And man as a producer of CO2 and CH4

[Jak]

If I can afford, we produce CO2 since our lungs are responsible for removing carbon from our blood ... and the CO2 we reject comes more from the one we breathed.

And no need to want to "make us feel guilty" .. it is inherent to our vital functioning

The CO2 we produce is neither better nor worse than that produced by burning fossil fuels.

The real problem is that we are too numerous on this planet and that we have exceeded the equilibrium threshold since the 60 years.

The only real solution would be to limit births to return 2 generations to 3-4 billions of individuals. Less need of energy, culture, breeding etc ...

The alternative being to return to the stone age, since without fire, no CO2 type pollution ...

Distribution of condoms at the exit ... (or atomic bombs, anyway!)

[Christophe]

The CO2 we produce is neither better nor worse than that produced by burning fossil fuels.

Yes and no.

The CO2 of breathing is different in nature, read my 1ere answer to the beginning of the subject ... I explained why.

If the animal / human respiration helped to increase the CO2, well it would increase continuously since the last glaciation since the human population has only believed since ...

We were about 200 million men in the year 0 and 1 billion in 1800 ...

However, the level of CO2 has only "exploded" since the beginning of industrial air, that is to say from 1800-1820 ...

But it is true that at the same time the population has also exploded and indirect CO2 costs with, for example for food: man produces CO2 via his diet indirectly and not just a little bitwe "eat" the equivalent of 2L of oil per day.

See: https://www.econologie.com/forums/alimentati ... t8851.html

Curve of the world population from wiki:



Same note for other GeS of food ...

[Obamot]

'we "eat" the equivalent of 2L of oil per day.

Ahuirissant ... and as it is probably an average in the rich countries one must "eat" at least ten times more ...

From memory, a sheep must reject 7 kg of methane per year. But, AMHA, a sheep is surely less harmful to nature than a man.

The proportion of methane released by livestock is often included in the calculations of what the man rejects (since he eats meat products) so it seems to me that a study has shown that eating chicken would reject less. .
But the most important thing to remember is that methane produces a lot more greenhouse effect than Co2.
So when will the breeding farms in semi-enclosed spaces collect the "prouts ..?"

[Christophe]

'we "eat" the equivalent of 2L of oil per day.

Ahuirissant ... and as it is probably an average in the rich countries one must "eat" at least ten times more ...

No, I do not think so, it's an average for rich countries.
The poor still have relatively little access to "agricultural oil" ... that's why they continue to be hungry ...

The following here: https://www.econologie.com/forums/alimentati ... t8851.html

[Obamot]

Note, this is where we see that agriculture is so linked to "breeding", since it takes 7 kilograms of cereals to produce 1 kilogram of beef and if you eat a chicken you will have less. of fines.

[Christophe]

That's why vegetarians are much more eco-friendly in their way of life than ecologists who eat steaks ...

We are HS ... if you want to continue the top is in the other subject please.

[moinsdewatt]

the CO2 rate continues to rise.

New record, meanwhile Mars and April 2013 or we may titillate the 399 ppm.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/


and that's what it gives if we look from 1960
(this is my date of birth! ;-))

[plasmanu]

Being born in 1974 the curve is scary the same.
That's when it goes down. Because the curve there: it is serious linear upward.
It's better than the famous economic growth: of implacable constancy ...

[dedeleco]

the CO2 rate continues to rise.

New record, meanwhile Mars and April 2013 or we may titillate the 399 ppm.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/


[/ Url]

Looking at the curve, between summer descent, by photosynthesis and winter rise of CO2, for the northern hemisphere, the solution to stop this rise is clear, double photosynthesis on earth, and CO2 will be stable.

So double the production of seaweed, to put in sea and in all the deserts, in aqua culture able to make oil from the algae, and to increase the forests on earth !!
It is enough to convert the oil wells of the deserts, in big plants of seaweed cultures !!!

Not impossible if you want, even if it's easier to say than to do.

[Jak]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time not laughing at some people.

As I said before, our planet was self-regulating until the sixties and the vegetation absorbed enough CO2 so that the balance CO2 / O2 remains balanced.

4 billion inhabitants were produced, 4 billion inhabitants breathed, consumed, used machines etc etc ...

So today, with 7 billion inhabitants, the balance is negative.

There are lots of solutions:

1 - Keeping poor people poor, low on food and dying young
2 - Give up machines, oil, suprusion so that the whole planet is in the 1 solution since it will be unable to feed its population.
3 - Have the only child policy anywhere in the world to decrease the population.

Less cultivated land, fewer farms, fewer factories, production of energy-consuming machines in general and our ecological system will be stabilized at around 4 billion inhabitants.

All other solutions are intellectual fumitries ...

Not hard to understand that we are too many! ... and that without energy expenditure we are unable to feed everyone .. If?