Never have I been so happy to live in Washington, where it rains every other day regardless of the season.

Or, for other info not produced by a government agency where a great number of the people involved spend their time doing as little as possible (I suggest visiting one of their buildings first hand- but this is true of many government beurocracies):

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/...house_data.html



Though I did misspeak, which was my faulty memory- I was remembering a conversation I was having about gobal warming with an atmospheric scientist where he was discussing primarily methane.

None the less, regulations on automobiles is at a point of extreme diminishing returns, wheras many other sources go utterly unregulated. In, say, Lusternia terms, it's the equivalent of having two players, and reforging a masterweapon 1000 times for one player, and leaving the other completely without a weapon.

Funny you should want to play "My sources are better than yours" without checking your sources to see if their data matches your own baseless assumptions. It's quite obvious that methane has a much smaller influence than carbon dioxide.

Additionally: We seem to be at the edge of what emissions-reducing technology can do for petrol engines. However, it is quite obvious that we would be doing better if most people chose to drive cars which are more efficient in terms of kilometres per litre, as less fuel equals less emissions. Alternate energy sources can reduce emissions not just at the car, but by reducing the amount of pollution generated by extracting and transporting all that oil we would be using instead of the ethanol, biodiesel, and clean power sources.

Besides - vegetarianism is okay as a personal choice, but trying to push it on the general population is downright stupid. Protein deficiency is bad for you, and even worse for children. We could replace all our red meat with poultry, but that's about it; fishing is right now incapable of supplying global demand without predatory practices that would further deplete the oceans ("Mommy, what's tuna?") and soy culture, the only real (If considerably inferior) source of vegetable protein, is vastly more environmentally irresponsible than intensive cattle culture; most of the soy you consume today was planted on ground that was, at some point or another, a forest that was burned down. There is no way to produce soy in a more space-efficient way; the amount of soy you can get out of a square metre of ground is fixed. There are, however, ways of using space - and consequently energy, food, and transportation - more efficiently when raising cattle. The bottom line is - We, as human beings, need animal protein sources. We do not need SUVs. It is vastly more feasible replacing and phasing out the superfluous than the necessary.

I don't trust your opinion due to your forum name.

you're biased