If the emission of co2 in the air is so bad, why don't the environmentalists quit just quit exhaling?

Question

Or would that be politically incorrect? Wouldn't want that in this day and age, now would we?

Answer 1

Burning 1 gallon of gas produces 10-times the CO2 a person exhales in a day.  So maybe a better solution would be to start by eliminating those breathing humans who drive SUV's, then we'd get at least 11-times (1 gallon/day is a very low estimate for a SUV driver) the benefit of eliminating a bicycle riding environmentalist.  And considering most people concerned with the environment have less children than the SUV drivers, there's probably another impact factor of 2 or 3 we'd gain ;-)

Answer 2

Hey if we killed everyone then there would end global warming.

HAHAHAHA

Answer 3

There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  The problem is...people who think it's a problem don't have a clue what carbon dioxide is.

If the Al Gores, David Suzuki's and other nuts in the world stopped exhaling, what would we waste billions of dollars on then? Haha

Answer 4

Maybe if the left wing liberal social environmentalist lemmings would just start writing down everything they want to ***** about ; then saving all that "hot air" they use to moan and whine would greatly help their "Gorebal Warming" sky is falling fairy tale danger !!!

Answer 5

I like your thinking. Run with it.

Answer 6

Because they are hypocrites who know they are telling lies to support their latest scheme to destroy America. It's just more of the same liberal garbage where they tell us to do as they say and not as they do.

Answer 7

If they quit exhaling then global warming would be greatly reduced.  But then they would have to find another problem to rally against.

There has been a noticeable increase in greenhouse gases with this being an election year or has it been two years now:-)

Answer 8

If there were no CO2 then all the green plants would die.

But be realistic now, if ALL the environmentalists quit exhaling then you would lose really cool ones like me.

It might be better if all the politicians did, though.

Answer 9

Thats soo funny I forgot to laugh!

Answer 10

Sounds reasonable to me.

Answer 11

Did you get teased a lot in school by the smart kids, because you seem to be acting out some deep-seated aggression?  Unless you really are serious with this question, which is a scarier thought.  

Did you know that a significant fraction of human respiration occurs directly through the pores in your skin?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k112...

So even if environmentalists quit exhaling, they would still vent CO2 through their skin.  You're going to have to paint the lot of them like in "Goldfinger" to stop that from happening.  That much gold paint will take vast amounts of energy to manufacture so there would be no net reduction in CO2.  

So, the answer to your question is that it is completely impractical to mitigate rising CO2 levels by forcing environmentalists to stop exhaling.  This is aside from the fact you likely believe CO2 has no effect on climate anyway, so your "solution" really seems a bit punitive to me, which cuts back to my initial question.

Answer 12

Because they could help other people see how serious this problem is

Answer 13

This is a rant...

I pity you to have to come to such arguments which show a very childish attitude on important scientific questions. What are you exactly trying to bring to the debate? hate?

BTW... where does the CO2 we exhale come from?

=>from the combustion of our food which itself grew absorbing the CO2 from the

Answer 14

Or we could stop polluting. Hmmm decisions, decisions. Of course I assume you would prefer that some business magnates continue to reap huge profits at the expense of the planet, because I assume he'll be sending you monthly checks, right? Oh he won't? Hmmm. And yet you still favor his industrial pollution to actually regualting. Riiiight. YOu really have your own self preservation in mind obviously.

Answer 15

Q. If people produce carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is environmentally harmful, then can’t we just exterminate all of the people?

A. If only it were that easy. You see, carbon dioxide is also produced by burning fossil fuels, such as in an internal combustion engine. The engine in your car is an internal combustion engine. When you drive your car, you are producing carbon dioxide. The more inefficient the car, the more carbon dioxide you produce.

Q. Why don’t we just exterminate all cars?

A. If only it were that easy. You see, it is cars that take us from point A to point B. Cars let us listen to music on the stereo; and if it weren’t for cars, then we would not be able to signal the blinker when we change lanes. Someone suggested as an alternative to driving, that I walked to work. I tried this, but I walked for hours, got all tired and sweaty, and never reached my destination.

Q. Why don’t we make cars that produce less carbon dioxide?

A. If only it were that easy. The state of California passed a law capping vehicle CO2 emissions. The Bush administration responded by enacting lower federal standards, and claiming that the lower federal standards pre-empted the tighter California standards. It is self evident that George W. Bush knows something about the dangers of fuel efficiency, and he can not tell the rest of us for reasons of national security.

Energy efficiency, like CFL light bulbs and fuel efficient cars may sound like a simple solution, but sometimes it is the simplest solutions which are in fact the most difficult ones.