Quote:
Originally Posted by Dadhawk
Now we're into semantics. I get what you are getting at and I don't completely disagree with you, but if even if it's a small percentage of the increase, it's still an and.
You know like "1 Trillion and 01/100 dollars".
|
Right, we can include the CO2 in soda consumption and methane from bean farts into the CO2 from cars and methane from natural gas plants and from cows, but the CO2 and methane from soda and from beans is so small that it is within the margin of error of calculating the emissions from cars, cows and natural gas plants. I don't know if the 'And' component is significant enough to mention.
For instance, there is more biomass in the world of ants than cows--3,000 million tons versus 520 million tons, respectively. Ants can produce methane, and maybe they produce more than cows, so the vegans would seemingly be best to put their foot in their mouth suggesting the methane from cows is a problem compared to other animals, but then again, cow populations are huge because we eat them, so one has been there and is likely in balance with nature, and one has grown rapidly with the rise in the human population. Similarly, we could talk about the melanin in the skin of Africans being high and having a large natural production from tissue turnover that would dwarf the melanin stimulated from a day in the direct sun, and yet, if the skin of the African got even slightly darker, we would be remised to suggest it was because of natural causes when we know the changing factor was the sun.
I'm not picking on you when you were just trying to say it is always two sides for anyone suggesting it is was just one, but I'm just saying, sometimes it is just one, even when there is two.