remember... its only a question, not my opinion!
2007-09-18 11:10:54 · 23 answers · asked by sparkysbandit 1 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Tree huggers like all human beings are a poor source of fuel. Humans have such a high water content that to burn them actually requires a net loss in energy. In other words, you'll spend more in energy burning the humans than you will get out of the burning of humans.
Even when broken down to constituent elements, most of them are not flammable or energy producing as fuel.
You just can't make the process efficient enough to make it worthwhile.
I don't take this question too seriously. I just thought of it as a good exercise in thinking outside the box.
2007-09-18 12:19:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
No Way !!!!!
- Think of the Carbon footprint of burning those hippies!
- Although I don't know the exact laws I'm sure some Health & Safety person will say you cannot do it.
- How do you define a tree hugger? There are a number of different degrees - Would you include vegaterians?
- How would you get them started? Build a big bonfire and then stick them on top or a Wickerman type deely - either way you need an additional wooden fuel source which defeats the whole object.
2007-09-21 02:31:33 · answer #2 · answered by David 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
sparkysbandit, do you notice how many of these Leftists have no sense of humour? Your question was totally tongue-in-cheek and I had to laugh.
As a conservative I love trees, they take CO2 out of the air and provide oxygen, they are pretty, they cool the air and many other good things. Trees also make excellent lumber for my house, my furniture, my tools, paper for my books and to wipe with. Trees are a crop like any other, which can be planted, grown and harvested, they just take longer to grow. I want more trees planted. I despise developers who clear-cut 40 acres, build 320 houses there, then stick in a few 4 ft saplings. The tree huggers are responsible for forcing such forest mismanagement that thousands of acres of trees burn in forest fires. Cutting trees, clearing underbrush, actually preserves forests. Too many tree huggers love trees to death.
2007-09-20 17:52:13 · answer #3 · answered by Taganan 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I hate timber: "there is unrest interior the woodland there is hassle with the timber For the maples choose extra solar And the o.ok. forget approximately their pleas the hassle with the maples (and that they are particularly confident they are suitable) they say the o.ok. are purely too lofty and that they grab up each and all of the easy however the o.ok. can not help their emotions in the event that they like the way they are made and that they ask your self why the maples can not be happy of their coloration there is hassle interior the woodland And the creatures all have fled through fact the maples scream 'Oppression!' And the o.ok. purely shake their heads So the maples shaped a union And demanded equivalent rights 'The o.ok. are purely too grasping we could lead on them to provide us easy' Now there is not extra o.ok.oppression For they exceeded a noble regulation And the timber are all stored equivalent by using hatchet, awl and observed"
2016-10-09 10:24:21 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In many parts of the world people cook with wood. They have denuded the slopes and now they have flooding and mud slides.
In BC, Canada many logging companies do the same and the floods this spring brought lots of foreign matter into the drinking water reservoirs. Vancouver had boil water advisories for weeks.
2007-09-18 12:47:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Too much water content. you could however cut off our greasy dreadlocks, they'd burn well.
Then there are a couple of choices, either drown us in a vat of sewerage and tap off the biogas, or cannibalise us, it wouldn't strictly be an energy source but it would save alot of energy. Did you know the comparitive carbon footprint of beef and lentils is 7:1!
2007-09-19 09:19:35 · answer #6 · answered by John Sol 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wont work, very few in numbers and too much water. Alternative is take people who lead a wasteful life, buy gas guzzlers, beef eaters (these are much more in numbers) then kill em and dry em and then burn em. These have more fat and fart on em, very good source of fuel
2007-09-19 00:01:51 · answer #7 · answered by funnysam2006 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hook them up as batteries, a la the Matrix!
And before anybody laughs at this then check out the link below! Science-FIction? More like Science-Fact!
2007-09-21 04:51:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Andrew O - humans are a poor energy source.
2007-09-18 12:22:31 · answer #9 · answered by Walking on Sunshine 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Jeremy Clarkson suggested running a car on environmentalists a few years back. Brilliant idea!! I can just hear the new topic of conversation in pubs up & down the land.....'So, my car does 30 miles per hippy, what about yours?'
Cue hate mail!!!!
2007-09-18 11:40:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋