Things WE can do to reduce CO2 emissions

[Marion Morrison]

Know what processes CO2 at a rate of 400% more than trees or the highest absorber they list? Grass.

The glerbul wermin people never tell you that.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I think I'm gonna go burn some trees I cut down, will that help?

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[Crick]

Eat less (or no) meat.

 

[jc456]

No evidence huh? You think by ignoring the fact that you can't provide any you will make that fact disappear?

No, we just know that you are unable or unwilling to see the evidence provided so we no longer bother with you.

what evidence is that exactly?

 

[jc456]

Eat less (or no) meat.

so you want people to change their lives? really? is that it? how's that working in france?

 

[jc456]

Wrong......posted US is on track with its Paris reductions without govt interference...same way we hit our Kyoto goals.

You believe Congress and the Presidency have been pushing for CO2 reductions for the last two years?

Says without govt interference doesn't it.....and yet emissions are down...….have a sad now

Just means that most businesses are currently managed by people more intelligent than the president.

so you believe the president is watching over businesses and CO2? why the fk do we need all of those other people then to be in charge? hmmmm. US still the lowest output country. what happened to the rest of the world after the Paris Accord?

 

[jc456]

No evidence huh? You think by ignoring the fact that you can't provide any you will make that fact disappear?

No, we just know that you are unable or unwilling to see the evidence provided so we no longer bother with you.

There was none..but do feel free to point out any post, on any thread where you think there was...

I predict you won't point out squat because there is nothing to point out.

I have posted many for you in the past, I will not waste time on you again. Have a nice day.

What do you know...not a single post pointed out....that's because there are none.

How predictable are you?

I can always state with perfect confidence that there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports AGW over natural variability....I can say it in perfect confidence that no one will post jack to contradict the statement because there is nothing...I can predict that no one will point out any post where any such evidence was posted because there were none...

If any such evidence had been posted, I would not be able to escape it...it would be in every thread since I am in practically every thread pointing out that there is no observed, measured evidence to support the warmest claims.

So again, I predict that you won't be pointing out any post whatsoever...prove how predictable you are....mewl a bit for me while you are at it.

You have been dismissed.

Go away quickly now little man.

says the punk that just got handed his ass. when one like you has nothing!!!

 

[Marion Morrison]

Eat less (or no) meat.

So killing CO2-absorbing plants to eat them lessens CO2? I think not!

Killing a bear and eating it does.

 

[Crick]

Know what processes CO2 at a rate of 400% more than trees or the highest absorber they list? Grass.

The glerbul wermin people never tell you that.

Have a link for that? Cause I found:

"Plants use carbon dioxide (CO2) during photosynthesis to make glucose. It takes six molecules of CO2 to make every molecule of glucose, and this basic building block is then used for energy and to make the structure of the plant itself. This biochemical reaction is the same for all plants, but the faster a plant grows, the more carbon dioxide it will use up per second. By that measure, bamboo might be the best at sucking up CO2. However, fast-growing plants tend not to live long and when a plant dies, all the carbon in the plant is broken down by insects, fungi and microbes and released as CO2 again.

So the plants that are considered the most adept at locking away carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are the longest-living ones, with the most mass – hardwood trees. It’s all temporary though. Eventually every plant returns all the carbon dioxide it uses back to the atmosphere."
Are some plants better than others at sucking up carbon dioxide?

and

"All Plants Absorb Carbon Dioxide, but Trees Absorb the Most
While all living plant matter absorbs CO2 as part of photosynthesis, trees process significantly more than smaller plants due to their large size and extensive root structures. Trees, as kings of the plant world, have much more “woody biomass” to store CO2 than smaller plants. As a result, trees are considered nature’s most efficient “carbon sinks.” It is this characteristic which makes planting trees a form of climate change mitigation.


According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), tree species that grow quickly and live long are ideal carbon sinks. Unfortunately, these two attributes are usually mutually exclusive. Given the choice, foresters interested in maximizing the absorption and storage of CO2 (known as “carbon sequestration”) usually favor younger trees that grow more quickly than their older cohorts. However, slower growing trees can store much more carbon over their significantly longer lives."
Which Trees Best Offset the Effects of Global Warming?

What have you got? Where did your 400% figure come from?

 

[Wyatt earp]

TRUMP: "I don't believe it," he said Monday. Then on Tuesday he told The Washington Post: "One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence, but we're not necessarily such believers."

Dunning Kurger's finest hour.......?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, Trump press secretary: The report is "not based on facts. ... it's not data driven."

Along with his manipulative mouthpiece

AP FACT CHECK: 11 Trump climate goofs and 1 correct claim

These are the same folks insinuating 'State TV' be the fix for all fake news....

Meanwhile in the REAL world......

~S~

And they produce just 3% energy..




Ridiculous no?

 

[Crepitus]

No evidence huh? You think by ignoring the fact that you can't provide any you will make that fact disappear?

No, we just know that you are unable or unwilling to see the evidence provided so we no longer bother with you.

what evidence is that exactly?

See what I mean?

 

[jc456]

No evidence huh? You think by ignoring the fact that you can't provide any you will make that fact disappear?

No, we just know that you are unable or unwilling to see the evidence provided so we no longer bother with you.

what evidence is that exactly?

See what I mean?

naw, see what I mean!!!

 

[danielpalos]

Better industrial waste management capability.