RE:RE:RE:Volvo going greenPlants don't "thrive" on CO2 any more or less than humans "thrive" on O2. Too little kills quickly, too much kills slowly, and in between is just right.
The paper-vs-plastic issue is another problem; both choices are damaging. I have cotton bags that I bought in the 1990s and am still using. They've paid for themselves many times over and have ensured that I'm neither a plastic polluter nor a rampant tree killer when I'm shopping.
.
Pandora wrote: Somewhere in the back of my memory bank is a recollection from schooling 70 years ago that said plant life thrives on CO2. Am I wrong or has something changed? Also I notice of these corporations that want to save the world they are transitioning away from plastic bags and going back to paper bags. I small example is Subway - they got rid of the platic and replaced it with paper. If one considers how many plastic bags are used daily by all of the corporate world in shopping for example how many trees will it take to produce that paper. Aren't trees supposed to be saved or is it the fact that you can replant them so they are "renewable" - to what extent? Especially if you are getting rid of the CO2 that makes them thrive. Is this really a well thought out plan? So complex I guess it is way over my head.
Oldnagger wrote: Automakers are all jumping on the band wagon of saving the environment. It will be interesting to see what really happens when the rubber hits the road and consumers balk et increased costs. Volvo are far from being alone in the luxury market, but they do want to protect their niche (probably wealthy environmental lawyers, etc. )
The initiatives they take may be laudable, but the total impact they make is nanoscopic .
Just a few days ago I Made a quick calculation of how much carbon dioxide would need to be sequestered in order to reduce the atmospheric concentration by 1 ppm. The answer is 94.5 TCF
This means the planet would need to pump almost as much carbon into the ground each year as the total amount of nat gas pumped out. And even with this amount the CO2 content would keep rising by probably 3 or 4 times as fast as that.
personally ,I think , environmentalists should start thinking about bang for the buck solutions, rather than marketing bang for the buck solutions. One of the better solutions is to concentrate on methane containment (which is 80 times more harmful than CO2), but that would mean a change to agriculture where much pollution is from rice farming and as we all know other sacred cows To divert attention from these serious issues ,we can surely count on environmental lawyers to refocus the attention toward the oil industry. The Oil industry , particularly outside of Canade needs to clean up their act concerning methane venting and then spend time and money to bring the issues forward in a responsible manner !!