Althouse: 300,000 tons = the carbon footprint of the COP21 meeting of global leaders seeking to reduce carbon emissions.

December 1, 2015

300,000 tons = the carbon footprint of the COP21 meeting of global leaders seeking to reduce carbon emissions.

Including Obama’s motorcade.

100 comments:

rhhardin said...: It's not a great thing. Basically it's three the weight of the fuel burned. One C in the tank and two O from the air added in burning.; 12/1/15, 7:55 AM
Mark said...: That's out of 38 billion tons produced overall.

It's helpful to always consider numbers next to a proper scale, if you discuss science.; 12/1/15, 7:58 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Let us remember our high-school chemistry, which teaches that the mass of carbon dioxide is mostly the oxygen parts, which comes from the air around us. If you burn a pound of coal, you get about four pounds of carbon dioxide.

This may not be important until the global warming idiots move on to the idea that the Earth is in an oxygen-depletion cycle that will kill all life. (They may never do that, since killing all human life is the root goal.)

But don't let's think that Obama and his little group of idiots toted 300k tons of CO2 to Paris and just exhaled it all over France. A human emits a couple of pounds of CO2 per day just sitting in a chair, reading a book.; 12/1/15, 8:02 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "It's helpful to always consider numbers next to a proper scale, if you discuss science."

What do you think of the scale? You seem to be suggesting that 300,000 tons, produced for one event, in a few days, is very small compared to 38 billion tons, produced for absolutely everything that everyone does for an entire year.

In my view, anyone who takes plane trips long distances when it is not essential forfeits the moral weight to tell the rest of us that we should be carving back on our little indulgences (like driving to work or having a nonsmall car).; 12/1/15, 8:07 AM
MadisonMan said...: Not a very useful metric of the amount of CO2 emitted, IMO. But clicking through, I found a better one (at least for me): In fact, all the travel for all the people to and from Paris equals about 22 seconds of global CO2 emissions.; 12/1/15, 8:08 AM
Curious George said...: The left's answer to everything is a tax. Forget this largesse, if they really believed this bullshit that the fate of mankind was in the balance, they would call for immediate reduction in carbon emissions, not some half measured money grab.

I recently had dinner with a UW-Milwaukee professor in chemistry. When we got to climate change he was all for those stupid windmills, although I got him to admit that they would in no way be part of any necessary solution. He only reason "Every little bit helps".

There's your science.; 12/1/15, 8:09 AM
Brando said...: Considering how often such enviro hypocrisy is pointed out, why in hell wouldn't the organizers simply do the whole thing over video conference? The optics alone send the message "we think this is important, but not so important that we'll forego our boondoggle". It's like a poverty summit serving caviar.

Morons.; 12/1/15, 8:11 AM
Curious George said...: "Mark said...
That's out of 38 billion tons produced overall.

It's helpful to always consider numbers next to a proper scale, if you discuss science."

So individually none of us have to change anything. Because our carbon footprint is even less out of 38 billion tons.

It's helpful to understand that you aren't very bright.; 12/1/15, 8:12 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "It's helpful to always consider numbers next to a proper scale, if you discuss science."

-- So, every little bit DOESN'T help? Well, I'll stop reusing bags at the grocery store then.; 12/1/15, 8:16 AM
Bob Ellison said...: "You seem to be suggesting that 300,000 tons, produced for one event, in a few days, is very small compared to 38 billion tons, produced for absolutely everything that everyone does for an entire year."

What would those people have been doing if they hadn't all flown to Paris to eat lobster and drone on about global warming?

They would probably have produced, oh, maybe 295,000 tons of CO2. Maybe the airplane trips would have been fewer.

And don't get me started on cars. That's a big, giant subject. Especially electric cars.; 12/1/15, 8:16 AM
Mark said...: Funny, there all sorts of other places you don't apply this type of standard.

Only where you want to grind your axe.; 12/1/15, 8:18 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Mark said...

It's helpful to always consider numbers next to a proper scale, if you discuss science.

Sure. And the proper scale is that the average North American produces ~20 tons of CO2 per year. So that conference equals ~15,000 years worth of the average North American's usage.; 12/1/15, 8:18 AM
MadisonMan said...: You seem to be suggesting that 300,000 tons, produced for one event, in a few days, is very small compared to 38 billion tons, produced for absolutely everything that everyone does for an entire year.

It is very small. Vanishingly small. Even if they held this conference bi-weekly, it's a small tiny blip. Travel does not make much of an imprint on CO2 budgets. Heating and cooling does. I would venture to guess that the attendees' heating/cooling needs for the year generated far more CO2 than this travel did.; 12/1/15, 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: In my view, anyone who takes plane trips long distances when it is not essential forfeits the moral weight to tell the rest of us that we should be carving back on our little indulgences (like driving to work or having a nonsmall car).

What about when someone uses Air Force one for fundraising, and golf trips all over the country?? And then he lectures us, that we shouldn't have SUV's.... Hypocritical, in my view....; 12/1/15, 8:19 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "That's out of 38 billion tons produced overall.

It's helpful to always consider numbers next to a proper scale, if you discuss science."

My pickup truck, Propane house heat, and the diesel the electric company burns to make power for me are a tiny, tiny bit of the overall human carbon footprint! Insignificant Awesome!
The world's leaders obviously don't think there is a crisis, or they would telecon and try to come up ways to put a new nuke plant online each and every day.
This is a joke. They'd rather ration your fuel than fight Isis. They are like the town mayor who can't balance the budget, can't get the garbage picked up, can't clean up the corrupt police force, but has plenty ideas for tearing up sidewalks and replacing them with "greener" dirt paths and buying the cops electric cars.; 12/1/15, 8:21 AM
Patrick said...: On the bright side, they totally rebuked ISIS.; 12/1/15, 8:21 AM
dbp said...: This is all about power, in the metaphysical sense. The powerful are not content to wield the authority we give them in a responsible manner to improve our lives. What they want is more like the power of tyranny: They want to force the little people to live spartan lives, while they, very publicly, make lavish use of resources. To their minds, how can you really enjoy a round of golf at a beautiful course if any plebeian is allowed to do the same?; 12/1/15, 8:27 AM
pm317 said...: Heating and cooling does.

So this conference is all about cushy first world people with their heating and cooling telling the third world poor people not to use too much.; 12/1/15, 8:31 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
You seem to be suggesting that 300,000 tons, produced for one event, in a few days, is very small compared to 38 billion tons, produced for absolutely everything that everyone does for an entire year.

It is very small. Vanishingly small. Even if they held this conference bi-weekly, it's a small tiny blip. Travel does not make much of an imprint on CO2 budgets. Heating and cooling does. I would venture to guess that the attendees' heating/cooling needs for the year generated far more CO2 than this travel did."

What a dumb comment. This CO2 output is over and above. You think they turned the heat and power off at all their residences? It's amazing that you are a teacher. But that's really not the point. It is a huge expenditure for such a small group of people over such a small amount of time. And if it really doesn't matter, than stop asking the rest of us. Piss off.; 12/1/15, 8:32 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: How much energy is wasted flying people around the world to produce pablum like 'Survivor' or 'American Idol'?; 12/1/15, 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: The presidents trip is equivalent to burning 368,331 pounds of coal or 797 barrels of oil, according to the Environmental Protection Agencys carbon footprint calculator.

All those calculations are for just AF-1. That doesn't count the 2 C-17's that moved the Helo's and the armored limousines. Nor the 767 or 2 that moved all the staffers and of course the advance team came over early on its own 767.

Counting the WH Army coms guys, the mechanics, drivers etc, you normally are looking at 500-600 folks. each needing their own carbon footprint for rental cars and hotel space.

I think the DC is off by at least a factor of 10.; 12/1/15, 8:37 AM
James Pawlak said...: The noted and like carbon emissions can be resolved with a very small amount of nitrate wastes.; 12/1/15, 8:40 AM
Tank said...: WTF, it makes no difference. There is no crisis. It's a hoax. The numbers are "adjusted," the computer models do not predict accurately, and the "solutions" don't solve anything, but at great cost. It's simply a power play and a redistribution of wealth. Do any of these people who say it's a crisis act in their own lives as if it is?

Don't lose the forest for the trees (and for God's sake, don't burn them, think of the emissions !!!).; 12/1/15, 8:40 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Also: 300,000 seems a really low estimate. Just using a free carbon footprint calculator, 2 long flights produces 4 tons of CO2 a year. So, 195 * 2 = about 400 tons of carbon just for a long flight back and forth for every representative [the average is probably fine-ish for estimating purposes, since some are VERY long flights, and some were short.]

Driving a hybrid 1 mile a day is .2 tons; so even if 195 people, with no people around them, drove just 1 mile in the best vehicle for it, they're looking at another 100ish tons, leaving us at 500 tons assuming optimal efficiency, minimal driving, minimal flying.

300,000 sounds REALLY low for an estimate.; 12/1/15, 8:41 AM
MountainMan said...: I'm with Glenn Reynolds: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who keep telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."

However, from the data and history in some of my earllier posts in the last 24 hours, there is no crisis. They are making it all up. They have a nice plan for everyone's life in the future that will be so wonderful and will "save the planet". The name of that plan is "poverty". For everyone. Except themselves, of course.; 12/1/15, 8:42 AM
MadisonMan said...: why in hell wouldn't the organizers simply do the whole thing over video conference?

I see this argument frequently, made about national conferences. Yet I've had very productive meetings that just happened when I stumbled upon someone at a Conference I attended personally, and we started talking. That is not an easy thing to choreograph with a video conference.

I say that as someone who endures air travel. I don't loathe it quite so much as Althouse. My next conference is in January, down south (I'm grateful to flee dark, dank Madison) and I thought I'll just take the train down, carrying along all the various displays I need. Nope. Who knew train baggage rules were so restrictive!! So I ship everything down separately and fly.; 12/1/15, 8:43 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @Mark I was going to respond to you and I wanted to see something about who you are, but I clicked on your profile and got nothing. Given the tone of your comments, and the absence of a profile, I'm not going to put my commenting time into responding to you. Maybe you could try being more substantive... or at least answer the question I asked you when I responded to you the first time.; 12/1/15, 8:44 AM
tim maguire said...: "Including Obama's Motorcade"

How much if we exclude Obama's motorcade?; 12/1/15, 8:45 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Oh, he took Marine 1, not a commercial flight. That's probably much worse than the carbon footprint calculator's estimate then, since he's not sharing the load nearly as much, and all the press/etc. had to take separate flights as well. That 300,000 is seemingly more and more off.; 12/1/15, 8:46 AM
Larry J said...: As the InstaPundit has pointed out many times, I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who claim it's a crisis start living like it's a crisis.; 12/1/15, 8:48 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Also: How far BACK in the supply chain did they check the carbon footprint? I've seen places that trace your footprint all the way back through the factory that made whatever you use, and some that stop at point of consumption.; 12/1/15, 8:48 AM
Wince said...: If they were serious you'd think at a minimum Obama & Co. would propose prohibiting airlines from offering "frequent flier" miles.; 12/1/15, 8:49 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Curious George, MadisonMan's comment is useful and worth examining.

Orders of magnitude matter. We're arguing about (I think) about 0.07% of global CO2 output.

Changes of frame of reference matter. Take that 0.07% and compare it to what those same people would have emitted without the Paris jubilee. Maybe we could take it down to 0.069999%.

The Professor makes a good point about stupid air travel. Why would anyone take a plane to some far-away place just to make a point that could be done over the phone? Especially when the person doing so is John Kerry, who makes the point better when you don't have to suppress laughter at his face?

Anyway, a little arithmetic and a little chemistry help.; 12/1/15, 8:49 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Ann Althouse said...
Maybe you could try being more substantive...

By pointing out the false premise of the post, for example?; 12/1/15, 8:52 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Professor, you imply that the Google profile might be a key, perhaps one of many, like in Harry Potter, to gaining access to comment-worthiness.; 12/1/15, 8:55 AM
mikee said...: Follow the money. Redistribution of tax dollars is the anticipated outcome of this meeting. Graft and corruption, all the way down to the bottom of this Potemkin village of international concern over climate.; 12/1/15, 8:56 AM
Mark said...: All the travel for all the people to and from Paris equals about 22 seconds of global CO2 emissions.

I bet you spent more than 22 seconds looking me up, yet somehow that time is insubstatial to your life and this 22 seconds of emissions is worth making a fuss over.

Didn't I mention something about following standards equally?

Given you ignored MadisonMan's similar statement regarding scale, I assume I am in good company being on your ignore list.; 12/1/15, 8:59 AM
Brando said...: "How much energy is wasted flying people around the world to produce pablum like 'Survivor' or 'American Idol'?"

Two things wrong with this bit of misdirection: first, Survivor and American Idol aren't trying to convince us of our need to conserve energy. Second, they can't film Survivor remotely via Skype.

My question is this--why did this climate conference require everyone to be present in one physical place? Why could this not have been done either by sending representatives commercially (using less jet fuel) or by video conference (using no jet fuel at all)? If nothing else, it at least sends the message that they care about the crisis enough to make reasonable changes, and might encourage others to make reasonable changes in their own lives.

Instead, they showed that this is more about showing how much they care, and accordingly no one should take their bleating seriously.; 12/1/15, 9:00 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "By pointing out the false premise of the post, for example?"

-- It isn't a false premise. If we're going to legislate that people can be fined for not reusing grocery bags, or taxing them to use them by forcing a surcharge on them, then unnecessary carbon emissions for glad handing and photo ops seems equally silly.; 12/1/15, 9:04 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "I stumbled upon someone at a Conference I attended personally, and we started talking. That is not an easy thing to choreograph with a video conference."
Quantify it. In terms of carbon economy. You believe in science and math, don't you, MadMan?; 12/1/15, 9:04 AM
JAORE said...: Ahhh, but the organizers paid for their (carbon) sins by paying into a fund.

Al Gore pays for his (extravagant) (carbon sinning) life style by paying for trees to be planted.

And Prince Charles pays of his OMG level of carbon sin by... I'm sure there is something.

Follow the money, count the chances for graft, feel the POWER!!!!!; 12/1/15, 9:05 AM
Curious George said...: "Bob Ellison said...
Curious George, MadisonMan's comment is useful and worth examining.

Orders of magnitude matter. We're arguing about (I think) about 0.07% of global CO2 output.

Changes of frame of reference matter. Take that 0.07% and compare it to what those same people would have emitted without the Paris jubilee. Maybe we could take it down to 0.069999%.

The Professor makes a good point about stupid air travel. Why would anyone take a plane to some far-away place just to make a point that could be done over the phone? Especially when the person doing so is John Kerry, who makes the point better when you don't have to suppress laughter at his face?

Anyway, a little arithmetic and a little chemistry help."

No it isn't. It's dumb. And your support of it is also. Because by your logic none of us have to change. Why not drive when you can walk. Whats a few hundred pounds of CO2. Why have your t-stat at 68 when 72 is more comfortable....I mean against total usage in the world what's the big deal.

Now you are actually right, but not for the reasons you state. You're right because this all bullshit.; 12/1/15, 9:05 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "How much energy is wasted flying people around the world to produce pablum like 'Survivor' or 'American Idol'?"
Are they lecturing us that we use too much stuff? No? They are actually trying to sell us stuff so we use more carbon! Carbon use is great for them? Well I'll be.
You have a problem finding things called MAJOR DISTINCTIONS arm.
I put it in all caps for you.
You're welcome.; 12/1/15, 9:08 AM
damikesc said...: That's out of 38 billion tons produced overall.

But what is it compared to what, say, I produce? Or you?

"Well, these less than 100 people didn't pollute nearly as much as 6 BILLION OTHER PEOPLE COMBINED!" isn't exactly impressive.

Especially since teleconferencing works really well and would likely produce a miniscule fraction of the "pollution" (even though CO2 isn't the cause of "climate change".)

What do you think of the scale? You seem to be suggesting that 300,000 tons, produced for one event, in a few days, is very small compared to 38 billion tons, produced for absolutely everything that everyone does for an entire year.

I'd say it's worse. It's that much produced by people who claim to believe that this is the CENTRAL problem of human survival out there. People like me, who believe they're full of shit, won't produce that much in my lifetime.

But they say people like me are the problem.

This is an epic "fuck the poor" party.

Funny, there all sorts of other places you don't apply this type of standard.

Such as? What "catastrophic problem" that any of us believe is true do we simply contribute more to than anybody else would?; 12/1/15, 9:10 AM
rehajm said...: How much will it cost to reduce emissions by that much? Show your work.

Would humanity be better represented by applying that economic impact to other, more worthy causes?

(Rhetorical); 12/1/15, 9:13 AM
garage mahal said...: Obama must swim the Atlantic if he's serious about climate change. That's a convincing argument like the argument: "it's cold outside. LOL global warming!"; 12/1/15, 9:14 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: MadisonMan said...

I see this argument frequently, made about national conferences. Yet I've had very productive meetings that just happened when I stumbled upon someone at a Conference I attended personally, and we started talking. That is not an easy thing to choreograph with a video conference.

You need an academic version of Chatroulette. Everyone who would have attended the conference could be expected to spend some minimum amount of time in the app. Pairings could be done semi-random, with some weight added for overlapping areas of interest. Very professional. ( Penis pictures would of course be optional. ); 12/1/15, 9:14 AM
CWJ said...: Brando,

dbp @8:27 provides a partial answer to your 8:11 comment. The optics are for each other, not you. They are the aristocracy. It comes naturally to the Europeans and authoritarian regimes, and posers like this administration are all to happy to ape the others. They don't care what you think of the optics. Indeed, the percentage of little people who even notice the hypocrisy may be almost as small as the CO2 ratio Mark is flogging.; 12/1/15, 9:23 AM
walter said...: Blogger AReasonableMan said...
How much energy is wasted flying people around the world to produce pablum like 'Survivor' or 'American Idol'?

Uh..if you watch those shows, whether its waste or not is subjective.

But in the war against CAGW, this is a bit like meeting around a bonfire to discuss man made forest fires. He could have really led by example had he insistsed on teleconferencing perhaps reworking one of his previous gems:

Speaking about the economy at an event in New Hampshire, Mr Obama told Americans: “When times are tough, you tighten your belts.
“You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritise. You make tough choices.”; 12/1/15, 9:24 AM
rehajm said...: ...a “carbon cap” necessarily means that a government is committing to either a cessation of economic growth or to the systematic advancement of technological innovation in energy systems on a predictable schedule, such that economic growth is not constrained. Because halting economic growth is not an option, in China or anywhere else, and because technological innovation does not occur via fiat, there is in practice no such thing as a carbon cap.

-FT.com; 12/1/15, 9:33 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I've said it before: The President should not leave the White House.; 12/1/15, 9:34 AM
Jimmy said...: Adding, or subtracting carbon isn't the point here. It is the hypocrisy of those 'leaders' of the climate change or global warming religion. People who routinely fly across country or around the world, for golf, meetings, and photo ops should not be lecturing the rest of us.
I know people who think it is a serious threat to life on this planet. They also drive very small cars, take public transit, use minimal resources. I think they are nuts, but at least they act like its a real threat.
Maintaining multiple homes, cars, planes is fine with me. Just don't tell me I have to do with less because global warming is such a huge threat.; 12/1/15, 9:35 AM
tim maguire said...: AReasonableMan said...
Ann Althouse said...
Maybe you could try being more substantive...

By pointing out the false premise of the post, for example?

The premise is that if these people really thought carbon emissions were a problem, they wouldn't be so careless with carbon emissions.

What's the false premise?; 12/1/15, 9:35 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Here's the old post from 2009: "Let the President stay in the White House — or, at most, retreat to Camp David."

"'President Barack Obama’s Christmas Day began with a briefing about a botched attack on an airliner in Detroit and ended with a visit to a dining hall for members of the military. His holiday vacation was designed to be an island respite from the pressures of the White House.'

"Well, tough. Whoever puts himself forward to become President is asking to be on call constantly for the next 4 years — every day of the year, around the clock.

"'Obama and first lady Michelle Obama made a quick trip to Marine Corps Base Hawaii after a private day exchanging gifts and eating a holiday meal of roast beef at their rented home in Kailua — between briefings on the disrupted plot of suspected terrorism.'

"Why, exactly, are they in Hawaii — over 5,000 miles* from the White House? I'm not criticizing Obama in particular for going on vacations. I mean to criticize all the Presidents who go far away from Washington. If they need respite, let them go to Camp David. It's close to the White House, and it's set up for security. I can see returning to one's permanent residence, but even that is a luxury the President should eschew. The Christmas Day terror attempt may seem paltry, but it is a reminder of what can happen. And when it does, it would be better if the President were not out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (or even in some schoolhouse in Florida)."; 12/1/15, 9:36 AM
tim maguire said...: garage mahal said...Obama must swim the Atlantic if he's serious about climate change. That's a convincing argument like the argument: "it's cold outside. LOL global warming!"

That's a very effective rejoinder to an argument nobody is making.; 12/1/15, 9:37 AM
pm317 said...: 'Academic conference travel is government subsidized tourism' -- {I didn't say it, a famous name said it}; 12/1/15, 9:37 AM
chickelit said...: In other words, we expect the highest priests of the new religion to be a bit more pious.; 12/1/15, 9:39 AM
Brando said...: "Obama must swim the Atlantic if he's serious about climate change"

Yes, because there's literally no other way Obama could participate in a conference without physically being there! If only we had some technology allowing people to communicate across long distances!

What ever happened to our "tech savvy" commander in chief?; 12/1/15, 9:41 AM
MadisonMan said...: Quantify it. In terms of carbon economy. You believe in science and math, don't you, MadMan?

That would be an interesting problem -- but do I have to include the carbon impact that goes into trying to figure out how to make the quantification metric? How many random meetings at Scientific Conferences end up aiding or generating publishable work?

The Chatroulette suggestion is an interesting one -- but if there are 1000s of people at the Conference (Something like AGU's December meeting in SF -- one I usually don't attend) -- is it feasible?; 12/1/15, 9:42 AM
Danno said...: Mark, There may be some tiny houses for sale in Hartsel, Colorado and Black Mountain, North Carolina, if you truly want to reduce your carbon footprint in a big way by going off the grid. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.; 12/1/15, 9:43 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: If they really believe global warming is a dire problem, how can they justify generating excess carbon pollution by reading blogs and posting comments? This would seem to be antithetical to their beliefs. Especially since this activity is an unnecessary luxury. In fact, just imagine how much carbon pollution could be avoided if believers world-wide stopped using the internet completely.; 12/1/15, 10:07 AM
n.n said...: The catastrophic anthrophogenic global warming activists keep steeling from the little time that remains before the prophecy is fulfilled.; 12/1/15, 10:08 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: “No Sustainability Included"

What a great disclaimer in the contract cited in the article. Should be applied to the entire conference.; 12/1/15, 10:12 AM
Drago said...: garage mahal: "Obama must swim the Atlantic if he's serious about climate change. That's a convincing argument like the argument: "it's cold outside. LOL global warming!"

LOL

Garage. the would be IT go-to-guy for the Castro brothers, remains blissfully unaware of VTC technology even though it's been shown in many tv shows and movies (garages preferred channel for consumption of "science").

You can't make this stuff up.

For more hilarity, simply ask garage to list the highest academic science and math course he ever took....and understood.; 12/1/15, 10:13 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Matthew Sablan said...
-- It isn't a false premise. ... unnecessary carbon emissions for glad handing and photo ops seems equally silly.

If Obama hadn't turned up it would have sent the message that reducing global carbon emissions wasn't a priority for the people of the US and the small opportunity for some modest progress would have been lost.

It is fair enough to ding Al Gore for owning a big house, he is a fat hypocrite. It is false logic to whine about the president doing the people's bidding to reduce global carbon emissions. You may not personally care about pollution but enough voters do to make Obama a legitimate representative of the people on this issue. As such his carbon footprint is divided by the number of people who he represents at the meeting and is a trivial number.; 12/1/15, 10:13 AM
garage mahal said...: If you thought terrorism was a real problem, you would relocate to Syria and fight yourself.

If you thought abortion was so awful, you would adopt dozens of babies.

If you thought....; 12/1/15, 10:13 AM
n.n said...: The scientifically naive thinking is that the system can be analyzed with stochastic and statistical methods over arbitrary periods. The irony is that that the small perturbation caused by global activism may be sufficient to destabilize the system. Also, their disparate impact per capita must be noted when the prophecy is fulfilled and individuals are judged by their carbon dioxide emissions.; 12/1/15, 10:14 AM
cubanbob said...: AReasonableMan said...
How much energy is wasted flying people around the world to produce pablum like 'Survivor' or 'American Idol'?

12/1/15, 8:36 AM"

Weighing the pros and cons the pablum is far more useful in economic terms than the global BS conference and without a doubt absolutely harmless in comparison.; 12/1/15, 10:20 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: MadisonMan said...

The Chatroulette suggestion is an interesting one -- but if there are 1000s of people at the Conference (Something like AGU's December meeting in SF -- one I usually don't attend) -- is it feasible?

The technology is certainly feasible, since Chatroulette already exists, and it would not be hard to find some improvement to the pairing process.

You certainly would not be paired with everyone else from the conference, nor even everyone else with whom you might have a productive conversation. But then, that doesn't happen at a meatspace conference either.

Is there some other dimension of feasibility that you were concerned about?; 12/1/15, 10:22 AM
MadisonMan said...: BTW -- I notice that my flight reservation now include pounds of carbon. MD-80s have the highest value (398 pounds of CO2) -- but I'm not sure if this is per person, or just for the whole flight. The A319 from here to Atlanta -- 302 pounds of CO2.

Interesting.; 12/1/15, 10:35 AM
traditionalguy said...: CO2 that they emit has nothing to do with it. CO2 is a valuable plant food additive whether they emit it or you emit it.

This is the inauguration parade for the New World Government based on a long crafted sci-f scam, and all of its Grandees are on display in Paris.

The new mass insanity even has its own Pope.

These guys are gathered to undo the French revolution at the place it started, much like Hitler wanted to take the Surrender of France at the same train car in the same place as the 1918 Armistice was signed.

Emperor Obama says it will be like the Iran Treaty. It will not be signed as a legally binding treaty, but it will have all of the law it needs to be enforced according to its terms, although it's not a silly old fashioned treaty that needs Senate Confirmation.

What was that old Senate all about anyway? It never did anything except hide and watch while Obama lawlessly ran wild.; 12/1/15, 10:44 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: 300,000 tons = the carbon footprint of the COP21 meeting of global leaders seeking to reduce carbon emissions.

What is the carbon footprint of hauling 30,000 lbs of bananas to Scranton, Pa?; 12/1/15, 10:46 AM
Fritz said...: The president can command the federal government, which constitutes some 20% of the US economy with his pen and phone. If he were to order the government to cut energy use by some arbitrary amount (similar to his approach to coal power plants) say 30%, he could more than make up the difference. Imagine keeping government offices at a barely tolerable 50 F in winter and 90 in summer, cutting non-essential travel, and cutting non-essential programs and closing their buildings.

However, this would make him (and any democrats who supported such cuts) immensely unpopular with one of their core constituencies, government employees and their families, which is why cuts in energy use are aimed at private individuals (preferably Republican) and industry rather than government.; 12/1/15, 10:47 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
BTW -- I notice that my flight reservation now include pounds of carbon. MD-80s have the highest value (398 pounds of CO2) -- but I'm not sure if this is per person, or just for the whole flight. The A319 from here to Atlanta -- 302 pounds of CO2.

Interesting."

How is that interesting?

Now for this idiocy:

"garage mahal said...
If you thought terrorism was a real problem, you would relocate to Syria and fight yourself.

If you thought abortion was so awful, you would adopt dozens of babies.

If you thought...."

It's hard to get one's head around just how moronic this is. In the post, many are saying if one truly believes that something bad is real, then they shouldn't partake in behavior that causes it if they expect others to abstain from same. Especially policymakers.

But our resident retard equates that with:

1) A idiot strawman argument
2) One taking responsibility for others actions. The true parallel would be "not having an abortion"; 12/1/15, 11:19 AM
Rusty said...: Blogger MadisonMan said...
BTW -- I notice that my flight reservation now include pounds of carbon. MD-80s have the highest value (398 pounds of CO2) -- but I'm not sure if this is per person, or just for the whole flight. The A319 from here to Atlanta -- 302 pounds of CO2.

Interesting.

You could always walk.; 12/1/15, 11:39 AM
Rusty said...: Serious question.

What is the base line carbon signature of the planet?; 12/1/15, 11:42 AM
Drago said...: garage mahal: "If you thought...."

If you thought....it would be a first.

Please keep up the wildly and hilariously nonsensical "comparisons".

They are truly representative of your "deep" understanding of the issues.; 12/1/15, 12:02 PM
Drago said...: traditionalguy: "Emperor Obama says it will be like the Iran Treaty. It will not be signed as a legally binding treaty,..."

Actually, the Iran Treaty will not be signed at all, by either party. And it's not a "Treaty". It's not an "Understanding". It's not an "Agreement". It's just something Obama said matters and the Iranians say doesn't matter.

And is already being laughed at and ignored by the Iranians.

But obama did mouth some magic words which sent a different message, 'cuz it's the words that matter.

Expect the same on this AGW nonsense.; 12/1/15, 12:07 PM
rhhardin said...: My airplanes all produced about 60 pounds of CO2 per hour.

I flew them slowly because I paid for engine wear. The last mph is the most expensive.; 12/1/15, 12:09 PM
Drago said...: AReasonableMeltdown: "How much energy is wasted flying people around the world to produce pablum like 'Survivor' or 'American Idol'?"

I don't know.

How much energy IS wasted by flying people AROUND THE WORLD to produce AMERICAN Idol?

I've got to believe it's.....zero?; 12/1/15, 12:09 PM
MadisonMan said...: You could always walk.

True. I'd have to start soon though, like this week.

Canoe would be faster/easier -- but then I'd have to buy one. What's the carbon footprint of canoe manufacturing? I'd rather buy aluminum than kevlar. I hope the aluminum is recycled so I don't have to include all the carbon footprint of mining in my computations.; 12/1/15, 12:11 PM
Drago said...: garage mahal: "If you thought terrorism was a real problem, you would relocate to Syria and fight yourself."

Wouldn't it be more logical for someone who wanted to fight terrorists to relocate to Syria and fight the terrorists"

Of course, I never had the luxury of attending the WI Middle School Advanced Military Strategy and Logic Course.

Apparently, it was by Invitation Only.

Quite Exclusive.; 12/1/15, 12:15 PM
Drago said...: MadisonMan, why not include wood/canvas canoes to your assessment as well?

For the sake of completeness if nothing else.; 12/1/15, 12:18 PM
MountainMan said...: Prof. Althouse, I am 100% with you on the President remaining in the White House. I don't know why it is necessary to have Chiistmas in Hawaii, for example, or for he and Miichelle to make all these ridiculous trips. He is the president of a constitutional republic, not a king (at least, that is the way it was before he took office). A lot of people in this counry are having a hard time financially. The President and his family should set an example and celebrate the holiday in the beautiful, historic home they are provided. I have considered the elaborate vacations the Obamas take to be somewhat offensive, the costs are just way out of line. And the issues the security and all the staff impose on others is ridiculous. I have thought if I were President why would i not want to spend Christmas with my family in the White House while I can? That is only a short-term opportunity; I could go to Hawaii or elsewhere after my term is over.; 12/1/15, 12:22 PM
Fritz said...: Canoe would be faster/easier -- but then I'd have to buy one. What's the carbon footprint of canoe manufacturing? I'd rather buy aluminum than kevlar. I hope the aluminum is recycled so I don't have to include all the carbon footprint of mining in my computations.

Aluminum refining is incredibly energy intensive, because electricty is used to reduce aluminum out of molten bauxite. Use birch bark, from locally grown birches.; 12/1/15, 12:26 PM
walter said...: "If Obama hadn't turned up it would have sent the message that reducing global carbon emissions wasn't a priority "

Ah..like not attending the post Hebdo massacre march. Got it.; 12/1/15, 1:35 PM
damikesc said...: Obama must swim the Atlantic if he's serious about climate change.

So, expecting somebody to live by their professed beliefs is now just silly. Nice to know.

When religious conservatives are caught in sexual scandals, I bet you don't ever comment on it. Expecting them to not cheat, even though they loudly proclaim how bad it is, is just silly.

If you thought terrorism was a real problem, you would relocate to Syria and fight yourself.

Or we could elect a President who won't be an inept buffoon and nominate a Secretary of State who is also a buffoon.

You are aware that Syria is 100% Obama and Hillary's baby, right?

Actually, the Iran Treaty will not be signed at all, by either party. And it's not a "Treaty". It's not an "Understanding". It's not an "Agreement". It's just something Obama said matters and the Iranians say doesn't matter.

If Obama hadn't turned up it would have sent the message that reducing global carbon emissions wasn't a priority for the people of the US and the small opportunity for some modest progress would have been lost.

The most ironic part of the Kyoto Protocols is that, even though we didn't ratify them or agree with them at all, we were about the only country who even came close to meeting them.

But, no, the American people don't give the smallest hair on a rat's ass about climate change. We recognize bullshit when we see it.

It is false logic to whine about the president doing the people's bidding to reduce global carbon emissions. You may not personally care about pollution but enough voters do to make Obama a legitimate representative of the people on this issue. As such his carbon footprint is divided by the number of people who he represents at the meeting and is a trivial number.

Environmentalism was the central point of his campaign? Really?

Then, using your logic, the American voters supported the Iraq War. They voted for Bush twice, after all.

Obama's carbon footprint dwarfs anybody else's. If it's serious, he'll shrink his first. He's already discussed how much he uses the AC and heat in the WH.; 12/1/15, 2:45 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: walter said...
Ah..like not attending the post Hebdo massacre march.

That actually was a cynically staged photo op .; 12/1/15, 2:55 PM
walter said...: Really? Then Obama of all folks should have been down with it. But c'mon. Imagine the signal sent about new tech and connectivity in teh service of saving the world if teleconferencing, skyping etc. And hey..in eh age of transparency, make all the yacking and conniving viewable.; 12/1/15, 3:26 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: damikesc said...
using your logic, the American voters supported the Iraq War. They voted for Bush twice, after all.

They supported the war because of the hysterical leadership that we had after 9/11. No profiles in courage in courage there or Clausewitz-like strategizing, just dumb headless chickens. Ultimately the American voters came to their collective senses and even now, with all the war-mongering going on, there is no enthusiasm for another ground war in the middle east.; 12/1/15, 3:33 PM
walter said...: By the way, one of the most cynical utterances ever was Obama's promise to skyrocket electricity costs 'no matter what I say.."
You voted for that. Amazing.; 12/1/15, 3:33 PM
damikesc said...: That actually was a cynically staged photo op .

As opposed to this conference, designed to steal from the poor to give to the filthy rich?; 12/1/15, 3:36 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: damikesc said...
As opposed to this conference, designed to steal from the poor to give to the filthy rich?

Funny, I was just listening to Hannity who claimed it was a massive transfer of wealth to the poor.; 12/1/15, 4:39 PM
damikesc said...: Who is getting the money? Those closely tied to governments. They sure as shit won't be loor. Even in poor countries, it'll be the insanely rich who get the money while the poor get to pay more for necessities.; 12/1/15, 5:47 PM
damikesc said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/1/15, 5:48 PM
steve uhr said...: Follow the links and it says there was exactly one bid for the motorcade services ($407,000). If I were the suspicious type I would say it smells of collusion.; 12/1/15, 5:58 PM
Drago said...: ARMeltdown: "Funny, I was just listening to Hannity who claimed it was a massive transfer of wealth to the poor."

Actually ARMeltdown, that's a good catch.

One must be precise.

In terms of transfer of wealth to the "poor", that is correct at the national level (1st world to 3rd world nations).

It's also a transfer of wealth to the "rich" at the individual and/"group" level who will be sure to siphon off plenty before smaller amounts are allocated to the poorer nations and for buying off more socialist votes.

See obambi's funding of his pals Soros and Steyer amongst many many others.

Socialism at a global level. What could possibly go wrong!

Of course, it's critical that this entire "act" be staged in time to claim that the inevitable failure of the Earth to warm according to the lunatic lefty models can be attributed to all of that global government "goodness".

That timeline is what is driving the increased urgency. The jig is up and now the left has to snatch victory from the jaws of global temperature defeat.; 12/1/15, 8:24 PM
Drago said...: ARMeltdown: "That actually was a cynically staged photo op."

This just in, politicians from across globe not above staging a photo op for their own purposes.

Stay tuned as additional details emerge.; 12/1/15, 9:39 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Terry,

Whoa -- where do you live that you get diesel-fired electricity? That's fairly rare.; 12/2/15, 3:44 AM
Rusty said...: MadisonMan said...
You could always walk.

True. I'd have to start soon though, like this week.

Canoe would be faster/easier -- but then I'd have to buy one. What's the carbon footprint of canoe manufacturing? I'd rather buy aluminum than kevlar. I hope the aluminum is recycled so I don't have to include all the carbon footprint of mining in my computations.

I'll loan you mine. Of course you'll have to drive here to get it. The good news is that the Fox river(Illinois edition) is just a block away.; 12/2/15, 5:59 AM