Cattle and other domestic animals contribute not only carbon dioxide, but in the case of cattle, methane. Termites also produce methane.......so how much does all of this add up to?
2007-07-31 13:06:40 · 15 answers · asked by jeff h 1 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
The fringe believes that they can live here , but humans are the only species that must leave the planet...they feel mankind is ALWAYS to blame. It's wacky, but true.
2007-07-31 14:11:11 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Me 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In 1900? There were maybe 1-2 billion people on the planet, with full rain forests, lots of phytoplankton, fewer domesticated animals, and less industry. The point that has been made with this question is that if man is contributing to global warming, increased population is also a major contributor,not just through increased fossil fuel usage, but also through other methods. Methane and water vapor are much more potent global warming agents than is carbon dioxide, so lesser amounts affect the equation more dramatically. Fewer plants around to convert carbon dioxide into energy and oxygen, coupled with more sources, both biotic and other, feeding additional greenhouse inputs into the system. To say the carbon dioxide from animals and people is recycled the same with 6 billion people is the same as it was with 1 billion people is just too simplistic. Those isotopes of carbon, the carbon 13 etc. measured as an input from burning fossil fuels will also be taken in by plants and added into the carbon footprint. How much oxygen does one human convert into carbon dioxide in a single day? Multiply that by 365 days and 6 billion people, and the overpopulation picture starts to feed the global warming picture on many levels, not just energy consumption. Also remember that data suggests 10 billion people on the planet in the not so distant future.
2007-07-31 23:47:21 · answer #2 · answered by Twila H 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The carbon dioxide emitted by animals and methane from termites and cattle isn't a big deal. It does contribute to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but not very much. Here's an example. Its like putting a running car in a sealed room with one tree in it, and expecting the tree to use all the carbon dioxide from the burning fossil fuel. It's pretty much the same way, the plants can easily take care of the carbon dioxide from animals and humans breathing. It's the fossil fuels that's a problem.
2007-07-31 21:35:16 · answer #3 · answered by Luke 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The amount of carbon dioxide produced naturally is far more than what people and industry produce. By the the natural mechanisms that recycle that carbon dioxide back out of the air have not increased to take care of the extra amount that we are releasing, so the levels are going up.
2007-07-31 22:20:06 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bob is right. CO2 coming from us (and, cows) comes from the atmosphere. We're simply returning it, so it doesn't change the total CO2 in "circulation." The same is true of biodiesel and ethanol ... both release CO2 to the atmosphere, but it doesn't change the amount in circulation. Burning fossil fuels takes CO2 that was tied up (in coal and petroleum) and adds to the total in the atmosphere.
Now, this leads to an interesting point that many "anti-GW" folks have been saying. The CO2 in coal and oil was once in circulation ... millions of years ago. In other words, at some distant point in the past, the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, and burning the fossil fuels returns the earth to its natural balance for that time period.
2007-07-31 22:58:57 · answer #5 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Do you know anything about ecosystems? We need methane and CO2! It's all about balance and human beings are disrupting it! Cattle are bred and raised by humans and about the termites....pff. They cannot be put into the equation of global warming at all!
2007-07-31 21:35:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, seeing as the ice block evidence indicates that carbon dioxide went up after we invented cars, it would seem that the breathing CO2 and cow farts would be fairly negligable.
2007-07-31 21:37:23 · answer #7 · answered by eevilcheese 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Surprisingly, it matters where the CO2 comes from.
The CO2 people breathe was taken from the air recently by plants. Putting it back is no big deal.
The CO2 from fossil fuels was buried by the natural "carbon cycle" over many thousands of years. We're digging it up and burning it in some tens of years. That's a real problem.
By using "isotopic ratios" scientists have proven that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels.
Man is messing up the balance of nature, and it threatens serious damage. We need to fix that.
2007-07-31 20:30:23 · answer #8 · answered by Bob 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Not surprisingly, 6 billion people do not create nearly as much CO2 as 600 million vehicles + industrial sources.
As for natural sources ... how DOES one collect termite farts?
2007-07-31 21:33:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I believe that if each "family" had 1.2 children, instead of 2.2, then we'd have sustainable energy supplies.
Also, god forbid the liberals in denial who thinks that a mexican family of 20 children to a 19 year old girl, and if they all drive hybrids
that it is somehow better than a family of 2 successful white ppl, who drive chevy suburban and a ford mustang.
Perhaps it is that the 20 mexicans will vote liberal every election.
2007-07-31 20:58:46 · answer #10 · answered by Voltaire's book Candide 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'm not sure, can we bind the methane with another material and make it a solid? I have been told that hydrocarbons are essentially unsolidified plastic.
2007-07-31 22:08:21 · answer #11 · answered by Tim D 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋