Some people will take a cause and just go to the extreme with it. So, now that we know (Okay, does this surprise anybody?)  that herds of animals are partially responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, what’s next? Do we just go around to countries with herds of animals and start “culling” them to reduce emissions? I know, once we’ve “culled” all the animal herds, we could “cull” the human population as well since we have plenty of evidence of the damage humans do to the environment. Perhaps they should start with the “academic” quoted in this article.

This new discovery seems to offer a surprisingly good and quick way to reverse the effects of global warming with the easy absorption of CO2 particles. However, it also raises a possible dilemma. If we start using these rock formations to absorb CO2, which will reduce emissions currently in the air, do we run the risk of doing it too fast – faster than the system can adapt and thus producing global cooling? Hopefully, they consider this possibility before they start. It took many years to get where we are and I think the ecosystem has tried to adapt but has been unsuccessful. If we reverse it too quickly, will the ecosystem have time to adapt to the change?

Ok, this is so bogus. How in the world can they come up with these numbers when they don’t even know what technologies are going to be the most effective? What happens if the money is invested in technologoies and projects that aren’t efficient? Do their numbers still hold credence? It sounds to me like some people are scared because the recession, lower oil prices, and some of the the coldest recorded temperatures in certain areas in decades have caused a reduction in the amount being funneled to research climate change. So, they use a marketing tactic by making this bold, sweeping statement saying we have this small window of opportunity in hopes of securing more investment dollars for their research.

Believe me, I favor finding ways to decrease our use of carbon-based fuel. I believe there are health risks and possible climate changing repercussions if we don’t. But I don’t believe these numbers have any credibility other than in the “it makes sense that the more we spend and the quicker we spend it, the greater chance for success we have” sort of way. There are just too many variables.