This was written “with tongue partly in cheek,” but despite that, where it counts it is factual and accurate.

Question 1: Are paper bags better than plastic bags, ecologically?

Answer: Absolutely not. They do more damage in almost every way. They destroy trees which eat carbon dioxide. You get about 1400 paper bags from a single tree. Plastic removes no trees. It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag than a plastic bag, which means a much bigger carbon footprint per bag in manufacture. The chemicals used in paper production contribute to acid rain and water pollution. Paper bags generate 70% more air pollutants and 5000% more water pollutants than plastic bags. Additionally, it takes 91% less energy to recycle equivalent weights of plastic than paper. Paper isn’t even much more degradable in landfills.

This, of course, is why China, Rwanda, Eritrea, South Africa and the city of San Francisco have banned the use of plastic bags in retail.

Question 2: What can we do to save the polar bears?

Answer: Collect plastic bags and recycle them so they can be made into large reinforced polystyrene blocks coated in melamine. We can then set these blocks floating in the Arctic Ocean. When the ice disappears, the polar bears will have something to scramble on to when they get tired of swimming. They’ll be able to sit there and sun themselves as they snack on baby seal pups and wave to the passing whales.

This green idea would work extremely well if cities, and even whole countries, didn’t keep banning the use of plastic bags.

Question 3: Is methane (CH4) worse than carbon dioxide (CO2)?

Yes it’s fifty times as bad. It’s so bad that nowadays eco-responsible people regard “methane” as a cuss word. They breathe in deeply whenever they use the M word. Currently, the Earth’s crust contains huge amounts of methane. Large amounts of methane are produced anaerobically by methanogenesis. Other sources of methane include mud volcanoes, which are connected with deep geological faults and cows, which are connected with hamburgers.

Question 4: So should I eat hamburgers?

What? Are you kidding? Hamburgers are a complete disaster - except when served in a sesame seed bun with white onions, a tomato slice, jalapenos and cheddar cheese that knows how to melt properly. Nevertheless, even if you can get hamburgers made this way (hint: try Poodies Hilltop Bar and Grill, a honky tonk on rt 71 to the west of Austin) you might like to reflect on the fact that:

While they are preparing to be hamburgers, cows chew grass all day or eat animal feed grown on fields that could have been growing wheat, soya bean or anything that can be made into ethanol. While chewing grass all day they emit methane, which is not only rude, but also a greenhouse gas. They have to be taken to the slaughterhouses via train or truck, because the days of Rawhide are long gone and nowadays cowboys spend all their time at rodeos riding bulls. Once dead and packed, more greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere as the meat is distributed across the US to steak houses and burger joints

According to someone who’s spent an awful lot of time with a calculator, the carbon footprint of all the hamburgers eaten in the US is about equivalent to the carbon foot-print of all the gas-guzzling SUVs that are driven in the US (click here for the details). So stop eating hamburgers (except those referred to above from Poodie’s).

Question 5: And should I sell my SUV?

Answer: I’m sorry but it’s too late for that. The value has collapsed so far that you will now have to pay to have someone tow it away.  However, here’s an alternative idea. Why not keep chickens in it? Chickens lay eco-friendly eggs and give out much less methane than cows. Normally they’re kept in appalling conditions, so they’ll regard an SUV as something of a bonus in terms of accommodation. Note that you can wind up the SUV’s windows at night and no fox will ever get in.

Question 5a: Is Perrier water sinful?

Answer: That’s such a dumb question that it doesn’t even count as a question. Let’s move on.

Question 6: If I Use Black Google, Will I Save The  Planet?

Answer: Admit it, you don’t know what black Google is. It’s this. That’s right, a Google Search page that is black, not white. It would be even more impressive if, when you filled in a Black Google query, the answers appeared white on black - but they don’t. The ecological point is that white is bad and black is good, as regards the associated carbon footprint. In order to be cool, the new Google competitor, Cuil has a black search page - very organic don’t you think.

According to EcoIron, “An all white web page uses about 74 watts to display, while an all black page uses only 59 watts.” So, if Google’s 200 million plus queries per day (and answers) used a black background, it could save 750 Megawatt hours in a year. Black MS Word and Black Outlook would probably make a similar contribution, but they have the disadvantage of not existing. Also you might like to have a smaller screen (a 20 inch uses 38% more electricity than a 17 inch screen) or just an iPhone, or maybe you should just throw your computer away.

Question 7: The Chinese and Indian economies are very large and growing fast causing huge environmental pressures. What can the world do about it?

Answer: One possible solution is to evangelize - and I don’t mean making Al Gore-type videos in Chinese and Urdu. I mean traveling to those emerging economic areas to spread the Mennonite variety of the Anabaptist Christian faith that is followed by the Amish of Pennsylvania. Do that and in no time, the Chinese will reintroduce rickshaws and the bullock cart industry in India will flower again.

The problem with Al Gore type videos is that megawatts of electricity get consumed just watching them, especially if you are watching them in an air conditioned room drinking iced Perrier water.

Another solution would be to make India and China use Black Google.

Question 8: Is it greener to work from home?

Answer: On the plus side you wont be commuting. The average work journey in the US is 12 miles, and each gallon of gas burned emits 25.3 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2). Imagine you don’t own a gas guzzler but a 25 mpg car. In which case you’re spewing about 25 pounds of CO2 into the air per day (6000 lbs per year) melting glaciers, raising the sea level and killing polar bears. However, if you stay home you’ll be using more air conditioning or heating, the extent of which could easily total as much. Don’t work from home, get a bicycle and work from Starbucks.

(We’d like to thank Starbucks and their very green logo for sponsoring this eco-friendly posting, but they didn’t sponsor it, so we can’t. If an offer to sponsor it doesn’t arrive in the next few days I’m gonna calculate the carbon footprint of a Starbucks cup of coffee and post it here… You’ve been warned Starbucks….)

Question 9: Do we have any chance at all of reversing global warming?

No.

——————————————————————-

Green Competition

You may or may not have noticed that there are actually only 9 questions here, despite the claim in the title that there are 10. Which of the following does this signify?

  1. Like all writers on matters green, I exaggerate.
  2. Being ecologically responsible I removed one question and answer in order to reduce the carbon footprint of this posting.
  3. I simply could not think of another question.

Please write your answer on the back of a $10 dollar note and send it to my home address. The first correct answer received will be spent on a hamburger from Poodie’s Hilltop Bar and Grill.

Click here to read further postings on global warming

  Subscribe to HaveMacWillBlog in a reader