Carbon Footprint Calculator From Delta Airlines
From Delta Airlines website:
Today, when you book a flight on Delta.com, you can make a contribution to The Conservation Fund’s Go Zero program to plant trees to offset the carbon emissions that result from your flight.
Now you can calculate your estimated annual emissions from airline miles and your personal carbon footprint online via our online Carbon Calculator.
Q: What's next? Will people start buying carbon offsets as gifts pretty soon, e.g. birthday gifts, wedding gifts, Christmas gifts, etc.? "Thanks for travelling so far to join us for Christmas this year, we bought you carbon offsets as this year's gift, to offset your carbon footprint from travelling." "Happy Birthday, I bought carbon offsets to offset some of your carbon footprint over the last year." "Congratulations on your wedding, I'm giving you carbon offsets as a wedding gift to cover some of your wedding's carbon footprint."
33 Comments:
> Will people start buying carbon
> offsets as gifts
And what if they do? Unlike Catholic indulgences, carbon offsets have a demonstrable, measurable effect on the planet's CO2 level. Isn't that what we're trying to accomplish?
PS: Though I am concerned about trees decaying and dying in 100 years.
Glowball Warming is the stupidest thing since communism. The world has gone crazy on this nonsense. Where is common sense?
Funny how all the people who were sympathetic to socialism and communism are the ones who got so excited about global warming.
david appell,
First, the church doesn't sell indulgences. Second, global warming is nonsense. The earth has been on a downward trend since 1998 in spite of massive outputs of carbon. A decade of global cooling in the face of global warming and people still call it science. It is nonsense.
Carbon offsets are interesting.
We get to pollute and not give a hoot. Sort of like sweeping dirt under the carpet.
My guess would be that 99.99% of the people who say or write the words, "Carbon Footprint," could not define what it means. And I will really go out on a limb and say that 99.999% of those same people could not tell you what a "Carbon Offset" is or how to buy one. Maybe they will start selling giftcards for carbon offsets at Wal-Mart. Hmmm
The bandwagon has picked up a full head of steam. That is for sure.
Can't wait to see what the next fad will be. Maybe the problems we are causing on Mars by leaving our "space junk" there? Hey, anything is possible.
The Masked Millionaire
"carbon offsets have a demonstrable, measurable effect on the planet's CO2 level"
Perhaps, you could provide some verifiable data to substantiate this unsupported assertion. Even climatologists assert that international efforts to reduce total world carbon dioxide emissions will have almost little or no effect. That being said how can carbon offsets for individuals actually achieve anything other than parting citizens from their cash. I guess if you can sell people water, you can sell them pretty much anything.
"We get to pollute and not give a hoot."
Carbon dioxide is a non-toxic gas what one exhales. A pollutant on the other hand is defined as a substance which fouls or makes impure. CO2 may or may not be involved in causing global warming but it cannot be referred to as a pollutant as defined in the English language.
Alternative to carbon offsets is planting a tree yourself particularly in light of the dubious nature of some of these carbon credits and the very lax international oversight.
http://conservationfinance.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/bogus-carbon-offset-schemes/
Hey, maybe we can sell you folks fractional ownership in swamps. They are afterall one of the most diverse of temperate habitat.
CO2 is a heavier than air gas, it is impossible for CO2 gas to cause heat to be retained in the atmosphere as very little of it can get into the upper atmsophere. Its a total hoax to say CO2 causes climate change, the Sun causes climate change as its energy fluctuates people.
Larry
methane from cow's number 2 is thousands times more deadly to ozone layer than CO2. eat less beef, drive small car and take train are much better solution than carbon offset scheme. there are a lot of fraud our there.
das Kapitalist wrote:
> The earth has been on a downward
> trend since 1998 in spite of
> massive outputs of carbon. A
> decade of global cooling in the
> face of
> global warming and people still
> call it science. It is nonsense.
Actually there hasn't been a decade of global cooling (read Tim Lambert), but it's irrelevant in any case.
Global warming is a long-term problem, unfolding over decades and centuries. Humans are not equipped to think in such terms. The problem is not whether the global is warming or cooling at this instant or in this decade, but what is the effect of pumping GHGs into the atmosphere in the long-term? CO2 has a 50+ yr residency in the atmo. We are already committed to 2C (4F) of warming just by the amount of GHGs already pumped into the atmosphere.
Of course there will be fluctuations along the way, some of many year's durations. Climate scientists freely admit this, and their theories, which incorporate natural forces, predict it. But the science pertains to decades, not years, just as it has in the last several decades, not this particular decade. Few people, including you, seem to understand that.
hanoi wrote:
> methane from cow's number 2 is
> thousands times more deadly to
> ozone layer than CO2
Wrong.
Methane is not dangerous to ozone levels.
It is, however, very dangerous to global warming, 23x more dangerous than CO2, per mass.
Larry wrote:
> CO2 is a heavier than air gas,
> it is impossible for CO2 gas to
> cause heat to be retained in the
> atmosphere as very little of it can > get into the upper atmsophere.
Larry, have you written up your conclusions for the scientific literature? They would be *very* interested in this conclusion, which would undermine almost 200 years of science (Fourier, 1824), if it were true. You would, literally, win a Nobel prize.
Unfortunately, it's pure bullshit. Atmospheric gases are "well-mixed," just like dye in a glass of water. They swirl all around, and do not layer out by mass.
Anonymous wrote:
>> "carbon offsets have a
>> demonstrable, measurable effect
>> on the planet's CO2 level"
> Perhaps, you could provide some
> verifiable data to substantiate
> this unsupported assertion. Even > climatologists assert that
> international efforts to reduce
> total world carbon dioxide
> emissions will have almost little > or no effect.
You are completely mixing apples and oranges.
Yes, reducing the overall CO2 percentage in the atmosphere is and will be difficult.
But, on an individual basis, one can certainly take steps to reduce *some* of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Fact: a tree will absorb CO2 and release O2, until its death. That is, after all, how trees exist.
So, planting a tree sucks up CO2, until its death.
That is the theory of carbon offsets via tree planting. Any other questions?
"Unlike Catholic indulgences, carbon offsets have a demonstrable, measurable effect on the planet's CO2 level"... ROFLMAO!
Dude, its a scam...
The following is from a collection of tree huggers & root kissers: EU carbon market sets up another round of windfall profits for dirtiest power generators...
'GLOBAL WARMING': AN OFFICIAL PSEUDOSCIENCE
Me, I'm all for enlarging my carbon footprint just for the entertainment value of listening to the neo-commie loons who are trying foist off fairy tales as fact...
For me, I just want to know how to get into this business. Sounds like the ultimate "get rich quick" scheme, and I want in on the ground floor!!
"Of course there will be fluctuations along the way, some of many year's durations. Climate scientists freely admit this, and their theories, which incorporate natural forces, predict it. But the science pertains to decades, not years, just as it has in the last several decades, not this particular decade. Few people, including you, seem to understand that."
Yes it is funny how few people understand that - including the scientists you reference. I have yet so see one of the supporters of the link between global warming and carbon give a scientific explanation for the Medieval warm period which was much, much warmer than today's temperatures.
I suppose it was the Vikings making their mead that caused it to be so warm? At least it was an excellent time for wine in the world.
Or maybe they were still driving SUV's and when they chose to stop that precipitated the Little Ice Age, causing places like Frankfurt Germany to switch from wine production to their horrid apple wine/cider.
juandos wrote:
> EU carbon market sets up another
> round of windfall profits for
> dirtiest power generators...
So? The system is not yet perfect. So what. Few systems are.
None of that changes the fundamental fact that certain gases are GHGs and so increase the temperature of the earth's surface.
This is elementary physics, known for almost 200 years.
So, we need to control the emissions of the GHGs. We can (and will) experiment about the best way to do that, but none of that changes the science.
Anonymous wrote:
> I have yet so see one of the
> supporters of the link between
> global warming and carbon give a
> scientific explanation for the
> Medieval warm period which was
> much, much warmer than today's
> temperatures.
That is completely and utterly false -- I'd like to see the scientific papers that establish that conclusion.
The MWP is now thought to have pertained only to northern Europe and perhaps Northern America. It was not a global phenomena. It certainly was not "much, much warmer" than today's temperatures (numbers, please), as shown by the work of Mann & Jones, Huang (2000), Hergerl (2006), Jones et al (2001), Oelemans (2005), Moberg (2005) and others. They all showed that the global temperatures of the last three decades have been above anything found in the MWP.
"That is completely and utterly false -- I'd like to see the scientific papers that establish that conclusion.
The MWP is now thought to have pertained only to northern Europe and perhaps Northern America. It was not a global phenomena. It certainly was not "much, much warmer" than today's temperatures (numbers, please), as shown by the work of Mann & Jones, Huang (2000), Hergerl (2006), Jones et al (2001), Oelemans (2005), Moberg (2005) and others. They all showed that the global temperatures of the last three decades have been above anything found in the MWP."
Except that their "evidence" seems to basically be that there were no instruments for measuring at the time.
In reality the actual evidence is overwhelming - farming communities in places that don't farm today, wine growing at an unprecedented rate in England (and taxed and recorded through official records), historical accounts of people travelling across the Alps in winter where they couldn't travel today, variations in the type of wine grown from that period to the next in Frankfurt, etc. etc.
In other words, the evidence didn't support their pre-existing conclusions so they simply ignored it.
"...carbon offsets have a demonstrable, measurable effect on the planet's CO2 level"
Huh? Prove it!
David,
"Unfortunately, it's pure bullshit. Atmospheric gases are "well-mixed," just like dye in a glass of water. They swirl all around, and do not layer out by mass."
The only bullshit come from anyone that thinks CO2 causes climate change. The most abundant GHG is water vapor. When the energy from the Sun is high ions strike water vapor forming clouds. Clouds reflect energy out and cool the atmosphere. When the energy of the Sun is low cloud formation is low and the atmosphere heats up. Anybody that thinks CO2 is the cause is a Phqueing idiot.
Larry
"Fact: a tree will absorb CO2 and release O2, until its death. That is, after all, how trees exist.
So, planting a tree sucks up CO2, until its death. "
Not all of the carbon offset schemes involve planting trees. The scale of tree planting required would have to be monumental to actually effect the world's climate. That was the point. Individual carbon offsets are just not on that scale.
The kind of effort required to reduce CO2 would have to completely change every aspect of our lives. Carbon offsets are a feel good experience like buying a few spiral lightbulbs but continuing to run your ipod, theatre system, computer, bug zapper, gas mower, weedwacker, 2 cars, gameboy, blow dryer, beer frig, power tools....
Ok, so we don't use as much energy as Al Gore but let's face it we use energy like its toilet paper.
David,
Tour the average house and you will find an electrically powered device in addition to the lighting, AC and heating in almost every room. I was reviewing my home this morning for power equipment (most electrical; gas as noted):
Bathroom:
Electric toothbrush
Electric razor
Blow drier
Curling Iron
Hall:
Smoke detector
CO2 detector
Kitchen
Electric kettle
Dishwasher
Stove
Trash compactor
Coffee machine
Food processor
Refrigerator
Mix master
Electric beater
Slow cooker
Bread machine
Toaster
Microwave
Blender
Charger for camera
Charger for cell phone
Living Rm:
TV
VCR
Stereo
Family Room:
Flat screen TV
DVD
Cable Receiver box
2 Offices:
2 Computers
Scanner
2 Printers
Shredder
Telephone
Fax
Photocopier
Workshop:
Power Planer
Table saw
circular saw
drill press
welders (Mig & Tig)
jigsaw
electric drills
dremel
Palm sander
Belt sander
Chop saw
Mitre saw
Shop vac
chain saw (gas)
chargers for powerpacks
chain hoist
router
sawsall
Garage:
Snowblower (gas)
Weedeater (gas)
leaf blower
Chest freezer
mini frig
central vacuum
portable vacuum
Utility cupboard
2 vacuums
Shark floor steamer
rug cleaner
Frankly, it puts my use of canvas shopping bags, and a push mower in perspective.
Anonymous wrote:
> The kind of effort required to
> reduce CO2 would have to completely > change every aspect of our lives.
You're absolutely right. It almost literally requires recreating civilization. It will be the largest effort in human history.
What are the alternatives? Watch the planet heat up 2F, 4F, 7F? Seas covering lots of previously inhabitable land, potentially huge heat waves. Ecosystems dying, traditional areas of crops failing, and we don't even know what else. Abrupt, nonlinear climate change lurks at every corner.
Denying the science, now pretty well-established, just because you don't like its implications is dumb, and potentially suicidal. The strength of human beings is our intelligence and ability to look forward and plan for it, and most of all, to think. We need that trait now as much as ever.
Anonymous (Larry) wrote:
> The only bullshit come from
> anyone that thinks CO2 causes
> climate change.
Larry, given the dedicated scientific efforts of thousands of scientists over the last 30 years, I think I'll believe them before I believe your cunning reasoning above.
> The most abundant GHG is water
> vapor.
Of course. Everyone knows this.
However, it is more or less constant, and not created directly by human activity. It is a feedback, not a forcing.
Incidentally, warmer temperatures will cause more evaporation which will add water vapor to the atmosphere, causing even more warming. It's a positive feedback cycle.
> When the energy from the Sun is
> high ions strike water vapor
> forming clouds. Clouds reflect
> energy out and cool the
> atmosphere. When the energy of
> the Sun is low cloud formation is > low and the atmosphere heats up.
You don't mean "energy" from the Sun -- that's been shown to be almost exactly constant over the last few decades -- you mean sunspots and solar storms. And it's not solar ions that supposedly create clouds, it's cosmic rays. You should at least understand the basics of an argument if you're going to make it.
This is the theory of Svensmark. It is still a hypothesis and far from accepted science. A paper in Proc Roy Soc A last year by Lockwood and Frohlich found little correlations between solar activity and climate change in the last two decades. They have a follow-up paper this year.
KauaiMark wrote:
> "...carbon offsets have a
> demonstrable, measurable effect on > the planet's CO2 level"
> Huh? Prove it!
Do you seriously doubt that trees absorb carbon dioxide? Their respiration rates are well-known. I don't have the numbers in my head, though.
So, if you plant trees, they will absorb a measurable (with the right instruments), calculable amount of CO2. It's quite a bit, a couple of tons, I think.
When negotiating Kyoto, lots of countries have asked for lots of credit for the carbon sinks of their forests.
Anonymous wrote:
> Except that their "evidence"
> seems to basically be that there > were no instruments for measuring > at the time.
If there were no instruments, how can you make the claim that it was "much, much warmer?"
Actually, scientists use proxies -- indicators of temperature, like tree rings, ice cores, coral growth, etc. These give hard numbers, not anecdotes about increased farming here and there. Moreover, they cover the entire globe, not just northern Europe, where all your anecdotes come from.
Since you have no anecdotes from elsewhere, how can you make the inference that the MWP was a global phenomenon?
"None of that changes the fundamental fact that certain gases are GHGs and so increase the temperature of the earth's surface"...
dave! dave! dave!
Sorry dave, I'm not buying into human beings producing green house gases is heating up the earth surface...
BTW what percentage of human produced greenhouse gases make up whole of all greenhouse gases?
Sorry but I'm betting that real scientists know what they are talking about and governmental hacks are just looking for more money in the trough...
juandos wrote:
> Sorry dave, I'm not buying into > human beings producing green house > gases is heating up the earth
> surface...
Then explain the graph at IPCC AR4 AG1 FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703.
> BTW what percentage of human
> produced greenhouse gases make up
> whole of all greenhouse gases?
Easy. Atmospheric CO2 is now at about 387 ppm, vs. about 275 ppm before industry. About a 35% increase.
Numbers for methane and N2O are similar, and easily looked up.
dave says: "Then explain the graph at IPCC AR4 AG1 FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703"...
Yeah dave, its called a snow job and it coming from probably the least credible collection of oxygen bandits on planet earth, the UN...
"Easy. Atmospheric CO2 is now at about 387 ppm, vs. about 275 ppm before industry. About a 35% increase"...
So now we know that the CO2 above 275 ppm was all human caused, eh?
Whoa there big boy! What about the H2O?
Let's go back to 1990 and see what SHERWOOD B. IDSO
Research Physicist, Dept. of Agriculture
Water Conservation Laboratory
Phoenix, April 24, 1990 had to say in the New York Times: Carbon Dioxide Warming Is Good for the Planet
Then there is this nugget from 2001: Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment...
juandos wrote:
> Yeah dave, its called a snow
> job
So you honestly believe that thousands of climate scientists have conspired to fool everyone of us into believing that the earth is warming, a "snow job," for... what reason?
I want to see hard evidence of this "snow job." Tell me what evidence they decided to ignore, and when they decided it, and who their leaders are. Any monkey can throw the word around. I want to see your proof.
Such a conspiracy would be the most significant science story of all time, and probably the most important single story of all time.
So, I want proof. What is it?
Or are you -- as I suspect -- merely claiming conspiracy because you have no legitimate scientific answers to the proof of anthropogenic global warming, and so the only avenue open to you, that allows you to save face, is to whine that thousands of people are in some kind of conspiracy to ruin your life.
You probably believe in the moon landing hoax.
That is intellectual childishness.
Where is your proof?
> So now we know that the CO2
> above 275 ppm was all human
> caused, eh?
In fact, we do, by studying the relative levels of the isotopes C14, C13, C12 in atmospheric CO2, and the evolution of the C13/C12 ratio. Have you studied this bit of the science? Have you understood the scientific claims?
http://tinyurl.com/4t4jsx
> Whoa there big boy! What about > the H2O?
H2O has been constant, and is not increased by human activity.
> Let's go back to 1990 and see > what SHERWOOD B. IDSO
You're going to quote science that is 18 years old, in one of the most rapidly studied and moving sciences of all?
We know a lot more than when Idso (who, by the way, refuses to say who funds him) wrote something. Not even peer-reviewed, as far as I can see.
UN epidemologists estimate that 150K people/yr are dying from climage change. What does Idso say about that? And why should it matter? By whose gruesome calculas can we decide to let some people die for the benefit of others?
david appell writes: "So you honestly believe that thousands of climate scientists have conspired to fool everyone of us into believing that the earth is warming, a "snow job," for... what reason?"...
Why yes I do and why? To pander to ignorant, parasitic bureaucrats in government so more government funding (wasted tax dollars extorted from the nation's productive citizens) will come their way...
"In fact, we do, by studying the relative levels of the isotopes C14, C13, C12 in atmospheric CO2, and the evolution of the C13/C12 ratio. Have you studied this bit of the science? Have you understood the scientific claims?"...
Hmmm, so you are assuming without getting YOUR hands on the raw data that what is being being reported is actually factual?
"I want to see hard evidence of this "snow job.""...
Heck! I'm still waiting for you to show that you have credible, factual evidence for human induced climate change...
You seem to be making a mighty effort at ignoring the science unless it fits your preconceived notions...
Actually I have confidence in what real scientists have to say...
Climate Change - Has it been cancelled?
News Item: : In Memorial Of The Mann Hockey Stick
Gov't researchers caught planting false ESA evidence
Nobel Prize-Winning Peacekeeper Asks UN to Admit Climate Change Errors
juandos wrote:
> Why yes I do and why? To
> pander to ignorant, parasitic
> bureaucrats in government so more > government funding (wasted tax
> dollars extorted from the
> nation's productive citizens)
> will come their way...
And what other people are involved in similar schemes? Medical researchers? Geologists? Physicists looking for the Higg's boson? Geneticists decoding genomes? Planetary astronomers operating rovers on Mars? Mathematicians studying algebraic geometry? String theorists? AIDS researchers?
All of these people are getting large government grants (billions and billions of dollars) and making great salaries. Are they, too, all just involved in scamming you and government?
> Hmmm, so you are assuming
> without getting YOUR hands on the > raw data that what is being being > reported is actually factual?
This is such a foolish statement it's almost unanswerable.
Every hour of every day, you agree that scientific data as determined by scientists is valid. The safety of the prescription drugs you take has been verified by medical science, and designed by chemistry and biology. The water you drink is regularly tested via chemical tests for safety. You get on a plane and trust the aerodynamic calculations of the engineers who built it, and their determination of the viscosity of air, and the algorithms of the computer scientists who wrote its software, and the theorems of mathematicians who provided the logical proof of the algorithms. You trust the laws of thermodynamics that run your car's engine -- how do you know that the heat capacity of air is what physicists say it is? Surely they're scamming you, and have been doing so since the 1800s. The laws of quantum mechanics that govern the transistors in the integrated chips that power the computer you're using -- another big scam just to rip you off? The information theorems that govern your Internet and phone networks -- just hearsay? When you drive across a bridge, do you doubt Newton's laws, because all they really want is your toll? Do you doubt that the Sun will come up in the morning, as astronomers have proven?
Of course not. But because climate science has reached a conclusion that for some reason you find threatening, you doubt even its most basic conclusions, as if hundreds of men are bluffing about the CO2 content of air and have been for 50 years, and yet no one has noticed or dared to speak up, no journalist has investigated their lies, no government grant-maker has questioned their conclusions and motives.
That's just foolish. And a very, very, very, very weak argument.
If that's really the best argument you can put up against AGW, let's end this discussion now and stop wasting my and the other reader's time.
"And what other people are involved in similar schemes? Medical researchers? Geologists? Physicists looking for the Higg's boson? Geneticists decoding genomes? Planetary astronomers operating rovers on Mars? Mathematicians studying algebraic geometry? String theorists? AIDS researchers?"...
What part of the US Constitution says that its the federal government's job to extort money from its citizens to finance what you listed?
"All of these people are getting large government grants (billions and billions of dollars) and making great salaries. Are they, too, all just involved in scamming you and government?"...
They all have one thing in common, they are all involved in collective theft...
"This is such a foolish statement it's almost unanswerable"...
Yes I can easily imagine that for someone who does his/her level best hiding from the facts it really is a toughie for you...
"Every hour of every day, you agree that scientific data as determined by scientists is valid... blah, blah, blah"...
I'm sure there was a point to that bit but it escapes me why you would put it up here...
"But because climate science has reached a conclusion that for some reason you find threatening, you doubt even its most basic conclusions, as if hundreds of men are bluffing about the CO2 content of air and have been for 50 years, and yet no one has noticed or dared to speak up, no journalist has investigated their lies, no government grant-maker has questioned their conclusions and motives"...ROFLMAO!
Thanks for that...
BTW what about the thousands and thousands of real scientists who aren't buying into the human induced global weather change fairy tale?
The Global Warming Scam
Juandros, you avoided my main question:
Why do you trust the numbers, equations, and conclusions of all other areas of science (as exhibited by the actions in your daily life), but think that claims of the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been a giant, on-going hoax?
> They all have one thing in
> common, they are all involved in > collective theft...
Sure. And are you a thief when you get benefits from the government? Tax deductions on your home mortgage? Tax deductions on your health insurance? Subsidized school loans? A social safety net? Free public schools? Subsidized roads built for you to drive on? Unemployment insurance? Police and fire protection? Military protection from foreign invasion? Hefty economic stimulus checks? Tax credits merely for having children?
Are the oil companies engaged in collective theft when they get ~$50B/yr in subsidies? Or ~$300B/yr to Big Agriculture? Subsidized sports stadiums? A myriad of corporate tax write offs?
All of you, thieves?
Post a Comment
<< Home