California law bans small off-road gas engines, including lawnmowers and chainsaws

[gamma_ray]

That is in fact a little less damaging than using gas or coal as you are consuming the energy that fell on the plant in recient times , not what has bee squirled away umpteen million years ago
This is the problem with the empathise on CO2
CO2 IS NOT THE PROBLEM
Heat imbalance is the problem, and CO2 only plays a tiny part of it
The combined heat from the sun + what we make is more than can get radiated out overnight so we just keep on getting hotter .
A very big ( in fact bigger ) part of the problem is all of the heat that falls on land that no longer has any plants growing on it
The plants convert the heat into chemical energy which is used to make mass , cellulose , basically according to the famous E=MC 2 equation backwards
Get a thermometer and read the temperature inside your house, outside your house, on the driveway, on the lawn, on the lawn and if available under trees and the tree canopy itself.
Do it at midday and midnight
Good chance even at midnight the road & driveway will still be hotter than the grass and the air so will still be radiating heat into the atmosphere .
As such, solar is the winner hands down as it directly converts the sun's energy into electricity = plus some waste heat but in the morning your solar panel will be quite cold while your tile roof will still be hotter than the surrounding air.
But like idiots in place of putting them in cities to reduce the heat sink effect of all of the concrete we cut down forests and build solar farms which are far less efficient in adsorbing solar energy than a forest is and buggers up water cycles as well.
But putting cells on city & urban roofs makes it hard ( near impossible ) to balance the power grid & ever harder to run the network & make you pay for power so the electricity supply company has little to sell but all of the costs of maintaining the grid ( a lot more expensive than most would believe )/
Add to that solar panels on the roof keep the house cooler and cooling uses a lot more energy than heating and remember all of the cold inside adds more heat outside so makes the city hotter for longer so the air conditioning is on all night .
Large scale rapid breeder power stations were a BS idea from day one
Their prime purpose was to generate scrap plutonium that was cheaply converted into atomic warheads.
Take that away and the plants are by & large uneconomic as the power sold never covers the construction & maintenance costs let alone the proper disposal of the waste .
Pebble bed & liquid salt reactors are economic to run and in particular the liquid salt reactors are 100 safe because if the reactor fails the salt solidifies and reaction stops so the only danger is ionizing the air which is not really a problem that is easy to overcome ( dump lead oxide, Boron oxide , waste plutonium granules or any one of a squillion dense materials .)
So if burning coal is a 10 then gas would be a 6 and fresh cut wood would be a the burning of wood (biomass). You said it's not

That is in fact a little less damaging than using gas or coal as you are consuming the energy that fell on the plant in recient times , not what has bee squirled away umpteen million years ago
This is the problem with the empathise on CO2
CO2 IS NOT THE PROBLEM
Heat imbalance is the problem, and CO2 only plays a tiny part of it
The combined heat from the sun + what we make is more than can get radiated out overnight so we just keep on getting hotter .
A very big ( in fact bigger ) part of the problem is all of the heat that falls on land that no longer has any plants growing on it
The plants convert the heat into chemical energy which is used to make mass , cellulose , basically according to the famous E=MC 2 equation backwards
Get a thermometer and read the temperature inside your house, outside your house, on the driveway, on the lawn, on the lawn and if available under trees and the tree canopy itself.
Do it at midday and midnight
Good chance even at midnight the road & driveway will still be hotter than the grass and the air so will still be radiating heat into the atmosphere .
As such, solar is the winner hands down as it directly converts the sun's energy into electricity = plus some waste heat but in the morning your solar panel will be quite cold while your tile roof will still be hotter than the surrounding air.
But like idiots in place of putting them in cities to reduce the heat sink effect of all of the concrete we cut down forests and build solar farms which are far less efficient in adsorbing solar energy than a forest is and buggers up water cycles as well.
But putting cells on city & urban roofs makes it hard ( near impossible ) to balance the power grid & ever harder to run the network & make you pay for power so the electricity supply company has little to sell but all of the costs of maintaining the grid ( a lot more expensive than most would believe )/
Add to that solar panels on the roof keep the house cooler and cooling uses a lot more energy than heating and remember all of the cold inside adds more heat outside so makes the city hotter for longer so the air conditioning is on all night .
Large scale rapid breeder power stations were a BS idea from day one
Their prime purpose was to generate scrap plutonium that was cheaply converted into atomic warheads.
Take that away and the plants are by & large uneconomic as the power sold never covers the construction & maintenance costs let alone the proper disposal of the waste .
Pebble bed & liquid salt reactors are economic to run and in particular the liquid salt reactors are 100 safe because if the reactor fails the salt solidifies and reaction stops so the only danger is ionizing the air which is not really a problem that is easy to overcome ( dump lead oxide, Boron oxide , waste plutonium granules or any one of a squillion dense materials .)
So if burning coal is a 10 then gas would be a 6 and fresh cut wood would be a 5

The harvesting of wood (biomass) does the very thing you mentioned: Reduces the land of growing trees which absorb the Sun's heat. It's also less energy dense than coal, oil, or nat. gas, that is taken from the ground, so is much, much less efficient at energy production.

 

[bertsmobile1]

The harvesting of wood (biomass) does the very thing you mentioned: Reduces the land of growing trees which absorb the Sun's heat. It's also less energy dense than coal, oil, or nat. gas, that is taken from the ground, so is much, much less efficient at energy production.

No arguement with that at all Ray .
The difference only comes in if the forest that was cut is allowed to regrow as young trees sequest a lot more carbon than older trees do
Also because the wood is less energy dense you are actually using more of that energy and putting less waste heat up the flue , called "silly heat ".
SO if you are burning wood that could have been used for lumber then it is a backwards step
If you are burning wood that is waste then it is a forward step as if left to rot the bacteria will produce a lot of methane which is a lot worse than CO2

 

[BudLight]

No arguement with that at all Ray .
The difference only comes in if the forest that was cut is allowed to regrow as young trees sequest a lot more carbon than older trees do
Also because the wood is less energy dense you are actually using more of that energy and putting less waste heat up the flue , called "silly heat ".
SO if you are burning wood that could have been used for lumber then it is a backwards step
If you are burning wood that is waste then it is a forward step as if left to rot the bacteria will produce a lot of methane which is a lot worse than CO2

Numerous paper mills burning the wood byproducts in their multi fuel boilers and obtaining carbon credits as well.

 

[enigma-2]

Cow farts.
Much more potent than carbon dioxide.

 

[bertsmobile1]

Cow farts.
Much more potent than carbon dioxide.

Only if you are a vegan and totally willing to ignore ALL other farts
There are over 1,000,000 fewer elephants in existance than at the turn of the previous century and they farted too , as do people, horses , dogs cats , birds, and every other animal on the planet but apparently only beef & dairy cattle farts are a problem , all the others are OK .
And while you are there the bacteria that produce the alcohol fart methane too so lets ban all beers wines & spirits, as well as most fermented foods .
Now how many cow farts are equal to an elephant fart ?

 

[enigma-2]

Actually cow burps are much more harmful that their farts. Do elephants belch? (I really don't know).
Some scientist calculated that cow belching accounts for 5.5% of all of the greenhouse gasses. (Definitely not a vegan, smile).

Just wait until CA CARB gets around to regulating cows. (And elephants).

 

[shurguywutt]

The Animal Natural Usage Society or A.N.U.S. will mandate Cows and elephants to comply otherwise pay a belch tax. This of coarse will be fairly applied on a sliding-scale percentage rate based on how much vegetation and foraging land that they have in their territory. If they don't pay the tax to offset their belches and farts, their land will be confiscated until they can only forage for enough food to minimize natural gas production. This land and/or tax will of coarse go to the donkeys.

 

[bertsmobile1]

Actually cow burps are much more harmful that their farts. Do elephants belch? (I really don't know).
Some scientist calculated that cow belching accounts for 5.5% of all of the greenhouse gasses. (Definitely not a vegan, smile).

Just wait until CA CARB gets around to regulating cows. (And elephants).

Burps are mostly methane & farts are methane & sulphur compounds so farts are actually more dangerous.
And that scientist was doing research probably funded buy the nut meat & almond milk foundation.
5.5 % of world emissions is a massive number even it is has been multiplied out to account for greater green house effect of methane as compared to CO2.
And if it was done using USA cows in feed lots fed on corn mash then will only apply to 2 % of world cattle.
Aust cattle are all pasture animals with a very small percentage finished off for a month on grain ( not corn ) to obtain the fat marbeling required for Japan.
Not done for exports to the USA because they go to Mexico to be processed for local consumption or hamburger mince & pet food for USA consumption
Brazil comes in second to the USA & again all pasture fed
Argentina the next biggest beef producer also are mostly pasture fed .
EU dairy cattle are again pasture fed when there is grass and hay fed during winer .
EU beef cattle are also pasture fed in summer and fed on a mash of pumpkin , grains & hay over winter
Asian cattle are all pasture fed
No idea about Soviet or Chinese cattle but again I doubt they are fed on corn mash
Australia has 10% of the worlds cattle
But our total emission are under 2 % of the worlds emissions and cattle ( cows & sheep ) account for 13% of that so we are talking about .26 %
So those numbers are highly suspect, particularly when you take into account that we have 10 times more sheep than cattle and sheep poo nuggets that tend to make them fart a lot.

Considering the massive heard of buffalo that traversed the entire American continent for thousands of years, I find it hard to believe the methane rubbish.
All that this rubbish shows is that we are yet to understand the natural methane cycle of the planet.
If this was not the case then the planets atmosphere would have methane levels way over 10%

 

[enigma-2]

Considering the massive heard of buffalo that traversed the entire American continent for thousands of years, I find it hard to believe the methane rubbish.

From what I've read, science has a very good idea of the condition of the earth during the time when millions of buffaloes roamed the plains. At that time there also trillions of trees covering the planet, absorbing the excess CO2.

The record was written in the Artic ice. Core samples clearly show the condition of the atmosphere dating back millions of years.

All that changed with the start of the industrial revolution. The burning of huge amounts of coal, cutting down the vast forests and the the conversion of buring oil to heat homes and factories followed by the the use of gasoline by automobiles (currently around 1-1/2 BILLION cars on the planet) triggered an unnatural warming that saw Earths temperature rise dramatically over a very short period of time.

We truly are at a preparous of change.

Concerning agriculture there is an interesting study that found:

"Five meat and dairy companies emit more emissions than major oil companies, study finds

Together, the five largest meat and dairy corporations (JBS, Tyson, Cargill, Dairy Farmers of America and Fonterra) are already responsible for more annual greenhouse gas emissions than ExxonMobil, Shell or BP, a new study released on Wednesday (18 July) warns."

 

[bertsmobile1]

My first question is always ,"who paid for the research & from what institution ?"
Remember for 20 years creditable scientists produced studies showing how compound analgesics were beneficial to our health
And then there was all the research that showed smoking cigarettes was good for your health.
The time when billions of buffalo roamed the Americas was only 300 years ago by which time most of the great forests of Europe and North Africa had already been felled for fuel , building materials & weapons .
Any paper that shows named company A is worse than named company B is generally propaganda usually funded by company B or some one with a beef against company A .
Then you have the problem of comparing oranges to pineapples so you would need to have a very careful look at what was in & what was out of those figures .

And of course all of these require "THEM" to amend their wicked ways
We already know that the biggest single cause of environmental change is land clearing and forrest removal, so how about limiting all houses to a 1 acre block unless it is a formal garden or food producing space with the liberated land to be consolodated back into urban forest .
Think of the millions of ZTR's that would no longer be needed to be made, let alone all the emissions saved
Then large engines can go, no normal human needs the sort of massive engined vehicles produced mostly in the USA .
Australia is the same sized country as the USA and down here a big engine is 4 litres fitted to vehicles designed to tow
The new fully imported range have engines up to 10 litres which is twice the size of the 20 ton excavator we used to have
High speed rail to replace the interstates and in particular flying which dumps millions of gallons of unburned jet A1 into the air every single day

Now I am not anti vegan but I am yet to find one who understands the nutrient cycle and can explain where all of the phosphorus & potassium is going to come from to fertilize all of their Mung beans and almond milk trees without reprocessing all of their own poo.

I listened to a paper ( I listen to a lot of papers ) where the speaker was trying to establish that a litre of milk took 300 litres of water to make as if the water needed to grow the grass & what the cows drank vanished inside the cow . Again the fact that the water got returned to the soil in the form of urine that contained minerals essential for the grass to grow sort of excaped his arguement and the water that the grass used to grow was either transpired back into the atmosphere to fall as rain again or runs off into creeks , streams & rivers .
Never the less it was a good paper with lots of pie diagrams , graphs & charts and proved that drinking beer was better for the planet than drinking milk Which was good enough for me to buy a case of Coopers on the way home guilt free .