The advert on the back of the bus said: “Reduce your carbon footprint by 5924lbs — commute by bus.”

I was on a bike.

It seemed to me, that if I were to commute by bus, I would increase my carbon footprint, not decrease it.

Half a mile later there was another bus with a slightly different ad: “Reduce your carbon footprint by 4690lbs — commute by bus.”

I’m given two extremely precise, but quite different figures for doing the same thing. What credibility does this ad campaign have? Do they expect people to be so idiotic they won’t notice the discrepancy? I could forgive them if both buses read “… by 2~3 tons” — wrong in my case, but perhaps applicable to the average commuter in SB.


I’d like to see the basis for these figures and, of course, some explanation for why they are so different.


Remember Kyoto? Well back then the US promised that in 2012 we would have reduced emissions by 7% below 1990 levels. Instead they are currently about 15% higher. Lies.

The Copenhagen “accord” says that the we must keep the global temperatures from rising more than 2°C. Yet the cuts on offer will (probably) let temperatures rise by 3°C. Lies.

At Copenhagen the US promised that in 2020 we would have reduced carbon emissions by 17% below 2005 levels (or, using the old benchmark, to 4% below 1990 levels).

(Note that after 13 years we are promising to do less than before).

Just how we intend to do this is unclear to me. The only thing I have seen recently is that in the state of the Union address Obama promised: Nuclear power, offshore drilling (um, that sounds like a way to increase our carbon footprint), biofuels (I have not heard of any research which shows that these actually do decrease carbon emissions) and clean coal (Sounds like an oxymoron).

Nuclear power has all kinds of problems, but it might help decrease carbon emissions. But even in that best of all possible worlds where there are no worries of using fissionables there remains the question: How long does it take to build a nuclear power plant? Can we build enough quickly to have any significant effect by 2020?

Offshore drilling is not going to decrease carbon emissions and it is reprehensible for Obama to claim that it is.

Even if effective, biofuels have the major disadvantage that they have increased global food prices, which leads to famine and increases global instability. Like nuclear power this is a dangerous tool.

Clean coal. Um. Yeah. If you want to get energy out of coal you must oxidize it, and CO2 will be the cleanest result. Perhaps they mean a more efficient process. I guess that means fuel cells. People have been making with fuel cells since 1839 and they still aren’t mainstream. Research into them is probably reasonable, but expecting results in time to be useful by 2020 sounds unlikely.

No mention whatsoever of renewable technologies. Things that work now and don’t have huge disadvantages.

I don’t think we will make a 17% reduction in 10 years. I think it’s just another lie.

These things matter. Our children’s lives are at stake, my life might be. Please don’t lie to me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: