Environmental Issues

This calculation is to my mind not too accurate even though the correct answer may not alter the initial argument significantly. The amount of CO2 emitted by Drosophila is underestimated.

If the Drosophila produces 5 microlitres of CO2h, it would produce (5x10-6x24) L in one day.

Six months contains about 180 days so one Drosophila will produce (5x10-6x24) x 180 L in six months.

And since our assumption is that flying insects produce six times more than the non-flying in the same group, one Drosophila will produce (5x10-6x24) x 180 x 6 L.

Assuming there are 1020 Drosophila, then the combined CO2 production would be
(5x10-6x24 x 180 x 6 x 1020) L of CO2 per year, since they are only active for six months in a year.
This is 1.3x1021 L of CO2 which is not  1.09 x 1018 L of CO2.

The argument is logical. The initial statement of the contribution of land organisms to global CO2 emissions coupled with the various assumptions as touching the grouping of insects into groups based on their sizes and possible emission levels also confirm this. Also, it is only logical to work based on the smallest group (Drosophila). Since it belongs to the smallest group, there can be no overestimation rather what may occur is underestimation since in real life there are other organisms that will emit more due to their sizes when compared with Drosophila.

In the end, the greatest point in favor of the logical nature of this argument is its attempt to employ some of the smallest organisms in illustrating the immense contribution of smaller organisms, which are almost never brought into discussions of global CO2 emissions as against the emissions of man which are thought to be most significant but which some scientific facts now appear to most profoundly contradict.

This debate is primarily a clash between science and economics (Harding, G., 1998).  If the world in which we all live is about to be destroyed for any reason, and we all believed it, our common interest then would be to survive with minimal casualties. But as it is, many, including scientists would rather have us maintain the status quo. The primary objective in going to great lengths to prove that insects contribute more to the global CO2 emission than do human beings is to appeal to the whole of humanity for inactivity as its only nature taking its cause or what shall we do about insects before we now come to the much more significant bacteria.

Hieb (2003) believes that the contribution of man to the green house effect is 0.28, if water vapor is taken into account and about 5.53, if not. And concludes by making it very clear that there is nothing we can do that will be significant if reversing the change we are experiencing is the goal.

But do we blame the weather elements for the ageing of our clothes Would we not change clothes if it rained while we were out Of course we always would do something about these personal concerns. As it is today, different parts of the world are experiencing different sides of the change. While it is flooding here, it may be a drought there. Hence, we do not see the changes in exactly the same way.

And so, if I appealed to the hungry man in Kenya to avoid Chlorofluorocarbons if he wishes to continue to eat his beloved corn and made the same plea in Alaska, it is obvious that the difference in individual economic power would determine his response. Man has always ruled the world and so shall we ever be responsible for its state. More than any other thing else and what changes we can effect, let no one attempt to dim.