« Afternoon Update | Main | Next Stage of Cloward-Piven: Global Tax »

"more than one-third the yearly emissions of an average person worldwide"

The average person worldwide is some schmuck living in a mud hut. So how does that apply to me? [Oh, I'm supposed to devolve to that lifestyle. Okay.]

And... CO2 is a harmless trace gas absolutely necessary to life on Earth.

And... CO2 has been an order of magnitude higher than today with no ill effect.

And... etc.

What's next, a stewardess at the gangplank with a piss bucket? Or should I just pee on their shoes? Idiots.

Sounds almost like that planet in Hitchhiker's Guide that was losing mass to tourists, and instituted a policy of removing any you'd gained during your stay... surgically. We need lighter passengers, you sure you need both of those legs?

If I was asked to relieve myself before boarding the plane, I'd just drop my pants and drop a deuce, right there.

Then point at it and scream "SHOVEL READY!"

I'm getting really sick of people using the term "emissions" to describe CO2. Conservatives are even doing it. I'll stick with using the "emissions" to refer to actual pollution. But they don't even talk about real pollution anymore. "Emissions" is CO2 and only CO2 to these morons.

Anyway, I guess it's not a bad idea to take a leak before getting on a plane just to avoid having to use the little can on the plane.

forest, ye speak true. On both accounts.

Oops, gotta go...

"Flying is the fastest-growing source of carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for more than 600 million tons of the greenhouse gas per year."

Queen Nancy, Al Gore, Bon Ki Moonbat and the other liberal elites simply must give up their government airplanes and Gulfstreams to save the planet ... it's really our only hope.

Or at least they can go No. 2 before they fly, that way they will be weightless before takeoff...

They could just liposuction all the passengers and give them one of those drugs you take to clean out your digestive tract of several pounds of fecal matter. Imagine the savings!

Well, don't know about the rest of you, but having had to wait for hours on a tarmac while a storm blew through I have learned that releasing all ballast, 'lightening the load', before boarding is a really good idea.

"A fabulously beautiful planet, Bethselamin is now so worried about the cumulative eroision by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete whilst on the planet is surgically removed from your bodyw eight when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory there it is vitally important to get a receipt."

HHGTTG

you ever smell a airplane men's room???
this is actually a great idea
unless the moonbats come to with a way to power the engines with people farts....

What? Do all these people relieve themselves when they don't have to? I can't ever remember relieving myself without it being necessary. You might say these people have s...t for brains.

The enviromental movment is all about a new age pagan wackos wanting to force us to a return to a miserble primative existence living in caves wearing animal hides(as long as their not from endanged species)eating nuts and berries cowering in the corner during a solar eclipes and sacrificing virgins to their various deities they worship

Wait a second.

If all these people are relieving themselves when they don't have to, then they are using a full flush of water for a mostly empty bladder, thus increasing the total number of bathroom visits, and therefore, wasting water.

Somebody call the moonbat water police for wasting all this water. Maybe the water nuts can fight it out with the carbon nuts.

IOpian has a point.

Anonymous Countermoonbat: Brilliant. I vote You for President!

To the Japs and their airline I say, "piss off".

I'm "relieved" every time I stop and realize I don't have to subject myself to japanese airliners and their assinine ideas.

Where are the moonbats to tell us how we are all a Luddites for not seeing the brilliance in this innovative thinking?

I think it's a great idea. Lighten the load. In fact, we should all eat a burrito before boarding, so we can each provide a little extra thrust.../g

ATTC @ October 7, 2009 10:08 AM

The best laugh I've had in months! My sides hurt...

If all the ecofreaks stopped emitting CO2 problem solved would be solved.

A return flight between London Heathrow and New York’s John F Kennedy airport creates around 2700lb (1.35 tons) of CO2 per passenger

What?

A 747 carries 524 passengers.

It's maximum payload is 154 tons.

A 747 cannot make 707 tons of CO2 in a single flight. Even if 2 thirds of the weight of the emissions come from thin air (it doesn't) it's still physically impossible for the aircraft to bring 200+ tons of carbon along for the ride.

Even if you half the amount of passengers The math still doesn't work.

Am I doing something wrong here? Where the heck did they get this statistic?

You're patently wrong, Fangbeer. You see, what's presented is a moonbat statistic, and those are always correct regardless of what actually appears to be the truth.

Someone posted this on Moonbattery before but I'll repost it because it applies to the above "Moonbat Math."

Imagine doing geometry in Obama's reality.

Parallel lines can meet and diverge.

Axioms can change from problem to problem.

If a proof isn't working out, it is permitted to
substitute opinion for how it should be. Such opinion is given more weight than any fact.

One can divide by zero--in fact it is recommended. The result is whatever you want it to be.

Imaginary numbers are preferred. Expecially if you cube them and not square them.

Triangles can have more than three sides--this is called warping and was derived from economic theory--it is handy for making angles come out since one must avoid RIGHT angles at all costs.

Problems are worked out in a dimly lit room by a committee of people who have never had a math course in their lives, and it is done in a hurry without directions. But since the answers are already provided, they can do the problems easily.

Geez --- the weight of the paint used on the plane is likely more that all of the passenger excrement combined, so just don't paint the planes. And what about all the magazines, pillows, blankets, food, beverages, crayons for the kiddies.... For real weight reduction, what about drastically redesigning or even removing the seats, removing the carpeting, TVs, projectors, etc. Compared to all of this, the human excrement is just a drop in the bucket....(groan - sorry - couldn't help myself)

Wow, who knew piss was so heavy?

Hmm, Lets see. The upper limit for a normal human bladder is about 600 cubic cm and that is when you have to pee so bad that you are afraid you cannot get to the bathroom in time. The amount of urine when most people actually go pee is 150 cubic cm.

600 cubic cm of urine equals approximately 1.3 lbs in weight.

150 cubic cm of urine equals approximately .3 lbs in weight.

A fully loaded 747-400 has a max capacity of 524 passengers.

524 * 1.3 = 681.2
524 * .3 = 157.2

So they will eliminate only between 157.2 and 681.2 lbs.

I don't know how to even try to figure how much CO2 would be eliminated by reducing this amount of weight, but I would imagine you could purchase the "carbon credits" to "offset" it out of the change you could scavenge off the street at lunch hour.

So I never really found where that number came from.

Carbon has an atomic weight of 12 and oxygen is 8. That means for every CO2 molecule, 42% of the mass of the molecule comes from the carbon. In the case of the fully loaded 747 scenario this would mean potentially that 297 tons of carbon needs to be stored on a plane that can only lift 154 tons. It's clear that this is preposterous, but what is the point at which the statistic could make sense?

To find out we'd have to make some assumptions about the other masses involved. The average American male, for example, weighs 190 lbs. The average female is about 155. The average luggage a passenger carries is about 40 lbs. So let's go with 213 lbs per person to be fair. (Piss notwithstanding.)

Next we'd need to know more about the fuel then I can find. What's the mass of the fuel per gallon? How many moles of carbon are there per gallon? Basically, once you add together the mass of the passengers, and the extra stuff in the fuel, how much lifting capacity is left for the carbon?