Burning Clothes
I do give the better ones away. I only rip them if I don't think anyone else would want them. While burning would produce greenhouse gas, the amount a nudist saves by buying fewer clothes and washing them less often probably more than makes up for it.
I gave my clothing to a thrift store.
Burning clothing does not produce unexpected "greenhouse gases."
Science Lesson:
Essentially all of my clothing is cotton -- a natural plant fiber. Cotton is made of very long chain polysaccharides -- sugar. Plants make sugar by combining water and carbon dioxide (with the help of energy derived for ultra violet light). The waste product of this chemical process is oxygen.
When any part of any plant dies and rots, that chemical process consumes all of the oxygen that was previously released and releases all of the carbon dioxide and water that was previous consumed. In the end, the net effect with respect to atmospheric gasses is a big ZERO. When plant materials are burned, the exact same amount of oxygen is consumed and the exact same amount of carbon dioxide and water are released.
The earth's ecosystem is seriously carbon dioxide deficient. If it is possible to get it back to optimum levels, then we'll see such horrible things as a loss of deserts, an extinction of droughts, and a severe deficiency of famines. The planet will be overwhelmed by lush plant and tree growth. Farmers will be devastated by being able to grow 3, or perhaps 4, times the amount of crops on the same amount of land within the same amount of time.
I give all of my clothing to a thrift store -- regardless of their usability as clothing. The thrift store sells textiles that cannot be sold as clothing to a fiber recycler -- and they are turned into who knows what.It does seem a wasteful way to create green house gases. If the clothes are in good condition, why not give them to Goodwill or some place like that who can resell them?
I give all of my clothing to a thrift store -- regardless of their usability as clothing. The thrift store sells textiles that cannot be sold as clothing to a fiber recycler -- and they are turned into who knows what.It does seem a wasteful way to create green house gases. If the clothes are in good condition, why not give them to Goodwill or some place like that who can resell them?
Yes, some charities sell worn out cothing to recyclers, but others only want clothing that is in good condition.
Science Lesson:When any part of any plant dies and rots, that chemical process consumes all of the oxygen that was previously released and releases all of the carbon dioxide and water that was previous consumed. In the end, the net effect with respect to atmospheric gasses is a big ZERO. When plant materials are burned, the exact same amount of oxygen is consumed and the exact same amount of carbon dioxide and water are released.The earth's ecosystem is seriously carbon dioxide deficient. If it is possible to get it back to optimum levels, then we'll see such horrible things as a loss of deserts, an extinction of droughts, and a severe deficiency of famines. The planet will be overwhelmed by lush plant and tree growth. Farmers will be devastated by being able to grow 3, or perhaps 4, times the amount of crops on the same amount of land within the same amount of time.
I sure wouldnt want you teaching science because you obviously flunked. If what you state were true, animal life would not exist because they/we breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, plants use carbon dioxide and produce oxygen in a symbiotic relationship. Yes, plants do emit some CO2 when they decay but nowhere near the amount they take in.
Also CO2 levels are at historic highs in at least the last 800,000 years and skyrocketing. There are many resources that discuss this but here one of the with graphs of the CO2 levels.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
That's absolutely false. It's in complete balance. Absolutely every bit of the carbon dioxide consumed and every bit of oxygen released while a plant in glowing is reversed when the plant rots or is burned. That's inarguable scientific fact. Go look it up.
If this were not the case, then the ecosystem would need a constant external supply of carbon dioxide. There is no such external supply. The world would have run out of carbon dioxide a long time ago and everything would be dead.
Sorry you've been lied to. Sorry you believed the lie.Plants do emit some CO2 when they decay but nowhere near the amount they take in.
That's absolutely false. It's in complete balance. Absolutely every bit of the carbon dioxide consumed and every bit of oxygen released while a plant in glowing is reversed when the plant rots or is burned. That's inarguable scientific fact. Go look it up.If this were not the case, then the ecosystem would need a constant external supply of carbon dioxide. There is no such external supply. The world would have run out of carbon dioxide a long time ago and everything would be dead.Sorry you've been lied to. Sorry you believed the lie.Plants do emit some CO2 when they decay but nowhere near the amount they take in.
I believe that the main difference is that burning releases the same amount, but in a much shorter time.
I believe that the main difference is that burning releases the same amount, but in a much shorter time.
The amount of time it takes is the only difference. But it's not as if it takes eons for a tree to decompose.
And until the bio available carbon dioxide returns to optimum levels, we'll continue to live in a world of deserts, famines, and droughts.
The scarcely available carbon dioxide is what limits plant growth. Carbon dioxide is plant food and there's currently not enough of it.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!