Loosing perspective in the fight to regulate CO2
Sigh… It just keeps on getting more and more ridiculous… Now some scientists with nothing better to do with the funding they must be receiving to continue to prop up the (what should be ailing) global warming debate have concluded we should be eating our dogs rather than having dogs or cars – as one dog can do as much damage to the environnent with its carbon footprint as a giant SUV…
Lets take this apart… First the concept of a Carbon footprint. Carbon, is a sooty grey substance which used to most commonly found in pencils. You may know it as graphite. It is the given the chemical formula of “C” for Carbon – no latin translation neccesary! Heat it up under pressure – a lot – and you get diamond. Carbon is a solid – both as graphite and diamond. All these calculations about ‘carbon’ footprint should be about the CO2 or Carbon Dioxide Footprint. Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is two oxygen molecules bonded to a carbon molecule and is a gas. Yes, there is carbon in the formula, but for a true scientist and probably even more so for a chemist, is it highly inaccurate to talk about carbon-footprints of all lifeforms on this planet when you are talking about carbon dioxide footprints.
Secondly – so now… How do you think some of those non-pet loving SUV-owning people are going to feel after reading that? You got it! They probably jumped in their SUV and drove all around town hollering and whooping that they could now justify having this vehicle because they don’t own a largish dog.
In fact, how long before the (rich but silly – because why would you drive in London anyway) Londoners all jump in their SUVs and drive to their local politican and DEMAND that the tax on large vehicles be removed because they don’t own a dog – or two dogs, so their ‘carbon’ footprint is negated and therefore there is no need to impose the grotesque, government income generating tax on them anymore!
And on the darker side, how long before environmental zealots sneak out under the cover of night and start poisoining all dogs larger than a chihuahua because they are terrified the dogs breath and meat consumption will cause the sea levels to rise by 5cm thus grossly jeopardising human life on this planet? (Since sea levels rising by 5cm seems to be worst case scenario for rising temperatures this century, I have to assume that is what the people who fear global warming are worked up about…).
First we had to divert food for the world’s poor to fill up the SUVs and now we have to start killing our pets – other animals and with every much a right to be on the planet as us – to try and curb the small portion of a gas in our atmosphere. This is taking environmental zealotry too far and if its this kind of stuff which will cause people to start questioning where is the over top regulations being imposed on CO2 going to end, then good! And… (one can hope) is it necessary anyway to worry about rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?
But meanwhile, we at the Dappled Planet despair someone can get a book publishes with shock suggestions about doing away with our pets because they impose too great a burden on our climate while authors with books trying to desperately introduce some balance to the debate on climate change have a hard time finding publishers (the book referred to is the supurbe “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer – if you really want to know what the scientists are thinking, we highly recommend this book!.
