Milk poured down Britain’s kitchen sinks each year creates a carbon footprint equivalent to thousands of car exhaust emissions, research shows.
From the University of Edinburgh
Scientists say the 360,000 tonnes of milk wasted in the UK each year creates greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 100,000 tonnes of CO2. The study by the University of Edinburgh says this is the same as is emitted by about 20,000 cars annually.
The research identifies ways that consumers could also help curb greenhouse gas emissions – by reducing the amount of food they buy, serve and waste. They also suggest the food industry could reduce emissions by seeking more efficient ways to use fertilisers.
Researchers also say halving the amount of chicken consumed in the UK and other developed countries to levels eaten in Japan could cut greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 10 million cars off the road.
While this kind of information must be pretty easy to calculate, and accurate, it is presented here as something to be mocked and ridiculed. Conservation strategies can reduce all kinds of things that are undesirable, and it’s achievable while creating little real hardship for most people. We’ve all been socialized for one main thing- consumption. Correction: over-consumption. And when the Third World (sorry, no disrespect intended) gets its taste of Americanized living- they want the same things in relatively the same amounts, etc. Thus- there will come a time when it all comes to a head globally and locally, and we all will be forced to adapt. I.e. reduce and minimize and simplify. This flies in the face of all that we, especially Americans, know or want to come to terms with. We will learn the hard way, unfortunately, probably. Capitalism (our version) will fight to the bitter end- it is created to only expand, there’s no method, really, for it to do otherwise. It/they (the elite who now have no real allegience to any one country or people) will take all they can get, squirrel all valuables away from the rabble, and we all lose. Then they start it all over again. In safe, secure, comfort. Or as secure as they can. It doesn’t have to be this way. But that’s the way it’s going.
That is about the most cynical thing I have ever heard.
Wow- then you don’t get out much. That’s the problem with many Americans. Myopic. Detached, from the rest of the planet they SHARE with billions of other sentient beings, er, fellow humans. And, well, I’ll just say it- selfish, due to a couple of generations (barely, could have been more) living in the wealthiest nation the planet has known.
Not only that- but the wealthy are already picking us clean for the tough times ahead. Wake up little frog, the water is getting warmer.
Decades ago it was determined that CO2 ‘s ability to trap heat rising from Earth’s surface declines logarithmically or very rapidly. This means that early on, at low concentrations, CO2 does exert a significant warming of the lower atmosphere. But as the absorption bands in which CO2 captures this rising heat begin to get saturated, CO2 can capture less and less heat with each additional unit of CO2. Depending on how sensitive or reactive one thinks Earth is to additional CO2, the level of influence of rising CO2 today can be very small or still of significant impact. Once again, we have chosen the path recommended long ago by Winston Churchill who once said, “The farther backward you look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” As we look back at Earth’s climate history, far beyond the popular 1980’s and 1990’s which happened to see a supposedly rapid rise in temperature coinciding with a real and admittedly rapid rise in airborne CO2, we find many examples where rises in CO2 were accompanied by declining temperatures.
To put this warming effect of CO2 into the proper perspective it is essential to understand that the absorption of light follows an exponential curve when the amount of the absorbing substance increases. The absorbing substance in our case is carbon dioxide which absorbs light in the infrared bandwidth. This means that a little CO2 goes a long way in absorbing infrared radiation. The more CO2 is added after the initial amount of CO2 does not make a great difference in the absorption rate since most of the radiation has been absorbed already:
The first 20 ppmv of CO2 operating as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has the greatest effect on temperature. After about 200 ppmv, CO2 has done its job as a greenhouse gas and has adsorbed almost all the infra-red energy it can absorb. Once the atmosphere is at the present CO2 content … a doubling or quadrupling of the atmospheric CO2 content will have very little effect on atmospheric temperature. (Ian Plimer)
Here is how Thomas Nelson describes it in “Cold Facts on Global Warming”:
It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb virtually all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of less than one km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels.
How’s this for “cynical” (better sit down for this one Neilio):
Nationalize the oil and the banks.
“I believe that oil and both consumer and investment banking will be nationalized in the near future. The tipping point will come when even the 1% discover that it’s not just a matter of ideology anymore. The rest of the world is nationalizing oil and finance. We can not compete on a global scale if we do not use the power of the federal government to counter the massive power of other governments. No matter how rich and powerful a few private individuals become, they can not compete with entire nations. The strategy of sending the military to take out foreign governments who dare to nationalize oil and other markets is not just immoral, it’s an unsustainable strategy that doesn’t work. It’s more humane AND more efficient to stop spending massive amounts of borrowed money on being the world market police and just nationalize US markets that have to compete with the nationalized markets of other nations.”
JD Phillips LCSW is the author of The Firewall Sedition, a novel in the tradition of the progressive writers of the 1930s. firewalleconomics.com
1. a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented. b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
2. A lie.
3. a. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact. b. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
4. Law Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.
I am posting the definition of fiction because I don’t think you quite grasp the concept of fiction, because The Firewall Sedition is a work of fiction.
Ok, sorry I re-read that and realized it’s not from the book The Firewall Sedition, that is the opinion of the author who wrote the fictional book. I have just one question, which countries have we sent the military into to take out “foreign governments who dare to nationalize oil and other markets”? And I am asking that with all sincerity because I am at a loss to think of even one.
To answer that incredibly naive thus sad and depressing question: Just about every single military action taken since WWII. mmmK?
To answer that incredibly naive thus sad and depressing question: Just about every single military action taken since WWII. mmmK? You should be at a loss to think of one that wasn’t.
Can you be any more vauge? Is that why we went into Viet Nam? You say that my question is incredibly naive, yet you give a vauge answer. I think you have no idea. This is typical. You make a statement that is demonstrably false, and when asked for specifics you dodge the question. I want you to give me one example of the U.S. sending in troops to “take out foreign governments who dare to nationalize oil and other markets.” Just one! Name one!
Wow I take a long break from this site any RNH is still spewing garbage.
RNH I see you are still fighting for the 99% who 75% of want you STHU and take a shower for God sake. So you really speak for the 24% of the lazy freeloaders that want everything to be given to them and are using the Climate Scam to wrest controll from the sane.
See ou agan in 3 months I bet you will still be sitting here posting words written for you…..
It never ceases to amaze me how every liberal cause is the solution for global warming. In this case, the vegans get their day. If we would only stop drinking milk, the gods won’t roast us! Next, we’ll hear about how gunpowder causes global warming. Ban the guns, or the gods will cook us with hell fire!
The United States of America became the richest, most powerful and prosperous nation on earth by NOT nationalizing industry. Private free enterprise, individual initiatives and economic liberty brought the capital, innovation, work ethic and success that makes the USA exceptional. I’ll put a free market economy against any communist, socialist or dictatorial economy any day and we’ll kick the butt of centrally-planned economies every single time – as long as we don’t try to emulate them.
You know, gay marriage can save the world from global warming!
Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I have two sisters who are gay so don’t go accusing me of hating gay people. I just picked that topic because it seems to be the topic du joir for the Left currently. I am actually not opposed to gay marriage. Now if you start talking about marrying your car or a goat, then wer’e going to have a problem.
Republicans Don’t Want The Government Until They Need The Government. Dan- we’ve tried exactly what you are advocating above, since WWII and we are in a terrible mess, because of it. True. And so you are saying more of the same will help?? False. Only something different will help. We Libs are not saying communism by any means, of course. Socialism fixed many of the formerly right-wingish countries in Europe, and that is our answer too. And don’t even try talking about socialism causing their economic problems- those occurred mainly due to the fraud and abuse of their capitalistic/financial games and greed that was/is mixed in with it. Unless the elite are truly suicidal the USA will have to become truly socialist. You will see this occur, despite your blind bias, if the smarter heads prevail, which they probably will. I don’t think they want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg (middle class).
Ha! Socialism is the bane of the middle class. It makes everyone equally poor except the elite. It’s a two class system. Rich and poor. People who want to get ahead on their own (the middle class) are stifled. Only economic freedom can create and sustain a middle class.
False! Look some real-life socialist countries (Scandinavian) and you will notice (or not if you wish to remain blind) that virtually EVERYONE is middle class. That’s the whoel point. Sheesh. “Stifled” ha! They are the only countries doing well. Capitalism naturally reverts into socialism, historically. It is a natural progression, and will occur unless the fasicsts in our midst put up a huge fuss (eupehmism for pogroms, and other ugly things). Granted there are so-called Socialist countries having troubles now, but the whole world is. And they have mixed socialism with capitalism in wrong ways which is their main problem. I’m not here to convince the extreme Rightys- they are lost, and on the wrong side of hostory, as usual. Others though need to start thinking about these things, because casino capitalism, with its financial games, is bringing down the whole planet to its knees.
Scandinavian countries are “socialist” in some senses and vibrantly capitalist in other senses. They are “socialist” in the sense that they have very high taxes with very generous social welfare services provided by the state, the famous “cradle-to-grave” welfare state. They are vibrantly capitalist in the sense that they have low levels of interference in markets by the government, low levels of regulation, low levels of nationalization of industry and capital, and almost no protectionism. Interestingly, Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, manage to maintain those levels of taxes and expenditures while achieving high levels of national wealth and production, and a standard of living among the world’s highest. As a result Western groupies of Scandinavia hold its “socialism” up as the model for the rest of the world and certainly for the bastions of capitalist inequality and class conflict, especially the English-speaking nations.
The wealth and riches of Sweden of course are at least in part the byproduct of Swedish cowardice and moral depravity. Sweden sat out both World Wars, and emerged from them with its economy completely in tact. In fact, “neutral” Sweden made money trading with Hitler’s Germany and providing the Nazi war machine with war materials, even while its fellow Scandinavian nations were being overrun, brutalized and devastated.
Be that as it may, Sweden in particular and Scandinavia in general are hailed as the great champions of humanism and egalitarianism, as the countries that have cured poverty and eliminated hardship and material suffering. Here is not the place for an overall assessment of Scandinavian societies, which – like all countries – have their positive points and also their problems. The question here is whether Scandinavian “socialism” is really the panacea for poverty.
Poor Neil- has to argue EVERYTHING, and cite streeetched examples of how wrong I am, below. And yet at another time he would jump up and defend America against Socialism in and and all forms including of course the Scandinavian “type” which is socialism, by any rational method of calculation. Oh well. Same old dead end.
Oh – and then insult an entire culture (cowardice and moral depravity), when it is one of the most peaceful and beautiful areas of the entire planet… omg I can’t go on with this. It is too absurd, and just highlights once again the moral depravity and even cowardice of the Right to either admit then they’re wrong or at least have the decency to keep quiet about it.
I’m not arguing, or insulting anything. Did you notice the link? I made no comments myself. I cut and pasted a portion of an article that discusses what you presented in a certain way, and I found something that has a bit different take on the subject than you do. My point is that the Scandanavian countries are not pure socialist, and they may not be the utopian ideal as you portray them to be. Don’t get your panties twisted.
To Neil below- there were so many powerful AMERICAN companies supplying the Nazi war effort, for profit, even after we joined the war that it took congressional action to stop it. Thus your poor argument below is rendered meaningless, like all of your attempts.
Weird. Actually it is the Right who is creating anti-gay marriage proposals for laws etc. THUS the “topic du juir” as you call it. Is this not the truth of the matter? Yes it is. The Right does such things especially around election times to divide and (try) to conquer. Divisiveness, wedge issues, are their strength. They need them because the normal issues are usually against them in the polls. As to Dan above- more wing-nut hyperbole. Take a rather mundane topic like conservation and blow it out of proportion. Standard operating procedure. Effective for many of the rabble unfortunately. And Neil- re: our military excursions- I can’t even start. It’s all so impossible for you to rationally discuss and understand. Our role in the world is not the make-believe you choose to believe. If only it was. I’m glad to hear you’re not against gay marrriage. Most people aren’t, so there’s some sanity in the world.
The way we got here was through unbridled military spending for goofy crap like Reagan’s star wars, all manner of unnecessary and over-priced military hardware, two unfunded wars of choice, an unfunded Medicare Drug “benefit”, a $2 trillion tax cut for the richest people on the planet, a $16 trillion bailout of the banks with no requirement for reinvestment in America, and trade treaties that have completely destroyed America’s manufacturing infrastructure and jobs. One must wonder if the intent of all these bizarre expenditures might have been to destroy our country from within–so Grover Norquist can “drown it in the bathtub”. I don’t have to wonder about that.
I’m still waiting for one, that’s one, example of the U.S. sending in troops to take out a government that dared to nationalize oil or other markets. I think you can’t because it never happened. It is propaganda that you have read that you really think it’s true, but when questioned you have no real answer because it is not real, it never happened, and you’ve been caught spreading another lie.
Come on now, if it’s what we have done in just about every military action since the end of WWII, you should have no trouble at all giving one example.
Your silence speaks volumes.
OMG- childish. Vietnam. Ok? Happy now? My answer to you above is CLEAR, as in crystal. YOU could have picked one, any one, to TRY and argue about (which I kow you are itching to do). As I’ve stated though- don’t bother. There’s even a limit for me; I KNOW I cannot “educate” about this one, no chance in hades. Thus I will not even try. Don’t be infantile enough to say that this rare surrender on my part proves Anything, becasue it doesn’t. Only proves there’s a limit for everyone and everything.
More recently- Iraq. Duh…
And ALL of them in between. I stand by that.
Including Afghanistan of course, and I’ll even state now it will include our NEXT war, which will occur sooner than later. We are a war economy society. And that most of all will doom us to Russian-like austerity and status. So start practicing being more humble and less rah rah USA USA!! And perhaps learn Chinese, or if you’re lazy, like me, Spanish. (note of glasnost: I only took one course and almost failed it).
Wow I got four non-answer answers. Viet Nam was a reaction by the U.S. to the French failure in Viet Nam to stem the tide of Communism. We failed to do so, but it was not to take out a government who dared to nationalize oil and other markets. Iraq was a reaction to the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent disregard for the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War. Afganistan was/is a reaction to the Taliban support, aid, and abetment of Al Quada after 9/11/2001. You do remember 9/11 don’t you? You lack facts.
The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th or 9/11)[nb 1] were a series of four suicide attacks that were committed in the United States on September 11, 2001, coordinated to strike the areas of New York City and Washington, D.C. On that Tuesday morning, 19 terrorists from the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda hijacked four passenger jets. The hijackers intentionally piloted two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours. The hijackers also intentionally crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and intended to pilot the fourth hijacked jet, United Airlines Flight 93, into a target in Washington, D.C.; however, the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers attempted to take control of the jet from the hijackers. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks.
Suspicion quickly fell on al-Qaeda, and in 2004, the group’s leader Osama bin Laden, who had initially denied involvement, claimed responsibility for the attacks. Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives for the attacks. The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda. Many countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. In May 2011, after years at large, bin Laden was found and killed.
The destruction of the Twin Towers caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan and had a significant impact on global markets. Cleanup of the World Trade Center site was completed in May 2002, and the Pentagon was repaired within a year. Numerous memorials were constructed, including the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York, the Pentagon Memorial, and the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania. After a lengthy delay, the 1,776-foot-tall (541 m) One World Trade Center is expected to be completed at ground zero in New York by 2013.
RNH, I accuse you of sufferring from a lack of understading of truth and reality. How do you plead?
Bush et al. wanted Afghanistan to be able to build an oil pipeline thru it. Most of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis (why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia?). And finally, Bin Laden spent most of his time post 9-11 in Pakistan (why didn’t we invade them?). And Iraq was just for the oil, as everyone now knows, if they didn’t before.
I plead logical, rational and intelligent. And you?
You need help.
I was sssshaking in my boots trying to come up with some ffffacts…. It appears you like the taste of the mainstream kool-aid very very much. Yum
Have they really done a study on that?
Carbon dioxide can’t be responsible for the so-said greenhouse effect on Earth.
Hey Andrew- this a political site. Go find some some Green site to ask your silly questions.
A private space capsule called Dragon soared into the predawn sky Tuesday at Cape Canaveral, riding a pillar of flame like its beastly namesake on a history-making trip to the International Space Station.
The unmanned capsule, built by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s SpaceX venture, is the first non-governmental spacecraft to launch to the space station, ushering in a new era of partnership between the public and private spaceflight programs.
This is just another example of the many things private enterprise can compete with each other and government and do well, or so we’ll see. But we must not continue to privatize the things it doesn’t do well at.
I pour my sour milk over the stoop. Cat’s love it like your liberals. They will be lapping sour milk come November I assume?
Yep- either way. The Right always wins in the end, but you are too sour to notice.
Bain Capital ‘purchased’ KB Toys for the respectable price of $ 305 million dollars on December 8, 2000.
Bain Capital only offered $ 18 million in cash, the rest was leaveraged debt put on the company.
Sixteen months after the buyout, Bain Capital paid itself $85 million in dividends in early 2002.
January 14, 2004, K·B Toys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and closed 365 stores.
So, they got in for $18M, gave themselves an $85 bonus, then filed bankruptcy and said,
“The free market system a wonderful way to create jobs?” and the Republicans cheered.
They made $67M and didn’t do any work.
Romney can do that to America, too – if we let him.
Remember in 2000?
They said, “If Bush wins elected, he’ll do to America what they did to Enron.”
They were right.
If Romney wins, he can sell off America’s remaining assets and retire rich-er.