I will soon own Woody Harrelson.
Well, Al Gore's carbon credits are a noble ideal, but I say "Too little, too late!" Using The Conservation Fund's carbon zero calculator , his jaunt to LA from Nashville (round trip of 3,580 miles) for the Oscars would result in 1.61 tons of CO2 emissions - assuming that's where he left from. To offset that, the Conservation Fund would need only to plant one tree, but it would take 70 years to "sequester" that amount of CO2. Hell, everything I entered takes 70 years. According to Gore, by that time we'll all be running from Dennis Hopper and the Smokers as we sail over Canada fighting for dead, bloated polar bears. And if they go, no more Icees. You know, with credit cards - and carbon credits - you got to pay up some time . The longer you defer the more you have to pay. I didn't think Mr. Gore thought we had 70 years, so I came up with a plan that attacks multiple sources immediately - The Methane Credit.
According to, ahem, EarthSave, methane emissions cause nearly half of the planet's human-induced warming and the major source of this is animal agriculture with 85% of that attributed to the digestive processes of livestock. Clearly something needs to be done and not surprisingly they suggest vegetarianism.
Not to worry. They'll be no veggies in this plan - at least not the way they would want. There are two distinct areas that need to be targeted: methane and carbon sinks. The veggies lose in both according to my plan.
Step 1: Switch all cattle-for-consumption to a high-grain diet. The Journal of Animal Science reports that pasture-grazed (grass fed) cattle produced an amount of CH4 (methane) 4 times greater than that of grain-fed cattle. What is the result? Collapse of the New Zealand beef industry and much of the Aussie's with an instant removal of millions of these eco-gasbags. And, better tasting beef for all of us.
Step 2: Issue methane credits to those who heed their environmental responsibility by eliminating (i.e., eating) these polluters (tasty corn-fed cattle). This forces environmental shirkers - the vegans - to buy credits from us who love the earth if they want to continue their destructive lifestyle. The results of this?
- A serious decline in the number of bovine farting going on.
- Beef prices gradually rising to luxury status with fewer being able to afford it.
- I would not be one of those however. I figure that with Bread, a couple of buddies from Lubbock and myself, in one or two months we would have accumulated enough credits to 1) buy our own herd 2) stock away enough cash for the rest of our lives and 3) indenture several hundred vegans.
- Said vegans would then be put to work clearing all hemp fields and replace them with forests of native trees, because it's the trees and not shrubbery that does most of the work of cleaning our air. A forest is more bio-diverse and beneficial than a field of cabbage. There would even be an increase of non-ruminant (not methane-spewing) critters to eat such as birds and squirrels. Never had squirrel, but I don't care because I have my herd.
So there. Instant (well,almost) and long-term solutions to global warming and more PowerPoint movies. Don't I win something?
7 comments:
Gore's annual electric bill would require he plant 116 trees annually.
Now, that means to make all of the USA carbon neutral we'd need to plant about 10 trees a person...hmmm, 300 million people times 10 trees means planting 3 billion trees annually?
To keep the carbon sequestered, you could cut down the trees and use them in homes or furniture...
Not saying offsets don't have a place, but obviously nuclear power is a better choice. Perhaps we could fund those through offsets?
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/02/branson_gore_launch_prize_to_c.php
There's your prize, John.
300 tress per acre (Conservation Fund's current rate...) See also:
http://www.hybridpoplars.com/space.htm
3 billion trees per year mean roughly 40,000 sq. km per year has to be planted. That's a Taiwan plus 5,000 sq. km every year. Just for US electrical consumption to be carbon neutral.
WARNING: COULD BE MATH/ASSUMPTION ERRORS HERE.
the beef industry is responsible for massive amounts of deforestation, especially in poorer central and south american countries, clearing away irreplaceable rain forest in favour of grazing pasture for farting cattle... all so the west can continue to feast on 99 cent cheeseburgers... hmmm? the lungs of the planet vs. cheap beef... what to choose?
Rye,
Americans consume American beef not Brazilian beef. Last I saw, there were not any forests in the plains where the cows are raised in the USA.
And of course, temperate forests do not help reduce global warming...in fact at more northern climes they INCREASE it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051206162547.htm
The solution is to denude Canada of all trees to save the planet.
Rye,
I have just given you a concrete action you can take to help save us all. Have your dad and brother cut down every tree on your lands.
Please do not use a chainsaw to do it though as they also emit CO2. A handsaw is best.
;)
Red A is right, here. The U.S. imports a minuscule amount of beef from South America. I don't know why they are whacking the large tracks of rainforest, but McD's has nothing to do with it.
jesus where the hell do you guys come up with this crap, Frenchie
Post a Comment