Scientist Implicates Worms in Global Warming
Jim Frederickson, the research director at the Composting Association has called for data on worms and composting to be re-examined after a German study found that worms produce greenhouse gases 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Worms are being used commercially to compost organic material and is in preference to putting it into the landfill. The German government wants 45% of all waste to be composted by 2015.
"Everybody... thinks they can do no harm but they contribute to global warming. People are looking into alternative waste treatments but we have to make sure that we are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire," said Frederickson.
2007-08-09 08:06:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by **Anti-PeTA** 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well firstly we have to assume we know why it is warming, if it is going to continue or if it is mearly a normal earth cycle. But giving you the benifit of no proof lets say it is cuased by damage to the ozone and greehouse gasses then I say no one person or company is each and ever person this is either using paper hydro fossil fuel or any other item that cuases emmissions ect is equally at fualt.
in a nut shell almost 100% of all people on earth.
Unless in your opinion the biggest offender would mean the ones that contribute the most green house emmissions but thats not what you asked...
2007-08-10 13:38:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by letsget_dangerous 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
Newsweek for publishing that article on Global Cooling a couple of decades ago. When will the scientific community get it together (they can't predict the weather two weeks from now - heck they can barely understand what the weather was in the past).
2007-08-07 11:54:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by wigginsray 7
·
6⤊
0⤋
Hands down, the SUN and it's solar flares are the biggest cause. The SUN has been the cause of all global warming since time began and there is little that humans can do about it.
2007-08-07 13:26:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by hemi_55 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
What is more important is figuring out how we will reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 90% compared with what they are today.
That is only 10% of what we produce today!!!
How can we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by that amount?
One way is to completely shut down are economy.
But that is not going to work. It would create too much poverty and unhappiness.
The other way is to ban the use of fossil fuel and use electricity that is generated by a source that does not produce greenhouse gases.
The only way to accomplish that is to build 2,000 nuclear power plants, change all of our automobiles over to electric. No hybrids. They still use too much gas.
And convert our houses to be heated and cooled by electricity produced by nuclear energy.
Wind power and solar cells are too undependable. Wind power only works when the wind is blowing. Solar cells only work when the sun is shining.
If we build 100 nuclear power plants per year it will take us 20 years to build the plants that we need.
If we are going to have any chance of stopping Global Warming we had better start building those nuclear power plants today.
2007-08-07 11:52:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
5⤋
It's nice to see that dana agrees that ethanol and biodiesel (except that made from waste products) is not good.
Deforestation is the #1 contributor to AGW.
Let's build those nuclear power plants!
2007-08-08 08:37:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Scott L 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
Agriculture
Civilized societies
and Industry
2007-08-09 07:18:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Starting with Al Gore the list is endless....
2007-08-07 14:08:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Just look in the mirror! It's us. It's our demand for products and services, and our lack of willingness to pay more for environmentally-friendly items. It's our lack of willingness to pressure our respective governments to take action. WE are at fault!
2007-08-07 12:38:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by jdkilp 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
ExxonMobil is the most environmentally unfriendly corporation in the world.
Without ExxonMobil there wouldn't be global warming skeptics:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil_funding_recipients
2007-08-07 12:12:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by PD 6
·
0⤊
5⤋