Colorado's legal cannabis farms emit more carbon than its coal mines

[nykolos 711]

When the State generates revenue from Cannabis or ANYTHING else, the rules set by State Governments do not apply..  As for "Carbon Emissions"  the global cooling, global warming and now the "Climate Change" scam is alive in well, Sell the ignorant public into believing that man made carbon is the result of  "Climate Change" a blanket term for any change in the weather from day to day,  all in a effort to make us accept paying double or triple on our energy bill.... Another TAX.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,493]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Doesn't that seem to indicate that legalizing commercial production of marijuana on a federal level is a good way to get it out of massive growrooms? The way I think about it is this: the country is currently a patchwork of where it's legal, and for whom, and for what purposes. As far as I know, it is not legal to sell cannabis across state lines, even where it is legal in both states. So each state that has legalized the sale of medical and/or recreational marijuana is incentivized to grow its own, because it cannot purchase supply from outside its borders, even though the state itself may not be a good fit for cultivation because of lack of access to sufficient water, unsuitable land, weather, etc. We don't expect Maryland to grow potatoes like Maine and Washington can; similarly, Iowa is never going to beat California for avocado production. If we remove barriers for trade, the incidence of cultivation in unsuitable places should eventually fall. Of course this doesn't take into account illegal grow outfits, but this article is concerned with legal cultivation.

 

I don't use cannabis regularly, and when I do it is in very small amounts for pain relief only. (I do not tolerate it well enough to make recreational use enjoyable -- in fact it usually triggers a massive anxiety attack in me.) I also don't keep any in the home because there is someone who lives here who is adjusting status, and I don't want him to think a jar of medicated gummies is just regular old gummy worms. (It happens. Ask my mom.) But there is a thriving market, and legalization makes sense just from a purely economic standpoint. The states that do it well will specialize, as with other crops.

It would still not matter unless the growers/farmers want to keep a guard on their crop 24/7.  Like I said, the drug cartels are going to do anything they can to stay in business regardless of it cannabis is legal nationwide, and if they can get someone else to grow it for them, then take it, all the better.

[laylalex 7,284]

That's great guys, but that's not actually talking about what can be done to reduce emissions, which is what the article is about. I know that some people deny that carbon emissions have anything to do with a change in climate, but the vast majority of climate scientists agree (97%) that humans are causing climate change, and the increase of carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution is a very large factor in that. So instead of talking about drug cartels and taxes, the article which was posted by the OP is concerned with the carbon emissions. This is the problem I am asking about, and that I think Boiler and NB have addressed. If you want to bring down emissions, don't encourage mass cultivation in areas where it requires too many other resources.

 

My (very capitalist) proposal was for federal legalization to encourage cross-border sales. The reality is that cannabis cultivation is here and is unlikely to be going anywhere. Acting like there's nothing that can be done, by just dismissing it away by saying oh, drug cartels will take over or there will be an increase in taxes, is to miss an opportunity to think big and bold and benefit the marketplace. We don't get anywhere by not looking for innovations and solutions. "Cartels will take over" -- okay, how can this be worked on? What kind of safeguards would need to be put in place, and how much of that would need to be borne by the government and how much by the growers and customers? Where does law enforcement come in? How do the state and federal authorities interact on this? Taxes -- should there be a sin tax only on recreational use? Should the taxes be spent on anti-drug efforts and education? 

[Neonred 3,562]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

 humans are causing climate change, and the increase of carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution is a very large factor in that. 

 

 

I have been saying this for some time.  Increasing numbers of people demanding more goods and more transportation, etc.

 

What we really need is a good pandemic that will reduce the worlds population...

[TBoneTX 45,287]

9 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Well I think.. wait I forgot.

"I think, therefore I forgot."

Poor NB is Bidening.  Or, at minimum, he has an Occasional-Cortex.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

9 hours ago, laylalex said:

That's great guys, but that's not actually talking about what can be done to reduce emissions, which is what the article is about. I know that some people deny that carbon emissions have anything to do with a change in climate, but the vast majority of climate scientists agree (97%) that humans are causing climate change, and the increase of carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution is a very large factor in that. So instead of talking about drug cartels and taxes, the article which was posted by the OP is concerned with the carbon emissions. This is the problem I am asking about, and that I think Boiler and NB have addressed. If you want to bring down emissions, don't encourage mass cultivation in areas where it requires too many other resources.

 

My (very capitalist) proposal was for federal legalization to encourage cross-border sales. The reality is that cannabis cultivation is here and is unlikely to be going anywhere. Acting like there's nothing that can be done, by just dismissing it away by saying oh, drug cartels will take over or there will be an increase in taxes, is to miss an opportunity to think big and bold and benefit the marketplace. We don't get anywhere by not looking for innovations and solutions. "Cartels will take over" -- okay, how can this be worked on? What kind of safeguards would need to be put in place, and how much of that would need to be borne by the government and how much by the growers and customers? Where does law enforcement come in? How do the state and federal authorities interact on this? Taxes -- should there be a sin tax only on recreational use? Should the taxes be spent on anti-drug efforts and education? 

My very non capitalist approach, mandate LED fixtures by law. Energy is 50% of a greenhouse's opex, In19 only 2% were using led. This article breaks down the barriers to switching:

https://www.greenhousegrower.com/technology/why-greenhouse-growers-have-been-slow-to-shift-to-leds/

[Dashinka 24,493]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

My very non capitalist approach, mandate LED fixtures by law. Energy is 50% of a greenhouse's opex, In19 only 2% were using led. This article breaks down the barriers to switching:

https://www.greenhousegrower.com/technology/why-greenhouse-growers-have-been-slow-to-shift-to-leds/

So more government control?  Maybe they can socialize the entire agriculture industry.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

4 hours ago, Dashinka said:

So more government control?  Maybe they can socialize the entire agriculture industry.

The problem posed was carbon emissions. One solution is to transition to LED which is a smart move business wise. If rebates or regulations get them there faster, why not?

 

[Dashinka 24,493]

2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

The problem posed was carbon emissions. One solution is to transition to LED which is a smart move business wise. If rebates or regulations get them there faster, why not?

 

As with most any newer technology, there are limitations as the article you posted pointed out.  LED lighting is not a panacea for grow houses, but it would be a good idea for these growers to investigate their usefulness.  There is no reason that the government should get involved.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

21 hours ago, Boiler said:

Sounds very logical, wonder if that includes the informal growing operation, a guy I know set fire to his house by overloading his electrical supply.

 

It is sort of similar to Bitcoins, they use more electricity than Argentina.

 

  Beer and wine breweries are up there too. There is a test program going on in Colorado right now where one of the breweries is capturing CO2 from fermentation and selling it to several marijuana growers. The CO2 speeds up photosynthesis and decreases overall time (and energy) needed to grow the plants. Kind of gives a whole new meaning to "drink responsibly".

[Dashinka 24,493]

47 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Beer and wine breweries are up there too. There is a test program going on in Colorado right now where one of the breweries is capturing CO2 from fermentation and selling it to several marijuana growers. The CO2 speeds up photosynthesis and decreases overall time (and energy) needed to grow the plants. Kind of gives a whole new meaning to "drink responsibly".

So you are saying that CO2 is plant food?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

35 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So you are saying that CO2 is plant food?

 

   It isn't food in isolation, but if other nutrients are available, increased CO2 (to a point) causes the rate of photosynthesis to increase, thus greater uptake of nutrients and more light absorption resulting in faster growth. The capacity of individual plants is finite. The benefit with artificial lighting is that you won't need to have the lights on as long (theoretically) although I imagine as it pertains to pot, they are just growing more.

 

  

[Neonred 3,562]

16 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

As with most any newer technology, there are limitations as the article you posted pointed out.  LED lighting is not a panacea for grow houses, but it would be a good idea for these growers to investigate their usefulness.  There is no reason that the government should get involved.

And that is one of the rifts between the two political sides.  Larger government and more control over people vs smaller government and less intrusion.

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Beer and wine breweries are up there too. There is a test program going on in Colorado right now where one of the breweries is capturing CO2 from fermentation and selling it to several marijuana growers. The CO2 speeds up photosynthesis and decreases overall time (and energy) needed to grow the plants. Kind of gives a whole new meaning to "drink responsibly".

Time to start growing marijuana at the breweries.

I suppose at the small local microbreweries/pubs that would be one hell of a drink and meal combo.  The double whammy.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Neonred said:

Time to start growing marijuana at the breweries.

I suppose at the small local microbreweries/pubs that would be one hell of a drink and meal combo.  The double whammy.

 

   That would probably work well for a lot of people. 

[Neonred 3,562]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   That would probably work well for a lot of people. 

Not legal in FL