• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

An idea to help stop global warming

Pardalis

Banned
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
25,817
Here's a semi-serious thought I just had. It might sound ridiculous as I haven't really thought it through but what the heck, I'll test it here with you guys and see what you think.

Why don't we ban car races? NASCAR, Formula 1 and all these useless sports. I mean... they spin around in circles for hours for what? They only waste gasoline and pollute the air. At least with regular automobiles people are actually going places they need to go.

Would it make any difference?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Have you ever seen a morning commute in a big city? And all that gas is wasted twice each workday. In the town where I live they're always promoting things like recycling and more efficient light bulbs and in the meantime they won't build housing near where people work, forcing more and more to commute.

I suspect that most of the amount of energy wasted at a NASCAR race comes from the fans driving to the race and partying and consuming stuff that has to be brought in for them, etc, as opposed to the actual race cars.
 
I suspect that most of the amount of energy wasted at a NASCAR race comes from the fans driving to the race and partying and consuming stuff that has to be brought in for them, etc, as opposed to the actual race cars.

Good point, I bet all big crowd attending events which require truck loads of equipment waste as much energy and fuel.
 
Man is a small contributor, less than 10% of all CO2 emissions.
But their exists carbon sinks which supposively account for the natural sources, hence the small difference man generates slowly increases carbon over time.

Why dont we research these natural sources which account for >90% of carbon sequestion, and see what we can do to magnify them?
 
Man is a small contributor, less than 10% of all CO2 emissions.
But their exists carbon sinks which supposively account for the natural sources, hence the small difference man generates slowly increases carbon over time.

Why dont we research these natural sources which account for >90% of carbon sequestion, and see what we can do to magnify them?

Ok, what do we do first? Cap the volcanoes, pave the wetlands, or slaughter all animals?
 
Last edited:
Man is a small contributor, less than 10% of all CO2 emissions.
But their exists carbon sinks which supposively account for the natural sources, hence the small difference man generates slowly increases carbon over time.

Why dont we research these natural sources which account for >90% of carbon sequestion, and see what we can do to magnify them?

Sequestration is the act of removing CO2 from the system. That doesn't happen much naturally, most of the CO2 is going around and around the natural carbon cycle, which has been pretty much in balance.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom