Trump might accomplish that without even trying.
Trump might accomplish that without even trying.
The savings don't just get distributed to a handful of executives in UPS. The execs are well paid but not that highly paid compared to the bankers and high profile execs you hear about all the time. The CEO's pay is probably less than $5 million/year but it's been 15 years since I worked for UPS. What the execs and other tech employees do get are stock distributions every year. I got about 1,400 shares in 10 years while I worked for them as a sys admin. I get over $3000/year in dividends from those shares. Those high level executives generally have hundreds of thousands or millions of shares so they're raking in the dividends but the profits get distributed equally on a share by share basis.
DIAD is short for Delivery Information Acquisition Device. The company I worked for (until I retired last November after 31.5 years) was a subsidiary of UPS bought specifically to bring high tech into the company (they were still tracking packages on paper when they bought us) and we developed the first DIAD back in the late 1980s/early 1990s. They subsequently moved that work in house and eventually sold us to another company that was more in line with our original work.
The other big thing we helped develop for UPS (along with a number of other partners) was the original ADS-B system to help them route the planes landing and taking off at the Louisville Worldport where they land about 250 planes a night (about 1 a minute), unload them, sort the several hundred thousand packages coming in, load them up again and send them back out all in an 8 or 9 hour period. (UPS Air Operations Facts)
One other thing is most people call the delivery vehicles "trucks" but within UPS they're called "package cars". You learn that real quick when you work for them.
Well, I got modded as flamebait too.
But your argument about Buzz Aldrin is silly. They carried along food that had been produced on Earth. That's where the CO2 they exhaled came from. In fact human rated spacecraft have to have special equipment to extract the CO2 they exhale from the atmosphere in the spacecraft to keep it down to a reasonable level. Read the story about Apollo 13 to see how they had to jury rig a system to extract CO2 just to make it back to Earth.
People who say we'd better stop breathing because of the CO2 we exhale are just demonstrating what dumb shits they are.
Fortunately saloomy didn't say that and was merely highlighting the stupidity of claiming they were going to cut all emissions, and by definition that includes CO2 emitted by breathing.
Maybe by your definition but that's taking it to a silly extreme. What they're talking about is emissions of carbon that have long been sequestered from the short term carbon cycle. If you want to be a lawyer and take it to that extreme that's your prerogative but that's obviously not what they meant.
no long term net effect on the level of CO2
If all humans started wearing masks that captured all the CO2 they breath out then yes, there would be a net effect on the level of CO2.
You don't appear to understand that net CO2 emissions include all sources of CO2, including people breathing.
The plants don't follow people around going, "here, let me have that CO2 you're breathing out", they just draw from whatever is in the atmosphere. If that came from a coal power station the plants don't go, "Sorry, wrong C02"
Sounds like you don't understand the concept of "net" very well. In order to human and other animals to exhale CO2 plants have to extract that CO2 from the atmosphere in the first place. The net effect is zero. Once it's in the atmosphere it doesn't matter where the CO2 came from. It's in the atmosphere. Breathing doesn't change the level in the atmosphere because the CO2 was already in the atmosphere a short time before. Burning fossil fuels takes carbon that has been out of circulation for hundreds of millions of years and puts it back in circulation increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So if people started capturing the CO2 they exhale how much difference would that make? I did a little research and found that a person exhales about 2.3 pounds or 1.04 kilograms of CO2 per day. Multiplying that by 365.25 gives about 380 kilograms per year. Multiplying that by 7 billion people gives about 2.67 gigatonnes of CO2 per year exhaled by humans. Sounds like a lot but total human emissions from fossil fuel burning and other industrial processes were 35.9 gigatonnes in 2014. So capturing human human exhales would make a slight difference but it wouldn't stop the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, just slow it down a bit. It would be much easier just to cut back on fossil fuel combustion emissions by that much.
just demonstrating what dumb shits they are
I would be happy to be corrected if you can find one of those graphs you say exists.
They're going to prevent water evaporating and animals exhaling?
Why would they do something like that? Both of the things you mention have been going on for billions of years without causing problems. It's sad that we have so many people who are so scientifically illiterate they don't understand why.
The original hockey stick graph (MBH98) was a first of its kind. It has never been done before. It took a few years for the range to be extended further into the past.
But they didn't say they were going to "normal levels". They said they were going to cut ALL emissions. They better stop breathing if they want to meet that goal, since CO2 is a green house gas they are emitting.
People who say we'd better stop breathing because of the CO2 we exhale are just demonstrating what dumb shits they are. They don't have enough scientific knowledge to understand that the CO2 they exhale came from CO2 that plants extracted from the atmosphere within the past few years and has no long term net effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. But at least making the claim is a good marker for someone that is stupid enough they can be ignored.
Has anybody noticed that North-Central Oklahoma is averaging a couple (minor) earthquakes per day since large scale hydraulic fracture extraction (a.k.a., "fracking") started? That region of the US used to be seismically stable - rock solid, one might say.
I wonder if fracking will bring enough money into the region to pay for the damages which will be caused by the major earthquake which is now foreseeably coming their way?
To be fair it appears that the earthquakes in Oklahoma for the most part aren't being caused directly by the fracking operations but by the injection of the fracking waste back into deep wells which lubricates the what until then were mostly dormant fault lines.
The war in Iraq happened because Saddam Hussein had a huge stockpile of chemical weapons (previously well documented in the 80s and previously used on the Kurds in 1988)
ROTFLMAO! Tell me how much usable chemical weapons were found after the invasion? Iraq did have chemical weapons in the 1980s (largely facilitated by US help) but by the time we invaded in 2003 they had degraded to the point of uselessness and weren't being replaced.
and had Uranium (550 tons)
That was yellowcake which is a long way from useful in nuclear weapons production.
and he kicked the IAEA/weapons inspectors out of Iraq.
Yes, relations between the UN weapons inspectors and Iraq were difficult but the last time they were kicked out was because GWB told them to leave as he was about to attack. They stated they had found no significant quantities of WMD and in the end they were right. Iraq disarmament crisis
The keystone pipeline will help us become a producer of oil rather than an importer.
The Keystone XL pipeline is for transporting dilbit from Canada (IOW imported oil) to the Huston, TX area where it will be refined and most of it probably exported rather than being consumed in the USA.
"65% of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy sources"
Too bad those 65% don't vote for what they want, apparently.
The fact is nearly 3 million more people voted for the losing candidate who would have been more supportive of alternative energy than did for the winning candidate so maybe they did but the vagaries of the Electoral College defeated them.
If they're talking about a monthly anomaly then it's the average for the whole month that they're talking about, the highest of any individual days.
Is it losing that much energy or is the energy just going someplace else like into the oceans?
The party adjourned to a hot tub, yes. Fully clothed, I might add. -- IBM employee, testifying in California State Supreme Court