Green myths (part 3)

I bet you still try to wrap your head around the first 2 parts of the green myths. I also hope that you did your research and found sources about the things I talk about here. I'd love to put them up here but I want the people to learn to research and not be biased to what I say and the links I will provide.

I bet you 'd research those...

 

Next time someone tells you that we need to start growing more trees (more than the ones we already have??) tell him this: Forests in the tropical belt around the equator benefit the planet. They absorb CO2­, in a process called carbon sequestering, which helps lower temperatures. It's the forests outside of the tropics that may have little or no impact on climate change. Wait what? Since school everyone told you how forests help... They lied?

The farther away from the equator forests are, the more likely they are to trap heat in their dense canopies, raising temperatures. This is known as the albedo effect. In a study conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Carnegie Institution and Université Montpellier II, scientists found that forests in mid-to-high latitudes could increase temperatures by up to 10 degrees F (5.5 degrees C) in the next 100 years than if those forests were not there. I bet you hate me already...

So since we are treehugging let's go to our very favorite forest of myths! Yes the Amazon! Amazon forests are disappearing right? This is what everyone says... Actually only a 12.5% of the original Forest is deforested. And 1/3rd to 1/2nd o that is fallow or regenerating... Meaning that we are left with a whooping 94%. Now I don't know about you but still this isn't how terrible they present it on TV eco news.

Forest acreage is actually increasing. In 1920 U.S. forest covered 732 million acres and today it covers 737 million acres. In Europe forests expanded from 361 million acres in 1950 to 482 million in 1990.

Also they say that Amazon forests are the lungs of the earth. Not true. Only the fast growing young trees that take up CO2 and releasing oxygen. When a tree falls the chemical reaction is: Wood + oxygen = CO2. And this is a major problem with the forests there.I don't say we should go and make em paper but still things aren't as many want them to appear.

Not that Amazon dummy...

Also everyone talks about CO2 being a pollutant and the enemy of all humanity... This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included  CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. 

Now don't tell me that we should make more factories to increase it. As it is now, it's OK I assume. Either way it is less than 3% of the total atmosphere "cocktail".

Now as for the ozone layer and how we destroy it... On October 1, 1999, CNN reported that "the latest NASA images of the ozone layer shows that a hole in the atmospheric layer that protects Earth from the sun's harmful radiation is shrinking. This year's ozone hole is smaller than last year's, (but) scientists say it will be a while before the hole disappears completely -- 2060 at the earliest." Really? I thought every chicken little said that it will eventually grow till we are all under water and the sun's radiation will kill us all...

Another recent report either ignored or rejected out of hand by environmental activists came from Beijing in June of this year. A professor of geological sciences named Yang Xuexiang wrote in the May Chinese edition of the Scientific American magazine that solar wind is the root cause of the ozone hole, rather than the use of freon.

Yang makes the argument that solar wind has made the atmosphere at the South Pole thinner, and that the eruption of volcanoes in the southern hemisphere has released large amounts harmful gas, contributing to the hole. Another factor is that the solar high-energy particle currents consume ozone both at the South Pole and the North Pole when they enter the earth's atmosphere.

Yang makes the point that the northern hemisphere is where the use of freon is most prevalent and so if the freon theory is correct, the ozone hole should have appeared above the North Pole instead of the South Pole.

So my final point to close these green myths is that use your brain, make research and of course don't through your trash all over the place. We already have a huge problem in space not just earth. Imagine we take so much space with our trash... where... in friggin space! Finally question why there is such a huge movement called green. It is green for another reason than you think:

As much as I believe in the good in people, I doubt corporations do anything without earning a buck or two or millions... Food for thought...

Green myths (part 1)

You probably know about how we are in the verge of ruining this beautiful planet, how our cars are destroying the air of the earth and contribute to global warming or how recycling is vital for the environment so those poor trees won't be cut down and this way we will save the Amazon that in a few years won't exist anymore and many many more "facts" like these...

I have some great news for you my loyal reader... Let me shower you with some truths and then feel free to search the interwebz to see if I tell the truth and who lies to you all this time. Planet Earth is safe and humans are not so dumb as to destroy it. Some plastic bottles won't make a difference and as George Carlin said, plastic might explain the old philosophical question, "why we are here?" Planet Earth might needed plastic so that's why it made us.

As for all those people running around complaining about how we destroy our planet, you chicken little can stop. We know you complain not because you wanna save the planet but so you won't be inconvenienced in the future. The planet has been here for millions of years and you think we are a threat? Again I quote George Carlin and say to ask those people that are frozen into time in Pompeii if they feel like a threat to the planet or the people that build their houses near rivers or the sea and when they water starts rising above the house, ask them again if they feel like a threat to the planet on their rooftop.

So let's see some common green myths that terrorize you:

Hybrid cars are as friendly to the environment as I am Batman...

Every little green man, from celebrities to environmentalists drive hybrids because they are environmentally friendly right? Let's see some facts:

You will use less fuel choosing an efficient diesel model, which will have correspondingly less emissions, than if you have a hybrid model, which will maybe use a bit more fuel than you expect. A Toyota Prius, for example, (that is the only car that aerodynamically if you open the door while you drive it might tip over by the way) will have zero emissions in the city but when it gets out on the open road it's a different story. When you are going at higher speeds, it has got a small petrol engine and it is quite a heavy car, so you end up working that engine very hard and using a lot of fuel. RTFM... Read the friggin manual before you buy it!

You think I am done? Please continue reading.  

 

The current battery packs used by hybrids are nickel-metal hydride ones. Nickel mining in Canada has damaged the environment already. Aside from the mining process, the nickel is transported from one point of the globe to another until it reaches Japan where Prius units are assembled. In the shipping alone, the energy requirement balloons because of the fuel used by container ships and locomotive used.

An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

 

Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed

Also because hybrids don't use much fuel people do drive them more so... take some time and do the math... I ll be here...

 Recycling is next or how to pay more than once for something you bought. I mean you buy a cell phone... you use it... and then you recycle it and then it becomes a frying pan or whatever and what you do? you pay for it again! Doesn't sound like a good deal...

Recycling is simply the transfer of producer responsibility for what they produce to the taxpayer who has to pick it up and take it away.

The Keep America Beautiful campaign started a few years after the introduction of disposable bottles in the early 1950s. Soon bottles were everywhere and states were considering bans on disposables. So American Can, Owens-Illinois and Coke got together to basically invent the concept of litter. They said "packages don't litter, people do." (sound familiar?)

Now again I will let you think about what this means...

8 billion dollars are given (from taxes) for recycling... I bet you can give these to save some people instead of the environment. And when we have no more starving people we can also try to save the environment... that needs no saving.

So instead of recycling maybe the companies can find ways to make packages and everything else from materials that don't fuck up the environment. How? I don't care it's their job, not mine. Maybe we can spare some more billions on that cause after we feed everyone?

Also recycling materials need recycling factories, recycling vehicles, water to clean the recycling materials and ... *drumroll* energy! So as an idea it's pretty good... But that's probably all it can be.

Paper doesn't come from the Amazon. It comes from tree farms that trees are planted for that reason. To become paper. What fool would travel to the Amazon and back to just farm wood for paper. Do you know where the wood from your furniture came from? Do some research.

The only things to recycle are glass bottles and aluminum cans

To be continued...