PalenQ

<Well at least Boeing is positioning the 787 as a "green" airliner>

but 'tree huggers' point out that this "green" airliner may make travel cheaper and thus spur more air travel, negating the energy efficient 787 and causing more atmospheric degradation.

can't win for losing

ira

Dear Environmentally Conscious friends.

I used the term T... H..... with reference to those who have their priorities skewed.

If buying mercury laden fluorescent bulbs, or not flying to Europe (or anywhere else), or turning your AC up in Summer and down in Winter, or not using a charcoal grill makes you feel better, fine.

The latest IPCC report states: "Since 1970, GHG emissions from the energy supply sector have grown by over 145% while transport emissions grew by over 120% - by far the two sectors with the largest GHG emissions growth".

Not only the largest growth rate, but about 1/2 of the current production of greenhouse gases (GHG).

In addition, the contribution to GHG of deforestation, which was declining from 1970 to 1995, has jumped 45% since 1995 to become the second largest cause of anthropogenic GHG.

Thinking big and acting small won't do any good.

Improving gas mileage won't do any good if all we get is more people commuting in small cars.

We must elect officials who will stop building roads and cars and build trains and buses.

We must convert to nuclear power: water, solar and wind energy won't supply enough.

We must provide incentives to the developing world to stop destroying their forests.

Finally - there are too many people.

The world's population more than doubled in the last century and is expected to double again in this century.

Lastly, as I've mentioned before, "According to the IPCC 3rd report, if CO2 levels were miraculously brought down to those of 1990, it would take centuries before the Earth stopped warming".

Supporting the KYOTO treaty, which exempts China and India, won't get us back to 1990 levels.

How many of you have read the 4th IPCC report? See www.ipcc.ch


Thanks for letting me rant.

smueller

Carbon offsets are a scam to exploit environmental guilt by affluent carbon emitters. They have been compared to indulgences offered by the Medieval Catholic Church. The payer is allowed to continue "sinning" and the appearance of hypocrisy is conveniently avoided. Pay the indulgence and you can keep blaming the oil industry and the Bush Administration without even a twinge of guilt.

A tree that is planted to offset 4000 lbs of CO2 deposited in the atmosphere during a few hours will slowly absorb CO2 over decades. The rate of emission to absorption is likely to differ by orders of magnitude. Moreover, when the tree dies, most of the CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere. Trees do not permanently sequester CO2.

In some areas, indigenous trees have been removed (releasing CO2 from the soil) to plant exotic species. This is unlikely to lead to a net increase in CO2 sequestration.

Also, the "bookkeeping" practices of offset companies have been criticized by The Financial Times, Business Week, Salon and others. According to these publications, they offset providers exaggerate the carbon impact of their efforts.

Budman

<i>Carbon offsets are a scam to exploit environmental guilt by affluent carbon emitters. They have been compared to indulgences offered by the Medieval Catholic Church.</i>

Oh, no, say it isn't so. I thought I was going to make $50-$60 a crack by planting 10 acorns.

scrb

So doing NOTHING is better than these &quot;scams?&quot;

I guess some people would rather feel superior about not being suckered in by &quot;scams&quot; than actually doing something selfless.

As for which activities are contributing more emissions, there are tons of cars being put on the roads not just in places like India and China but oil-producers like Russia and Iran (which of course can't possibly have a legit reason for wanting any nuclear tech).

I know air travel has increased a lot in recent decades but so have the number of automobiles, especially bigger, more gas-hungry vehicles.

While emissions from airliners may have been growing at a faster rate, I would have to think power generation (most of our power generation plants are still coal burning) and automobiles still produce far more emissions than aircraft.

hetismij

Meanwhile six climbers have died in the alps due to heavy snow and freezing temps - -15c!!!!!

ira

&gt;Carbon offsets are a scam to exploit environmental guilt by affluent carbon emitters.&lt;

I don't think that I agree. In principle it is a good idea, if properly regulated and supervised.

If one creates a market in carbon offsets, there comes a point at which it is cheaper to stop polluting than to buy an offset.

It also gives those emitting carbon some time to employ more resources in reducing their own emissions.

I don't doubt that there are people who would subvert such plans, but that's true about almost everything.

smueller

So you feel superior because you are &quot;suckered in by scams?&quot; See my earlier comments about the purchase of indulgences.

The point is not whether automobiles or aircraft are the greater threat. It is whether someone with a love of overseas travel (and the flights that such travel necessitates) has the moral authority to criticize the type of vehicle someone chooses to drive.

You may feel that no one &quot;needs&quot; to drive an SUV. There are likely plenty of SUV drivers that feel you don't &quot;need&quot; to travel to Europe. Who is morally superior? Is an air-traveling Europhile any kinder, in a qualitative sense, to the planet than an SUV lover?

Apparently, the denial in this thread is not limited to those skeptical of warming.

ira

To whom are you responding, S.

GSteed

Global warming can be managed. Air conditioning has allowed the development of Florida and Chicago residents to spend the summer there. Population growth is exacerbating the environment concerns. Years ago humans cut down forests to supply trees for primitive mining operations.

PalenQ

and some 'tree huggers' are actually advocating chopping down evergreen forests in sub arctic areas because it will help GW

seems the trees shade the snow, which without the trees would reflect a lot of sunshine and heat back into space.

donnow but an interesting take

GSteed

Global warming can be managed. Air conditioning has allowed the development of Florida and Chicago residents to spend the summer there. When cheap energy disappears what will happen?
Population growth is exacerbating the environment concerns. Every year 65,000,000 new humans appear....Each of us then has to reduce our energy and resource use by one percent. Will this happen?

fnarf999

Isn't the real action in carbon offsets with power plants, not individuals seeking to offset trips to the grocery store? Companies have been trading pollution credits for some time now, with some good success. It's an established, regulated market. One coal-burning electrical plant puts out a lot more carbon than a lot of vehicles.

But you're never going to accomplish anything with JUST market forces. The biggest travel threats are the huge increases in motor vehicles in Asia -- the number of cars on the road worldwide is going to DOUBLE in the next decade if current trends continue. And air travel is absolutely exploding as well -- not transatlantic trips between old-world destinations like America and Europe, but real globe-spanners to the developing world, as well as the massive increase in small regional flights. Ten years ago the only way to get a cheap flight between Britain and the Costa del Sol, for instance, was to hit up a charter; now Ryanair and Easyjet have made these discount intra-Europe hops commonplace. They've become some of the biggest airlines in the world; yet almost all of their trips are easily doable by train.

In America, less so, because we don't really have any trains (outside of Boston-New York-Washington AMTRAK is mostly a joke for actually getting someplace). We don't have a Ryanair but we do have a rapidly-growing regional air traffic. The fastest-growing airliner manufacturers aren't Boeing and Airbus; they're Bombardier and Embraer.

smueller

I was responding to the poster who implied that the only alternative to the fads (e.g., offsets, doomsday hysteria, etc.) is to deny the reality of warming. There are other choices and reasonable opinions.

Apparently, it is more desirable to be &quot;suckered&quot; into a &quot;selfless,&quot; but ineffective, plan by good intentions, than to entertain plausible alternatives, such as &quot;get ready for it, because we're not going to stop it.&quot;

I know I am beginning to sound redundant, but no one has yet answered the uncomfortable questions. If you are unwilling to give up your vacations in Europe, how can you expect a Chinese couple that have been dreaming of a car for the past decade to keep riding their bicycles?

Offsets are a convenient illusion to avoid &quot;inconvenient truths.&quot;

MaureenB

There's certainly no magic bullet to solve this huge and complex international issue.

But, if all we do is point fingers at everyone else's mis-use of resources, and we say this or that is NOT the solution, we won't get anywhere.

IMHO, if we say the only way to reverse this trend depends on someone else to create staggeringly huge changes, we sink deeper into the problem with our own personal uninvolvement.

I will continue to believe in Thinking Globally and Acting Locally, because it gives us all the power to do something NOW that can affect change.

To use another cliche, I'll also continue to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. When we built our house 17 years ago, we spent extra money for the best insulation, the most airtight windows, the most efficient furnace and appliances, etc. We used relatively simple building and design techniques to make our house less reliant on heating and A/C. There are so many better products now than then, but we did our best at the time. Now, the next time I need to repair a wooden deck or some such, I'll use a recycled product instead.

I'll admit it makes me feel better to do all I can to address, not evade, the issue. And to vote for political leaders who can make the bigger changes.
&gt;-

scrb

Well we can't do anything about it so lets pump out even more emissions!

We're screwed anyways, burn away!

AnthonyGA

The one thing that human beings hate to admit is ignorance. We really don't know why the climate has changed. We like to think that we do. Most of us are followers rather than leaders, so we latch on to whatever the alpha dogs say and run with it, without questioning it.

Thirty years ago, the alpha dogs said that a new ice age was coming, and pointed to all sorts of climate anomalies that &quot;proved&quot; this. Today they say that global warmning is caused by human activity (human beings love to believe that they actually have a significant influence on the planet, as untrue as this actually is), and they point to all sorts of climate anomalies as &quot;proof.&quot;

The truth is, we don't know. We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately, much less weather one, ten, or a hundred years from now. We have no idea&mdash;no clue at all. But we refuse to accept that, just as we refuse to accept the reality that our activities on this planet don't even show on the planet's radar overall.

Is it a good idea to limit the burning of fossil fuels? Yes, probably, for a number of reasons. But that's the limit of our knowledge, whether we are willing to admit this or not.

smueller

I agree. We can't do anything about it. At least nothing that would be effective. We can fool ourselves and wish for the best. We can make fruitless sacrifices to assuage our guilt. I believe that these acts would be no more productive than wearing hair shirts to punish ourselves for sins against the planet.

Obviously others disagree, but, frankly, I haven't seen much sacrificing among my &quot;environmentally concerned&quot; friends and colleagues. They still enjoy their three-day weekends on the coasts or longer visits to overseas destinations.

I find it interesting that those who demand that we &quot;do something&quot; essentially expect the government to take care of the problem. The attitude seems to be &quot;As long as I vote correctly (e.g., for Kerry or Gore) I can keep driving to work and flying to Europe.&quot;

On another note, predicting climate is much different, and in some ways easier, than predicting weather. Weather is inherently more random than climate. It is analogous to predicting that the population of California will decrease by 100 thousand next year (climate), as opposed to predicting specifically which 100 thousand people will leave (weather).

scrb

We have a lot more data which we didn't have 30 years ago.

Data such as 30 years of temperature readings, ice core samples from the Antarctic, ocean current temperatures, satellite imaging, etc.

And scientists are hardly alpha dogs. In fact, they've been so cautious that even when they issue a 90% confidence level in human effects on warming, they couch it in the most cautious language possible, which has probably left room for the skeptics to try to depict their findings as uncertain.

As for whether govt. should coordinate and regulate efforts to reduce emissions, who else is going to do it? Leave it to industry to self-regulate?

Hmm, lets let the coal industry set the emission standards. How many &quot;clean coal&quot; technologies will they bother to develop if they can decide the emission levels?

Lets see, you know those Chinese coal power plant operators will take measures to curb emissions if we just left them alone on the honor system, right?

Yeah that's the ticket, trust entities whose main objective is maximizing profits to take measures which would diminish profits by requiring more costly &quot;green&quot; measures like carbon-sequestration.

AnthonyGA

Only the Chinese control their use of coal. If they burn lots of coal, perhaps it will affect the climate; or perhaps not. Nobody really knows. Other countries can ask them to limit their burning of coal, but that's all. And we don't really know what that burning will do, so there's no real basis for asking them to stop.

Scientists are no different from everyone else; in particular, they are no better. They are not particularly objective, despite their egotistical beliefs to the contrary. They believe what they want to believe, then they look for &quot;proof&quot; that supports their beliefs, just like everyone else. That's why science takes centuries to figure out anything useful; the truth percolates into the mainstream with glacial slowness, thanks to the obstinacy and prejudice and narrow viewpoints of scientists.

I'm surprised that anyone says that Paris has &quot;bad&quot; summer weather right now, by the way. In fact, the temperatures are seasonal, not cold. But since recent years have been as much as 30 degrees above &quot;normal,&quot; perhaps a return to normal weather now seems &quot;cold.&quot; The high was around 24° C yesterday, which is is just about right for July, and if anything it's a fraction of a degree higher than normal.