Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

[Cow Poke]

It's simple math Sparko.

It fly in a private jet airplane for 500 km it puts around 300kg of CO2 into the atmosphere. But I've paid to have an 1/4 of land planted with trees that will take that 300kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere during the next year and 300kg every year thereafter. I have contributed 0 kg of CO2 to the atmosphere on that trip. In fact, I've actually reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere in that over the 50year plus lifespan of those trees, I'll have helped pull 15000kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

I don't know the actual numbers that are used for carbon credits. But as long as there is land available to plant trees, the idea is sound and it works. As long as I pay to sequester the CO2 I produce, my contribution to the problem is 0.

Jim

Jim, that's just a crock.

A) How do you know that somebody is really going to plant that many trees, and that they will, indeed, grow?
2) Why not just plant that many trees "just because"?

What "bank" gets to manage these "carbon credits", and how much do they skim off the top for doing so?

[Sparko]

It's simple math Sparko.

It fly in a private jet airplane for 500 km it puts around 300kg of CO2 into the atmosphere. But I've paid to have an 1/4 of land planted with trees that will take that 300kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere during the next year and 300kg every year thereafter. I have contributed 0 kg of CO2 to the atmosphere on that trip. In fact, I've actually reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere in that over the 50year plus lifespan of those trees, I'll have helped pull 15000kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

I don't know the actual numbers that are used for carbon credits. But as long as there is land available to plant trees, the idea is sound and it works. As long as I pay to sequester the CO2 I produce, my contribution to the problem is 0.

Jim

sure your personal co2 output would be net zero but just think, if the other person reduced his carbon output (or planted trees) and you DIDN'T use it up as a carbon credit, but actually ALSO reduced your CO2 then the overall CO2 is a negative which helps reduce the global CO2.

Because the story we are being told is that the overall CO2 in the atmosphere is still growing, despite planting trees or reducing output. So every bit helps, right?

I have no idea why you are defending this in the first place.

Not to mention the perception of someone lobbying against pollution while polluting is still hypocritical.

Oh, and your response to CP trying to justify polluting because it gives people jobs?

I don't see you fighting for entire towns who rely on coal mining for their income.

[JimL]

The "CO2 greenhouse effect" is a long proven myth, and the ocean is simply not warm enough to account for all the "missing" heat that's supposed to be warming our atmosphere.

Source: NASA

The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...14/06oct_abyss

© Copyright Original Source

MM, do you even read the articles you cite, or do you just read the title and assume that it supports your belief? The report does not throw suspician on global warming itself, nor does it throw suspician on the cause, which is the increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The only question is why the abyss, the waters 1.24 miles deep and below aren't getting warmer. The upper level waters continue to get warmer and the C02 continues to rise in the atmosphere.

[Mountain Man]

That just seems so dumb - it's like somebody getting drunk Friday night and going to confession Saturday morning, so their sin output is 0.

Why can't he just forego the glitzy fab vacation and STILL plant the trees?

The whole idea of "0 net carbon" is stupid when the whole point, according to the scare mongers, is to reduce carbon output before the earth burns to a crisp.

[oxmixmudd]

no you are wrong. the NET CO2 in the world is increasing. Despite "carbon credits" - so if the goal is to reduce the global net carbon output to zero then carbon credits are slowing down that goal. If instead of buying someone else's carbon reduction so you could output that carbon yourself, you ALSO reduced your carbon, and everyone else did that, we would reduce the overall CO2 output at a higher rate.

And Elton John "buying" their pollution for one trip is the real "drop in the bucket" because out of all of the private flights these same celebrities take every year, one isn't going to change anything, they aren't buying carbon credits for those flights. And even if there were, the impression they are giving is still that they are hypocrites and when dealing with trying to promote saving the planet from doom, public perception is important. and buying carbon credits is perceived as "cheating" by the rich.

One other point that you seem to be missing - carbon sequestration is quite simply another part of the solution. Doing things to take CO2 out of the atmosphere is just as important at the current time as reducing the amount we put into the atmosphere. So there is nothing bogus, stupid, or otherwise wrong with the idea of paying for and finding ways to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. In fact, if every person flying a private jet paid to have 2X the CO2 they put into the air taken out, they would be HELPING the problem by flying private jets.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...photosynthesis


Jim

[Mountain Man]

You might want to stop getting your info from fossil fuel funded climate change denial organizations like NIPCC and the Heartland.org.

I know a genetic fallacy when I see one.

[Cow Poke]

The whole idea of "0 net carbon" is stupid when the whole point, according to the scare mongers, is to reduce carbon output before the earth burns to a crisp.

Absolutely - it's like "we wanna shame you guys into decreasing your carbon footprint, but we're gonna do whatever we wanna do cause we're rich enough to offset our frivolity".

I'm honestly surprised people fall for this.

[Sparko]

One other point that you seem to be missing - carbon sequestration is quite simply another part of the solution. Doing things to take CO2 out of the atmosphere is just as important at the current time as reducing the amount we put into the atmosphere. So there is nothing bogus, stupid, or otherwise wrong with the idea of paying for and finding ways to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. In fact, if every person flying a private jet paid to have 2X the CO2 they put into the air taken out, they would be HELPING the problem by flying private jets.


Jim

That's idiotic.

If the goal is to reduce the total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at no point does adding co2 to the atmosphere "help the problem" -- no matter what math game or liberal carbon credit switcheroo you want to play. Because as of right now, the yearly output of CO2 is still more than the reduction efforts, leaving us with a net gain in CO2.

Because if the problem is as bad as they make it out to be, they would be doing everything they could to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere AND also to not add more to it.

[Cow Poke]

One other point that you seem to be missing - carbon sequestration is quite simply another part of the solution. Doing things to take CO2 out of the atmosphere is just as important at the current time as reducing the amount we put into the atmosphere. So there is nothing bogus, stupid, or otherwise wrong with the idea of paying for and finding ways to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. In fact, if every person flying a private jet paid to have 2X the CO2 they put into the air taken out, they would be HELPING the problem by flying private jets.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...photosynthesis


Jim

wow

[Mountain Man]

They could. Just don't forget that the glitzy vacation helps pay for the salaries of:

The people making the airplane.
The pilots flying the airplane.
The mechanics fixing and maintaining the airplane.
The people working at the airports, the flight controllers, porters, etc etc
The waiters and waitresses that bring them their food at the restaurants they attend

And so on and so on.

It still sounds mostly like sour grapes to me.


Jim

A rather curious rationalization, especially when you consider that most solutions to "climate change" proposed by the left would devastate the US economy and put hundreds of thousands if not millions of people out of work.

[oxmixmudd]

A rather curious rationalization, especially when you consider that most solutions to "climate change" proposed by the left would devastate the US economy and put hundreds of thousands if not millions of people out of work.

Stop overgeneralizing. I'm talking about private jet flights that are compensated for with 'carbon credits', not whether or not the general tone of the AGW debate is good or bad for the economy.

And it's not a rationalization MM. rationalization implies I think there is something 'wrong' with flying a private jet. I don't. I'm just more trying to point out the rather intense and mostly irrational class envy on display here by pointing out that when the rich play, often the middle class and poor profit because they pay those people as they play.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

That's idiotic.

If the goal is to reduce the total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at no point does adding co2 to the atmosphere "help the problem" -- no matter what math game or liberal carbon credit switcheroo you want to play. Because as of right now, the yearly output of CO2 is still more than the reduction efforts, leaving us with a net gain in CO2.

Because if the problem is as bad as they make it out to be, they would be doing everything they could to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere AND also to not add more to it.

We've reached the point where your Oxmixmudd Derangement Syndrome (ODS) has overflowed to the point you can't even read my posts and understand them.


If I start with 100, add 1, then takeaway 2, I've got 99. 99 is less than 100. If my goal is to get below 100, I have succeeded.

So if my activity that adds CO2 to the atmosphere is compensated with an activity that takes as much or more CO2 out of the atmosphere, then I have succeeded. I did not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

In the end, if we are not going to have to redefine our entire civilization and how we live our lives, we probably will need to BOTH reduce the amount of CO2 we put out on yearly basis AND find ways to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. Or are you of a mind to ground all jet airplanes and take boats to Japan or London? It's a matter of reducing the net, not stopping altogether. It may very well be unlikely we can actually reduce our CO2 output enough without impacting civilization as we know it. So we also need to find and make use of mechanisms that reduce the NET effect of what we do.

As for the Harry/Meghan hullabaloo - that is what they (or rather Elton John) did.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

...rationalization implies I think there is something 'wrong' with flying a private jet. I don't.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding the point?

[oxmixmudd]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding the point?

I don't think so: you jumped to a different topic MM and then applied my comments to that larger topic, not to the smaller topic I am addressing. I'm not addressing the issue of all propose 'liberal' solutions and their potential impact on the economy.

I'm talking about a specific accusation of hypocrisy to one wealthy couple and then to the broader topic of whether or not their attempt to neutralize the impact of taking a private jet could actually accomplish that goal with the broadest topic addressed being whether or not sequestering efforts used as compensation for CO2 production can be effective.

Jim

[One Bad Pig]

We've reached the point where your Oxmixmudd Derangement Syndrome (ODS) has overflowed to the point you can't even read my posts and understand them.

Unintended irony alert. I don't think you're experiencing "Sparko Derangement Syndrome" however - you appear to be managing to misapprehend even that idea.