capacitors would be part of the program. Freight now shipped by long distance trucking can be shipped by electrified rail. Short and medium air passenger service can be replaced by high speed electric trains. Perhaps long distance air traffic can be handled by efficient aircraft. Farms machinery can be electrified, as can mining machines. Water and some space heating can be handled by solar, while electricity can handle the rest. Cows are a hazard to the human race. Those that are not kept in zoos should be slaughtered. Coal mine fires should be put out.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    mlp Says:

    Exactly the kind of data I was hoping to see! Well, ok, actually I was hoping for something with more finely-grained detail, but I’ll take what I can get. The Winters graphic is especially helpful. This is a great jumping-off point — thanks for doing the legwork.

    Agricultural soil management produces more CO2 than industrial uses of natural gas, and almost as much as heavy trucking? Wow. Wonder what’s going on there?


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    drbuzz0 Says:

            mlp said:

    Exactly the kind of data I was hoping to see! Well, ok, actually I was hoping for something with more finely-grained detail, but I’ll take what I can get. The Winters graphic is especially helpful. This is a great jumping-off point — thanks for doing the legwork.

    Agricultural soil management produces more CO2 than industrial uses of natural gas, and almost as much as heavy trucking? Wow. Wonder what’s going on there?

    You know, as I take a second look at that I think it might not be CO2 but total greenhouse gas. Apparently I was mistaken. Apologies for that. I think I might have looked at the description wrong.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    drbuzz0 Says:

            mlp said:

    Exactly the kind of data I was hoping to see! Well, ok, actually I was hoping for something with more finely-grained detail, but I’ll take what I can get. The Winters graphic is especially helpful. This is a great jumping-off point — thanks for doing the legwork.

    Agricultural soil management produces more CO2 than industrial uses of natural gas, and almost as much as heavy trucking? Wow. Wonder what’s going on there?

    I have a bunch of pages bookmarked which have more detailed data. I’ll have that up shortly. I’m actually working on a follow-up post with more data. The US Department Of Energy especially the Energy Information Administration has some very good data and lots of it.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Actually, I’d like to mention something regarding agriculture: Soil management and agricultural practices are a major issue because they can contribute to global warming signifficantly by N2O and methane emissions. Some means of mitigating this are reducing soil tilling and also various soil chemistry measures which help improve effeciency of keeping nitrogen in the fields. A lot of the methane comes from decay especially from large meat operations. This could possibly be reduced in circumstances were biproducts are stored in waste pools. These present an opportunity to capture the methane from decay.

    One thing to mention: Organic farming is very dependant on tilling. You need to till the soil a lot more when you don’t use herbicides and you don’t have as concentrated fertalizer. Organic farming also depends a lot on composting and such – increasing the overall methane emissions.

    There is some good evidence that it may have a much higher impact and less margin for improvement than conventional methods. Organic farms, if you look it up, will say they reduce global warming and usually justify this by saying they use less petrolium derived chemicals or something. The reality is that organic farming seems to be a larger source of nitrogen and methane emissions than other methods.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Jerry Says:

    You missed out on the MAJOR greenhouse gas – viz water vapor. This is by far and large the biggest greenhouse gas.

    Many human activities produce water vapor and change the local balance. For instance large scale irrigation will increase water vapor levels, especially in arid regions such as Israel and various Arab states.

    Changes in forest cover affect transpiration and return of water vapor to the atmosphere to a significant extent.

    When an aircraft flies overhead, a large part of the emissions are water vapor. Same with cars.


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    Tim Says:

    I wonder what are the major CO2 sinks and how they compare.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Please only write “it’s” when you intend to say “it is.” When you intend to say, “belongs to it,” please write “its.” This will add to the otherwise accurate impression of intelligence generated by your writings. Thank you.

    noted. I’ll try to avoid that in the future. It’s one of my tendencies. I actually know the difference I just make the mistake a lot.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Yeah water vapor is a rather difficult issue. It’s not manmade but it can be affected by human activities. It does not stay in the atmosphere nearly as long and it can act as a greenhouse gas but also to block sunlight. That certainly makes the issue a lot more complicated…


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    Corby Says:

    I thought that water vapor was more of a cooling factor then a warming factor. It does trap heat when it’s a vapor entirely but when it starts to form clouds it reflects sunlight. Clouds are technically not vapor but a condensed mist of microdroplets but it does reflect light.

    There were actually geoengineering ideas to put more water into the atmosphere to increase clouds:

    http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/fall06/bigfix.jsp


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Bob Arning Says:

    I absolutely love the graphic showing detailed breakdown of emission sources! Very helpful in thinking about where saving can be had.

    Concerning: “Other gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide also have a very appreciable impact on global warming. The emissions of these gases is low by volume but considerably higher by effect, due to the higher potency in terms of global warming effect.”

    I’m not sure just what constitutes higher potency, but one might want to consider how long these gases remain in the atmosphere once emitted. There is some data on this in:

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    mlp Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    A lot of the methane comes from decay especially from large meat operations.

    This could possibly be reduced in circumstances were biproducts are stored in waste pools. These present an opportunity to capture the methane from decay.

    A lot of that depends on your definition of “stored”, though. The hog farming industry is especially illustrative on this subject. In North Carolina, pig feces and other agricultural waste runs off into manmade lagoons, which are supposed to keep the waste in one place … except, well, they don’t. Heavy rains lead to flooding, and when lagoons flood, you’ve got pig feces, dead rotting farrows, antibiotics and all other kinds of nastiness seeping into groundwater, rivers, and eventually the ocean. (It’s an antibiotic-resistant-bacteria timebomb. Granted, zoonotic diseases are pretty rare in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll pass on antibiotic-resistant brucellosis or salmonella, thanks.) Making matters worse, in order to prevent flooding, farms sometimes spray the sludge from lagoons on nearby fields, where it goes straight into groundwater and disperses gases such as H2S.

    It’s all the result of really, really bad design, though. Polyethylene pool liners rip too easily, and it doesn’t look like large farming operations have measures in place for dealing with inevitable heavy rains. There are ways to mitigate at least some of the runoff problems, but as yet, regulations don’t require them. (It doesn’t help that the hog farming industry is a huge political contributor in North Carolina.)


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    Bob Arning Says:

            Tim said:

    I wonder what are the major CO2 sinks and how they compare.

    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/ccspstratplan2003-chap7.htm
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/carbon_cycle/intro_global.html

    HTH


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Bob Arning said:

    I’m not sure just what constitutes higher potency, but one might want to consider how long these gases remain in the atmosphere once emitted. There is some data on this in:

    That’s true. The gas methane has about 25 times the ability to trap sunlight but it tends to decay in the atmosphere in about 10-20 years. Nitrous oxides list 100-150 years. Here’s some basic info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent
    http://www.epa.gov/solar/energy-resources/calculator.html

    But lets keep something important in mind: Reducing these gases means a lot more than just global warming. Co2, for example, comes from sources which include burning of coal and fossil fuels which have numerous other nasty effects on health and the environment. Acid rain, dioxins, particulates, heavy metals, mining waste and so on. Then gases like nitrous oxide can contribute to smog and also has the effect of destroying ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. It’s a fun gas to inhale when getting a tooth pulled, but a trace in the atmosphere does no good at all.

    Therefore it’s worth considering that even without global warming as a factor attacking many of these emissions will have numerous other positive benefits.


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    Khadjair Says:

    One of the biggest problems with going to electric infrastructure is energy density. batteries, gram for gram, simply do not hold as much energy as an equivalent amount of gasoline or other hydrocarbon-based fuel, which is what makes chemical fuels so useful in trucking, naval commerce, and air transport. One of the more promising developments on this front, though I’ve seen precious little advance on the subject in the last few years, is the notion of using quantum nucleonics in its place: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3406-nuclearpowered-drone-aircraft-on-drawing-board.html

    There will be plenty of screaming and gnashing of teeth, however, as there always is with something with the “nuclear” descriptor, even though in this case it has nothing to do with fission, fusion, or other processes, and in fact acts more like a laser. (a likely-misunderstood layman’s summary of the concept: Excitation of protons in the nucleus of certain atoms allows the protons within to attain an excited state and, when stimulated, they can release this energy much the same way as electrons do in a laser. Because the excitation energies are so large and the distance travelled so small, this tends to result in emissions of high-energy photons, and thus is far more energy-dense than a storage based in, say, microwave or infrared)

    The notion of a reasonably portable source of energy at these densities and the long-term stability of some of the materials being looked at (halfnium and lanthanum have been given close scrutiny, if I recall) means they could be a reasonable replacement for chemical fuel stockpiles and emergency power generation – or even day-to-day power in areas that can’t conveniently be reached by an energy grid. If an aircraft could be powered by such a process, it’s easy to imagine ocean vessels and trains in the same method, as well as an emergency power system for hospitals and other key infrastructure in the case of grid collapse.


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    DV82XL Says:

    Quantum nucleonics is like cold fusion, it may exist but the evidence is scarce and both have a very long way to go before they are proven to exist, let alone get to market.

    We can’t depend on ether one to bail or butts outa the mess we are headed for.


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    Khadjair Says:

    I wasn’t sure the current state of the technology – I was operating based on some information I’d read a while back. I wasn’t aware it had been generally debunked. My apologies.


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Oh yeah that whole stuff about stimulating energy release from isomers. It turns out that it may or may not be possible to do that but the isomers which could be suitable are not easy to synthesize in any way. Also, even if the system could work, it’s not clear how much you actually get back from the energy put in to stimulate the activity.

    It’s interesting as a concept but I would not hold my breath. I tend to think it’s unlikely we’ll see anything useful come from that field any time soon.. if ever.


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    Robert Scarth Says:

    “Reducing aviation by such a dramatic amount would have enormous costs. Tens of thousands of jobs from airlines and support jobs would be lost…”

    You make a very common mistake in this statement. Jobs are a cost not a benefit, so lost jobs are a gain, not a loss. The belief that jobs are a benefit is so wide-spread, and deeply held that it probably needs some explanation why it’s wrong.

    When you are sacked what you are effectively being told is: The value that you generate when doing your job is less that the cost of paying you to do that job. Please stop doing it, and go and find something else to do where the value you generate exceeds the cost of paying you. Or look at it another way. If building a solar power plant creates 100 new jobs, then that’s 100 people who can’t do other productive things – like build houses, or devise cleaner fuels. Or look at it another way. In which weekend are you better off. One where you have dozens of jobs to do about the house, or one where you have nothing to do, and can spend the time pursuing your favourite hobby?

    Of course being fired sucks, and its good news for local workers if a new factory is built in the area as wages will (probably) increase, but for the reasons above, taking an overall view, jobs are a cost.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    trrll Says:

    Of course being fired sucks, and its good news for local workers if a new factory is built in the area as wages will (probably) increase, but for the reasons above, taking an overall view, jobs are a cost.

    However, in a modern society, essentially everybody has a “job,” even if it just periodically going to pick up one’s welfare or unemployment check. And some jobs generate greater negative value than that–mugger, for example. So the issue with creation of jobs is the extent to which the jobs created replace jobs with greater negative value.


    Quote Comment
  29. 29
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Robert Scarth said:

    “Reducing aviation by such a dramatic amount would have enormous costs. Tens of thousands of jobs from airlines and support jobs would be lost…”

    You make a very common mistake in this statement. Jobs are a cost not a benefit, so lost jobs are a gain, not a loss. The belief that jobs are a benefit is so wide-spread, and deeply held that it probably needs some explanation why it’s wrong.

    Of course, it’s not that simple. Having people employed doing nothing useful would not accomplish much of anything. Worker productivity and overall economic activity are important. If you consider that just shutting down half the airlines would impact employees, customers, investors and generally slash a service with a high return and useful activities then it’s worthwhile.


    Quote Comment
  30. 30
    Robert Scarth Says:

            trrll said:

    However, in a modern society, essentially everybody has a “job,” even if it just periodically going to pick up one’s welfare or unemployment check. And some jobs generate greater negative value than that–mugger, for example. So the issue with creation of jobs is the extent to which the jobs created replace jobs with greater negative value.

    Pensioners don’t have a job and neither does anyone who otherwise lives off their savings (perhaps pursuing an eccentric hobby, like running for president).

            drbuzz0 said:

    If you consider that just shutting down half the airlines would impact employees, customers, investors and generally slash a service with a high return and useful activities then it’s worthwhile.

    I don’t understand what you’re saying here, or what your point is. Are you saying that it is worthwhile “shutting down half the airlines” or that it isn’t? I’m also not sure how what you said relates to what I said. Do you think jobs are a cost or a benefit?


    Quote Comment
  31. 31
    Joffan Says:

    Talking of jobs, I never understood the enthusiasm of some wind and solar proponents for saying that their favorite projects would create many jobs (usually, in the discussions I join, X times more jobs than nuclear power). It sounds like a downside to me. What they’re saying, or at least what I’m hearing, is that their preferred power production mode is inefficient and has high operating costs, taking people away from other innovation and value they could be creating elsewhere.

    So I tend to agree with Robert that the jobs lost from (proposed) reduced aviation, while they are a tactical consideration, are not really the key point. They do speak to an underlying point, that of discarding investment in established value-adding activities. Worth thinking too about the impact of showing regulatory/legislative bad faith across a range of other commercial activites. For example, if the airlines get squeezed, will telecoms think twice about new investments, adding in higher risk to their decisions?

    I think the more important impact of reducing aviation is in the opportunities lost: for commerce, for international connections and for personal fulfilment. Drbuzz0 covers these issues in the rest of the article’s paragraph on the reduced-aviation possibility.


    Quote Comment
  32. 32
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Exactly: We could “Create millions of jobs” by employing people to turn handcranked generators. The question is what that actually does in terms of return and worker productivity. Jobs are great when they’re people doing something useful with a return equal to what you have to spend on payroll (or greater for that matter).


    Quote Comment
  33. 33
    Brian Says:

    Yep, DrBuzz0. And let’s not forget the possibility of using child labor. Now, I suppose that works in the third-world, where children are more plentiful than opportunities, but we need real solutions, not toys.


    Quote Comment
  34. 34
    Melanie K Says:

    Hi, just happened by. Love that yahoo, very fine site. Take care.


    Quote Comment
  35. 35
    John Says:

    i think we should pass more strict laws against Greenhouse Gases. it is good to know that at least there is a reduction in Chloro Fluoro Carbon use today but the real problem today is still CO2.


    Quote Comment
  36. 36
    acnegirlcandy Says:

    as much as possible, we should minimize the production of Greenhouse Gases. Global warming and Climate change is pretty much getting stronger these days.


    Quote Comment
  37. 37
    quick few dollars Says:

    Greenhouse gas emissions are recognized to be immediately correlated to the perceived heightened warming of the earth’s oceans and around-surface air. But how does recycling aid in cutting back again on greenhouse gas emissions?


    Quote Comment
  38. 38
    Depleted Cranium » Blog Archive » Greenpeace Is Wrong on Aviation and Stupid Too! Says:

    [...] relatively small potatoes, and that the effort would really be much better spent elsewhere. This has been discussed before, but there really isn’t any way of dramatically cutting aviatio…, because aircraft, for all practical purposes, are limited to hydrocarbon fuels in order to achieve [...]


    Quote Comment
  39. 39
    Www.RebateFun.com Says:

    It ωi&X6C;&X6c; help ѕlοw infla&X6d;mation,
    swelli&X6e;g and minimizes ρain after a&X6e; аutоmоbile аcсiԁent has
    oсcurred. Thіs clear ice not only looκs transpаrent, but alѕo has а peгfect, clean
    taste that wonderful&X6C;y cools a drink down without changing the drinκ’s
    flavor. Τhis will guarantee you get the clearеst most
    ρerfect diamοnd shapeԁ ice cube pο&X73;ѕible.


    Quote Comment
  40. 40
    Grass farmer Says:

    Wonder if you alll understand that grazing herbivores using holistic management puts a large amount of Carbon dioxide back into the ground locking it there and at the same time it negates any methane produced because the soil biology feeds on it to. And it builds soil biology and reverses the degedation from industrial conventional farming And adding cover crops into the mix just accellerates the soil building.


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string QhtfVc to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam