Eager to find new ways to trivialize the warming of the planet, the New York Times has been reporting on the carbon footprint of individual politicians and legislatures.
They are abetted in this effort by Terra Eco, a French environmental magazine that has calculated British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s footprint to be—quelle horreur!—8,400 tons of CO2 per year. By my calcs, that’s about 0.0001 percent of America’s carbon footprint, so as soon as Brown buys a bicycle, we should have the climate problem pretty well licked.
In the meantime, I applaud Terra Eco‘s work on this important issue, and look forward to their upcoming report on the size of Al Gore’s swimming pool.
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 7:52 am
03 Mar 2009
grist.org
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:38 am
03 Mar 2009
Any effective response to climate change requires changes in lifestyle. There is no way a consumerist / high-energy lifestyle can ever be sustainable.
To attack consumerism, one must attack its foundations. Right now, status accrues to those who buy expensive things, build huge houses, jet to far-off places.
The role models for most of us are the Rich and Famous -- politicians, movie stars and athletes who appear in the media. Consider how the life story of Barack Obama inspires millions of young people.
Public figures are extraordinarily sensitive to criticism. If they see that public opinion has changed, they will change their ways.
They have the money and talent available to figure out better ways of doing things. In fact they can be real leaders - demonstrating their values with lifestyle decisions.
That's the reasonable argument.
As an activist, I see these stories as opportunities to explain the problems with jet travel and the importance of lifestyle decisions.
And, whether it's logical or not, people react viscerally to incidents like the auto executives who flew in private jets to Washington to ask for money.
If politicians are going to ask their people to pay more for energy (carbon tax or cap-and-trade), they'd better show us that they're experiencing a little pain too.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:42 am
03 Mar 2009
This response by Grist shows more than anything that Global Warming Alarmism (GWA) is nothing more than an elistist way of condemning the middle class lifestyle.
It's ok for Richard Branson to have 200 jets, and 3 islands...he's an "eco warrior"...but let a Mom transport her son and five kids in an SUV and she becomes evil incarnate.
Face it -- Global Warming Alarmism...is a Rich Man's Game!
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 12:38 pm
03 Mar 2009
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 12:42 am
04 Mar 2009
And....since good old Al shows only vague signs of knocking his direct carbon footprint down to the levels of even the average, overconsumptive, american nobody else in the world should give a rat's hiney what we say. It's what we do that counts.
Might as well book that cruise to watch the last of Greenland's glaciers slide into the sea. There are still no brakes on this train.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Laura K Posted 3:41 am
04 Mar 2009
Do we want our politicians to work internationally on global issues like climate change?
Can we agree that face to face interaction is necessary?
Can we agree that it is not a good idea to have people strolling casually through our airports (and international airports) who are at risk of assassination, harassment, and generally causing public disorder?
If so, then lay off the carbon calculations for air travel for the private citizen who works internationally, and private jet travel for the recognizable VIPs. I agree, these calculations are just ammunition for those who want to stall or undermine efforts to curb emmissions.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:19 am
04 Mar 2009
For example, was it really necessary for more than 10,000 people to jet into Bali for a global warming conference?
I've heard from several environmental campaigners that they don't feel good about their air travel and they are trying to cut down on it.
In my experience, going to conferences has a rapidly diminishing rate of return. The first few conferences are exciting and even life-changing. But very soon they become routine.
These days, talks and papers are easily put online for everybody to see. Skype makes it possible to have video conferences for almost free.
We all need to put on our thinking caps and figure out better ways to do things.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
jestbill Posted 4:31 am
04 Mar 2009
Then they could crow about a decrease in either column.
Where have all the horses gone?
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 4:37 am
04 Mar 2009
"Al Gore and those AGW activists who keep a high profile generate a lot of CO2, so they're hypocrites and I can dismiss their message."
"Ed Begley and those AGW activists who maintain a low CO2 lifestyle drive around in those little electric cars and cut their energy use to the point of discomfort, so they're crazy and I can dismiss their message."
"Therefore, there are no reliable, reputable, trustworthy people who advocate action on AGW!"
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 4:40 am
04 Mar 2009
Permalink