4

Airplane Reading

I read some interesting stuff on my flight to Kansas City, which I'll get to in a moment. But first, my flight. I don't fly Southwest often, but I love their boarding policy now. I know some people hate it, but since I'm a militant disciple of the 24-hour online check-in, I win. I sit at my computer with the airline's web page open two or three minutes before the 24-hour deadline. And then I pounce.

I think it's vastly superior to getting seats assigned based on when you buy the ticket. In theory, the cheapest tickets get the best seats in that scenario. Of course, the airlines are charging extra now for certain desired spots. Anyway, I was number two in line so I got an aisle seat, front row, baby.

This is probably a cliche at this point, but Southwest employees still love their jobs beyond all reason. Our flight attendant was the happiest person I've ever met. She sang to us, and it wasn't annoying at all until I fell asleep, and she started singing again. She also sang the praises of her employer to a woman sitting next to me who wanted to become a flight attendant. It made me do a quick search when I got to the hotel, and I found out that Southwest has 1,165 married couples. Not only are they in love with their company, they're in love with each other.

So, I read a column in new Portfolio magazine that looks at all the money the Fed has pumped into the money supply -- 1.35 trillion just in the last four months of 2008. If $1 bills were stretched end to end, that amount would almost reach the sun and back.

The article concludes that in a normal situation, this staggering amount would crush the value of the dollar and cause horrendous inflation. It still might. But since banks are hoarding so much of the money, writer John Cassidy says that isn't likely to happen. In fact, he says, the bigger risk is deflation from a lack of spending in the economy.

I also flipped through "Fast Company," which features the World's 50 Most Innovative Companies. Number one - Team Obama for their texting, blogging, Twittering and very successful campaign. The rest of the top 5 is boring and predictable, with the exception of Hulu. That's a pretty good story. Google, Apple and Cisco are the others.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal has a front-page story about sheep burping. If I didn't know better, I would've thought I was reading The Onion. The story is about how scientists are spending lots of time and money to reduce the amount of methane that sheep and similar animals emit. Most of it comes from belching.

These researchers are worried about the impact on climate change. In New Zealand, 48% of greenhouse gases come from agriculture. A few years ago, the country's lawmakers tried to pass an "emissions" tax on livestock. Farmers scoffed and dubbed it the "fart tax."

I don't blame them for making fun. It makes you wonder if all the sound and fury about global warming is starting to warp some scientific minds.

The article ends with this quote from scientist Peter Janssen:

"It could be two years, or it could be 20" before a solution to animal burps is found, he says. But someday, "it will suddenly show up. And then you will have it."

Like I said, The Onion.

R. Smith's picture
R. Smith - Feb 27, 2009

According to:
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html,
landfills emit more methane than any other source, with "Enteric Fermentation" being a close third.

I wonder if they have ever tried Tums?
Or something like this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/14/BAGJG6LG3R15...

Don's picture
Don - Feb 26, 2009

A Bic lighter and dark room is almost all you need to prove that farts contain methane. Methane is a "stronger" greenhouse gas than CO2 so limiting methane emmissions, no matter what the source, is an important goal to limit the effect of climate change. Of course trying to discuss animal farts as a threat to the well being of our planet will only get you laughed at in all but the most serious scientific circles. The cows and the sheep will get revenge...eventually. But until then, we will eat them.

Don

Scott Jagow's picture
Scott Jagow - Feb 26, 2009

Don, I understand and respect your point that limiting methane, no matter the source, is the goal. I guess I was just expressing frustration about the nature of this "debate." There was a good column in the NY Times this week, titled "In Climate Debate, Exaggeration Is a Pitfall."
It looks at the hyperbole surrounding arguments from people like Al Gore and on the other side, George Will, who incidentally will have another column in the Washington Post tomorrow defending his position. A line from this article: "...surveys show that most Americans are either confused about climate change, mildly concerned about it or completely disengaged from the issue."
And I can see why when I read about the effort to control animal burps. How do you separate the reality from the ridiculous? Maybe in hindsight, it won't seem ridiculous, but the premise of man-made global warming is that we've interfered with nature. I think it's fair to ask - isn't meddling with the animal digestive system interfering with nature?

HomeBuilding's picture
HomeBuilding - Feb 28, 2009

It's goofier and more captivating to think of the problem as flatus rather than the vast additional possibilities pertaining to organic decomposition. The numbers regarding animal digestion clearly indicate that belching is far more of a gas problem, especially in ruminants (animals that chew a cud). I'm still waiting for information on all of the rotting trees, leaves, grass, weeds, in the world. That's a LOT of methane--and some municipalities are recovering some of this methane from garbage dumps. In my city, the gas is used to cook corn mash in the manufacture of ethanol.