Anti-Earth Day

[Ink Asylum]

So it's Earth Day. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_day)

Earth Day, celebrated April 22, is a day designed to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth's environment. It was founded by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson as an environmental teach-in in 1970 and is celebrated in many countries every year. This date is Spring in the Northern Hemisphere and Autumn in the Southern Hemisphere.

I refuse to joke about the good Senator's given name. Moving on.

No matter what your opinion of global warming, it is difficult to deny that humans have an impact on the environment in general, and that we should try to limit negative impact in reasonable ways, even if only to protect our own health and future resources. That's a fairly non-political statement.

What I just don't understand are people who are so far gone politically that it's not enough to just ignore Earth Day or environmentalism in general, but that they use Earth Day to act in even more environmentally destructive ways. (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904220014)

Limbaugh on Earth Day: "I personally am going to see to it that we lose 2 acres of rain forest"

Limbaugh also promises to "have every one of my cars driven as much as possible today; I've got my airplane flying to Los Angeles and back; ... all the lights are going to be on, the air conditioning down to 68 degrees in all, well, four out of the five houses"

More: (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904220010?show=1)

[Glenn] Beck giddy over caller hunting and cutting down trees on Earth Day: "This is like nirvana here ... This is eroticism"

What do they believe they're proving, except that they're huge jerks?

[torrefaction]

Wow, that's just fucked up.

[pronounconnoun]

What a dick.

[Generation ABXY]

Assuming it isn't a joke (I mean, it is his job to say outrageous things, I believe), I've never understood this sort of thing. It reminds me of that hour when we were asked to turn off all of our lights or something. Plenty of people - including even Al Gore - didn't bother with it, but there were a few people out there who said they were making it a point to turn on all of their lights, and even rent stage lights. In addition to just being a dick move, you've gone so far as to cut off your nose to spite your face. :confused:

[Ink Asylum]

Limbaugh may or may not actually be doing what he says, he seems the type that doesn't live like he acts on the show, plenty of his listeners certainly do protest Earth Day, or will after listening to him.

[Serapth]

Although in the issue at hand, yeah its dickish.

That said, the environmental lobby are becoming WAYYYYY to powerful, as can be seen by the current admistration and their handling of the auto bailout ( forcing them green... guess what, gas is cheap again, people dont fucking want green, they want cheap! ) as an example.

But what burns my ass even more is that people who question the greenies are labeled in with baby killers and war criminals. Worst part is, people SHOULD be questioning green policies on three levels.

1- its an advertising gimmick that is so abused, its like the lite vs light advertising of the 80/90s

2- it is so often so very wrong. For examples, look at the overall environmental impact of ethanol ( not good... this is coming from someone who lives an hour from a major ethanol processor ) or even worse, the environmental impact of the Prius

3- that people who propose counter opinions ( to say, global warming ) are shouted down as quacks or frauds.

[Wraith]

That said, the environmental lobby are becoming WAYYYYY to powerful, as can be seen by the current admistration and their handling of the auto bailout ( forcing them green... guess what, gas is cheap again, people dont fucking want green, they want cheap! ) as an example.Well, I'm not sure about the specifics of the bailout, but there were increased fuel economy standards passed last year that automakers would have to start meeting anyway, even if they hadn't been in this big financial mess and dependent on bailout money. And certainly we can't expect automakers to constantly adjust the kind of cars they produce with the rise and fall of gas prices. Going forward, building cars that are more efficient and reasonably affordable can't be a bad thing.

[National Kato]

( forcing them green... guess what, gas is cheap again, people dont fucking want green, they want cheap! ) as an example.


You do know that higher fuel economy standards means cheaper gas for consumers, right? I mean, if you're filling up less, you're saving money and not as dependent on Middle Eastern oil prices. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because gas prices are low now. They have a tendency to go back up again and then where are you? Back at square one with a demand for fuel efficient cars.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I don't understand why anyone would WANT to destroy the environment. This place isn't yours.

[Serapth]

To Kato and Wraith,

With the possible exception of Chrysler ( who are a parasite and deserve to die anyways... ), both Ford and GM have had extremely high full efficency vehicles in Europe since the 80s. This is not to mention diesel engines like the in the VW Lupo (80 mpg!) that absolutely dominate the best mileage of any hybrids available.

Why aren't they sold here? Simple, consumers don't want them, don't give a fuck about being green and never did... until gas went through the roof!

[Voodoo]

2- it is so often so very wrong. For examples, look at the overall environmental impact of ethanol ( not good... this is coming from someone who lives an hour from a major ethanol processor ) or even worse, the environmental impact of the Prius.

I agree about the environmental impact of ethanol.

Could you elaborate about the environmental impact of the Prius? Would this be due to the eventual disposal of the battery pack? If so, isn't it the relative same impact we'd see from any electrical hybrid car? If no, then I'm lost. :)

Edit : I think I found what you are talking about, it's a good read so far (through contradictory to what you said) : http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9750840-1.html.
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9750840-1.html)

[National Kato]

Okay, but the answer isn't to produce gas-guzzling, low efficiency vehicles. Americans will buy the efficient cars if you make them affordable and attractive. It's up to the American manufacturers to meet this challenge.

[Serapth]

I agree about the environmental impact of ethanol.

Could you elaborate about the environmental impact of the Prius? Would this be due to the eventual disposal of the battery pack? If so, isn't it the relative same impact we'd see from any electrical hybrid car? If no, then I'm lost. :)

That is a factor, but no, apparently the environmental impact of *manufacturing* a Prius is simply brutal compared to a conventional car. This is keeping in mind that the Prius doesnt specifically get all that great of mileage compared to fuel efficient conventional engines. Surely not enough to make up for the damages from the batteries.

That said... eventually there is the disposal problem.

Personally, I hope the Clarity takes of, because actually you are right when it comes to electrical cars. As the stand now, they ARE a right bitch on the environment.

[Voodoo]

Okay, but the answer isn't to produce gas-guzzling, low efficiency vehicles. Americans will buy the efficient cars if you make them affordable and attractive. It's up to the American manufacturers to meet this challenge.

I've been told that it is much easier for Toyota and Honda to make a car which is affordable and efficient than their American counterparts. It seems to have to do a lot with the associated labor costs of assembly. Perhaps this will change when GM has the chance to renegotiate contracts due to their eventual reorganization.

[Kelegacy]

These guys are just royal dicks. I bet they aren't joking, either, or at least really truly don't care about the planet. We know we're destroying this planet year after year, but many people don't care. I'm all for the green campaigns around the globe, though I am irritated that GREEN has become a marketing ploy. I'd love to see stricter standards and enforcement of those standards. Anyone who cares about life, their children, and their grandchildren should care about the environment. It's not exactly a joke. The whole Pave the Rainforest pun isn't funny to me.

People hate Al Gore, but I'm glad he helped kickstart the treehugging that's going on. Even if some people are too hardcore about it. I actually like it. I guess overzealousness is better than apathy towards the world.

[Serapth]

I've been told that it is much easier for Toyota and Honda to make a car which is affordable and efficient than their American counterparts. It seems to have to do a lot with the associated labor costs of assembly. Perhaps this will change when GM has the chance to renegotiate contracts due to their eventual reorganization.

GM is defiantly hurting from labour costs, of which the vast majority are actually legacy labour costs. Simply put, the pension and pensioners are killing the company from a labour perspective. Actually, if GM goes bankrupt one of the first debts to get axed will be the pensions, which will make GM instantly viable again, and fuck over a few hundred thousand pensioners.

A combination of GM stupid and UAW greed have created a pretty big nightmare. That said, labour costs are really only one factor in this equation. Another major problem is the *perceived* superiority of foreign cars, just as the *perceived* superiority of American cars helped them in the 80s

Chrysler is equally fucked for the same reasons. That said, Chrysler is owned by a hedge fund that is unwilling to pump more money in, while they arrogantly try to extort more money from the government. This, after they thought they were picking the company up for a steal, before realizing it was pretty much raped/pillaged by Daimler, who I might add still own a 20 percent stake. The faster Chrysler is killed off, the happier I will be. Government bailing out a private hedge fund owned car company? No fucking thanks! The government making a condition of their rescue being a merger with FIAT shows just how fucking out of their depth the goverment is in this situation. ( Hint, FIAT is a fucked company in horrible shape in the first place. GM recently preferred to pay a multi billion dollar fee than take a majority stake in FIAT )

[Ink Asylum]

I'm curious how labor costs have any effect on the cost of an efficient car over an inefficient one. Difference in costs for parts and engineering I can understand, but labor? Does a blue collar worker require more pay working on a green car over a hummer?

[Serapth]

People hate Al Gore, but I'm glad he helped kickstart the treehugging that's going on. Even if some people are too hardcore about it. I actually like it. I guess overzealousness is better than apathy towards the world.

I am all for it, except the fact the vast majority I see is actually a sales gimmick. Again, like the lite vs light product promotions of years past. 'Green' is the new corporate snake oil... well, that or 0 trans fat.

[Hawkzombie]

See, I joke about burning tires today, but I'd never actually go out and do it...but I -am- getting sick of everyone shoving 'go green!' and 'Global Warming is real!' down my throat...

According to SCIENCE (that magical thing that's only used when convenient) it's neither proven OR DISPROVEN that global warming exists. There's simply not enough data and when compared to findings and estimates of millions of years ago, things don't add up.

For me, it's more of being told what to do, or that the way I'm living is not only wrong, but 'borderline criminal' because I'm not making every effort to go green or reduce my carbon footprint (There was one e-mail I got from P.B. Loco...DAMN good PB) that said I should eat plant based foods to reduce my carbon footprint (as eating meat costs upwards of 2.5 pounds of greenhouse gases). It was a shameless attempt to sell me more of their product...but I guess they don't take into consideration manufacturing of their jars, boxes, and transportation of said items to consumers around the world into THEIR carbon footprint.

I think heavy environmentalists have the right idea, just piss poor execution. I'll do common sense things, but I'm not going to bend over backwards until someone gives me hard proof we're destroying the planet simply by living (and this applies to average people, not major corporations that CAN make a huge difference)


EDIT: As for pave the rainforest...it's stupid yes, but if we were to cut down every tree in the world (wish I had the source i read this from) we wouldn't die...just live in a dusty eroded world. They don't produce enough oxygen that their disappearance would negatively impact us.

[Serapth]

I'm curious how labor costs have any effect on the cost of an efficient car over an inefficient one. Difference in costs for parts and engineering I can understand, but labor? Does a blue collar worker require more pay working on a green car over a hummer?

You could make the argument that say

Car A is made for 75$ / hour and sold for 15,000$.
Car B is made for 50$ / hour and sold for 15,000$.

The B car obviously has more room in the budget for things like extra filters, etc... while still competing in the same segment.

Its a bit of a stretch, but has some truth to it.

[Ink Asylum]

EDIT: As for pave the rainforest...it's stupid yes, but if we were to cut down every tree in the world (wish I had the source i read this from) we wouldn't die...just live in a dusty eroded world. They don't produce enough oxygen that their disappearance would negatively impact us.

Wow. I'd be interested to see that source. Trees do a lot more than produce oxygen. Also, wouldn't living in a dusty, eroded world make it a lot harder to produce food, therefore leading to people dying?

Until humanity learns how to eat rocks and drink sunlight we need to maintain the environment in a state where, at the bare minimum, it can produce enough food and resources to support us.

[Hawkzombie]

Wow. I'd be interested to see that source. Trees do a lot more than produce oxygen. Also, wouldn't living in a dusty, eroded world make it a lot harder to produce food, therefore leading to people dying?

Until humanity learns how to eat rocks and drink sunlight we need to maintain the environment in a state where, at the bare minimum, it can produce enough food and resources to support us.

Looking at it from a strictly oxygen standpoint, trees aren't important. But I totally agree with and understand what you're saying there. I really do wish I could find that source, but knowing my luck it was all BS anyway.

Still, it makes a bit of sense...until the plants die off we'd be fine :P

I still agree with a lot of other people in this thread...I'm not against going green, I'm against it being used as a marketing ploy.

[torrefaction]

Yeah, the cult of green has really started to bother me. As much disinformation as not.

[Wraith]

I don't think it's that Americans don't want fuel efficient cars. It's that most don't want to sacrifice (downgrade/give up features or pay a lot) in order to get fuel efficiency. The original Honda Insight sold pretty poorly during a period of low gas prices, but it was also a tiny 2-door hatchback that cost more than other similar-sized cars.

And diesels in the U.S. are another matter (we only got ULSD nationwide in the last few years, diesels had a poor reputation (noise, smell, reliability) in previous decades, and they just haven't been available in many consumer cars in recent years).

GM and Ford are bringing better, more efficient small cars in the next couple years, with the Cruze and Focus expected to get 45+, 40+ MPG. They're not hybrids, they're not expensive, they're not tiny, cramped econoboxes. They're affordable small cars that get get better mileage than their predecessors. I think there is a considerable demand for cars like these, even if the price of gas is down again.

[Serapth]

GM and Ford are bringing better, more efficient small cars in the next couple years, with the Cruze and Focus expected to get 45+, 40+ MPG. They're not hybrids, they're not expensive, they're not tiny, cramped econoboxes. They're affordable small cars that get get better mileage than their predecessors. I think there is a considerable demand for cars like these, even if the price of gas is down again.

Acutally I am in the market for a small run about car in the next few months, which is kinda irritating as I want to get a Ford Fiesta or Mazda 2, but neither is going to be available until 2010 here in Canada.

I think you Americans have the Fiesta this year, which I think is going to sell gangbusters. Plus, its Fords first true worldcar.


That and I agree you... I don't think Americans want inefficient cars... I just don't think fuel efficiency is really all that high on their wants/needs list. This is why I think Obama forcing GM to make all green cars ( while Ford, and all the other foreign companies dont have such restrictions ) is going to backfire.

[Generation ABXY]

Yeah, the cult of green has really started to bother me. As much disinformation as not.

That's exactly what it feels like at times, a cult.

Mind you, as much as I hate having so much of that agenda crammed down my throat - and despite the fact that I don't yet believe global warming is man made, or anything more than cyclical (as someone else said, there's just not enough data and still plenty of dissent) - I'm all for becoming more environmentally friendly. I mean, I've done a lot of things to make my own way of life more efficient; at least, what I can without terribly inconveniencing myself (I don't have the money to invest in any major home improvements just yet).

Unfortunately, as I suppose the topic of this thread rather demonstrates, I think the green movement is going to see a lot of unexpected push back if they try to force these things on people. I think a lot of times you have to appeal to people, instead of trying scare or shame them. Hell, I'm more than willing to admit many of changes I've made were as much for me (you can save money, though it isn't always so quickly apparent) as it was for the environment.

[ShivaX]

Looking at it from a strictly oxygen standpoint, trees aren't important. But I totally agree with and understand what you're saying there. I really do wish I could find that source, but knowing my luck it was all BS anyway.


I'd like to see the info on trees not mattering to oxygen production. All the oxygen on the planet basically comes from plants of some form. I imagine that algae and seaweed or whatnot makes up a large amount of the oxygen supply, but its not like we're taking the greatest care of the oceans either.

I'm far from a environmentalist. I recycle crap, but thats as much a matter of it being free as anything (whereas each bag of actual garbage costs me money directly). I'm not going to say cutting down all the forests in the world isn't going to screw us over though.

[Generation ABXY]

Though I wouldn't put much stock in it and certainly wouldn't advocate cutting them all down, I have heard it said that trees only account for some 20% of our oxygen. While, even if true, that is still a rather large chunk in my view, I'm sure it is probably much less than many people would expect.

[National Kato]

Looking at it from a strictly oxygen standpoint, trees aren't important.

Where are you getting this information?

[Johan]

Looking at it from a strictly oxygen standpoint, trees aren't important.

Where are you getting this information?


From a lumberjack? ;)

No matter what your opinion of global warming, it is difficult to deny that humans have an impact on the environment in general, and that we should try to limit negative impact in reasonable ways, even if only to protect our own health and future resources. That's a fairly non-political statement.

I agree with your statement, but it's still political, because political action is often required to enact policies that limit human impact on the environment.

[ShivaX]

From a lumberjack? ;)

Or a Brazilian cattle farmer.

[Serapth]

From a lumberjack? ;)


Accidental cross thread meta topic Johan?

[rifter]

You DO realize that these people are doing it to push back on all the horrible bull-shit shoveled down on us, in the name of "The Environment". I mean, come on. Al Gore is the figure head of this movement, and he flies on personal jets, has multiple houses, I know for a while drove SUVs, and heats/ACs those houses... oh yea, and sells carbon credits, which are a fruad in and of themselves.

The whole environmental movement is a fraud, and these people are sarcastically bashing on it. It is called satire... some of you on here, really need to look the word up.

The truth of the matter, is that "Greenies/Treehuggers/Earthmuffins/whatever you want to call them", have co-opted the conversationalist movement to the point that they no longer want man to try to fit in the environment, but drive man out of the environment completely.

There is a LOT we can do, that effectively gives us the resources we need, like energy, that yes, take away from the environment some (think Nuclear here) yet, the benefits are HUGE.

The environmental movement is all about organizing people to make themselves feel good, for the rich and powerful to make MORE money, and gain MORE power. Look at the price of corn because of ethanol... and pretty much anyone that has researched the cost/benefit says that Ethanol is BAD. Costs a LOT of energy to produce, reduces gas mileage, harder on older cars that are not designed with it in mind, hurts our food supply, and produces worse waste than freaking straight up gasoline!

I have no respect for the greenie movement... I take a great interest in the more classic conversationalist movements, though.

[rifter]

Or a Brazilian cattle farmer.

Actually, from what I have read, new-growth forests produce oxygen, while old growth (rain forests) remove oxygen. (this is all net factors)

[Generation ABXY]

I do understand some of what you're saying, rifter. (I mean, some on the left have turned environmental threats into the same “faceless enemy” the right has done with terrorism.) However, I also see the other side: Even as comedians, they may be doing more harm than they realize. It may, in fact, be satire - as I've said, I don't know; I haven't heard this particular example to gauge the tone - but to those who don't realize it, or receive it without context, it may only serve to exaggerate opinions about conservatives.

That can drive a wedge further between us, making it harder for otherwise reasonable people of opposing views to reconcile their differences.

[rifter]

... - but to those who don't realize it, or receive it without context, it may only serve to exaggerate opinions about conservatives.

That can drive a wedge further between us, making it harder for otherwise reasonable people of opposing views to reconcile their differences.

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck... both are taken out of context all the time, since the juiciest bits are in the middle of the sentence without any context. (The recent flap about Rush saying "I hope Obama fails" is an exquisite example.

It doesn't drive a wedge in, since those that would take Rush and Glenn beck's satirical comments at FACE VALUE, already have the wedge there, and have the hammer poised above the wedge anyhow.

[Generation ABXY]

I suppose it is a fair point that there are indeed unscrupulous people out there. As you've said, quotes are pulled out of context all the time, and, even when there is nothing to take out of context, we've seen evidence that some people are willing to make it up (I'm speaking specifically of an edited video, of course). However, I still think there are a fairly large number of people who have only a passing interest in politics...the sort of people that attack ads are designed for. They are the people who can be lead to believe that Rush is the voice of the party, and they are the ones who can be so polarized by what otherwise seems like such petty remark (even if it was a joke).

I don't know. I am not a fan of Rush or Beck (especially since I don't have the means to listen or watch), but I am also not among their many detractors. However, more and more, it just seems like an increasingly pointless thing for them to say. Oh, well.

[ShivaX]

Actually, from what I have read, new-growth forests produce oxygen, while old growth (rain forests) remove oxygen. (this is all net factors)

Well since they're becoming fields I don't see how that matters. Its not like they're cutting down the rainforests and planting forests here. And plants turn CO2 into oxygen. I can't see how their age remotely factors into anything, especially when you're talking about typically cutting down said trees and then burning the area.

[Kelegacy]

Well since they're becoming fields I don't see how that matters. Its not like they're cutting down the rainforests and planting forests here. And plants turn CO2 into oxygen. I can't see how their age remotely factors into anything, especially when you're talking about typically cutting down said trees and then burning the area.

Yup. That's part of the importance of trees and plants. Not just the oxygen production, but the removal of CO2.

And I haven't seen a study in a while, but I think I remember back in school that the rainforest produced like 90% of our planet's oxygen. I can't be sure since I've been out of school for a while and I'm too lazy to do a search.

Green is good, using green as a marketing tool or political crutch isn't. I think in my past life I was a conservationalist or environmentalist. Since a kid I've felt that closeness with nature. That could be because I grew up in rural Maine with forests and nature all around me, not concrete.

[Narradisall]

I'm curious, what will happen when the net CO2/Oxygen ratio of the world starts to reach killing levels? I doubt everyone will just drop down gasping for air.

Where would be best to be? Who would be hit first?

We've thought about Zombies, and giant mech spiders, but whats the survival plan for this one?

[Johan]

If we're honest, there are perhaps a handful (Ed Begley comes to mind) of Hollywood eco-actors and politicians who LIVE what they PREACH, and it is indeed preaching, which people around here don't like when they disagree with the underlying premise for it!! :) Most of them are raging hypocrites who live not only unsustainably (most Westerners live unsustainably, if we extrapolate our lifestyle out to include the entire world living as we do), but unlike virtually anyone in all of human history.

BTW: Cows are worse than cars for global warming gasses. (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=are_cows_worse_than_cars) I love steak. :D

[Voodoo]

Yup. That's part of the importance of trees and plants. Not just the oxygen production, but the removal of CO2.

And I haven't seen a study in a while, but I think I remember back in school that the rainforest produced like 90% of our planet's oxygen. I can't be sure since I've been out of school for a while and I'm too lazy to do a search.

Finally, something in this topic that I kinda know where to find the answer. :)

It is estimated that between 70% and 80% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by marine plants. Nearly all marine plants are single celled, photosynthetic algae.Phytoplankton (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/458948/phytoplankton)

Right now, world wide levels of Phytoplankton are dropping. The causes are widely speculated unfortunately. Regarding rain forests, check this out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17500316/

...and...

Tropical rainforests also are responsible for adding oxygen to the atmosphere as a by-product of photosynthesis. It is estimated that 20% of the the planet's oxygen is produced by the world's rainforests. Cutting the rainforest diminishes the capacity of the global system to supply oxygen reserves.
Mongabay (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0420-rhett_butler.html)

[boratika]

Makes me think of this (http://www.typetees.com/product/573/Stop_destroying_our_planet_It_s_where_I_keep).

[rifter]

And I haven't seen a study in a while, but I think I remember back in school that the rainforest produced like 90% of our planet's oxygen. I can't be sure since I've been out of school for a while and I'm too lazy to do a search.


Rain forests produce very little net oxygen (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rainforest#Importance_of_rainforests). Please, don't get wrong, and think I am advocating destroying them. Just pointing out that the leading thoughts of years ago have been found to be wrong. Plankton produce about 40-70% of the worlds oxygen (depending on where you read the stat from).

Because of decay, rain forests actually use up about as much oxygen, as they produce, hence the little NET oxygen comment.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Because of decay, rain forests actually use up about as much oxygen, as they produce, hence the little NET oxygen comment.

That's actually caused by one very fat jaguar with emphysema.

[Serapth]

That's actually caused by one very fat jaguar with emphysema.

There you go, blaming cars again!


OH... the other Jaguar....

[Voodoo]

Rain forests produce very little net oxygen (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rainforest#Importance_of_rainforests). Please, don't get wrong, and think I am advocating destroying them. Just pointing out that the leading thoughts of years ago have been found to be wrong. Plankton produce about 40-70% of the worlds oxygen (depending on where you read the stat from).

Because of decay, rain forests actually use up about as much oxygen, as they produce, hence the little NET oxygen comment.

What the heck? I'm guessing that Rifter has me on ignore? :eek:

[TheFlyingOrc]

What the heck? I'm guessing that Rifter has me on ignore? :eek:

Well, something's wrong with your numbers, because if 20% of the oxygen is produced by the rainforest and 80% by plankton, then nothing else on the planet is producing oxygen.

[Voodoo]

Well, something's wrong with your numbers, because if 20% of the oxygen is produced by the rainforest and 80% by plankton, then nothing else on the planet is producing oxygen.

They aren't my numbers. They are numbers that I pulled from elsewhere. Also, it is a range, not exact. Best I found is 20% to 40% by rain forest and 70% to 80% by the phytoplankton, as stated by the origination's.

Nevertheless, Rifter's sources and my sources agree.

[rifter]

What the heck? I'm guessing that Rifter has me on ignore? :eek:

No, I replied, as I was going through the thread. :-) I hadn't read what you posted.

[Voodoo]

No, I replied, as I was going through the thread. :-) I hadn't read what you posted.

I figured as much. ;)