Market Topics

Your Business


Dear Charlie:

Being the great scientist that you are, wed like some help from you in working an important problem.

Our supposition is that the recent increase in global warming is at least partially the result of the breathing of ever-expanding numbers of humans and pets worldwide. (Unfortunately, the population growth of both humans and animals has trended dramatically upward since the Middle Ages, when the Black Plague mercifully delayed the greenhouse effect for a while.)

We know that approximately 4.7 percent of exhaled human breath is carbon dioxide, but we need to determine the cumulative effect of exhaled breath from the six billion people of the world. Then, we need to know what percentage this is of total CO2 production caused by human activity.

It is understood that only about 3percent of total carbon dioxide emitted in the world is caused by humans -oxidizing hydro-carbons for heating and industrial use, driving autos, etc. The other 97 percent is from natural causes. So, what portion of this 3percent, over which we might have some control, is caused by simply breathing? Possibly you could help us figure this out.

The ramifications of such a study could be great, and you would be an even more famous guy if you put it together and recommended a few simple, corrective steps like the following:

1. Volunteer a country or two to save the world – possibly China and India could trade off with alternate breathing days. Eliminating the breaths of one or two billion humans would certainly help alleviate the global warming problem which Al Gore is busy posing to the world. (Just getting rid of Al Gore might help too, of course.)

2. If diminished breathing of a few billion humans is not considered feasible, why not cut back on pets? A worldwide reduction of 15 billion dogs and cats would certainly be a significant step in the right direction.

3. The above pet enhancement plancould be expanded to include larger animals like goats, horses and elephants. Chickens and fish would be exempted because it is assumed that they are low carbon dioxide generators. (None of the above considers the effect of the carbon dioxide which is resident in fecal matter; this important area could be studied later, however.)

4. And finally,since it is known that humans and animals produce more carbon dioxide while exercising,why not suggest an international treaty,or possibly a UNresolution, banning all forms of exercising? Not being especially familiar with exercise, it is unlikely that Congress would unite on this important issue. However,the state of California might jump on it as a future Voter Proposition XX.

As you can see, the benefits from studying and promoting such a simple solution to the global warming problem could be huge. Are you ready to take on this challenge?

Weve got a serious problem here. It feels as though the sky is falling, and something needs to be done about it quickly.



Related Topics

Market Topics