|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 6, 2009 14:50:00 GMT
If CO2 is a pollutant, then shouldn't the Coca Cola Company, Pepsi, etc. be prohibited from putting it into soda cans/bottles/etc. for human consumption? Or will they just be taxed for each container that is opened, thus releasing the CO2?
What is the carbon footprint of all the carbonated beverages you drink annually?
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Apr 6, 2009 17:18:58 GMT
If CO2 is a pollutant, then shouldn't the Coca Cola Company, Pepsi, etc. be prohibited from putting it into soda cans/bottles/etc. for human consumption? Or will they just be taxed for each container that is opened, thus releasing the CO2? What is the carbon footprint of all the carbonated beverages you drink annually? Good point. However this is not about CO2. CO2 is merely the vehicle being used at the moment to expand political control over 6.8 billion people. Whether that control is warranted or not is debatable. |
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 7, 2009 14:20:55 GMT
I'm not advocating taxing carbonated beverages; but isn't it a logical extension of classifying CO2 as a pollutant?
Can any of the AGW crowd out there explain why the CO2 in carbonated beverages is less harmful than that produced by other man-made sources?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 7, 2009 17:05:30 GMT
I'm not advocating taxing carbonated beverages; but isn't it a logical extension of classifying CO2 as a pollutant? Can any of the AGW crowd out there explain why the CO2 in carbonated beverages is less harmful than that produced by other man-made sources? All CO2 emissions are equal! (isotope variation allowed). I'm in the UK, and I don't think we "classify" things as pollutants. I've always assumed/guessed that the Federal administration was refusing to do anything about CO2 so a back door measure to force the EPA to do something was to apply for a court order to categorise CO2 as a pollutant. It seems silly, but it's a reflection on the legal and political issues rather than on whether CO2 should be called a pollutant or "life"! And I guess emissions of pollutants aren't banned. They're regulated. A separate question: Should we give tax credits to obese people for sequestering carbon? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 7, 2009 19:48:54 GMT
I'm not advocating taxing carbonated beverages; but isn't it a logical extension of classifying CO2 as a pollutant? Can any of the AGW crowd out there explain why the CO2 in carbonated beverages is less harmful than that produced by other man-made sources? All CO2 emissions are equal! (isotope variation allowed). I'm in the UK, and I don't think we "classify" things as pollutants. I've always assumed/guessed that the Federal administration was refusing to do anything about CO2 so a back door measure to force the EPA to do something was to apply for a court order to categorise CO2 as a pollutant. It seems silly, but it's a reflection on the legal and political issues rather than on whether CO2 should be called a pollutant or "life"! And I guess emissions of pollutants aren't banned. They're regulated. A separate question: Should we give tax credits to obese people for sequestering carbon? Very clearly CO2 exhaled by humans is not natural cause it wouldn't be happening if we weren't here and we are just invaders of some aboriginal's land. |
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 7, 2009 22:13:11 GMT
Funny enough, my wife's car failed it's MOT last week because its CO2 emissions were TOO LOW. We had to replace a cracked catalytic converter (at great expense) so we could convert all that pesky CO into CO2. Sort of a tale of two era's really. Ten years ago we were rightly concerned about what humans were breathing in inner city areas so we decided "lets get rid of that dangerous CO as it can kill" and convert it to harmless CO2. Now we want to get rid of the harmless (beneficial even) CO2 and convert it to  Maybe when the greens realise that vehicles with catalytic converters produce far more CO2 than those without they will ban them? Result of the new CAT, CO emissions went down from 0.6% to 0.02%, CO2 emissions went up from 0.03 to 0.5% so if we just removed the catalytic converters from every car, the UK could make a 16% reduction in CO2 emissions instantly, probably equivalent to 900,000 wind turbines (wild guess). |
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Apr 8, 2009 12:20:55 GMT
Carbon Monoxide doesn't magically disappear. It becomes something else, often Carbon Dioxide ...
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 8, 2009 13:31:25 GMT
Funny enough, my wife's car failed it's MOT last week because its CO2 emissions were TOO LOW. We had to replace a cracked catalytic converter (at great expense) so we could convert all that pesky CO into CO2. Sort of a tale of two era's really. Ten years ago we were rightly concerned about what humans were breathing in inner city areas so we decided "lets get rid of that dangerous CO as it can kill" and convert it to harmless CO2. Now we want to get rid of the harmless (beneficial even) CO2 and convert it to Maybe when the greens realise that vehicles with catalytic converters produce far more CO2 than those without they will ban them? Result of the new CAT, CO emissions went down from 0.6% to 0.02%, CO2 emissions went up from 0.03 to 0.5% so if we just removed the catalytic converters from every car, the UK could make a 16% reduction in CO2 emissions instantly, probably equivalent to 900,000 wind turbines (wild guess). It's certainly true that catalytic converters reduce fuel efficiency so will increase CO2 output, but CO can cause formation of ozone (a noxious gas as well as a strong greenhouse gas) and other nasty chemicals. |
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 8, 2009 17:42:06 GMT
"It's certainly true that catalytic converters reduce fuel efficiency so will increase CO2 output'
Not sure that that's true as they have an oxygen sensor that gets the mixture spot on whether outputting more CO or more CO2.
Do you mean that CAT's were originally introduced to cut greenhouse gases such as ozone (at the expense of more CO2 of course)?? I actually believed that they were introduced to cut CO and other noxious fumes, I'm quite disappointed if that's true.
|
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 9, 2009 3:34:14 GMT
If CO2 is a pollutant, then shouldn't the Coca Cola Company, Pepsi, etc. be prohibited from putting it into soda cans/bottles/etc. for human consumption? Or will they just be taxed for each container that is opened, thus releasing the CO2? What is the carbon footprint of all the carbonated beverages you drink annually? I agree - arnt there figures out there for how much Coca Cola emits ? And what about the detrimental effect on peoples health that lollywater has! We could fix 2 problems at once Some other areas that could also go; Private jets for politicians Excessive mansions for politicians No AGW conferences in places like Bali - all done by conference calls |
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 9, 2009 3:44:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Apr 9, 2009 6:26:26 GMT
If CO2 is a pollutant, then shouldn't the Coca Cola Company, Pepsi, etc. be prohibited from putting it into soda cans/bottles/etc. for human consumption? Or will they just be taxed for each container that is opened, thus releasing the CO2? What is the carbon footprint of all the carbonated beverages you drink annually? Zip, zero, zilch, nada. If you extract CO2 from the air, stuff it in a bottle/can, and it comes out later, that's still zero. This reminds me of the people who go apeshit when nuclear plants in Ontario spill a few litres of *NON*-radioactive heavy water into Lake Ontario. Guess where the heavy water came form... riiiight... it was fractionated out of Lake Ontario. I do realize that higher plants and animals will die if they ingest a *LOT* of heavy water, because billions of years of evolution has produced metabolisms that are finely tuned to expect water to have certain physical properties. A few percent density difference can upset a complex metabolism fatally. Having said that, 5 minutes after the spill, 5 metres away in the Lake Ontario water, you would need very sensitive gear to notice the spill, and life forms would not notice it at all. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Similarly CO2 to CO2 and D2O to D2O. It's all a neutral footprint. |
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Apr 9, 2009 12:12:22 GMT
Thanks walterdnes,
Thats a good argument for the Cabonatzis when they come round about my carbon footprint for burning firewood. Mostly 20 year old dead wattle, that lives about that long round here. just recycling ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 9, 2009 16:39:29 GMT
What is the carbon footprint of all the carbonated beverages you drink annually? Zip, zero, zilch, nada. If you extract CO2 from the air, stuff it in a bottle/can, and it comes out later, that's still zero. IF it is extracted from the air, yes. Is that where the CO2 used in carbonation directly comes from? I don't know, but I do know many industrial gases are manufactured, not harvasted. |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Apr 14, 2009 5:04:47 GMT
LOL
If it were easy to filter/harvest/whatever CO2 from the air for a soft drink, we'd be doing it to sequester it.
Commercial CO2 is created by chemical reaction, usually, and I think as a byproduct of oil and gas production. I think.
|
|
