Traveling Green

[makemagic]

I was just curious if any of you world travelers had a opinion on carbon offsets.

I try to live green in daily life, however flying to Europe several times a year pretty much diminishes my efforts. Although I know that it would be better for the environment for me not to fly at all, I feel that it is equally important for people to travel to gain a better understanding of humanity and conservation, i.e. what we have to lose and how to protect it.

This is where carbon offsets come in. I've heard both good and bad...but it seems like a viable option for those of us that require long haul flights. Terra Pass offers an option which puts money into sustainable, renewable energy projects as well as the most common option- planting trees. I understand that planting trees does not always have the prefered outcome...what are some of the other options? Is this simply just armchair activism or prepaying for my sins?

I would appreciate all of your input!

[me]

Well, Gwen,
this prolly isn't what you want to hear, but the contention that anthropomorphic CO2 is *the* cause of global warming is in great dispute. empirical evidence suggests that atmospheric H2O is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

have you ever watched this? video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

EDIT: the link above is broken. but, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is on myspace in 9 parts. do a search www.myspacetv.com/

[herrbert]

With all respect for different opinions, but every meteorologist can tell you that the effect that C02 has on weather and climate, is about a factor 3-4 bigger, that H20. Thereby almost immediately declaring the great Swindle video, a swindle.

Up till this point, I haven't paid for the damage my travels did to the environment, but I have to say, that companies that offer these carbon offsets (to me) are transparent in what they do. There are a lot of companies offering this service, but I wouldn't have a clue, which one is legit. Also the prices of wood are rising, so the company that is planting trees, can in theory make a lot of profit, with wood, that has been paid for by someone else. If done correctly it a good idea, but I am not shure, that in the long run, it will work.

And maybe I am a bit crazy, but why would we need to plant trees, when it would be much easier, to not cut down trees. Take a look at the thousands of square miles of trees, that are cut down in the rainforest every year. Planting trees to reduce carbon emisions sounds great, but it doesn't help, if you cut down even more trees.

[makemagic]

I suppose that regardless if it is H2O or CO2 that is the main culprit of greenhouse gasses it can still be agreed (hopefully) that flying is extremely detrimental to the environment.


So then, if planting trees is a good idea in theory but not in practice (besides the price of wood, which was mentioned, there is still the possibility of the tree not living until maturity thereby rendering it's effects useless)...then what about putting money into sustainable energy? Say, putting $60 to a solar/wind power project. Or to help fund further research for a sustainable future.

Herrbert: would you be more inclined to participate in a carbon offset program if it had the seal of approval from a well-know environmental establishment like Greenpeace or WWF?

In a perfect world we would not have cut down half of the world's forests...but alas it has been done and now I feel like I need to be proactive. I just don't know where to start.

[me]

herrbert said:

With all respect for different opinions, but every meteorologist can tell you that the effect that C02 has on weather and climate, is about a factor 3-4 bigger, that H20.

are you sure about that, Herrbert? i'm no meteorologist, but it seems that water has an awfully big role in weather. that's what clouds are made of, that's what falls from the sky in storms, mostly. [tornadoes carry other stuff, cars, cows, etc. Sirocco carry sand, too] but water/water vapor is the most important element in weather - to my knowledge.

Edit: actually, the video doesn't say that water alone is the biggest reason for greenhouse effect. it also talks about Solar radiation & cosmic radiation.

makemagic said:

from a well-know environmental establishment like Greenpeace or WWF?

speaking of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, an early member of that organization and former president of Greenpeace Canada, is one of the heretical desenters featured in this "swindle" of a video.

- d

[herrbert]

I am sure about it David. Of course I am also curious about this subject, and I have seen both the Al Gore documentary, and also the Great Swindle. Both are really slick presentations, saying a lot of the same things, but also contradicting each other. So I made my own little investigation. The best explanation on the out of control greenhouse effect, I have found from meteorologists, rather than from self pronounced experts. let me try to explain:

First thing you need to know (and you of course do), is that we need to have a greenhouse effect, to keep an inhabitable planet. So we need to have a healthy amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. 0,5% of gasses in the atmosphere are greenhouse gasses.

Both H20 and C02, are gasses that raise the temperature here on Earth. Only 0.03% of all the gasses in the air in C02, and just under 10% of all greenhouses gasses is actualy C02. At this point, you might be wanting to make the conclusion that C02 can never account for a large drop or increase in temperature. (on a climate bases) That however is incorrect. Tests have shown, that because of all greenhouse gasses, the Earth is approx. 33 degrees (Celsius) warmer, than it would be, without these gasses, and a massive 12 degrees can be accounted for by C02! which is more than 1/3 of this rise, which is more than you expect, if you see that CO2 makes up less than 10% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

This is way I said C02 has a factor 3-4 more effect on climate change.

The explanation why, C02 has a bigger impact on climate is, that C02 spreads out in a better way throughout the entire atmosphere, were as H20 can mostly be found in the low regions of the atmosphere (the lowest 15 kms), because C02 is also found higher up, in the atmosphere, it has a bigger impact on the radiation balance. (deflecting and reflecting sunlight)

Also C02 controls the amount of watervapour in the atmosphere. More C02 in the air, means more watervapour in the air. An atmosphere with a lot of C02 can contain more watervapour, than an atmosphere with a lower level of C02 being present.

The same tests that have shown that C02 accounts for 12 of the 33 degrees of temperature rise, shows, that if the watervapour can be kept at the same level, the temperature rise accounted for by C02 is only 7 degrees. This means that C02 enhances the level of watervapour in the air, and this extra watervapour, accounts for 5 degrees. But this is a causal relation with the presence of C02.

If one, needs to defend the Great Swindle documentary, you can say that they are right on some fields. Because, yes! watervapour does raise temperatures, they only forget to tell you, why this occurs. They also make a very big point out of the fact, that temperatures decreased in the 1940-1975 period instread, when you would expect temperatures to rise (because of industrialisation, and thereby higher amounts of C02 in the air). Again they 'forget' to mention the natural causes, why temperatures were lower in this period. If you make a correction to filter out several events (like vulcano eruptions), you see a climb of the level of C02 over the last 150 years. Just like you would expect.

[me]

Herrbert,

i was unaware of this aspect of CO2, causing more H2O to remain in the atmosphere. i had always read that CO2 is used as basis of the Global Warming Potential scale, where CO2 is a 1 on the GWP scale. other substances having 20, 50, even thousands of times the GWP of CO2.

i've also read that higher CO2 concentrations, far from being a pollutant, actually makes plants grow faster, be more productive. that world farmland is more productive per acre/hectare as CO2 parts per million increases. thus, farmers are in a better position to feed the ever increasing world population.

also, that higher atmospheric CO2 leads to plankton blooms in world oceans. thus providing more food for sea life which is higher on the food chain, eventually leading to better hauls for fishermen. [also, tying into an earlier discussion on the boards, more plankton causes the extant oceanic pollutants to be more diffused among a greater crop of sea life, thus less likely to build up to poisonous levels in the fish we eat, such as salmon.]

as such, i'm not sure that we can unequivocally say "that flying is extremely detrimental to the environment." what we can unequivocally say is that Earth will someday run out of oil. all the flying we do brings that day ever closer. if we haven't found more economical alternatives by the time we run out, humans may have to revert to a pre-Wright brothers way of life.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" video does an effective job of explaining that there have been tremendous climate variations in the past centuries: that UK once had a warm enough climate to support commercial vineyards, and it also had times with climate cold enough for the River Thames to freeze over in London winters. [the video is UK centric]

yet, these times of extreme climate variation haven't had the dire climatic ramifications cited by the global warming prophets.

a web search of "Great Global Warming Swindle" finds many sites critical of the video, and other sites supportive of the video.

it's kind of a wash. at least GGWS has PhD scientists and professors interviewed, as opposed to "An Inconvenient Truth" which shows a former Vice President/ frustrated Presidential wanna-be talking as if he is the Font Of All Wisdom scientific. *

- d

* this is an ad hominem argument. my bad. but i do point out that GGWS uses primary sources - which, we learned writing research papers, are better than secondary sources.

a video is the perfect place to directly quote primary sources, unless the source is unavailable. there's no need for a spokesman to serve as a "filter" of the ideas presented.

Canadian professors, as well as American professors, are quoted extensively in GGWS. i'm not that familiar with Canadian universities, but i assume they have similar standards to American ones. a candidate can't get a full professorship at a reputable US research university without the terminal degree in his/her discipline. they *are* the experts!

[herrbert]

I am never that impressed when a documentary shows some people, with a lot of titles to explain something. Adding professor or doctor to a name is fine, but doesn't say nothing about, the field of research (s)he's working in. If (s)he's doing research at all, and maybe just as important, the reputation of this person.

Experts can be wrong too. Especially if you have experts saying two different things, you really have to wonder. My problem with the great swindle video, is that it is presenting facts, which are no facts. Or facts, that can be dismissed as untrue pretty easy. It is made very good but it doesn't give you the whole story. It is pretty easy to pick out pieces, that are incorrect. When I saw it the first time, I have to admit it sounded convincing. But I also saw 'Inconvenient truth' maybe a week before that. So curious as I am I tried to find other sources, than just these two (political) videos. If you take the time to verify the statements, than you will see, that portions of the Great Swindle video can be dismissed as true pretty easy.

The Inconvenient Truth, at some point, makes everything sound like the end of the world in near, and I also don't believe that scenarios like the flooding animations you see, will ever become reality. Because they are highly theoretical calculations, based on what would happen if we do nothing. If you know the sea level is rising, you would act somehow. But the nice thing about making calculations way in the future, is that you can never be judged when they turn out not true.

Like you say, other factors also come into play, such as what happens to nature and the wildlife. I am sure some species (be it animals or plants) can be better of with higher levels of CO2 in the air and the sea, but for other it can just as easy become a problem, but I am no biologist, and haven't investigated this matter. You would also have to calculate a factor like science into this matter. When we run out of oil, what will be replacing it, and how much pollution will that have? If everybody is driving a solar car (or nuclear car) in 30 years, predictions on CO2 emissions, will have to be altered.

I suppose that regardless if it is H2O or CO2 that is the main culprit of greenhouse gasses it can still be agreed (hopefully) that flying is extremely detrimental to the environment.

That is to be seen:

If you would have to travel the distance anyway. And you would have the choice between a car and a plane. Then the plane is usually the better solution. Because the plane transports more people, then you. The actual pollution caused by you flying (the pollution/divided by all passengers on board) will be less, then if you would have chosen the car.

But this of course this is only true, if you would have to travel the distance. But nowadays a lot of people are traveling just for fun, and because it is cheap, they go places they don't really need to go, and spending holidays further away, then they used to do (I presume I am guilty)

[me]

herrbert said:

I am never that impressed when a documentary shows some people, with a lot of titles to explain something. Adding professor or doctor to a name is fine, but doesn't say nothing about, the field of research (s)he's working in. If (s)he's doing research at all, and maybe just as important, the reputation of this person.

Edit: the point isn't to impress. the point is that these are primary sources. these people can speak from a significant personal knowledge base. it isn't just some talking head reading from a script.

Dr. John R. Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville [actually, he was a Contributor, Key Contributor & Lead Author for various versions of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports]
www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html

"Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former [retired] professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg"
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Dr. Nir Joseph Shaviv, Post doctoral fellow at CITA - The Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto
www.cita.utoronto.ca/~shaviv/cv/cv.html

Piers Corbyn, London-based meteorologist
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Piers_Corbyn

Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
www.science.uottawa.ca/est/eng/prof/clark/clark.html

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT
www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

these are the names i pick out in the beginning moments of the video.

having had family members and close friends who've been Ph.D.'s and professors at prestigious graduate schools, i'm aware of the education these credentials represent.

herrbert said:

Like you say, other factors also come into play, such as what happens to nature and the wildlife. I am sure some species (be it animals or plants) can be better of with higher levels of CO2 in the air and the sea, but for other it can just as easy become a problem, but I am no biologist, and haven't investigated this matter. You would also have to calculate a factor like science into this matter.

as you pointed out above, CO2 makes up a minimal part of our atmosphere. a change of a few parts per million (ppm) would have a negligible effect on animal life. we animals breath O2. any of the approx. 20% O2 which might be displaced by a few more ppm of CO2 wouldn't make much, if any, difference.

but, a few ppm more CO2 seems to have a dramatic effect on plant productivity. photosynthesis turns CO2 & H2O into O2 and glucose, glucose being the sugar with which plants grow.

herrbert said:

When we run out of oil, what will be replacing it, and how much pollution will that have? If everybody is driving a solar car (or nuclear car) in 30 years, predictions on CO2 emissions, will have to be altered.

my personal prediction of what we'll do for transport after oil:

1. cars will be plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (phev's) where the internal combustion engine (ice) is fueled with biodiesel.

2. Jets will be fueled with a synthetic derived from coal, or eventually plant (biomass) derived, via the Fischer-Tropsch process developed in Germany, which was used to fuel the Wehrmacht in WWII.

this will, undoubtedly, make flying more expensive. right now the US Air Force is buying some coal based FT jet fuel. USAF doesn't want to be caught w/o fuel if the oil were ever cut off. but, this stuff isn't cheap!

[me]

Just noticed the latest release from Polkaholix, the CD is called "The Great Polka Swindle!" ;D

[me]

interesting read on this topic, Seattle Times: To go green in jet fuel, Boeing looks at algae
By Ángel González

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003858756_boeingenergy30.html

this article sez commercial planes put out just 11% of Greenhouse Gases in America. Autos & trucks combined emit a whopping 84%!

- d

Edit: just noticed that the graphic only shows greenhouse gases from transportation. so, it's rather misleading.

[herrbert]

these are the names i pick out in the beginning moments of the video.
And for all of these names, there are other renowed names that say the opposite. But when I hear someone say, that the level of CO2 to be found in the atmopshere, can't make that much difference, when it comes to climate chance, and rather ridicules it, doesn't know his facts, about how the atmosphere works. All greenhouses gasses combined are just 0,5% of all gasses in the atmosphere. But they are responsible for an increase in temperature of 33 degrees. C02 makes up a 10%, as it comes to the total of greenhouse gasses, so should contribute about 3 degrees to the total. If this would be the way it would work, this doctor of proffesor or whatever, what have a point. But it's proven fact, that this is not the way C02 in the atmosphere behaves.

But also a lot of other publications, have made clear, that the maker/director of the Great Swindle hasn't got the best reputation:

Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

Carl Wunsch is one of the professors interviewed in the documentary

P.S. I presume the great Polka Swindle is a parody on the great rock and roll swindle (movie, 1980).

[me]

ok, there are "experts" on both sides of this issue.

as i said to Gwen at the start of all this, "the contention that anthropomorphic CO2 is *the* cause of global warming is in great dispute."

there are "experts" on both sides of it. some say it is, others say it isn't.

i don't know the answer. but i don't just accept the theory of human guilt hook, line & sinker.

[herrbert]

me said:

i don't know the answer. but i don't just accept the theory of human guilt hook, line & sinker.

The orchestra on the Titanic, didn't believe, the ship could sink ... and played on.

[me]

herrbert said:

The orchestra on the Titanic, didn't believe, the ship could sink ... and played on.

yes, and in 1938 - when Orson Welles & The Mercury Theatre did an on-air radio production of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds - there was mass hysteria then, too.

- d

btw, i suspect you're right about the name of Polkaholix latest CD. i was merely pointing out the humor of the coincidence - not everything that seems to sound right, is right.