Carbon Footprint

[Cholmondley-Warner]

What is all this PC shit about "Carbon Footprints". Prince Charles (not my favourite person) was invited to cross the Atlantic to New York, booking the entire first-class and business class section of a jumbo jet for his 20-strong entourage - to pick up an award for his work on the environment.

 

During the trip he plans to emphasise the importance which the British Government places on climate change as a key international priority. BUT, the plane was going anyway on a scheduled flight and the poor bastard was criticised for increasing his carbon footprint, yet if he hadn't gone, the same amount of CO2 would have been produced, so whose carbon footrpint wouild have reduced then? why don't these "green" wankers just fuck off? I hate PC!

[keyboarder]

Whilst your understanding of what political correctness actually means is seriously flawed, and environmental issues and carbon footprinting are different matters altogether, I do agree with you on the hypocritical actions of the large eared Bentley driver. He does seem completely divorced from the real world.

[Moghrey Mie]

What is all this PC shit about "Carbon Footprints". Prince Charles (not my favourite person) was invited to cross the Atlantic to New York, booking the entire first-class and business class section of a jumbo jet for his 20-strong entourage - to pick up an award for his work on the environment.

 

During the trip he plans to emphasise the importance which the British Government places on climate change as a key international priority. BUT, the plane was going anyway on a scheduled flight and the poor bastard was criticised for increasing his carbon footprint, yet if he hadn't gone, the same amount of CO2 would have been produced, so whose carbon footrpint wouild have reduced then? why don't these "green" wankers just fuck off? I hate PC!

 

 

 

Maybe we shouldn't be criticising other people for their behaviour but seeing what we can do about the problem ourselves.

 

Have a look at www.carbonfootprint.com and see if 'your feet's too big'.

[Albert Tatlock]

Maybe we shouldn't be criticising other people for their behaviour but seeing what we can do about the problem ourselves.

 

Have a look at www.carbonfootprint.com and see if 'your feet's too big'.

Edited to remove post influenced by large amounts of beer.

[VinnieK]

Or better still - perhaps get an education, stop reading all of this 'politically correct' peudo-science, and start putting all of this in perspective for once.

 

So those in the science community who do back the notion of global warming (and I'm not saying I do wholeheartedly agree with them - I mention it primarily to emphasise the questionable tactics, especially for someone who proclaims so loudly to be a force for truth and science in the previous post), with their hard earned Doctorates, research grants, and numerous publications in esteemed journals simply don't have a good enough education? Remind me again where you earned your PhD in climatology, environmental/life sciences, or biology, Albert ...

 

Of course, their qualifications don't guarrantee that they're right, but they do at least suggest their claims should be taken as seriously and respectfully as anyone else's, instead of being dismissed out of hand as the work of politically correct (mystifying since the debate has nothing to do with political correctness) pseudo-scientists.

 

Of approximately 150 to 160 billion tons of CO2 that gets into the atmosphere each year, humans add about 4%. 90 billion tons comes from the oceans and 60 billion tons come from plants.

 

Thems some dodgy old figures you've got there. For a start, the US alone produces 6 billion tons of CO2 per year, excluding natural sources of CO2 which alone is the 4% you claim. In fact, CO2 emissions caused by non-natural sources, i.e. humans, is closer to 24 billion tons per year, according to the study conducted by the UN statistics agency in 2002 (unless the UN is all in on the shifty global conspiracy to make you switch off the light after you leave a room). This goes some way to call into question the rest of your figures (especially given that plants only produce carbon dioxide when they die and decay, otherwise they absorb CO2).

 

It can no doubt be argued as to what degree, if at all, CO2 levels influence the hypothetical progress of Global Warming, but those stats just look plain wrong compared with others. Can you supply a citation for your figures, one that actually refers to a proper paper that's been peer reviewed and published by an established agency or accepted journal - i.e. not on a gaudy website whipped up in five minutes by the author's nephew?

[zippy]

some people think global warming is occuring, some people dont, as in all arguements each side think they're correct.

 

What is the harm in attempting to slow down the consumption of natural resources on a planet that is overpopulated and that has a dwindling supply of natural resources?

 

how many years of Oil do we have left?

[Charles Flynn]

The IOM Government is committed to adaptation - looking at the risks for all sectors of our economy and making appropriate decisions to combat the global warming which is built into the system already.

 

The "green" groups want the Government to also lead the way on mitigation e.g. energy efficiency.

 

Agencies in the field of international social justice ask that we take account of Third World poverty and we in the West use less, and give more.

 

I see nothing wrong with any of this.

 

There has always been climate change from the beginning of time. Humans are responsible for their share currently. For this we must act wisely before it gets completely out of hand.

[Mission]

Going back to the OP - surely it makes more sense for Charles to reserve a section of a commercial flight for himself and his entourage (remember, he is Royalty - like him or not - and therefore requires some form of security) than to charter a seperate jet (Queens flight?) for the trip?

[Gladys]

I thought that was the point of the OP, but perhaps I read it wrong.

[Albert Tatlock]

It can no doubt be argued as to what degree, if at all, CO2 levels influence the hypothetical progress of Global Warming, but those stats just look plain wrong compared with others. Can you supply a citation for your figures, one that actually refers to a proper paper that's been peer reviewed and published by an established agency or accepted journal - i.e. not on a gaudy website whipped up in five minutes by the author's nephew?

I edited my heavily beer-influenced post from last night

[Manxman In Exile]

Or better still - perhaps get an education, stop reading all of this 'politically correct' peudo-science, and start putting all of this in perspective for once.

 

So those in the science community who do back the notion of global warming (and I'm not saying I do wholeheartedly agree with them - I mention it primarily to emphasise the questionable tactics, especially for someone who proclaims so loudly to be a force for truth and science in the previous post), with their hard earned Doctorates, research grants, and numerous publications in esteemed journals simply don't have a good enough education? Remind me again where you earned your PhD in climatology, environmental/life sciences, or biology, Albert ...

 

Of course, their qualifications don't guarrantee that they're right, but they do at least suggest their claims should be taken as seriously and respectfully as anyone else's, instead of being dismissed out of hand as the work of politically correct (mystifying since the debate has nothing to do with political correctness) pseudo-scientists.

 

Of approximately 150 to 160 billion tons of CO2 that gets into the atmosphere each year, humans add about 4%. 90 billion tons comes from the oceans and 60 billion tons come from plants.

Thems some dodgy old figures you've got there. For a start, the US alone produces 6 billion tons of CO2 per year, excluding natural sources of CO2 which alone is the 4% you claim. In fact, CO2 emissions caused by non-natural sources, i.e. humans, is closer to 24 billion tons per year, according to the study conducted by the UN statistics agency in 2002 (unless the UN is all in on the shifty global conspiracy to make you switch off the light after you leave a room). This goes some way to call into question the rest of your figures (especially given that plants only produce carbon dioxide when they die and decay, otherwise they absorb CO2).

 

It can no doubt be argued as to what degree, if at all, CO2 levels influence the hypothetical progress of Global Warming, but those stats just look plain wrong compared with others. Can you supply a citation for your figures, one that actually refers to a proper paper that's been peer reviewed and published by an established agency or accepted journal - i.e. not on a gaudy website whipped up in five minutes by the author's nephew?

 

 

I would like to know how all this weight of CO2 is being measured, or are we just looking at estimated figures based on the number of engines/power stations? I know that the density and volume of a gas will vary with its temperature and pressure, but wonder, approximately, what a metric ton of uncompressed CO2 would look like, if you could see it - would it fit in a swimming pool, for example. And, further, I wonder how many tons of CO2 is consumed by each country's tree/vegetation population compared to the same country's output? And what is the balance in/out?

[Juan Kerr]

With the USA its more a global skidmark than a carbon footprint.

[Gladys]

Nice one Juan.

[Charles Flynn]

Quote from Manxman in Exile:

"I would like to know how all this weight of CO2 is being measured, or are we just looking at estimated figures based on the number of engines/power stations? I know that the density and volume of a gas will vary with its temperature and pressure, but wonder, approximately, what a metric ton of uncompressed CO2 would look like, if you could see it - would it fit in a swimming pool, for example. And, further, I wonder how many tons of CO2 is consumed by each country's tree/vegetation population compared to the same country's output? And what is the balance in/out?"

 

 

 

As one mole of an ideal gas occupies 22.4 litres at standard temperature and pressure and the molecular weight of CO2 is 44.0g/mole, no doubt if you want to do the calculation you can work out the volume a ton occupies. A metric ton is 1000kgms i.e. a megagram. I make the volume to be 509,090.89 litres. An Olympic size swimming pool can be several million litres, so it would only be possibly a quarter of this e.g. the completed Liverpool pool will be 2 million litres in size.

 

Carbon dioxide is measured using specialised infra red equipment and sometimes by gas chromatography techniques.

 

The answer to your last question - well I do not have any figures but the depletion of the Amazon rain forest must be worrying as indeed must the build up of power stations at one a week in China. Perhaps a league table is available. If not one would be most useful.