What have you actually done to reduce "greenhouse" gas emissions?

[chasd60]

What have you actually done to reduce "greenhouse" gas emmisions?

In the last 23 years, I have used commuter rail trains over 9,000 times, subways over 1,500 times, busses over 2,000 times, and carpools over 500 times. I have also used my bicycle many times for local errands. What have you done to reduce "greenhouse" gas emmisions?

Austin[/QUOTE]

I have owned two Geo Metros in the last 10 years, one was an xFI which was rated at 58mpg highway and 53 city.
The second one was rated 48 and 43 and I put a fuel bubbler system on it with an O2 sensor fooler to add 10% better fuel economy.
I slowed down to 60mph on the highway with my present car which is a 98 Buick Park Ave Ultra and get 30+mpg with the supercharger belt removed and running on regular gasoline (don't use the truck to commute, TV & Home Depot only). This is a 95 mile daily commute.
I use solar panels on my hybrid instead of running a generator.
I ocassionally use the battery and panels to power the television and lighting in my bedroom at home.
I have replaced 99% of my household lighting with CFL's.
 
My area of the world isn't crowded enough to have commuter rail trains, subways or buses.

[AustinBoston]

My area of the world isn't crowded enough to have commuter rail trains, subways or buses.

What counts is that you have done something significant, which is more than most.  Although I feel some of the "science" surrouding global warming is dubious, I am convinced those who do something to save a pound of carbon-based fuel have done more than those who talk and talk and talk, and whine and whine and whine, about global warming.

Austin

[tplife]

I've used my backround in science and research to conclude that since global climate change has no proven statistical impacts from man, but rather is controlled by natural cycles and precipitation patterns, I'd best avoid the (a) nutballs easily swayed by the latest fad or (b) those scientists whose livelihood depends on government grants for studies to show man-made climate change.  Mankind emerged from the last 6 ice age/warming periods, we'll be okay this time too.   Being a chemist has its advantages, but a little common sense goes a long way.  Oh yeah, we had the global freeze fad 30 years ago and it helps that I recall that hysteria too.  In any event, a natural warming cycle means increased crop yields and more rapid forest growth, which mean a positive impact on that two-footed creature of nature, homo sapiens.  I'll just pass the Kool Aid.

[AustinBoston]

I've used my backround in science and research to conclude that since global climate change has no proven statistical impacts from man, but rather is controlled by natural cycles and precipitation patterns, I'd best avoid the (a) nutballs easily swayed by the latest fad or (b) those scientists whose livelihood depends on government grants for studies to show man-made climate change.

Avoid, yes.  Ignore?  Well, only a fool woul ignore them - they may yet prove to be right.

But in answer to the question (and the unspoken question "What have you done to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?") I'll take your answer as NOTHING.

The point of my signature isn't that we need to brace for the inevitable catastrophy that the fearmongers are declaring, but that even though I think global warming via "greenhouse gasses" is a crock, I've done more than the typical noisemaker to to reduce my "carbon footprint" and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  I've saved myself more than just a bit of pocket change in the process.

Austin

[Old Goat]

A large volcanic eruption can release more green house gases into the atmosphere in a single day than man could ever do on purpose. Why are they never mentioned???

[chasd60]

A large volcanic eruption can release more green house gases into the atmosphere in a single day than man could ever do on purpose. Why are they never mentioned???

Because they are a natural occurrence.

[chasd60]

I've used my backround in science and research to conclude that since global climate change has no proven statistical impacts from man, but rather is controlled by natural cycles and precipitation patterns, I'd best avoid the (a) nutballs easily swayed by the latest fad or (b) those scientists whose livelihood depends on government grants for studies to show man-made climate change. Mankind emerged from the last 6 ice age/warming periods, we'll be okay this time too. Being a chemist has its advantages, but a little common sense goes a long way. Oh yeah, we had the global freeze fad 30 years ago and it helps that I recall that hysteria too. In any event, a natural warming cycle means increased crop yields and more rapid forest growth, which mean a positive impact on that two-footed creature of nature, homo sapiens. I'll just pass the Kool Aid.

I totally agree
I will admit the things I have done were done to save $$$ as the primary reason.

[wavery]

I stopped eating wheat and beans..........the world is a happier place and my house is not quite as green. :sombraro:

[brainpause]

I have done virtually nothing. I guess I'll get slammed if I say that there aren't opportunities. However, I did try to keep my old Nissan pickup with 4 cylinder motor (for commuting) when I bought my new truck, but I did a spread sheet, and the savings in gas couldn't even pay for the insurance.

Yes, I live near an urban area with bus routes. But I don't want to drive 10 miles, only to get on a bus anyway.

I will say that I am easy on the throttle, and get every bit of mileage out of every drop of fuel that I can. I cruise A LOT, and drive the speed limit, or just over. That helps more than the average person, I feel.

I could probably walk/run/bike to the grocery store instead of driving. Might try that this summer. However, after baby arrives, a good habit might go away anyway. Then again, jogging stroller, already purchased, has a big place to put groceries.

Larry

[AustinBoston]

I stopped eating wheat and beans..........the world is a happier place and my house is not quite as green. :sombraro:

We know.  

Austin

[AustinBoston]

A large volcanic eruption can release more green house gases into the atmosphere in a single day than man could ever do on purpose. Why are they never mentioned???

For the record, the United States alone (not inculding the 160+ other countries in the world) produces more than ten times the carbon dioxide emissions of all the world's volcanos (in an average year).  People spout this stuff off, but hte truth is volcanos are almost irrelevant when it comes to CO2.

I think this goes back to a different gas, sulfur dioxide (the primary pollutant involved with acid rain), where volcanoes do far surpass what we have or likely ever will produce.  But sulfur dioxide is NOT a greenhouse gas, and may have the opposite effect.

Austin

[fourkids]

"For the record, the United States alone (not inculding the 160+ other countries in the world) produces more than ten times the carbon dioxide emissions of all the world's volcanos (in an average year). "

Can you sight where you are getting this information?

Thanks.

[AustinBoston]

"For the record, the United States alone (not inculding the 160+ other countries in the world) produces more than ten times the carbon dioxide emissions of all the world's volcanos (in an average year). "

Can you sight where you are getting this information?

Thanks.

I lost that exact reference, but a simple Google search turned up this:

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times." from
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

The article is well written and has numerous sorces sited.

It has been reported that Winston Churchill once said "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."

Do you want a reference for that too?

Austin

[fourkids]

Nice try.  A half-page guesstimate from some "scientist" does not make it so.  Nor does the fact that you can quote Churchill.  You are in way over your head on this one. Don't let the facts get in the way of your propaganda.

 "If intelligence were the key to this argument, you'd be locked out."
                                                                     Unknown

[AustinBoston]

Nice try.

And at least a thousand times better than what you have.

A half-page guesstimate

The estimate was only for undersea volcanoes.  We know very well what comes from exposed volcanoes.  Learn to read.

Oh, and I apologize for assuming you could handle URL's properly.  I sited a specific page in a much larger paper so you could find the line I quoted.  Here's the table of contents:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/

from some "scientist" does not make it so.

Oh, that's right.  The fact that the single referenced "half page" itself referenced ten sources is irrelevant.

The average joe knows more about volcanoes than people who have spent their entire lives studying them.  And what are your qualifications?

Nor does the fact that you can quote Churchill.  You are in way over your head on this one.

You have absolutely nothing - nothing - to contribute, and yet you say I'm over my head?

Don't let the facts get in the way of your propaganda.

Sorry, but you don't know me or where I come from.  If you even bothered to read this thread, you would have known that my first post included the statement "Although I feel some of the "science" surrouding global warming is dubious..."  I do not buy the greenhouse effect hook, line, and sinker, and I am convinced that some of the bigest forces involved with global warming are totally out of our control.  But the "volcanic eruption" statement is just plain wrong.

And as far as propaganda is concerned, at least mine has a basis in science.  Your propaganda - and it is propaganda - is just innuendo and lame attempts at defaming character.  It won't work.

I'm interested in facts.  Can you site anything that has any scientific basis whatsoever that says I'm wrong?  I have little doubt that you tried, but were unable, so you just shot off your mouth.

The link I posted was just the very first link in the very first search I tried.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Where are your references?

Austin (not expecting any real reply - just noise)