Goldstein: Emission implausible

[GaryC 7]

The more you research global warming, the more you realize we're being told things that don't add up.

Here's some examples.

"Green" celebrities often claim to reduce their carbon imprint to zero when flying around the world by buying "carbon offsets".

One popular way of doing this is by planting trees.

Let's do the math.

It takes 15 trees 40 to 50 years to absorb five tons of carbon.

A return flight from Toronto to Vancouver injects 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per passenger.

Carbon dioxide takes 50 to 200 years to dissipate naturally.

Therefore, to absorb most of the carbon dioxide caused by one passenger taking one domestic round-trip flight across Canada in 2007, requires planting 15 trees today that won't complete the job until 2047-2057, assuming none is destroyed by fire, disease or insects. If they are, they'll release their carbon back into the atmosphere.

As Guy Dauncy and Patrick Mazza write in Stormy Weather, 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change, from which I took these figures: "If we imagine that tree planting can be the solution to the world's climate problems, we may be making a massive miscalculation."

Flying is also one of the worst ways to emit greenhouse gases. Taking one long flight can easily exceed a year's worth of car emissions.

Plus, it injects the gas into the atmosphere at high altitude, heightening the greenhouse effect.

The only way to be "carbon neutral" when flying is to get off the plane before it takes off.

Then there's Kyoto's "clean development mechanism" allowing developed countries to obtain "carbon credits" to emit more greenhouse gases by bankrolling projects to reduce them in developing nations.

But we can't even be sure our foreign aid is reaching the people who most need it now.

How can we possibly know these projects will ever happen, particularly in corrupt dictatorships?

Remember the widespread fraud in the UN's oil-for-food program in Iraq?

Wait until Kyoto, a UN treaty, is fully operational.

We're told ethanol added to gasoline reduces greenhouse gases.

Most ethanol in the U.S., the world's biggest emitter, comes from corn.

It takes about 74 units of greenhouse gas-emitting fossil-fuel energy to produce 100 units of ethanol energy.

You also lose the carbon dioxide absorption value of the corn.

While ethanol added to gas produces a net of 30% less carbon-dioxide emissions compared to plain gas, to plant enough corn to make this significant for global warming, would, as Robert Henson writes in The Rough Guide to Climate Change, require covering 15% of the world's agricultural land -- a country the size of India -- with nothing but corn, solely for ethanol.

That would cause starvation.

There's also a war between proponents of "adaptation" and "mitigation" in addressing global warming.

Supporters of "adaptation" argue people living below sea level near any large body of water, especially the oceans, will always be vulnerable to hurricanes, flooding, tsunamis, with or without global warming.

They want to start moving the most vulnerable populations inland. For them, rebuilding New Orleans where it is, is madness.

They also argue, since we cannot abandon fossil fuels overnight, we must invest in new technology to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide burning them emits.

They note global warming has some positive effects -- for example, a longer growing season in Canada -- of which we must take advantage.

Incredibly, some "environmentalists" who advocate "mitigation" -- focusing only on reducing emissions -- describe these strategies as worthless, even sinister, arguing they distract from the crisis.

Their logic is insane.

Man-made greenhouse gases last up to thousands of years.

No matter how fast we reduce them, their concentrations in the atmosphere will rise for decades.

That's what the science says. If it's right, the only policy that makes sense is mitigation AND adaptation.

Unless you think ideology is more important than humanity.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/0...695107-sun.html

[Alex+R 0]

Unless you think ideology is more important than humanity.

Hmm No comment

[GaryC 7]

Unless you think ideology is more important than humanity.

Hmm No comment

You just did!

[Alex+R 0]

Unless you think ideology is more important than humanity.

Hmm No comment

You just did!

Fair enough. My point is that I don't understand why you refuse to think critically about your sources and why you are so defensive about the drivel you are being fed by rags who promote the work of scientists on payrolls of corporations who stand to suffer from an effort to reduce emissions. It works well for them to have people like you defending them without questioning them, but does it work so well for you?

I guess that is my perpetual question when I read your posts.

[GaryC 7]

Unless you think ideology is more important than humanity.

Hmm No comment

You just did!

Fair enough. My point is that I don't understand why you refuse to think critically about your sources and why you are so defensive about the drivel you are being fed by rags who promote the work of scientists on payrolls of corporations who stand to suffer from an effort to reduce emissions. It works well for them to have people like you defending them without questioning them, but does it work so well for you?

I guess that is my perpetual question when I read your posts.

Sorry Alex. I think exactly the same thing when I see so many people blindly accept this GW nonsense without even giving the other side any regard. You disregard any opposing view just as quickly as you accuse me of. You think that anyone that doesn't buy into the GW myth as in the pocket of big business. For you big business is the boogy man. All I ask is you look at both sides. Open your mind to the idea that what you are being fed about GW also has political and economic alternative motives.

[Alex+R 0]

The motive is giving us fewer choices as consumers? That's all I've seen you mention. Why on earth would the entire scientific establishment conspire to do that?

[GaryC 7]

The motive is giving us fewer choices as consumers? That's all I've seen you mention. Why on earth would the entire scientific establishment conspire to do that?

Come on Alex! You know exactly what I mean. The motive here is control. If the GW advocates win they can control how the world economy is run. They can dictate to business's how they run their business. They can collect taxes based on this to do their social engineering. It's all about control. The end result is a loss of our freedoms.

[Alex+R 0]

The motive is giving us fewer choices as consumers? That's all I've seen you mention. Why on earth would the entire scientific establishment conspire to do that?

Come on Alex! You know exactly what I mean. The motive here is control. If the GW advocates win they can control how the world economy is run. They can dictate to business's how they run their business. They can collect taxes based on this to do their social engineering. It's all about control. The end result is a loss of our freedoms.

I don't understand this. You care about the loss of our freedom to pollute freely, but not about the freedoms the PATRIOT act violates. I don't understand this perspective at all, to be honest.

[GaryC 7]

The motive is giving us fewer choices as consumers? That's all I've seen you mention. Why on earth would the entire scientific establishment conspire to do that?

Come on Alex! You know exactly what I mean. The motive here is control. If the GW advocates win they can control how the world economy is run. They can dictate to business's how they run their business. They can collect taxes based on this to do their social engineering. It's all about control. The end result is a loss of our freedoms.

I don't understand this. You care about the loss of our freedom to pollute freely, but not about the freedoms the PATRIOT act violates. I don't understand this perspective at all, to be honest.

We don't have the freedom to pollute freely. CO2 isn't a pollutant. If it were every time you exhale you are polluting. CO2 is a natural by-product of life. It was here before humans and it will be here after we are gone.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

A return flight from Toronto to Vancouver injects 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per passenger.

Per the below CO2 calculator that flight releases (4,155 miles) 1,620 lbs CO2. Someones not telling the truth.

See how much CO2 your flying puts in the air

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

A return flight from Toronto to Vancouver injects 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per passenger.

Per the below CO2 calculator that flight releases (4,155 miles) 1,620 lbs CO2. Someones not telling the truth.

See how much CO2 your flying puts in the air

"Flights are round trip. Emissions data are per passenger."

it also does not take into account what type of plane, nor the passenger load. a large fully loaded plane versus a mid size half full plane would result in a difference per passenger.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Flights are round trip. Emissions data are per passenger."

it also does not take into account what type of plane, nor the passenger load. a large fully loaded plane versus a mid size half full plane would result in a difference per passenger.

That reminded me a little of:

ARTHUR:The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?

SOLDIER #1:

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

ARTHUR:

Not at all. They could be carried.

SOLDIER #1:

What? A swallow carrying a coconut?

ARTHUR:

It could grip it by the husk!

SOLDIER #1:

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

ARTHUR:

Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?

SOLDIER #1:

Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?

ARTHUR:

Please!

SOLDIER #1:

Am I right?

ARTHUR:

I'm not interested!

SOLDIER #2:

It could be carried by an African swallow!

SOLDIER #1:

Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.

SOLDIER #2:

Oh, yeah, I agree with that.

ARTHUR:

Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!

SOLDIER #1:

But then of course, uh, African swallows are non-migratory.

SOLDIER #2:

Oh, yeah.

SOLDIER #1:

So, they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway.

[clop clop clop]

SOLDIER #2:

Wait a minute! Supposing two swallows carried it together?

SOLDIER #1:

No, they'd have to have it on a line.

SOLDIER #2:

Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!

SOLDIER #1:

What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?

SOLDIER #2:

Well, why not?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

"Flights are round trip. Emissions data are per passenger."

it also does not take into account what type of plane, nor the passenger load. a large fully loaded plane versus a mid size half full plane would result in a difference per passenger.

That reminded me a little of:

ARTHUR:The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?

SOLDIER #1:

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

ARTHUR:

Not at all. They could be carried.

SOLDIER #1:

What? A swallow carrying a coconut?

ARTHUR:

It could grip it by the husk!

SOLDIER #1:

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

ARTHUR:

Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?

SOLDIER #1:

Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?

ARTHUR:

Please!

SOLDIER #1:

Am I right?

ARTHUR:

I'm not interested!

SOLDIER #2:

It could be carried by an African swallow!

SOLDIER #1:

Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.

SOLDIER #2:

Oh, yeah, I agree with that.

ARTHUR:

Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!

SOLDIER #1:

But then of course, uh, African swallows are non-migratory.

SOLDIER #2:

Oh, yeah.

SOLDIER #1:

So, they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway.

[clop clop clop]

SOLDIER #2:

Wait a minute! Supposing two swallows carried it together?

SOLDIER #1:

No, they'd have to have it on a line.

SOLDIER #2:

Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!

SOLDIER #1:

What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?

SOLDIER #2:

Well, why not?

apparently you missed my point