Writes John Tierney in "The Reign of Recycling," explaining why we should favor the age-old practice of simply burying garbage. That's at The NYT. Tierney is also writing about this at Instapundit, where he says:
I realize that true believers don’t need rational reasons for their religion, but it would be nice to see a little soul-searching in regard to some stats in the article: To offset the greenhouse impact of one passenger’s round-trip flight between New York and London, you’d have to recycle roughly 40,000 plastic bottles, assuming you fly coach. If you sit in the front of the plane, it’s more like 100,000 bottles — and you have to make sure not to rinse any of them with hot water, because that little extra energy could more than cancel out any greenhouse benefit of your labors....The boldface is mine. Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel? Why aren't people ashamed to fly (other than when it's absolutely necessary, such as to visit a distant loved one who's about to die)? It's like the way religious people focus on one sin but not another and don't calibrate their effort at sin-avoidance to the seriousness or harmfulness of the various sins.
Posts
89 comments:
Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel?
Oh, so sweet, you.
Ask the president, who has no problem using a helicopter just to go play golf, as he also travels the world giving lectures, fundraising and playing golf. All the while he is lecturing us, on how WE need to cut our emissions....
In the episode of World at War called Homefront, which deals with life during wartime in Great Britain, two (now) old codgers who manned anti-aircraft guns during the war told the interviewer "All we did was point the gun up & fire. We knew what we did wasn't doing anything to Germans. But don't you tell me that it didn't give you courage that we were hittin' back at 'em."
Much of life is like that, including much of recycling.
Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel?
Oh, they're all in favor of curtailing air travel - other people's air travel. Only Important People, like themselves, should be allowed to fly.
The peasantry can take the bus or the imaginary high-speed rail.
Looked for 'religion substitutes' tag; was not disappointed.
The lunacy spreads like The Blob.
To participate the brain dead must believe 1) that co2 traces causes a greenhouse feedback of heat and reducing co2 affects rising temperatures, and 2) that climate change results.
Both are well known to be Fables.
For 18 years the weather changes have all been from global cooling from a Sun activity minimum that sends colder Arctic air that then affects the Jett Stream.
Recycling is from surrendering to an idea of conservation.
Because leftists are laying pathetic weasels, and the person they lie to the most is themselves. In this case, they want to feel good about themselves, but they don't want to actually have to do anything to earn that feeling. So they tell themselves that "advocating" is just as important as doing, and therefore their advocating provides all the good they need to do.
It's what happens when you have a fake religion, instead of a real one. With a real one, a significant proportion are there because they actually believe, and so hold you to account when you screw around. Not so with the fake religions.
@wenbrobar, not to mention that when the President travels around the world lecturing us on our carbon footprints, he's traveling in a jumbo jet that's essentially 3/4 empty.
Also what gregq said.
RE: Global elites lecturing the general populace about energy consumption - see sumptuary laws.
In the city that I live in, they have abolished weekly garbage collection, and now only pick up garbage once every two weeks.
This is because:
1) garbage is bad, and if they make it as inconvenient as possible to dispose of your garbage, you will generate less of it.
2) Shut Up, and get with the program.
The rats like the new system, though.
So you're making a connection between religion and global warming. Excellent.
It's important that as we as a culture have worked to so hard to remove God from the reality of the human mind, we must now fill the void left behind with something new with which the masses may sublimate their lingering zealotry.
This is why we love and respect our Hostess. Just by asking these questions, it takes her out of the realm of leftism.
Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel?
Because they want to impose their leftist re-structuring on other people, not themselves. God forbid Al Gore or Brad Pitt gives up their private jets. It would be inconvenient.
Why aren't people ashamed to fly (other than when it's absolutely necessary, such as to visit a distant loved one who's about to die)?
Because --- see above.
My brother-in-law who is a retired meteorologist and rabid on AGW is so concerned about his carbon footprint that he just bought a power boat, which is just one more piece of evidence that this is not about carbon, it's about control.
It's important that as we as a culture have worked to so hard to remove God from the reality of the human mind, we must now fill the void left behind with something new with which the masses may sublimate their lingering zealotry.
Good comment Levi. I'd add that we've removed God from a lot of places and taken on the responsibility for being gods who must act to save His creation.
That and suspended all reality in our thinking as to the importance of carbon footprints.
Blogger YoungHegelian said...
Much of life is like that, including much of recycling.
During WWII in this country and in Britain there were scrap metal drives. Women would surrender their aluminum pots and pans to do Hitler and Tojo one in the eye. The pots and pans were never made into bombs or airplanes. Most, if not all, eventually went into landfills. What the drives did do is cause civilians to feel engaged. This was, of course, the actual purpose of the drives.
"To offset the greenhouse impact of one passenger’s round-trip flight between New York and London, you’d have to recycle roughly 40,000 plastic bottles, assuming you fly coach. If you sit in the front of the plane, it’s more like 100,000 bottles"
Why does flying coach have a lesser impact then first class? You're in the same airplane.
Mike Munger has a nice econtalk on recycling podcast page, from long ago, that covers it.
For most people all their efforts to reduce whatever the hell they think they are doing to harm the planet, is more than offset by driving to Whole Foods or Costco.
"Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel?" The answer depends, in part, on the answerer. The little people don't, because they want to feel as though they're making a difference without actually curtailing any activities that they want to engage in. Additionally, the serious offenders (cough*Obama*cough*Gore*cough) simply excuse their own sin in the name of the greater good ("I must use this 747 to transport me to a meeting to discuss climate change because IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING THE PLANET!").
The really effective recycling is done at the industrial level where process scrap is almost always reused at a high level. Steel scrap is also very effective, but our local recycling bin at home officially is not allowed to take it!
Nope recycling for enviros is for the dreaded plastics (shades of The Graduate). Perfectly natural petroleum and natural gas are produced, transformed and discarded and this drives them crazy. Also the whole "excessive packaging" mantra is a big deal for the greens. They don't seem to no that things used to ship in wooden crates and barrels with very high spoilage and breakage. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the environment
You can always recycle the plastic into fuel...
http://www.plastic2oil.com/site/home
You had the carbon all sequestered and on it's way to the dump, but NOOOO! You intercept it and release it into the atmosphere anyways because ... I don't know why.
"Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel? Why aren't people ashamed to fly?"
Back in faux-surprise mode, right?
As jaydub saud, it's about control.
Progressivism, in all its guises, has always everywhere been about control.
From Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat to Landis' administrative process to the latest recycling scheme, it's always about controlling other people's lives with other people's money.
Progressivism is beyond guilt and shame.
Curious George:
My guess is they calculate by the total emissions of the plane divided by the number of passangers, adjusted by how much room they're occupying. If they're occupying first class with double the seat and leg room such that 2 people could have occupied the same space, they're counting you as double. Which makes sense in its way. More sense than anything else the environuts have come out with anyway.
I'ts like the old "genie in a bottle" except you made the genie *into* a bottle. And it gets out anyway because recycling is an unalloyed good!
Well, the amount of plane to support a person in first class weighs more. More weight to be lifted 8 miles high, more weight to be accelerated to 400 mph. It makes perfect sense, though I am sure there are assumptions.
I don't disagree with what's been presented, especially the ridiculous notion of promoting 'awareness' or 'advocacy', though I suspect those who are doing the hard work of cost/benefit analysis are largely ignored because 1) people glaze over when presented with numbers and 2) when the numbers inconveniently don't support a political narrative they are ignored or subject to a suppression strategy.
I read this article yesterday and was hoping you'd post something on it. The comments at the NYT were the best part. As Tierney alludes to in his Instapundit post, most of the Recycling Faithful ignored his argument and said we know better, which was interesting to me because Tierney actually said that a carbon tax would be much more effective than recycling. So it wasn't a typical partisan argument.
Why aren't people ashamed to fly (other than when it's absolutely necessary, such as to visit a distant loved one who's about to die)?
If you really cared about Gaia you'd videoconference on a pedal-powered computer, heretic.
I like to remind people that burying trash is storing resources for our descendants, in case they need them.
(I am of the opinion that they won't, because the most likely alternatives are extinction from an astronomical event and sufficient space mining and energy technology to make "what's easily accessed from the Earth's surface" irrelevant in terms of resources.
But in any case at least future archaeologists would have something to do to pass the time.)
[Michael Mann]: [...] looking forward to seeing you in Tahiti, we can enjoy some nice tropical drinks w/ umbrellas in them.
[...] where are you planning on staying by the way? I haven't decided yet. The cheap options sound way to spartan to me, but the nicer options are so expensive
In case you are not up to speed, Michael Mann is the guy who produced the "Hockey Stick" that "proves" global warming. A true hero of the warmie set.
This isn't the only Climategate email that mentions junkets to far off places for climate conferences. Just one that was written by a guy still in the news today.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/jones-and-mann-in-tahiti-and-many-other.html
In public he says:
Public discourse has been polluted now for decades by corporate-funded disinformation - not just with climate change but with a host of health, environmental and societal threats. The implications for the planet are grim.
What he means by that is that he doesn't want to be shown as a hypocrite.
Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel?
Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others
Why not hold the various climate conventions online? Doesn't holding them in person completely undermine their messages?
Because it is much harder to say stuff to particular people you don't want other people to hear on line. No other reason.
As the saying goes - I'll believe it's a problem when the people TELLING me it's a problem start ACTING like it's a problem.
Private jets to exotic locations for climate conferences? That's an indication they're not serious.
It is denial, she said, to acknowledge global warming but continue a lifestyle burning fossil fuels for nonessential travel and eating foods such as meat with a high-carbon footprint. While it’s difficult to make such changes all at once, as president of the American Academy of Religion last year, she proposed that her group take a sabbatical year in 2021 by skipping the annual conference that fills the jet streams with thousands of scholars converging on one city.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2015/10/02/Duquesne-to/stories/201510020146
Well, one lady gets it. I guess since she makes a study of religion, certain ironies are clearer to her.
How dare you tell me I am only allowed to visit a loved one when they are dying. My loved ones are across the pond.
Can I sue my kids' school for First Amendment Establishment Clause violations (to tie a couple of today's threads together)? I am sick of hearing them parrot the recycling mantra as if it were the gospel.
I did have a little fun with the older kid - I told him that we would recycle so long as it is relatively convenient and efficient, but I was not wasting a gallon of hot water to wash out the food residue from a little plastic container, and he was free to have his preacher-teacher give me a ring to discuss relative energy consumption. No calls so far.
Now, if they schools wanted to do something useful, maybe they could teach the kids to turn out the damned lights when they leave the room! Because that also wastes energy, and ranting about it is turning me into my father, dagnabit.
It's never been about actually saving the planet. It's an aesthetic preference that fascists want to force everyone else to have.
It takes something like 15 years of driving a new Prius before the savings in gas emissions offset the tremendous, holocaust-level carbon output of building the battery that runs the Prius.
The fascists hatehatehate that *ordinary* Americans drive big, comfortable vehicles and live in big, comfortable houses. In Europe, you see, it's much more civilized. Those that aren't important can't afford a big, comfortable vehicle or a nice house. It's much better when the serfs know that they're serfs.
I have been through the plastic recycling grind with many believers. It's pointless. The science doesn't matter. The cost-benefit doesn't matter. Part of the religion is that it makes you feel good about yourself. I once tried to recycle a factory full of obsolete plastic tubes (back in the 90's). No one would take them. Plastic isn't just plastic. It's PET, PP, PE. So, a PE tube of body wash with a PP cap must be separated before it can be recycled. Sorting is costly and inaccurate. The whole business started from the false claim we were running out of landfill space. The hardest thing is to convince people that a properly constructed landfill is perfectly fine. When full, the land can be repurposed. We have plenty of empty land in America.
The reason we keep doing it is because once it starts, it cannot be stopped, e.g. ethanol.
The reason flying to Global Warming Conferences in say, Bali, is OK is that what you (the participant) are contributing to the fight far exceeds your flight footprint. It's all for the greater good. The same reason Jeffers gets to sleep with all your children. It's all for the greater good.
One of the commenters to the Tierney piece claimed that he/she was being green by baking his/her own bread rather than buying bread in a plastic bag.
This is utter idiocy. This is a conclusion you reach by assuming that what you want to do is good all the way around. You don't like corporate-produced bread, so making bread at home must not only be a virtuous protest against the American, corporate/consumerist culture, it must also be good "for the environment."
These are the people who thought Sarah Palin was too dumb to be vice president.
Seattle has become so aggressive that the city is being sued by residents who maintain that the inspectors rooting through their trash are violating their constitutional right to privacy."
That I believe. What is one to say to government inspectors checking whether you haven't recycled that plastic container that's one of the allowed varieties, as opposed to the disallowed ones? Except "It's my trash, and I'll throw it out if I want to"?
Terry,
Yes, bread baked in a bakery is much more "carbon-efficient" than bread baked at home. Bakery ovens are a lot more efficient than home ovens. Bread machines, maybe not.
Though originally in a different context, Janan Ganesh summarizes these groups well...
...it is a communion of comfortable people working their way up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. They have physical health and security; they crave belonging and self-actualisation. They are in politics for the dopamine squirt that comes with total belief and immersion in like-minded company.
they don't curtail their own activities because they're a bunch of frauds. They're only interested in curtailing OTHER PEOPLE's activities, but not their own. They NEED to fly because they're important.
They're also pretty clueless. They think they'll be spared when the revolution comes. Fat chance.
The only purpose is power. All of you above who suggest any other reason are thinking about second order reasons.
My guess is they calculate by the total emissions of the plane divided by the number of passangers, adjusted by how much room they're occupying. If they're occupying first class with double the seat and leg room such that 2 people could have occupied the same space, they're counting you as double.
It's passenger weight, not volume, that increments fuel burn and planet-destroying emissions. Yet another reason, as if one were needed, to hate fat people--especially when they're on an airplane.
Its a basic tenet of socialism. The rules are for "those people, not us". And every libtard activist that promotes socialism thinks they are going to be taken in to the Inner Party - jet planes, steak, fresh razors, and the perk of turning off the telescreen whenever they like. They all believe they will be O'Brien, when the truth is they will be the second group purged.
Useful idiots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen
"It's like the way religious people focus on one sin but not another and don't calibrate their effort at sin-avoidance to the seriousness or harmfulness of the various sins."
Cheap and low class.
Blogger Birkel said...
The only purpose is power. All of you above who suggest any other reason are thinking about second order reasons.
10/5/15, 3:14 PM
This is true. What mandatory recycling does is make disposing your trash a community affair. It becomes a part of the public space that is under government control. As Tierney notes in his article, recycling requirements are arbitrary.
My favorite comment to the editorial is by the ex-chief of the NYC recycling program, and current lobbyist for recycling companies, who insists that it makes economic sense to require recycling -- for him.
1) I, for one, do think hard before every time I fly. I live several states away from my extended family, and it weighs on my mind often. I don't ever fly home for Thanksgiving, but I do at Christmas because it's vital that I see them. I don't fly to people's weddings, even though I've had friends get mad at me for refusing to do so. I do fly, because it's one of the most amazing things humans have ever invented, but I'm conscious of and bothered by its impact on the environment.
2) If 40,000 plastic bottles recycled is equivalent to one intercontinental flight, that's a strong argument FOR recycling. There are millions of plastic bottles currently thrown away, just in the US, every year, plus millions of tons of other plastic, paper, metal, etc. That's the equivalent of thousands if not millions of plane flights we can save.
3) The key difference between the two examples you cite is that flying on a plane provides a much greater benefit than not recycling. The person who recycles a bottle still gets to use the bottle first. Nobody is being asked to reduce consumption, only to dispose of their refuse in a different way. A plane flight, on the other hand, is either taken or not taken. There's no actual "recycling" equivalent with a plane flight. If there was, liberals would absolutely be pushing to have it enacted. Reducing waste and emissions in ways that don't require people to sacrifice consumption are EXACTLY the kind of savings we should be looking for.
My airplanes all got over 20 miles to the gallon.
OGWiseman
Just a head's up. The planes go whether you are in them or not. So there is that to consider.
Franklin
It is not just the evil Prius batteries. The cars and their engines do not drop from the sky. All of their materials have huge environmental costs.
The car companies want people to buy new cars and their desires and those of hippie environmentalists merge with lower mileage new vehicles. The truth is probably that you are better off, environmentally, driving the old gas guzzler into the ground before you buy a new car.
OGWiseman illustrates the Iron Law of online nicknames:
There is an inverse square relationship between the claimed good and the actual good. See, e.g. "AReasonableMan"
I just got off a five hour flight, BTW and I look at it this way. I am of normal, meaning non-fat, stature and thus saved the planet a lot by occupying a seat that otherwise would have been filled with a fattie. Like most of the seats on the plane.
I've contributed to the health of the planet by staying child-free. It's up to you breeders to curtail your use of jets and cars. Every time a couple breeds, they increase their carbon footprint some 50% and add to the count of future victims of global warming.
The only purpose is power. All of you above who suggest any other reason are thinking about second order reasons.
I believe that the reason the powers-that-be push this nonsense is because they want power. As for the religious proles who believe it? Nope, they're just mind-numbingly stupid. As Terry said, they're just the type who thought Sarah Palin was too dumb to be vice president.
I Callahan,
The powers that be must find second order reasons to agitate their followers, obviously.
I fly for work but only vacay locally. I despise flying.
I don't recycle and don't give a shit about global warning.
My image that just appeared was bananas.
tits.
I have been sharing photos with others on grindr and getting good feedback.
What do you think?
Judge me.
I am still trying to figure out how to take the pic of the body closer up without my head-some of the guys are perfect at taking excellent pics without head.
I am learning.
O.G. Wiseman writes;
"Reducing waste and emissions in ways that don't require people to sacrifice consumption are EXACTLY the kind of savings we should be looking for."
O.G. when you can do that, hand me the keys to your perpetual motion machine.
The manufacture or production of any good (or service for that matter) is inevitably going to require the consumption of some materials or creation of some emission.
You may like lamb chops. The biggest source of emissions in New Zealand is their sheep herds, followed closely by the farmed deer for venison.
Now the goal of allowing consumption, while minimizing waste emissions is a good one--it's called effficency. But there is no such thing as a free lunch--it's just that some cost more than others.
"Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel"
As instapundit says, He'll start taking it seriously when those saying its serious act like its a problem.
Think about summits on global warming. All the diplomats fly, first class so they can be seated at the lecture about how bad everyone else is and how the world is about to end. You'd think they might have something online where someone gives a presentation and then you view it without leaving your house. The technology is there and has been for a decade.
yet, they would never even consider doing something that radical. And they wonder why we don't take them seriously.
Amen, amen, amen. Tourism in general and air travel in particular is given little or no attention by the environmental forces that get all the media attention. Here in Seattle hundreds paddle their kayaks out in Elliott Bay and protest a drill rig (how do they get those kayaks home?); meanwhile SeaTac airport and nearby Interstate 5 bustle with unprecedented traffic. We all cheer for Boeing, of course. Stupidity plus willful blindness is a powerful combination.
O.G. Wiseman writes;
"Reducing waste and emissions in ways that don't require people to sacrifice consumption are EXACTLY the kind of savings we should be looking for."
Cue up U2...
BUt I Stilll... haven't found... what I'm looking for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ISAntOom0
"How dare you tell me I am only allowed to visit a loved one when they are dying. My loved ones are across the pond."
Those who care about global warming should not be living far away from lived ones. Stay put, people who care. Don't move away from where your loved ones are.
I often wonder how much carbon would not be used, if environmentalists simply didn't broadcast the need to save the environment so much.
Every effort requires a mass expenditure of energy. They have to put it online, and promote it. If its a concert, you have to get to it. It will require electricity to run it. If you want to download it you need a computer and plug into the grid. Its so great you have to send it to all your enviro conscious friends so they can view it on their phones and computers
Just stop with the enterprise and networking. Maybe you can save the world. (you wont, but just go along with me here).
Also, stop posting things on twitter, facebook or the internet in general. I don't know how many arugments I've had online where the environmentalist talks about how we're abusing the environment with our consumption and I have to point out "You are telling this to me. On the internet" Is his computer running on windmill power? Does twitter's servers run on magic pixie dust? Youre wasting the earth's resource to discuss bullshit on social networking sites? How much does the world have to suffer so that you can like a cat video or tell people about their carbon foot prints.
Turn off the computer, disconnect from the grid and live in a cave. I dont' want to hear from you for at least 6 months. If you can't do that, then don't lecture others on how wasteful they are and how we need to do more.
Same thing with people who keep telling me the population is too big. So off yourself. Kill your family. If you think its a problem you want third world countries populations to pay the cost? No, YOU pay the cost. Lead the way. Show us the error of our ways by showing us how we should live. You talked the talk now walk the walk. If you are not dead in a months time from self induced cyanide poisoning, you are not serious.
Althouse is not telling you not to visit your loved ones. She is saying your own views about global warming ought to inform you not to travel to see your loved ones, if you care as you say you care.
(Apologies if I have that wrong, by Althouse's lights.)
"I've contributed to the health of the planet by staying child-free. It's up to you breeders to curtail your use of jets and cars. Every time a couple breeds, they increase their carbon footprint some 50% and add to the count of future victims of global warming."
I don't have a kid. Or a car. And don't fly that often. And live in a smallish apartment in NY. I have a house in PA, but only go there when I'm not in NYC. So, I think that I'm entitled to a little leeway.
Why don't enviros live like me? I'm talking to you, Leonardo Dicaprio.
jr565,
Thomas Malthus could not be reached for comment.
Malthus died just shy of 69 years of age.
He did not have the courage of his convictions.
I live in Hawaii. We must have the stupidest plastic bottle recycling program in the world.
They charge you six cents deposit on each plastic bottle, but you only get a nickel back when you redeem the bottle. The extra penny-- 1/6 of all the money given for bottle deposits -- goes to the state to run the redemption system, e.g. it is a jobs program. The stores that sell the bottled goods and collect the redemption fee will not accept redeemed bottles. Instead, to get the money back, you have to take the empties to a redemption center. The closest redemption center to my house is over 20 miles away. Needless to say, the redemption rate here isn't very high. This is good, I suppose, because the state loses money on every bottle redeemed.
Why does flying coach have a lesser impact then first class? You're in the same airplane.
I think it's because your in-flight meal was so much better.
I will take global warming seriously when the advocates support nuclear power. That is the "Tell" that this is all phony.
The KGB started the anti-nuclear movement in the 50s and it remains their most successful operation.
Blogger Kieth Nissen said...
Amen, amen, amen. Tourism in general and air travel in particular is given little or no attention by the environmental forces that get all the media attention. Here in Seattle hundreds paddle their kayaks out in Elliott Bay and protest a drill rig (how do they get those kayaks home?); meanwhile SeaTac airport and nearby Interstate 5 bustle with unprecedented traffic. We all cheer for Boeing, of course. Stupidity plus willful blindness is a powerful combination.
Watch the look on their faces when you point out their kayaks are made from petroleum.
Ann Althouse writes:
"Those who care about global warming should not be living far away from lived ones. Stay put, people who care. Don't move away from where your loved ones are."
Stay in your villages, peasants! Who gave you the right to leave?
OGWiseman:
The article stated it's 40,000 to 100,000 bottles per passenger, not per flight.
Which makes a rather profound difference in the math.
wisdom without reading comprehension leads to comical results.
"Why does flying coach have a lesser impact then first class? You're in the same airplane."
Because white privilege is more damaging to the environment.
Recycling empty opium containers is the religion of the masses.
"living far away from lived ones"
Loved ones...
sorry
Kieth Nissen said: Here in Seattle hundreds paddle their kayaks out in Elliott Bay and protest a drill rig (how do they get those kayaks home?) What are those kayaks made out of?
Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel?
You're halfway there, see if you can complete that thought.
Titus: "I have been sharing photos with others on grindr and getting good feedback.
What do you think?"
I'm thinking that a guy who purports to be a workout regular but doesn't seem to understand that crunches are not an "ass"-improving exercise is probably simply lying about it.
Ann says: "Why doesn't everyone who wants carbon dioxide emissions taken seriously radically curtail air travel? Why aren't people ashamed to fly (other than when it's absolutely necessary,"
Because CO2 doesn't cause "global warming", and "global warming" is a hoax. The world is NOT getting warmer. The Warmists are "adjusting" the temperature records to make it seem that way, but it isn't happening. The world a thousand years ago was warmer than now, and the world of the Romans was warmer yet. There have been intervening cold periods, which we call the "Dark Ages" and the "Little Ice Age". And we're more likely to see substantially COLDER temperatures than we are substantially WARMER ones.
All "Global Warming" is based on computer MODELS that cannot predict the present, given the conditions of the past. The models DON'T WORK, but models are all the Warmists have. Who read about the discovery, only a couple of weeks ago, about a newly-discovered atmospheric process that begins to explain WHY the models are so wrong? Here you go;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/30/new-discovery-surface-of-the-oceans-affects-climate-more-than-thought/
The Warmies are WRONG. They KNOW they're wrong.
jr565 said... " "Why does flying coach have a lesser impact then first class? You're in the same airplane."
Because white privilege is more damaging to the environment. "
Actually, because First Class takes up more space on the airplane. The airplane creates a certain amount of CO2, and it doesn't much matter how many people are on the plane. But the amount of CO2 _PER PERSON_ is higher when there are fewer people on the jet.
Not that it makes any difference, because "global warming" is a hoax and CO2 isn't responsible for it.
Doug said...
Kieth Nissen said: Here in Seattle hundreds paddle their kayaks out in Elliott Bay and protest a drill rig (how do they get those kayaks home?) What are those kayaks made out of?
I think I addressed that above.
Although some plastic feedstocks are derived from the coking process.
Ken Mitchell said...
jr565 said... " "Why does flying coach have a lesser impact then first class? You're in the same airplane."
Because white privilege is more damaging to the environment. "
Actually, because First Class takes up more space on the airplane. The airplane creates a certain amount of CO2, and it doesn't much matter how many people are on the plane. But the amount of CO2 _PER PERSON_ is higher when there are fewer people on the jet.
Not that it makes any difference, because "global warming" is a hoax and CO2 isn't responsible for it.
10/6/15, 12:08 AM
Unless I am missing your point, the CO2 per person is not relevant as each person is generating CO2 regardless of if they are on the plane or not unless if they were not on the plane, they would be dead in which case the "on plane" CO2 counts as "new" CO2.
Though, if you go there, what is the CO2 production of a decomposing body? Is it more or less than cremation? I would think more as the organisms involved in the decomposition process must be producing some measure of CO2 as well THOUGH if you cremate, the fire catalyst is also producing byproducts that could be more than that produced by natural decomposition UNLESS you were to drop the body into an already running heat source say a smelter. Then the burning body might actually add enough additional heat to the process to offset the CO2 released from the consumption of the body? Inquiring minds want to know!
By the way if environmentalists were actually committed, they would all live under overpasses and eat out of dumpsters (recycle and re-purpose)!
Todd,
If the First Class seat one occupies could be replaced by 2.5 coach seats, so that fewer total trips were necessary to transport the same number of passengers, then the calculation makes sense.
Think it through.
Birkel said...
Todd,
If the First Class seat one occupies could be replaced by 2.5 coach seats, so that fewer total trips were necessary to transport the same number of passengers, then the calculation makes sense.
Think it through.
10/6/15, 8:31 AM
Did, hence my question. Is the CO2 in reference to the flight of the plane or the contents of the plane during flight? If the flight of the plane, than the person would incur the additional CO2 of their portion of that generated by the plane but if the CO2 amount is that of the passenger then that CO2 would have been generated anyway.
In addition, if we are talking about the plane generated CO2, one could also argue that the plane was going there anyway so the person should only be tagged with the additional CO2 generated by THEIR presents on the plane, not a full portion of that generated by the plane.
Jesus are you really confused or just playing?
A given jet flight causes 10000 tons of co2, assume weight of passengers, airplane are relatively trivial to co2
Jet holds max of 100 first class passengers (and their bigger seats, more crew, extra baggage, fine food and drink, etc) or 1000 in steerage with hammocks and juiceboxes
Jet with all first class passengers: 10000/100=100 tons of co2/passenger
Jet with all steerage passengers: 10000/1000=10 tons of co2/passenger
By this approximation, a first class passenger creates 10x the co2 of a steerage passenger.
Close enough for government work, neh? Nobody actually cares about ounces of carbon, this is just getting a handle on the order of magnitude.
You can be finicky about the details but in this context at least, they're of no importance.
Why don't you assume that the guy meant the answer that makes sense?
Post a Comment