bobsponge

Biogenic emissions are VOC emissions found principally in forests and are the largest single source of VOCs in the U.S. This source is larger than all anthropogenic VOC emissions combined. (VOC) = volatile organic compound (co2, no, or co) (source: http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/apb/biogenic.htm) Main Entry: an·thro·po·gen·ic Pronunciation: -p&-'je-nik Function: adjective : of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants> - an·thro·po·gen·ic·al·ly /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb (source: http://m-w.com/dictionary/anthropogenic) So, in other words, according to the EPA, decomposition in the forest amounts for more production of volatile organics than all of human activity and industry.

I am searching now for the definition of "Biogenic Carbon". I cannot find it anywhere, yet the term appears frequently in many assorted scientific articles. Fun fact: we do not count 'biogenic carbon' in EPA emission caps yet we are more than happy to count it in the world's complete 'carbon output' because bigger numbers are scarier. I am assuming just by general inference that biogenic carbon is that which is created by biomass on earth, and since it pertains to the law of conservation of energy, what comes from the environment naturally returns to the environment naturally... OOOooh, but that might also pertain to OIL and petrochemicals, and anything else made on planet earth!? Can anyone help me clarify the true definition of Biogenic Carbon?

Yes. According to their own credo, they would, in that case, be violating their planet and voluntarily unbalancing the ecosystem.

Oh yes, I know that. But here's another conundrum-- One sect of hippies feels it is the need for the 3rd world to live like 1st world. One study has said that if the whole world lived like Europe, we would need 3 earths, and if the whole world lived like America, we would need 5 earths. So the hippies are trying to elevate the lifestyle of everyone else, at our planet's expense, while they preach minimalism and global warming fearmongery.

I have begun a study on co2 emissions for comparing a car, a human (bicycling), and a horse, in order to either prove or disprove ideas that human activity contributes to co2 level increases. Of course, one cannot easily compare a human to a car, so I am doing it in terms of calories spent and co2 emitted per calorie. So far my study is finding that the use of hydrocarbon fuels is much more efficient, not just in terms of cost per calorie, but in terms of co2 emissions and distance traveled. Obviously the report is far from finished but you may find funny stuff in the preliminary data. Feel free to shoot holes in my math and analysis. Basic first findings: If cars were geared to run most efficiently at human walking speeds, they would be twice as efficient in calorie consumption/co2 emissions than a human. If humans were able to bicycle at 60mph, they would burn nearly twice the calories per hour as a car. This is using a straight-line graph, not a bellcurve (which it *should* be, as wind resistance increases with speed). So the true numbers would probably be much scarier. I have yet to put together scary cost-per-calorie info, but considering you can buy 31,000 calories in a gallon of gasoline for $2.50, compared with 500 calories in a cheeseburger for $2.50, it's a VERY wide gap. This is why we power vehicles on gas, and not on beef. If anyone can supply information on how much methane is produced per kilo of horse manure (and per horse, and how much horses crap per day) I'd be much appreciative. Having a hard time finding any info other than on cows (which supposedly make 14% of global methane emissions). Also, wouldn't mind info on how much methane people (and their poop) make, in the same categories. ================================== CARS: 1 gallon gasoline = 31000 calories = 19lbs (8.62kg) co2, or .27g co2 per calorie. human 2000 calorie diet = 285 kg co2 per year or 780g per day, or .39g co2 per calorie. (Source: http://ergobalance.blogspot.com/2006/12/yo...t-counted.html ) This seems to coincide with facts online that state that hydrocarbons burn more efficiently than carbohydrates (my digging shows a 10% increase in efficiency of hydrocarbons vs carbohydrates). 100 mile drive (60 mph) (3 gallons in 33mpg car) = 93,000 calories = 1.33 hours (66,924.81 cal/hr), 25.9kg co2) (source: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question527.htm) 100 mile bike (10mph)= 4220 calories = 10 hours (422 cal/hr), 1.65kg co2. 100 mile bike (16mph) = 4439 calories = 5.26 hours (844 cal per hour), 3.9kg co2. (source: http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm) Providing 200% increase in calorie consumption per 6mph speed increase on a bicycle: 100 mile bike (58mph) = 185815.04 calories = 1.72 hours (108,032 calories/hour), 72.47kg co2. Providing the same decrease (50% calorie drop per 6mph) in a car, we arrive at 130.71 calories per hour burned by a car properly geared to efficiently drive at 6mph. (35.29g co2). (This is for a Honda Civic type vehicle weighing 2690 lbs getting 30-38mpg/33 average) HORSES: 900lb horse needs 13,860 calories to live. If we take the same mature 900 pound horse and ride it at a walk for two hours it will need 18360 calories per day to maintain it’s weight. (source: http://www.equinenet.org/ernet/investig.html) A 1000lb horse engaged in heavy work will use 33,000 calories per day (that is 134 lbs of green-pasture grazing or 21lbs of corn.), and 25,000 in moderate work. 15000 calories for maintenance (no activity). (source: http://www.dayvillesupply.com/doc/hay_calorie.htm) We can infer that a horse requires 4500 calories to walk for 2 hours = 2250cal/hr (878g co2) Plus 176 calories/hr burned by the human, for an additional 68.64g co2. Human walking 1 hour, 150lb person moderate pace 246 calories (95g c02) Human running 1 hour, 150 lb person 10mph 1126 calories (439g c02) Human biking 1 hour, 150lb person 10mph 422 calories (165g co2)

Let 'em all die in self-induced pestilence, I say.

I highly recommend "The Bean Book" by Rose Elliot. I am far from vegetarian, but living on a boat sometimes very far from 'civilization', one cannot always have (a) refrigeration, ( ready access to every convenient facet of 1st-world foodstuffs, and © getting what you want may not even be possible even if you can afford it a thousand times over. So I know a good deal about keeping healthy on minimal stuff Beans and grains provide one with 99% of what you need, the rest can be supplemented with vitamins and occasional fish and seaweed.

Wasn't this thread already split into the debate section?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/12/dolphins....s.ap/index.html Your tax dollars hard at work, folks! Flipper's going to help set beacons out when he catches 'suspicious swimmers'! You've got to be $h!tting me. Interesting tidbit of trivia: For WWII, the Germans trained dogs to carry explosive packages in order to plant them under enemy tanks. The idea was that the dog would lay down beneath the tank and it would detonate the charge, blowing up the tank and the dog. Well, in the field, the dogs went and laid down under the German tanks, not the Allied ones (because that is what they were trained on!). Murphy's law.

Differing people have different measures they can take. I said it falls under your responsibility first, the police second. Obviously if you are overpowered physically, then you will lose. Then and only then should it become a police matter. Insofar as it is, say, laws of differing states. I could go get laid for cash in Nevada, but I'd get arrested for it in any other state. Naturally, if I were a pimp or prostitute, I would want to live in Nevada. Likewise I do not want to pay a state income tax, so I reside in a state which has none. There is a big difference between a group that manages in a servant-government state, and a state that seeks to rule 'by a gentle hand'. As the famous quote says (to paraphrase) "even the most gentle ruler still seeks to rule" and "even the most benevolent of dictators still seeks to dictate". Where there is any chance of a government become a ruling party, such is an 'archy'. Monarchy, oligarchy, whateverarchy. Take away the single master ultimate powerful head, and it becomes an anarchy, and you cannot dispute the definition of such. That's what I believe we need, and from what I've learned it is what you want as well, except that you sneer at the term anarchy. Jurisdiction is only as strong as the people make it. It should not be what your government says it is, which they are doing to us today.

There is a very strong distinction between taking care of your basic needs, and defending your property.

It makes sense, in a given geographic area, not over its entirety, and not overshadowing other geographic areas. I've made it clear before that I have no problem with people organizing and cooperating for their own benefit, only that organization should not be able to force anything on anyone. Hence the lack of a ruling body, hence an anarchy. Sure. No. I believe that defending ones rights comes under personal responsibility first, and police second. If you can fix the problem yourself, leave the police out of it. If your rights were indeed infringed, you have the right to set it straight, through your own power, and if you cannot then through the power of due process by which we all agree to operate. This is a big problem with today's society-- they run to government first and fail to take responsibility, and in order to be able to sit on their asses and shirk said responsibility, the people give the government unwarranted power to do their bidding by proxy.

Police, if any, should be local, not federal. They should be PUBLIC SERVANTS. If need is had for inter-area/inter-state police work, they should not be disallowed communication, but all a federal police program does is encourage top-heaviness, government empowerment, and abuse.

I hope it all comes crashing down on him. Serves him right!

The trial process initially was not one of government power (over retaliatory force) but of citizens all agreeing in a public forum that person A burgled person B, and should be punished. The government provided the room, the people volunteered the rest. It has turned into one of force, however, because due process has been removed in relation to tax collection and intelligence gathering, among other things. It all comes down to this: Able people, left to their own devices, will ultimately take good care of themselves, with no need for outside intervention. The "wild" west is case in point and an excellent example of how enterprising people can form a genteel working society with little need for anything but the most basic common-sense laws and little need for an overseeing government. Those who are unable but smart enough will try and scheme to change the system to their advantage. This is why I am a firm believer that most laws today are not made for keeping the peace, but to give one schemer an advantage over another.

Who says the government has to intervene when you burgle my house? I'd rather take care of that mano-a-mano.

Do you mean a central court? I am not convinced that that is necessary, really-- my international copyright cases spread from the USA to UK to Germany, and none have the same laws, none share a court, but all agree mutually that it is to their benefit to support property rights. If all agree to play by common rules, there is no need for monopoly on force. I agree with many parts of the anarcho-capitalism description, especially "mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow." This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression."

Ron Paul looks very promising. http://www.house.gov/paul/

Oh yes! And then they will say "Look! China is doing great now, and they are still communist!" (fine print: in some parts, but the goose that lays their golden eggs is known as a Special Economic Zone and it's pure capitalism, baby!) Well what got me going today was seeing how the crazies stumped themselves by declaring hydropower to be nonrenewable in a new green energy bill, yet went gaga over the windmills that kill their migratory birds (of which I have yet to see any bird-corpses)... And to top it off, we just watched "Who killed the electric car?" and we had to pause it a hundred times or so to analyze the contradictions in the movie and laugh out loud. California forces auto makers to make electric cars, then gets angry when automakers fight back and shrug their atlas And to top it off, they want to take their electric power (which they legislated into the ground, by the way) to fuel their cars (which they legislated out of their lives), to make the air better in a basin which holds the smog they produce because they build by zoning codes (their own legislation, by the way) that force everyone to get in the car and drive for every little thing they need in their lives. Remember the song "Nobody walks in LA"? All, and this is the major punch line, to stop using foreign fuels which they forced us upon because they got laws passed which ban drilling oil on our own soil!!! I don't remember madness like this when I was a kid. But like I said, I didn't pay as much attention to idiots back then.

I am a capitalist too. I agree with many parts of minarchism, and am all about laissez-faire. However, I do not believe the government should have a monopoly on force.

Maybe it's because I didn't pay as much attention to political craziness when I was younger, or maybe it's because there was less of it before... that's what I am trying to figure out. Those of you older and wiser salts: Do you remember as much daily nut-job wacky behavior in people (and elected officials) in the past, or is it a new phenomenon?

Sure, why not? Who would be holding them back? Not the government! If you don't want to play by the commonly-agreed-upon rules, play in another sandbox. The government has coercive power over anyone who has not violated anyone elses' rights in the USA, right now. PATRIOT, IRC, REAL ID and other acts are a blatant violation of our individual rights and individual sovereignty.

I am opposed to a power structure/ruling body or anything that might be or become oppressive (such as our current regime). I am not anti-government (When I say government I use the definition <to govern, ie, to hold back the power of those who might be abusive of it>, not its current use (to hold back the citizens). A servant government is nothing to be fearful of, as it cannot hold power over the citizens. Citizens agree, yes, to work with each other to mutual benefit under a set of written agreements, ie laws, but that does not define a power structure or ruling body. None of the items I have mentioned above cast me out of the anarchist definition. I'll kick the beehive again and go so far as to say that I find your literature is defining all anarchists as crazed and immoral extremists. Sort of like saying all Muslims are terrorists. It is making a generalization and is incorrect by way of omission. You may define anarchist as a wacko nutjob who wants sheer lawlesness. I do not. Some are, some are not. Some Americans are communists. Some are laissez-faire. Not all love freedom, and some love it more than anything else. I define anarchist as one who simply does not want to live under a ruling body (a definition which agrees with just about every dictionary's definition). Ruling body being a government that has any power beyond being a servant government. As such, I would think it fairly safe to say that while most objectivist-defined anarchists are probably not objectivists, most objectivist-defined objectivists are closer to (or may actually be) anarchists than they may realize. And, on another note, taking and preaching objectivist literature as gospel would probably make poor Ayn roll in her grave. (re currency): Because the constitution says so, and it's not a bad idea for laissez-faire commerce to have a common commodity to lubricate the wheels of trade. The constitution does not hold power over us-- it cannot-- it is a piece of paper. However, if we FREELY agree to treat each other with the tenets of its contents, then we'll all get along to mutual benefit. Those who fail to voluntarily follow said code of conduct will be outcast on their own fault, and rightfully so. As (and I believe it was Ayn) said something to the effect of, "The constitution, without the proper supporting philosophical base, is a meaningless piece of paper" Enforcement through voluntarily Philosophical base, yes, enforcement through brutalizing oppressive force, well it works but it's not moral. Maybe I did not word it well, but when I referred to maintaining the constitution, I meant holding court for disputes.

I advocate this definition as well: One does not need a 'government' for anything more than to organize/maintain an army for defensive purposes, follow the words of the constitution (a document we VOLUNTARILY associate with), and provide a commonly-accepted form of currency for trade. Nothing more. I would not define that as a ruling power at all. A servant government, such as our forefathers envisioned, cannot by its own virtues be a ruling power. This statement is incorrect. I am an individualist, I do not pretend to be one. Karl marx indeed was a collectivist, but his anarchical leanings were more to tear down the existing system and replace it with communism/socialism. His was a temporary anarchy to suit his needs and then be abandoned. My anarchy morality is to remove the power that the US government has become and return it to its servant-government state it was in during its creation. You guys seem to knee-jerk wildly against anyone who falls under another -ism other than Objectivism. It can work, and it does. Just because one is an anarchist does not mean they are crazy combat-booted skinheads that blow stuff up. Those people are just plain destructive. I wear my anarchist label with intelligence and knowledge; you brand me with your ignorance and closed-mindedness. Some Objectivists you are!

That's a fairly anarchistic statement to come from an Objectivist who does not believe that Obj'ism and anarchism are compatible