Measuring Your Footprint

James Wimberley notices some seemingly good-faith measures being taken by big business to reduce negative environmental impact.  But he reminds us that we all need to do our part.  He suggests better analytical measures.

I’ve been thinking recently about sitting down and trying to get a good idea of what my carbon footprint actually is. “Green” has become such a buzzword that you begin to feel like you’re never doing as much as you could, which then leads to a sort of hypocritical pessimism. And one thing I get hung up on is the relative footprint of each aspect of daily life. Some things are easy – but are they really that important? For instance, we bring cloth bags to the grocer, saving maybe 5-6 bags in the process. But what is the carbon/environmental footprint of one bag? How many minutes does that equal in power consumption, or miles driven for consumables, or driving instead of biking, etc.?

I’m reminded of the period I spend in my twenties trying to eat vegan. I would check labels to make sure they didn’t contain the slightest bit of dairy products, such as casein. Yet I then realized that every time I broke down and succumbed to my overwhelming desire for a cheeseburger, fried chicken or bacon, that I was essentially ingesting the equivalent of a lifetime supply of casein-tainted products.

At which point, chastened by the realization of my own hypocrisy, I gave up completely – no less concerned by animal welfare, however. I do think though, that having better information could at least allow one to make more serious commitments, comfortable in knowing less hypocrisy is involved, and that sacrifices being made are the right ones. 

Climategate and True Belief

This whole climate gate thing is just bizarre. Who are these freaks that believe this stuff? First they didn’t believe in global warming. Then they didn’t believe it was anthropogenic. Now they think they have this smoking gun that proves the ENTIRE science (all the papers, researchers) is fraudulent.

What’s really weird is that creationists aren’t even this bold. They never say its all a big conspiracy paid for by wealthy Darwinist donors, or scientists knowing Darwinist research will get them grant money. No, that would be too retarded even for them.

Instead, they ignore the 99.9% of evidence FOR Darwinism, and focus on the “gaps” – trying their best to spread F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt). This is much of what the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) denialists are doing with climategate, but taking it to a whole new level by attacking the scientists, not the science.

Of course, we all know what creationists’ real problem is: Darwinism doesn’t fit their dogma. And this is exactly what’s wrong for AGW denialists: it doesn’t fit their dogma. It is no coincidence they are all people who are fundamentally opposed to any regulation of business by government. They need to take a serious look in the mirror and ask themselves if any evidence would EVER be convincing enough. This is certainly the case with creationists. Evidence stopped being relevant a long time ago.

I fear AGW denialists have joined their ethereal ranks.