lol. "Carbon footprint."

Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. — Mikie

So Big Oil invented the term "carbon footprint" to try to trick me into taking personal responsibility for the amount of CO2 that I produce.

Thank you for "educating" me. Now I know that I don't need to take personal responsibility for the amount of CO2 that I produce. I can produce any amount of CO2 and not feel guilty about it. It is Big Oil's fault, not mine.

Yes, read that! I was about to post it. Here's some of the key text: — Quixodian

Here are the parts of this news story that stand out to me:

The Montana attorney general’s office said the state would appeal, which would send the case to the state Supreme Court.

“This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial, ...”

The government, which was given one week to present its defense, rested after just one day and did not call its main expert witness, surprising many legal experts.

Why do you think the government rested after just one day and did not call its main expert witness ???

As an older person (in my 60's) why should I take personal responsibility for climate change? Young people seem to blame everyone except themselves (e.g. oil companies and older people). They refuse to take responsibility for their own carbon footprint and blame it all on the oil companies.

This is your chance to convince me that I should personally do something about climate change. Or you can ask me questions. Insulting me makes me less likely to do anything about climate change.

So you literally quote from a MEAT COMPANY. No conflict of interest there, I’m sure. — Mikie

Why don't you comment on what they say, rather than who they are?

Right. Yet that won’t stop ignoramuses from discussing it at length. “Scientists were screaming we were all gonna freeze to death in 10 years!”

It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic— and dangerous. — Mikie

Here is a graph from the NASA webpage:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3139/six-questions-to-help-you-understand-the-6th-warmest-year-on-record

It shows a graph of the temperature anomaly versus the year for a number of temperature series (NASA Gistemp, HadcrutV5, NOAA, and Berkeley Earth). They all agree with each other.

Note the sudden change in temperature trend at about 1940. It changed suddenly from an increasing temperature trend to a decreasing temperature trend. The decreasing temperature trend went from about 1940 to about 1970 or 1975 (a 30 to 35 year trend). Scientists raised the issue of a possible pending ice age around about the mid 70's.

In a previous post I said that I remember the scare being in 1976 (my first year at university).

They contribute a good deal to global warming. Try learning about the subject. — Mikie

Cows produce methane and CO2. But they don't contribute much to global warming.

Read the link that I gave earlier about the Biogenic Carbon Cycle.

Most people do think that cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. But most people don't understand the Biogenic Carbon Cycle. If you are interested there is a very good article here:
https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle — Agree to Disagree

So you have literally never known a world that didn't have doom hanging over it. Does that mean you had to get comfortable with doom? How did you deal with that? — frank

Yes, I think that there has always been some level of doom hanging around for most of my life (I am now in my 60's). You don't really ever get totally comfortable with doom (because there is always a small chance that it might happen). My normal strategy is to ignore it or pretend that it doesn't exist. This explains why I was initially very skeptical about global warming.

fear of the impending ice age
— Agree to Disagree

Right. I've read about that, but you lived through it?

Was acid rain abd ozone depletion also part of it? I read that there was overlap with those things and an amplified greenhouse effect. Same scientists? — frank

Yes, I lived through the fear of an impending ice age. I also lived through the fear of acid rain and the fear of ozone depletion. My memory is good but these doom issues were somewhere between 30 and 45 years ago. My recollection of the timing of the different issues is a bit fuzzy.

I don't know if it was the same scientists.

It’s not “cow farts.” Try reading about the subject — Mikie

Yes, I know that most of the methane is from "burping". Frank said "the cow fart angle" and I just used the same name to avoid more explanation. Most people jokingly call it the cow fart problem.

If cattle are also contributing to global warming, that would be another good reason to just cut back on producing beef. It stop it altogether? — frank

The previous link that I gave you shows that cattle don't contribute much to the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is another article which explains some of the positive aspects of cattle farming:
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

Here are some quotes from the article:

Inedible feed to edible protein
The feedlot sector increasingly uses by-products that humans can’t eat, while still meeting the nutritional requirements of cattle. Examples include spent grain from bio-alcohol, feed-grade grain and cottonseed.

Grass-fed cattle (that may eat very small amounts of grain) produce almost 1600 times the human-edible protein they consume. Cattle that graze only on grass or hay their whole lives don’t eat any human-edible protein at all. Their net protein contribution to the human nutritional supply is so high it's literally off the scale.

Not competing for land
Part of the efficiency equation for Australian beef is that cattle mainly graze on land we can’t grow crops on. This is because of its terrain or soil type. In fact, Australian Bureau of Statistics' land use data show that since 2010 less than four per cent of Australia's agricultural land is used for growing crops.

A cow needs to eat around 25 kilograms of feed to produce one kilogram of beef. But us humans can eat none or only some of that 25 kilograms. So in terms of human-edible protein – one kilogram in and 1.96 kilograms out – the perspective looks quite different.

All up our work suggests that cows can be a good use of agricultural land for contributing valuable protein to our food supply.

I didn't know that. So they really think cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions? — frank

Most people do think that cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. But most people don't understand the Biogenic Carbon Cycle. If you are interested there is a very good article here:
https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle

Here is a quote from the article

Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life.

Cows (and other ruminant animals like sheep) are often linked to climate change because they emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG).

But the fact is, this methane is part of a natural – or biogenic – carbon cycle, in which the methane breaks down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water after about 12 years. Grass then absorbs the CO2 through photosynthesis, cows eat the grass and the cycle continues.

Unless I'm mistaken, the cow-fart angle is from the 1990s? Or 1980s? This makes me think you've got some age on you?

My question is: do you remember days before people made a big deal out of climate change? Like a few people knew about it, but most people were completely unaware?

If so, what was that shift like: toward a kind of fervor developing around it? — frank

The cow fart angle is still a current concern. Somebody has just developed a food supplement for cows that is meant to reduce methane by about 30%.

You are correct, I do have some age on me. And I have a very good memory. I remember in 1976 (my first year at university, doing Chemistry Honours, Physics, and Biology) when the news of a possible pending Ice Age came out. I can remember being in a lecture theatre and thinking "I will worry about an Ice Age if it happens".

I have seen (and lived through) many existential threats to humanity.
- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R)
- fear of the Y2K bug (I was given the job of checking the software of the company that I worked for)
- fear of the impending ice age
- fear of Halley's comet
- fears about the Large Hadron Collider
- predictions of worldwide famine in the 1970s and 80s
- Malthusian panic and the population bomb
- various pandemics
- The Mayan Calendar prediction of 2012
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
- Peak Oil In 2000
- Peak Oil in 2010
- Peak Oil in 2020
- Pending depletion and shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
- Oceans dead in a decade (prediction made in 1970)
- etc

This is probably what made me initially skeptical about global warming (before it became climate change). However, I changed my mind and accepted that global warming/climate change is happening.

I think that the awareness of global warming grew out of the work of some scientists (e.g. James Hansen) and was picked up by the environmental movement that was already worried about (non-CO2) types of pollution and other environmental disasters (deforestation, mining, loss of habitats, extinction of species, etc).

It provokes strong emotions because it's a real danger to civilisation. — Quixodian

But most people seem to refuse to accept personal responsibility for the problem. They claim that it is all the fault of the oil companies. Climate change will not be solved with that attitude.

Countries need to work together to address it and doing so is going to be extremey challenging. — Quixodian

Isn't me talking about Russia possibly not wanting to fight climate-change an example of that?

Isn't my initial example of methane from cows an example of the difficulty of fighting climate-change.

I am definitely challenging the ability to fight climate-change.

You challenged climate science and scientists many times in this thread based on data which you claim is valid without any support. It seems to me that your sole aim in posting in this forum is to cast doubt on climate science. — Quixodian

Scientific people, and scientists, should be skeptical. They shouldn't just accept everything that they are told.

Whenever I am told something I immediately try to think of a way that I can prove that it is incorrect. Like falsifiability. I tend to question everything.

Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came alon
— Agree to Disagree

That was a paradigm shift but neither contested the existence of gravity. So a shitty analogy. — Benkei

In the 17th century Newton concluded that objects fall because they are pulled by Earth's gravity. Einstein's interpretation was that these objects do not fall. According to Einstein, these objects and Earth just freely move in a curved spacetime and this curvature is induced by mass and energy of these objects.

The equations that he presented in 1915 not only led to a completely different interpretation of events around us but also ... — The Conversation

I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus".
— Agree to Disagree

Typical conspiracy theorist thinking. — Quixodian

Climate-change/global-warming is a very "emotional" issue. Look at how many times I have been called a Denier on this discussion even though I have clearly stated that I don't dispute that climate change is happening.

Has any of this data been peer-reviewed or published? How are we to judge the truth or falsity of this analysis, which seems at odds with the mainstream consensus? — Quixodian

My data has not been peer reviewed or published (except on my website which no longer exists). I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus".

Anybody can look at my data and see if it is reasonable and makes sense. Anything wrong with the data would stick out like a sore thumb.

As I said before, I grouped the data into 216 countries. I would have liked to also group it into the 50 states of America but it was already a huge task grouping it into 216 countries. Just within the last few days I have found data for the states of America on Wikipedia. I am about to analyse this data to see if it is consistent with my analysis of the 216 countries. If you are interested then I can post some results on this discussion. Anybody will be able check my results using the data on Wikipedia.

There are many topics for debate and discussion around climate change - political, technological and social implications and solutions for example - but the basic facts of the phenomena are not up for debate. — Quixodian

I don't dispute that climate change is happening. I am interested in looking at the possible solutions and working out which ones are likely to be effective and which ones are likely to be ineffective.

Factual matters (like gravity) don't have two sides. — BC

Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came along.

A creationist and a scientist will not benefit by "listening to each other". — BC

If a creationist and a scientist can manage to talk to each other in a respectful way then it is possible that progress can be made.

Some pairs of political ideas are mutually exclusive -- like dictatorship and democracy. — BC

Yes. But there are probably some countries where dictatorship works better, and other countries where democracy works better.

Agree to Disagree appears to be invincibly misinformed. — BC

Do you mean that I don't believe the same as you?

Have you taken the time to think carefully about what I have said? I try to provide evidence to back up what I say. Have you looked at the evidence?

One of the big problems with the issue of climate-change/global-warming is that you have two sides screaming at each other and not listening to what the other side is saying.

I always try to listen to both sides and think about what everybody says.

Fossil fuels are so central to the economy, and the build out of low carbon systems are so complex and time consuming -- and that is the case IF we had actually started the build out. — BC

I totally agree with this statement.

Creationists say the same thing about evolution— especially when it’s shown that scientists were off about some hypothesis— like ideas about what killed the dinosaurs.

Yours is a god-of-the-gaps approach to climate denial, even going so far as using the fact that it’s WORSE than some scientists anticipated as proof that they may be wrong about all of it. Truly pathetic. But also average. — Mikie

I am a strong believer in evolution. I have used that belief to try and understand how dangerous global warming is.

Humans evolved in Africa, near Kenya. So humans should be able to tolerate temperatures which are close to the temperatures found in Kenya.
- the average daily low for Kenya's coldest month is 14.7 degrees Celsius
- the average yearly temperature for Kenya is 21.5 degrees Celsius
- the average daily high for Kenya's hottest month is 29.1 degrees Celsius

So Kenya's temperature range is 14.4 degrees Celsius, and the temperature normally varies from warm to quite hot.

Humans evolved in a hot country. Many humans then migrated to other counties, some of them being considerably colder than Kenya.

This is why humans can tolerate heat better than they can tolerate cold.

I see your point, but at the same time, I am of the view that the facts that you are calling into question are beyond dispute. As I've said, I've put it to the other moderators, I'll leave it at that for now. — Quixodian

Thank you for considering my point. For me there are no "facts" that are beyond dispute.

Hold on a minute. Aren't you an anonymous poster?
— Agree to Disagree

No, I'm a moderator, and well known to all the staff and posters here. I notice that all of your comments, bar one, on this forum, have been on this topic, and that all of them are essentially calling climate change science into question. I will discuss this with the other moderators. — Quixodian

Is it a crime to be very interested in a particular topic?

All of my posts are civil, I provide evidence, and I don't call people names.

Isn't this forum meant to be about the free exchange of ideas?

I have said that I believe that climate-change/global warming is happening. I am discussing the details. Challenging peoples beliefs in a civil way makes for a robust discussion.

Please state clearly which you think kills more, heat or cold?
— Agree to Disagree

Is it a numbers game? A scorecard? Tens of thousands have died in European heatwaves the last few years. — Quixodian

Are the people who die from cold less important than the people who die from heat? Did you read the information that I provided links to?

Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather — ScienceDaily

deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells. — ScienceDaily

Heatwaves are not as deadly as has been assumed — TheGuardian

Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a reduction in cold deaths. — TheBreakThrough

Even isolating deaths associated with heat, in most locations, deaths have been decreasing over time despite warming. — TheBreakThrough

How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?
— Agree to Disagree

Yeah! I joined a forum, and there’s an anonymous poster who says they might be wrong. So they’re wrong! It’s obvious, really. — Quixodian

So how do we know that they are not wrong again?

Just because I am an anonymous poster doesn't make me wrong.

Hold on a minute. Aren't you an anonymous poster?

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits
— Agree to Disagree

This is not like some sort of balancing act though as if you win some and lose some. — Benkei

Surely it is a balancing act.

There are some countries which are better off because of the small amount of global warming that we have had. They have a nicer climate, less people die from cold, they have lower heating cost, they have a longer growing season, etc

You seem to want them and other countries to miss out on the benefits of present and any future warming. What gives you the right to deny them the benefits that they have gained.

Since this thread has devolved into stupidity, let me try to bring it back to reality: — Mikie

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed.

Mikie, are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.

How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?

Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. — ScienceDaily

And the climate denial just keeps on coming. — Mikie

Please state clearly which you think kills more, heat or cold?

I provided links to where I got the information from. Can you provide links to dispute the claim that cold kills more than heat?

Or could it be that you are in denial of the facts?

Sure. Nobody is crying wolf, though. The oceanic heat conveyor is slowing down now because of ice entering the north Atlantic. Does that prospect frighten you? — frank

I am more worried about population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, and cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics.

I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits.

In my opinion it is almost impossible to stop global warming. The best that we can do is adapt.

Strangely enough, human intervention in the climate might initiate a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor. That would send the climate into a deep cold spell. Weird, huh? — frank

So warming causes cooling.

I think that the key word in your comment is "might".

For the last 40 years we have been told that the world will end in 10 years. Is it the same people who are scaremongering about a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor?

Are you familiar with the story about the boy who cried wolf?

Consider Canada. Canada is a very cold country. Nearly all of the major cities are near the Canadian/American border, to be as warm as possible. Even being near the border it is cold.

Do you think that Canadians are worried if they get a new extreme temperature which is a little bit higher than the previous extreme temperature?

Not all extremes are bad.
— Agree to Disagree

I don't think they were that happy with the 2021 heat wave that killed more than 800 people. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, it is depressing when people are killed. But which kills more, heat or cold?

Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells. — ScienceDaily

Heatwaves are not as deadly as has been assumed, according to research that suggests prolonged exposure to moderately cold temperatures kills more people than scorching or freezing spells.

The study of deaths in 13 countries, published in the Lancet medical journal, found that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, and that premature deaths are more often caused by prolonged spells of moderate cold than short extreme bursts. — TheGuardian

It has been estimated that about 5.1 million excess deaths per year are associated with non-optimal temperatures. Of those, 4.6 million are associated with colder than optimum temperatures, and 0.5 million are associated with hotter than optimum temperatures.

Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a reduction in cold deaths. It has been estimated that warming from 2000 to 2019 has resulted in a net decline in excess deaths globally (a larger decrease in cold deaths than an increase in heat deaths).

Even isolating deaths associated with heat, in most locations, deaths have been decreasing over time despite warming. — TheBreakThrough

A rise in global average temperature of say 1 degree, also means a likelyhood of extremes that are many times that 1 degree. This is really important to realise... record temperatures are continually being broken by a lot more than the global average temperature rise. — ChatteringMonkey

Consider Canada. Canada is a very cold country. Nearly all of the major cities are near the Canadian/American border, to be as warm as possible. Even being near the border it is cold.

Do you think that Canadians are worried if they get a new extreme temperature which is a little bit higher than the previous extreme temperature?

Not all extremes are bad.

And what's up with doubling 25 to 50? You got to be kidding me. — ChatteringMonkey

Rate of temperature change = change in temperature / time
If we want the result in degrees Celsius per year, and the temperature changes by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months, then the rate of temperature change = 25 / 0.5 = 50 degrees Celsius per year. Note that this rate of change only applies to the 6 months we are looking at, not the whole year.

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about the difference between local extremes, while climate scientists talk about the difference in global average temperatures. — ChatteringMonkey

I am comparing temperature changes (and rates of temperature change) with temperature changes (and rates of temperature change). Your body can't tell the difference between +1 degree Celsius from global warming and +1 degree Celsius from seasonal warming.

Most people don't live at the global average temperature. People live at locations which have their own local temperature range. Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good.

We don't need to calculated average high or low temperatures, because we know them... because we keep track of them? This seems like a weird thing to focus on. — ChatteringMonkey

We don't directly measure the average high temperature or the average low temperature off some device. It is an "average" which requires a statistical calculation.

We directly measure the temperature a certain number of times a day and work out (calculate) what the high temperature is for the day, and what the low temperature is for the day.

There are Weather websites that you can look at to see these values. But how many locations does the average person look at. I looked at data for 36,000 locations so that I got a global picture.

Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly. This represents just one temperature (the pre-industrial temperature plus the temperature anomaly).
— Agree to Disagree

This is merely a convention, so that they talk about the same thing... it is not a mistake, but a choice, one could maybe argue about, sure. — ChatteringMonkey

I am not sure which aspect you are referring to. Are you talking about:
- the use of the temperature in pre-industrial times as the baseline, or
- using a single temperature (or single temperature anomaly) rather than a range of temperatures

Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth?

Don’t tell me. Let me guess. It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures. Having a temperature anomaly of zero makes any temperature look “normal”.

If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing.

Try learning something about climate change. Start by reading the link you cite. It doesn’t seem like you have. — Mikie

How do you think that I knew about the link that I cited? Do you think that I just guessed it randomly or had I read the paragraph that I suggested you read.

Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly. This represents just one temperature (the pre-industrial temperature plus the temperature anomaly).

But humans don't live at just a single temperature, they live at a range of temperatures. I have calculated the range of temperatures for each country. From the countries "average high temperature for the hottest month" to the countries "average low temperature for the coldest month".

Why haven't climate scientists done this? Is it because the size of global warming is small compared to the size of seasonal temperature variation?

Also don't forget about the speed that global warming is happening at. Global warming is currently about 1 to 2 degrees Celsius per century. This is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year.

Many locations on Earth have a 20 to 30 degree Celsius temperature difference between winter and summer. Let’s call it a 25 degree Celsius average. These places warm by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months. This is equivalent to 50 degrees Celsius per year.

50 degrees Celsius per year compared to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year is warming at a rate 2,500 times faster than global warming. All humans, plants, and animals, have evolved to tolerate this speed of warming.

Below is a map showing the temperature difference between winter and summer for locations on earth. Some places has a temperature difference of over 70 degrees Celsius between winter and summer. Compare this to +1.0 degree Celsius of global-warming. Global warming is slow and small compared to seasonal warming.

Well, India and China are not going to give up fossil fuels. They arrived late to the party. They resent the First World wagging their fingers at them after stuffing themselves silly. — RogueAI

I totally agree. And don't forget Africa and most of South America.

Is your position that we can dig up and burn gigatons of fossil fuels and nothing bad will happen? Doesn't that seem a little naive, without even getting into the science? — RogueAI

No, that is not my position.

I think that burning gigatons of fossil fuels causes some problems. I am in favor of slowly transitioning away from fossil fuels. This needs to be done at a speed which does not cause large problems.

There are many other important problems that also need our attention (e.g. pollution - not the CO2 kind).

Many people seem to be paranoid about the use of crude oil. Crude oil is very useful for a lot of reasons.

Before I give you this list I need to make it clear that I don't/never have worked for any oil company. I have never received any payment or gift/perk from any oil company. I have been a computer programmer for the last 40 years working mostly in the banking industry, but also 13 years in the battery monitoring industry.

Crude oil is very useful for a number of reasons:
- we don't need to chop down an enormous number of trees to use as fuel. Trees are quite slow to regenerate. We want to have lots of trees to hug :grin:
- we don't need to kill whales for oil. Spermaceti from the head cavities of sperm whales and whale oil which is obtained from the blubber of whales :sad:
- 3 percent of each barrel of crude oil goes into the production of asphalt to pave roads and parking lots.
- 1 percent of each barrel of crude oil goes into the manufacturing of lubricants: the greases and fluids that help keep our world running smoothly.
- 15 percent each barrel of crude oil goes into the production of thousands of different items, ranging from makeup to medicine.

These "thousands of different items" include (in no particular order):
- wrapping paper
- mannequins
- ball pits (that children play in)
- artificial leather (don't need to kill so many animals?)
- hard hats
- lotions
- acrylic paint
- hairspray
- dog collars
- fishing rods
- hair color
- lipstick
- manufacture of money
- artificial turf
- kayaks
- sunglasses
- pencils
- drums
- high heels
- styrofoam
- CDs
- porta-potties
- artificial heart valves
- hammocks
- elastic underwear
- balm
- bicycles
- mattresses
- light bulbs
- beer widgets
- microphones
- basketballs
- electric guitars
- photographic film
- cables
- champagne flutes
- christmas lights
- footballs
- ASPIRIN
- football helmets
- toothbrushes
- candles
- baseballs
- dog toys
- etc
- etc
- etc

Of course I have left off the list one of the most important items produced from crude oil
- E-Juice for vaping

How many young people do you know who are willing to give up vaping to reduce global-warming?