Global Warming

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

Paul, you have been watching too much David Letterman or reading too much 
Dave Barry on this one.  I have no problem with your observation that good 
research costs big bucks and one must be careful it is properly spent, but Kyoto 
Protocol is an internationally negotiated effort by industry, government and 
academia.

No need to make a bigger stink about the flatulence than your posts clearly 
intend.  No one is too concerned about bovine farting, admit it, it makes a 
good argument because it sounds silly and takes the seriousness out of the 
science.  In fact, the cows respiration/burping is what is important here, 
representing 95% of the cows methane output and the little farting/pooping just 5%.

A cow, in fact can breath out upwards of 50 quarts of methane per hour when 
in full eating mode, and more than 600 quarts of methane per day.  All in all 
that's 100,000,000 TONS of methane per year.  Just in the last 25 years the 
number of cows has doubled on the planet, not to mention sheep.  In the US there 
are half as many cows as people.  In New Zealand, I recall there are about 20 
sheep per person or so - a huge industry.

And methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled during 
the 20th century due to these emission sources.

It is easy to show (The EPA has it calculated) that the bovine emisions amout 
to 25% of the methane released into the atmosphere from the US, and it is 
postulated that methane in turn accounts for 20% of the global warming effect.  
New Zealand is disproportionately higher as it is loaded with cattle and sheep, 
being a much greater source for them than vehicle emissions and coal mining.

So good for New Zealand for taking some action to reduce emissions, hopefully 
in a responsible way.  They are atacking their biggest polluters.  Hopefully 
big bucks can be spent responsibly rather than on lobbying and egos. As for 
Kyoto, the US is the exception, the rest of the world is pretty convinced.  Of 
course all the cattle and petroleum in Texas have nothing to do with the US's 
official rejection of Kyoto.

Best wishes.
Doug

Paul escribe:

> Asunto: Re: Global Warming 
>  Fecha: 07/13/2003 12:13:14 AM Mexico Daylight Time
>  De: <A HREF="mailto:monarch at saber.net">monarch at saber.net</A>
>  Para: <A HREF="mailto:leps-l at lists.yale.edu">leps-l at lists.yale.edu</A>
>  Enviado por Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Cherubini wrote:
> 
> >University scientists, environmental interests and regulatory agencies
> >stand to acquire alot of career enhancing money from industry and
> >agriculture if they can demonstrate the alledged human contribution
> >to global warming is very substantial and seriously threatening.
> 
> Stanley A. Gorodenski wrote: 
> 
> >I do not think your statement holds much water, at least with respect to
> >university scientists. The small pot of money scientists use for research
> >is allocated by Congress and the executive branch, and the purpose to
> >which this money is to be used normally has strict guidelines. There is
> >generally no great monetary incentive for university scientists to lie
> >because of the small amount of money involved, and if they do lie (i.e.,
> >falsify results) it could negatively impact on their ability to get future
> >grants. 
> 
> Stan, what I'm talking about is that environmental scientists stand 
> to acquire alot of career enhancing money from industry and agriculture
> if they can convince Congress that new taxes must be imposed on
> industry and agriculture to fund the new research they wish to conduct 
> on global warming and global warming solutions.   
> 
> Example#1: The other day I mentioned how the New Zealand government
> was imposing a livestock farting and belching tax on farmers
> to "fund a new Agriculture Emissions Research body to meet 
> commitments to the Kyoto Protocol global environment agreement."
> 
> Example #2:  The Union of Concerned Scientists is urging Congress
> to start funding new research on renewable energy or advanced vehicle 
> technologies.
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/archive/page.cfm?pageID=798   
>                                                                              
>                 
> "Vigorous support for research and development is critical to
> achieving practical [global warming] solutions. Yet, we invest far more in 
> subsidies for the fossil fuel and nuclear industries today than on R&D for
> renewable energy or advanced vehicle technologies. For instance,
> Congress appropriated $736 million for fossil fuel research and $667
> million for nuclear research in 2001, but only $376 million for all
> renewable energy technologies combined."
> 
> Paul Cherubini
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20030713/d3ba9a3e/attachment.html