Pooplution and You

by Kaiser Edamame

Global warming has been a hot topic recently and everyone seems to be focused on the high-profile sources of carbon emissions: cars and power plants (see related research Make Emissions Delicious, Stop Global Warming).

What people are forgetting is how much of global warming is a result of flatulence, belching, dung, and other forms of so called “poop-lution”. Ever seen a steamy terd? We know they’re gross but more importantly they are warming the globe and ruining both the o-zone and your favorite ski area. Let’s take a look at factual graphs designed by science.

As you can see methane is responsible for 13% of greenhouse gases and 35% of methane comes from poop-lution, that means almost 5% of global warming is from steaming pooplets.

Recommendation: Until the ingenious Kyoto Protocol, collecting and burning dung was just a fashionable hobby. Now it’s an outrageously profitable enterprise and we want in. AgCert (LSE: AGC) is a $100mm market cap company who’s sole source of revenue is burning dung. We are long them. We also have put seed capital in an apparel company that sells hats that say “No Farting”. We think trendy fad marketing like this will generate millions of cubic cms of provable methane reduction which we can monetize on the European Emission Credit marketplace.

Related Reseach:

Ad Sense Ad Sense


  1. February 28th, 2007 | 12:08 pm

    I just found an article today that scientists have worked on more evidence that global warming will cause stronger and more devastating Atlantic Ocean hurricanes.
    read it here http://newswise.com/articles/view/527697/?ref=/articles/new

  2. February 28th, 2007 | 2:09 pm

    hey thom, why dont you a) get a real name and b) stop polluting the internet with your poopy spam. thanks.

  3. February 28th, 2007 | 2:18 pm

    I edited out the digg link from your comment. Try to comment only if you can add sense to the dicussion, rather than a link you are trying to promote via digg.

  4. The Corner
    February 28th, 2007 | 7:06 pm

    Did anyone see “Envy”? I’ve been long Vapoorizer (NASDAQ: VPOO) for years now.

  5. Cincinnatus_C
    March 2nd, 2007 | 10:31 am

    I didn’t read the article, but how exactly does burning dung generate revenue? Do people pay to watch or something? Or to have their own dung burned?

  6. March 2nd, 2007 | 12:18 pm

    Cinci- dung emits methane, if you burn it, combining methane with oxygen (O2), it turns the methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide (C02) and water (H20). Methane (CH4) is about 10x as bad for the environment as carbon dioxide (CO2). If you can prove you reduced methane emissions you can sell that to someone who wants to increase methane emissions under the european emissions trading scheme. Also keep in mind that methane (CH4) + R2D2 (R2D2) results in RJD2 (RJD2) the hip hop producer from Columbus, Ohio (Hence his nickname “the smelly robot”). Everything should be clear now.

  7. Jeff
    March 5th, 2007 | 5:00 pm

    It’s really pretty basic what companies like AgCert do. No, they don’t “burn dung,” per se on an individual-type basis, nor do they collect it and sell tickets to watch it being burned. :-)Essentially, take a farm where there are several thousand animals, all of which, like you and me, poop. Well, when you have several thousand animals, that’s a lot of poop! Most farmers build a “lagoon” where this poop flows into. Companies, one or two anyway, put big parachute-type vinyl over these lagoons. These “parachutes,” called biodigesters, blow up like a balloon as gas is emitted from the large collection of poop (like the steam coming from a pile of warm dung). As these biodigesters blow up (fill with gas), there are “pipes” that are open and lit, thereby burning the carbon and/or methane that is captured. This burning of these emissions creates tonnes of emission reductions (they are emission reductions because that gas would have been released into the atmosphere instead of burned off). These reductions, once they reach a certain amount, are certified by the United Nations (the legal panel responsible for the Kyoto Protocol). Once certified, these reductions can be sold on the open market. Another great benefit to this process is that the burning process can be utilized using pipes, to turn motors that generate power, thereby allowing a farm to produce free electricity to use throughout the farm.

    The real question I have is why this isn’t happening everywhere instead of in just countries that produce, in the big scheme of things, less emissions than the larger countries. This is a simple process and if you ask me, farmers should be held accountable financially for NOT participating.

  8. nm
    March 11th, 2007 | 3:02 pm

    That question, and: Why isn’t AGC profitable?