Exhaust emissions

[OwdChina]

Blimey if poluiton is caused by carbon monoxide squared we really are in trouble.

 

Please write CO₂ 10 times

LOL..........I see what you did there.

For people who don't know:

CO =carbon monoxide

CO² =carbon dioxide

[martc]

LOL..........I see what you did there.

For people who don't know:

CO =carbon monoxide

CO² =carbon dioxide

 

Ho ho -  I see what you've done there...

 

(just to put a halt to further confusion carbon dioxide = CO₂)

[DS20]

Blimey if poluiton is caused by carbon monoxide squared we really are in trouble.

 

Please write CO₂ 10 times

 

 

 

Ahem, yes, you're quite right 

 

Post correctificated.  

 

 

Having lived within half a mile of a steelworks emitting shedloads of gaseous emissions, I'm thankful that it was chucking out lots of CO₂ (from burning ALL THE COKE) rather than the same amount of CO.  The whole town'd have been dead.  

[forddeliveryboy]

 

Deforestation accounts for 10% - 20% of global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions (depending on deforestation rates).  Much of this deforestation is undertaken to rear livestock and grow palm oil, used in processed food.  

The rearing of livestock accounts for 10% of global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, but over 35% of global anthropogenic methane emissions - and methane is several times more effective than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.  

 

So, vast quantities of deforestation occur, and ~25% of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions come about because we want to nomnomnom burgers and ready-meals.  Perhaps it's time to tax certain foodstuffs rather more highly than we do at present.  

 

 

And just a note on scientific consensus: in the 1970s, the overwhelming opinion of climate scientists agreed that we were sliding into an ice age; and, at about the same point, a majority of geographers and geologists thought that plate tectonics was a load of nonsense, preferring to hypothesise a vanished land-bridge spanning the South Pacific that, many millions of years ago, had permitted some sharing of plants and animals between South America and Australasia.  That was what scientific consensus looked like, and we now think that consensus to be wrong, on both counts.  Our knowledge is nowhere near perfect, and in fifty years' time, today's scientific consensus could well look as loopy as that of the 1960s and 1970s.  

 

 

This perfectly highlights the crazy situation we've allowed ourselves to get into. Scientists have increasingly gone down narrow blind-ended tunnels, becoming more and more specialised so that, even if they are aware of the bigger picture, they have little chance of having any meaningful say on it. I've a feeling this suits governments like our own, very well.

 

My old MoT man would have banned the nano-particle-emitting modern diesel engine back in the early 2000s had he the chance - "it'll take 20 years, millions of pounds of our taxes and a conference-full of scientists though, by which time it'll be superceded anyway", he said, then added something to the effect that all diesel cars were a bit pointless for most people.

[OwdChina]

Ho ho -  I see what you've done there...

 

(just to put a halt to further confusion carbon dioxide = CO₂)

Ah ......Yes, you are correct. Force of habit. Sorry.