Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: coug who wrote (174078)	12/28/2008 5:48:48 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

Plants love CO2. CO2 was the driving force of the plant growth during the carboniferous period (hence the name). And of course, much of the coal that we mine today was developed during this time. And methane has a relatively short lifespan and as it breaks down, it does form more CO2. And there are studies showing that plants might also be a source of methane. So, maybe we should cut down those rainforest even faster so we can reduce the methane output. (no, I'm not serious). So what about those cows? The reason the cow population is as high as it is, is to feed humans. If we reduce the cattle population a bunch of humans are going to have to become vegheads pretty quickly. I guess it goes back to reducing the human population. However, our government (and most non capitalistic governments) tend to encourage increasing the population even when the parents have no means to support them (this through welfare programs). Realistically, taxing bovine gas emissions won't reduce the number of bovines nor the gas they emit (perhaps we should shove pipes up their butts and use the cleaner burning methane to provide green(er) power). So the only way to reduce the bovine population is to reduce the number of humans. Since we can't do any wholesale killing off of the human population (I think we can agree on this one), the only real solution is to stop providing incentive for unrestrained procreation. Of course, this will have other ramifications, such as a large aging population that is counting on the government sponsored ponzi scheme known as Social Security that will now have fewer and fewer participants in the lower part of the pyramid. so back to the point, yes, methane is a greenhouse gas, but it is a short lived (but effective) greenhouse gas. The plants that the cow ate got their carbon from atmospheric CO2, the cow then emits CO2 and methane (which has a byproduct of CO2 as it breaksdown). My point....cattle...and living organisms....carbon neutral.