The are major emitters of CO2 gas.
2007-08-01 05:47:14 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
When environmental "activism" was in its infancy the farm lobby got involved big time. You look at "air quality" boards and committees around the country and you will find farming interests all over them. Farms are responsible for a good 40% of air pollution and get nearly no regulation from those aiming to fight global warming and air pollution - because of their presence on such committees \ boards. The farmers "be" smart.
2007-08-01 05:53:06 · answer #1 · answered by netjr 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The most important ways that the people can combat global warming is getting rid of their older model cars (1979 Buick) because, older cars emmitt more toxic fumes into the air. Its obvious that the more technological advanced a car is, the less harmful gases it emmitts. A car that was built 3 or 4 years ago will be more economy friendly than a car that was assembled 35 years ago. For high populated cities such as New York, Bus and Taxi companys should replace current vehicles with cars that are powered by hydrogen or electricity. Just think, if every major city used the Toyota Prius as taxi's, there would be a decreased level of pollution, and also taxi fares could be drastically lower as well.
2016-04-01 06:45:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All animals exhale CO2 and fart methane. Both of which are greenhouse gases. Humans do it too. Should we limit the human population? Nature can restore its balance. Use of non polluting energy sources and a halt to deforestation is the best bet to speed up the process. But you can bet that even if we destroy ourselves, the planet will recover. It has survived far worse than us before. It may be too late to halt the process of global warming, we may have to ride out the Earth's heating and cooling cycle. It will be a very unpleasant adjustment for most of us, but it could be unavoidable. But replenishing the forests is never a bad idea.
2007-08-01 06:44:23 · answer #3 · answered by James L 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Limiting the amount of time people like Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Harry Reid and the like are allowed to rant would probably lower the earth temperature a couple of degrees.....
2007-08-01 07:57:00 · answer #4 · answered by usaf.primebeef 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they are.
But, nature balances quite well with living things, if we don't cut down all the trees, and don't burn tons of fossil fuels a day.
So, if we accept that there's too much greenhouse gasses and pollution, we have two choices.
One, stop harming the planet's ability to maintain balance, and stop pumping our own pollution into the air....
Or two, kill all the animals, and keep pumping pollution into the air....
Personally, if the choice is between killing animals and finding clean renewable fuel sources -- the latter option seems like the better long-term plan.
2007-08-01 05:51:42 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Horses and cows should be regulated for numerical density for many reasons...
Sediment loss, de-vegetations and nitrate/organic compound release to environment are excellent reasons, too.
2007-08-01 05:53:38 · answer #6 · answered by outcrop 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. But if I choose to be vegetarian instead, will the GOP make fun of me instead of supporting my right to affect change personally?
2007-08-01 05:55:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Has it occured to you that while some places are supposedly getting warmer others are also getting cooler?
2007-08-01 05:50:32 · answer #8 · answered by Glen B 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No we just need to retro fit them with catalytic converters.
2007-08-01 05:54:40 · answer #9 · answered by Razr 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
SURE--IF YOU ARE WILLING TO TRADE WARMING FOR STARVING
2007-08-01 06:02:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋