This was written “with tongue partly in cheek,” but despite that, where it counts it is factual and accurate.
Question 1: Are paper bags better than plastic bags, ecologically?
Answer: Absolutely not. They do more damage in almost every way. They destroy trees which eat carbon dioxide. You get about 1400 paper bags from a single tree. Plastic removes no trees. It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag than a plastic bag, which means a much bigger carbon footprint per bag in manufacture. The chemicals used in paper production contribute to acid rain and water pollution. Paper bags generate 70% more air pollutants and 5000% more water pollutants than plastic bags. Additionally, it takes 91% less energy to recycle equivalent weights of plastic than paper. Paper isn’t even much more degradable in landfills.
This, of course, is why China, Rwanda, Eritrea, South Africa and the city of San Francisco have banned the use of plastic bags in retail.
Question 2: What can we do to save the polar bears?
Answer: Collect plastic bags and recycle them so they can be made into large reinforced polystyrene blocks coated in melamine. We can then set these blocks floating in the Arctic Ocean. When the ice disappears, the polar bears will have something to scramble on to when they get tired of swimming. They’ll be able to sit there and sun themselves as they snack on baby seal pups and wave to the passing whales.
This green idea would work extremely well if cities, and even whole countries, didn’t keep banning the use of plastic bags.
Question 3: Is methane (CH4) worse than carbon dioxide (CO2)?
Yes it’s fifty times as bad. It’s so bad that nowadays eco-responsible people regard “methane” as a cuss word. They breathe in deeply whenever they use the M word. Currently, the Earth’s crust contains huge amounts of methane. Large amounts of methane are produced anaerobically by methanogenesis. Other sources of methane include mud volcanoes, which are connected with deep geological faults and cows, which are connected with hamburgers.
Question 4: So should I eat hamburgers?
What? Are you kidding? Hamburgers are a complete disaster – except when served in a sesame seed bun with white onions, a tomato slice, jalapenos and cheddar cheese that knows how to melt properly. Nevertheless, even if you can get hamburgers made this way (hint: try Poodies Hilltop Bar and Grill, a honky tonk on rt 71 to the west of Austin) you might like to reflect on the fact that:
While they are preparing to be hamburgers, cows chew grass all day or eat animal feed grown on fields that could have been growing wheat, soya bean or anything that can be made into ethanol. While chewing grass all day they emit methane, which is not only rude, but also a greenhouse gas. They have to be taken to the slaughterhouses via train or truck, because the days of Rawhide are long gone and nowadays cowboys spend all their time at rodeos riding bulls. Once dead and packed, more greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere as the meat is distributed across the US to steak houses and burger joints
According to someone who’s spent an awful lot of time with a calculator, the carbon footprint of all the hamburgers eaten in the US is about equivalent to the carbon foot-print of all the gas-guzzling SUVs that are driven in the US (click here for the details). So stop eating hamburgers (except those referred to above from Poodie’s).
A refreshing Green piece, Robin. No doubt you will be burned in effigy worldwide as a consequence, adding further to global warming
)
As far as Question 9 is concerned, my own view is that it is sheer arrogance to presume that the human race can seriously influence the Earth’s climate. Relative warming may well be an ongoing issue for some worried people but much more radical climate changes have been experienced historically and will be experienced again in the future. Look at the geology and relax is my perspective – the highest land in Knaresborough was laid down at a time when it was under an ocean, close to the equator .
The Earth is a complex adaptive system and we are but mites on the surface.
Enjoy your burger.
Colin
As regards the extent to which man impacts the earth, the evidence is far more than strong that we made the current problem with little help from the planet. See 5 Green Questions (Hanging In The Air). And in truth we are geology. Those layers of sandstone that ‘geology’ laid down were once crustaceans. The limestone was bone. The coal was trees. Aside from the carbon created by cosmic rays from nitrogen, the carbon dioxide surplus is mainly man.
LOL! My husband will love this!
Robin
just to clarify my previous comment slightly (but importantly) my reference to arrogance is attributed to the generally pontificating (not in the case of your excellent discussion of the issue BTW) arguments that we can significantly influence the climate. On second reading, the curtness of my encouragement to enjoy your burger might also be misconstrued, I genuinely meant you to enjoy your burger because I think we do need to relax somewhat.
Your points above (and in the referenced blog) reflect the uncertainty and complexity of the climatic changes (they may well be climactic too, for the human race, eventually). Too many people think that the Earth is a static object and the status quo ante can be preserved by a few gestures towards “green-ness.” (oops I am pontificating a tad too much)
In this I think we agree entirely. We don’t have a clue how to fix what appears to be broken. We have no idea exactly where the ecological system is heading, but I suspect that the earth knows how to take care of itself in some way – and we can only hope we’re actually part of the status quo ante, not having been part of the status quo a prioiri for very long.
Btw, if you cannot pontificate on a blog where can you pontificate.
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
[...] Robin posted 10 Green Questions on his Have Mac will blog, blog. My first reaction was this as another green IT blog, but wait the first question was about [...]