Want this question answered?
Actually it has a large influence on your carbon footprint."...if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan - a Camry, say - to the ultra-efficient Prius."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=science
She has a carbon footprint, that's it. She's a human being, LEAVE HER ALONE!!!!!!
Carbon footprint is usually used to refer to a single person (me), or a thing (this apple), or a family or household. It means the amount of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) released into the atmosphere by the activities, or existence of a peron, thing, or group.However, the amount of trees cut down every year affects the carbon footprint of the whole world. Trees (and all growing vegetation) remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. The oxygen is released and the carbon is stored in the wood of the trees.So when we cut down a tree we increaseour carbon footprint.
the carbon foot print shows how much co2 was released when the food was traveling around the world.
They allow power to be obtained in many otherwise hard to reach places. My home is solar and wind powered due to the remote location and frequency we end up "off grid". They have allowed cell phone communications, satellites and many military applications to be workable.
Drive an SUV; leave the lights burning in every room all night; hold the fridge door open for ten minutes every hour; run the air conditioning with wndows open. BUT.... ummmmm.. Why would you want to INCREASE your carbon foorprint when soooo many others are desperately trying to DECREASE the overall carbon footprint of humanity? We all have a fairly small footprint, this is a hype issue. Having said that, there is absolutely no reasonable reason to not want as small a carbon footprint (or any pollutant footprint) as possible. What you want to be careful of though is that you don't shrink your carbon foot print at the cost of a much larger real pollution foot print. High efficiency bulbs are a great example. They do decrease the power consumption at the terrible cost of Mercury mining, florescence being used and a far larger real pollution foot print. They sure feel good though.
Low carbon sugar has no benefits in the management of diabetes as it is exactly the same as normal sugar. The "low carbon" bit comes from the sugar mills processing of the cane being more efficient energy wise, so the carbon footprint of the sugar is lower. HTH
Humans should obviously be paying for the damage but maybe not the most recent generation. Our past ancestors and past generations should be paying for the damage and reducing their carbon footprint but yet not much is being done to reduce carbon dioxide etc. instead this present generation and future generations will be cleaning up the mess and having to sort out global warming, pollution and much more.
It can reduce the oxidation state of the mineral in the ore being heated.
by simply not flying there apparently the UK governmental scheme of "turn your heating down by 1 degree for a year" would actually save much much less carbon than you would burn by taking ONE extra short flight (say intracontinental) public transport is actually carbon neutral for most folk, in that the train or bus would normally run regardless, so if you're on it or not makes no difference to THAT carbon but it would mean you wouldn't need to add any more.
by being retard as hell
Due to there being no wind on the moon, as there is no atmosphere, it can be safe to assume that a footprint on the moon would look like a normal footprint, but wouldn't be affected by wind or rain. Therefore it would stay around indefinately. Basicly, its just a perpetualy fresh footprint.