Farting death humans must die to save the world
Why not shoot a few humans, I think they produce far more pollution than feral camels.
An Adelaide-based entrepreneur has hit upon a novel method of fighting global warming: he intends to exterminate Australia's vast population of feral camels by means of gunfire from helicopters and jeeps, so preventing the beasts from unleashing a deadly planet-wrecking miasma of greenhouse gas from their rumbling guts. The …
My wife and I have decided to have only one child. I like to tell people its to minimise our carbon footprint for the horrified looks i get.
Hmm, maybe condom manufactures and other producers of contraception should be talking to the government about carbon credits.
It's about a business opportunity based on the trading of carbon credits and probably a fair bit of coin from people who want to hang out of helicopter gunships blasting the everliving shit out of some mustelids with high calibre weaponry.
The fact that the working of carbon credits allows this idea to even seem viable reflects on the state of the CC scheme very, very badly.
I knew it was Camelids but had a wonkypodium article on Mustelids open in another tab. I accept this Fail icon.
I'm sure there's money to be made out of offering put-upon rabbits the chance to get in a small helicopter and take hot lead-based vengeance on the mustelids, though.
then it's more likely your pet ferret that's in danger. But from Mr Page's article - and his articles, as we know, always epitomise the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But TheTruth, as exemplified by his authoritative excursions into what *really* happened at Fukushima) - I get the definitive impression that it's rather members of the family Camelidae that these would-be helicopter jockeys want to have in their sights....
before shooting, they should calculate the projected greenhouse gas output during the camel's expected life and balance that against the decomposition gasses now and at the end of its natural life, plus the fuel use of the hunting vehicles. On this basis, they should favour shooting the baby camels (greatest life expectancy, larger body to decompose when adult).
Alternatively, maybe they should focus on preventing camel reproduction. While the idea of Australians rushing round the Outback with camel condoms has a certain appeal, mosquito control methods might be more practical. Breed large numbers of sterile male camels and release them to out-compete the fertile males, causing a decline in the population.
Of course, if you're selling carbon-credits based on the number of camels shot, you certainly don't want a decrease in the population, so you'll shoot the old (past breeding age) and non-dominant males. Can you spell Conflict of Interest?
Icon: pregnancy test sample from camel.
I'm wondering about carbon credits needed to keep whirlybirds in the air; can't be little.
1/ Wait for drought (easy -- ongoing since 10+y... which means it's NOT a drought but a wrongly-assessed climate; they just counted peak rainfall years as "normal" instead of exceptionally wet),
2/ leave tap to drip (to attract camels),
3/ shoot/electrocute/club to death as desired,
4/ buy sheep (or harvest as above) plus 10kg dates
5/ build clay oven,
6/ cook camel stuffed with sheep stuffed with dates,
Ok i think we all agree this is about as Green as a cricket ball (im talking colour here folks), but hey anyone who wants to go and wipe out one of the humungous numbers of pests we have roaming Australia deserves a bit of funding in my opinion.
And at least hes not going the traditional "ask the government (re every taxpayer) for a handout" route and is trying the "ask the gullible (or companies that want to appear more green then they actually are) for a handout" route...
I wish him the best of luck! (for getting the funding and for wiping out the feral camels!)
1) Find a pest you want to get rid of (camels)
2) Spin it so your animal-slaughtering ways actually sound environmentally conscious (camel farts will kill the planet)
3) Get someone to pay you to kill the pests (angry farmers, distressed towns), someone else to pay you for making the pests not do the environmentally harmful thing (dead camels don't pass gas, nor do they reproduce to make more gas-passers), and yet another person to pay you for the remains (dog food)
4) Make out like a mercenary and get paid three times (profit!)
Sounds like sound business sense if he can pull it off... easy money, the farmers/towns are happy, the government gets to pretend they're doing something for the environment, and dogs get a new flavor; everyone wins!
the real reason behind the cull is the camel is a non-native to Oz and is really making a real mess of the outback and destroying one of the oldest ecosystems on the planet.
This is just one way of paying for the cleanup.
I do like Marvin the Martins idea of camel stuffed with sheep stuffed with dates - camels a nice meat.
It's true Green is Red. As in red like communist Russia red. Greens are the ultimate socialists. They have to be to force the rest of us to bow down before their wisdom and their demands. Including such fabian ideas as eugenics.
As for not asking the government for handouts. Sorry, but he is. Who pays for the government handouts? The tax payer. When businesses have to pay increased taxes (including carbon taxes), who pays? The consumer. Now he isn't directly asking for money from the government but the money has to come from somewhere. Increased energy prices will be the result.
What an utter disrespect for established Australian traditions!
Surely, the proper solution is import a few feral hyenas to get the terrible camel problem under control. Or lions. Yep, lions would be better. They'll eat the critters in no time. Ecosphere saved.
@Flocke Kroes: 'Roos don't fart - their intestinal flora convert methane to acetate, which is then re-absorbed by the roo as food.
So what you need to do is get the intestinal flora from a 'roo into the camels. Hold still Mr. Camel and ignore what I'm about to do with this hose....
Perhaps Mike Row needs some new material to film?
Flames for the result of burning H4C.
Roos are great eating but having eaten camel I reckon they pretty much taste how they look -
there used to be a camel-trekking place near Alice Springs that had the tagline "book early and get a good-looking one!".
While we're on the subject; a few years ago there were estimated to be more feral pigs than humans here in Australia.
Time this had another airing:
1 camel = 45kg of methane per year.
1 helicopter = 50 gallons of fuel per hour.
Without actually doing the maths, I'd guesstimate that it's of the order of either camels have to live hundreds of years or you have to be up, shoot one and back in your 'copter in about two minutes, before this could possibly break even.
Now, if the helicopter uses avgas, which is roughly 6 lb/gal, at the rate of 50 gal/hr, and given that burning avgas produces 3 lb of CO2 per lb of fuel, you'll see about 900 lb/hr of carbon released into the air for every hour airborne.
Given that the camels were estimated to save roughly 1 ton of CO2 each upon death, that means he'll need to kill an average of one camel every 2.22 hours to break even. Carbon-wise, anyway.
On the other hand, if it were a Jeep at say, 5 MPG, with standard gasoline, again 6 lb/gal, but at 6 lb CO2 per lb of fuel, that's roughly 7.2 pounds CO2 per mile, so you'd need to travel less than 278 miles (447 km) to break even.
... Moore tells the Financial Times, "especially when they start coming into town and kicking down your toilet."
As any real Okker fule know, the correct phrase (and curse) is
"May your chooks turn into emus,
And kick your dunny down."
I leave the translation as an exercise for non-native Strine speakers.
Anyway, why not export the camels back to the Middle East from whence they came? They'll need them when the black gold runs out and all the Toyotas grind to a halt.
As there's no 'Skippy' icon, I'll have to use the XXXX one.
Why not shoot all the "green" activists and so-calle scientists who spout more hot air even than politicians.
Mmmmm... perhaps we could shoot all the politicians too.
By the way, in case the "greens" hadn't noticed, the rainforests are INCREASING in density and absorbing more CO2. Ain't nature wonderful, it even makes adjustments for politicians and "green" activists.
Next Dr Tim Moore will be suggesting that humans should be eliminated from the planet. And I wonder what animal--err sorry tree/flora--he has in mind to actually collect the carbon credits.
Whether Dr Moore is a Greenie or just an opportunist has yet to be determined, but listening to his voice the former is more likely. Deep Greenies are already hell-bent on eliminating elements 17 and 80 from the periodic table, so does Dr Moore intend to add element 6 to the list as well? Perhaps, he's even dreaming of ways to stop the triple-alpha process in stars so the universe doesn't produce this filthy putrid carbon* stuff.
Camels are a pest in Australia but to put a bounty on them because of carbon credits really shows how Deep Greenies truly think. In recent years they've sniffed a little power, now their true colours are beginning to show
Had Dr Moore been born 50 years earlier his intrinsic psychopathology probably had seen him become a minister of religion but today such people enter the next best thing--eco science/administration or Greenpeace etc. Tragically, such people are just debasing environmental engineering/science, which incidentally, should be properly integrated with many other scientific/engineering disciplines. This 'traditional science and engineering is against us' mentality only isolates them from mainstream technology and only slows down many solutions to the world's many problems.
With the exception of the U.S., the failure or very substantive down-cline in the West of traditional religion is a serious and much unexpected problem as there's few places for the religiously-inclined to be absorbed or employed. In the past, the vagaries of and inconsistencies in doctrine could occupy such people for a whole lifetime. Now they're foist upon the world to right it. If I'm counting correctly, it's as if a 10th Crusade had started and all we carbon-lovers are its victims. (Incidentally, it's very informative to compare religious belief in Europe with that of the U.S. In Europe where only 20% of the population have strong religious beliefs, environmentalism has an enormous following, whereas in the U.S. where the reverse applies--80% strong religious belief--environmentalism is comparatively weak. The loss of traditional religious belief and concomitant strengthening of environmental beliefs is uncanny, and I'm far from the only one who's noticed it).
Sure, there are some excellent environmentalists who are rational, educated and who actually examine data but others run purely on feeling and or instinct. And to boot, many are down outright ignorant of anything scientific. Science and technology frighten them. I live in Sydney and about a decade ago there was a strong push to ensure the Olympic village was developed with eco-friendly materials, no PVC etc. Well, I had a woman actually tell me that it wouldn’t be many years before environmentalists had chlorine banned from the planet--she said it could and would be eliminated. And there was no mistake, she wasn't referring to Cl compounds rather elemental chlorine. I call this the Element-17 problem, one daren’t mention the 'Cl' word when Deep Greenies are around but one can generally mention 17 in hushed tones without attracting too much attention.
In recent times, it seems too that element 80 and now 6 have been similarly stigmatised. (Think back some months to the El Reg news story about Bletchley Park and the banning of mercury delay lines; much the same stuff was covered by many in the posts.)
Such beliefs are becoming commonplace; and it's almost a certainty that the downturn in science education over the past 40 or so years is largely responsible. When a person is able to go completely through schooling without any science subjects we should not be surprised
Unfortunately, Greenies have an unusually strong hold of our politicians for two reasons: most politicians have stuff-all knowledge of science and engineering as politicians are mainly lawyers, accountants and economists and thus are more convinced by the wistful plaintive rhetoric of Greenies to that of hard dull facts of techies.
As I see it, techies of all persuasions, especially those from traditional engineering and science really do need to speak out loudly against such nonsense before it's too late.
* Hey, a nice pristine planet, but there's a minor problem of having no universe to support it (unless he also wants to tweak a few universal constant too). >:-)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020