Science and Society

It seems like a relatively painless way to allow the consumer to participate without having to make those dreadful decisions.

This is a good idea for even more kinds of information in addition to carbon. We expect consumers to make wise choices when they have no way to know how anything they buy is made, or usually even where it was made.

It will never fly. Those companies that are making fortunes while having a large carbon footprint stand to lose millions when consumers find out how much carbon is being released by their favorite products. How much do you want to bet that profits will, once again, come before the environment? Even if it's made mandatory, they will fight it like GM did w/ their very own EV1 electric car. Anytime someone wanted one of those cars, GM tried their very best to talk them out of it, and they wouldn't flat sell them to anyone...they would only lease them so that they could take them all off of the road when the lease ran out. And that is exactly what they did. Big Business is sly and they will do anything to protect their bottom line. So don't bank on this getting very far...it's an unprofitable endeavor for those already making large profits in this market.

How dumb can someone get. I am never amazed at the ignorance of idiots that buy into crap.

Ohhh big scary man is causing global warming. No wait, the last eight count them eight years have been cooling. We need a new catch phrase. Ahh climate change. Now any and all things to do with weather and climate can be blamed on man.

Selectivly ignore the fact that this planet has gone through changes its entire lifespan of 4.5 billion, with a "b", years. But oh no only look at the last 100 years for a sample. Truely pathetic. So much for science. And has it been mentioned the only FACT about man made global warming is that there are NO facts. It is all someone's theory. Follow the money. Millions in further funding if you agree that man could cause a problem....think about that for about 1 second before agreeing and taking the money. Yup, I'll say whatever you want. Keep the money comming.

Completely ignore the fact that every other solar body has "climate change" happening right now too. But nooooo, it is natural for each of them EXCEPT us. Man and oil are the enemy. Interprit that to read republicans and big oil. That is what has happened to this entire subject. It has gone political. If there really was a possible threat or problem, the dumbest thing was to let politics get involved. But since Mr. Gorebal himself brought it to light, it was corrupt from the start.

This is going to be the largest scam in the history of man. I am glad they would put such information on products so I can buy the ones that do NOT buy into this junk science.

Follow the money - You say that 100 years is not enough to conclude we are warming but the last 8 years is enough to conclude we are cooling? What kind of logic is that?

No one has ignored the fact that the Earth has gone through natural climate changes before. In fact, those past changes are exactly what the scientists have used to understand how the climate system works, and to figure out how this change is different. This one cannot be explained by the natural drivers that have affected things before; not all of it anyway. But it CAN be explained by the physics of what we know about CO2 and climate. That's called science.

For me, it has less to do with whether global warming is fact or farce and more to do with responsible citizenship. I've heard good arguments on both sides of global warming, and it's hard for me to figure out what's true and what isn't. But keeping the only planet we've got safe, clean, and beautiful for future generations is a no-brainer.

Jock59801: The science shows that the concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere do not correlate with temperature. However, the solar activity and the temperature are an exact fit, not only on this planet, but on all the other planets in the solar system.

That being said, it is in everyone's interest to try to be more environmentally friendly..just realize that global warming is a total myth put forth by scientists whose entire career and income is based on thier continuing claims of it's validity

Todd - Yes, we know that the founder of the Weather Channel is an outspoken climate denialist; and he is most definitely NOT a scientist.

The concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere correlate very strongly with temperature if viewed at the appropriate scale (centuries, not decade by decade). Every time new information comes out it continues to confirm this. And to say that "solar activity and the temperature are an exact fit" is completely bogus. First of all, nothing is an "exact fit." Secondly, the known changes in solar activity cannot explain the current warming trend.

Try listening to scientists, not weathermen.

I don't know about the rest of the readers, but my local weather experts have a difficult time with 24-48 hours. And many of you believe in that phony PHD Climatologist Al Gore. Give me a break. Let's try to Move On from the stupidity. The sun is more powerful than mankind and it is what affects global climate changes, except to nitwit henny penny types that is. The sky is falling, be afraid, be very afraid. BOO!

wow, the american public really needs more education on this subject. The reality of global warming/climate change/whatever you want to call it is no longer in question. Question 100 university geologists, climatologists, and physicists, and 95 will tell you that it is real. The other 5 won't commit. I think the carbon footprint labeling is a good idea, because frankly, I don't know much about the stuff that I use on a day to day basis. But of course - we'll have the same problem that we now have with nutritional labeling. But it would be better than nothing.

Steve - Weather is not climate. Climatologist are not trying to predict the weather. And no, Gore is not a climatologist, so he is irrelevant to the scientific debate on climate change. Get over him.

Miles per gallon is posted on the side of a vehicle at the dealer's lot, but so many people are driving SUVs, NOT high mpg vehicles. People change cell phones and a host of other consumer products like the changing winds without giving it a second thought. I don't see anyone driving the speed limit on the freeway to work - the faster one drives, the more gas that is used per mile. Everyone feels that doing something environmental is something OTHER people should do, or that the government should legislate. Folks, forget the labels & enviro fads - just consume LESS, drive LESS, live SIMPLY.

Cturple,

I agree with you and I have a further observation about carbon footprints. What exactly does it mean?

If I buy a Hybrid Car then I am praised for being environmentally sensitive, but am I being environmentally sensitive? Or am I just pushing my ultimate use of carbon further back in the production and use cycle? Hybrid vehicles cost more to produce. Is there significantly less carbon use in their production? Probably not, it's really just a re-arrangement of existing technologies, not a really new idea. How much will it cost to dispose of a Hybrid car? Anyone know yet?

So, how do we cut through the PR junk and get to the truth rather than the hype? Unfortunately, politicians have picked this up and run with it, generating emotive slogans as they go! Great for sound bites but bad for truth.

There is probably no way of getting the American public to objectively assess the issues now. They don't have time and most don't have much interest in either political or scientific pundits.

Andy Clark
Other than the extra batteries a hybrid has the same basic manufacturing carbon footprint of any other car. The issue of scrap is the batteries - they are obviously dirtier. Running the car is a smaller footprint that most gasoline cars but not all. MPG is MPG no matter how you transfer the power to the wheels. Just a little something that everyone seems to forget.

Jock

Re: "But it CAN be explained by the physics of what we know about CO2 and climate."

NOT JUST YET - The words "probable" and "possible" and "maybe" are not really scientific explanations, they mean "I guess but I have a sheepskin".

Ken: Before nutritional data was put on labels, I had to haul out a bunch of books to figure out what the heck I was eating. Now I can compare products, and buy the healthiest. I don't know if carbon footprint labels would work for everything, but I think they could be used on some products to help people make more informed choices.

Andy Clark: I certainly don't have all the answers - but it seems logical to me that the more information the public has, the better informed their decisions will be. They give mileage, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution ratings, and safety information for both new and used cars and trucks - but again - it there was a label on the window, it would make it much easier than trying to find websites and/or books to provide similar information.

Ken: I drive the speed limit to school and back every day - and today I was behind someone driving 5mph UNDER the speed limit. And I stayed behind her. I've noticed quite a few people are staying at or under the speed limit these days. I'm also seeing a lot of SUV's with FOR SALE signs in the front window. Gas is going to hit $5 before the end of the year. People might want to practice slowing down.

Quietman - "Probable" and "possible" mean very different things. Possible could mean anything. "Probable" means it would be kind of irresponsible to stick our head in the sand and hope that we are wrong when we are probably not. And by the time we are "positive" it will be too late.

I like the idea of labeling the products. If it can bring attention to inefficient manufacturing techniques, it's all the better. With so much stuff being made in a less monitored foreign factories though, I imagine accurate labeling might be tough.
As far as those saying the climate change is completely natural, they're ignoring antartic icecore data that we have going back 400,000 years. In the past 150 years, the CO2 levels have shot up way higher than at anytime in the past 400,000 years. The CO2 levels always closely follow the rise and fall of global temperature levels until the past 150 years.

Something interesting some people might want to consider is that global temperatures and CO2 concentrations as show by the ice cores indicate a regular pattern of warming and cooling. We are at the peak of a "hot" period. Each "hot" period is followed by a rather rapid drop in global temperature. I just wonder temperatures rise much above the usual levels, will the cold period begin faster, or reach cooler temps before stopping? If we don't exhaust our carbon deposits now, could they be used to increase co2/ temp levels once the temperature peaks starts going down hill? Is our splurge now going to result in a frozen world for our descendants in several hundred years?

I think it is just a war on oil.

An example is ethanol. There are many people that support ethanol and global warming, or as it is now climate change. These people are as blind and ignorant as they come. Have they ever thought about how many carbon emissions go into producing ethanol? No they have not.

Since ethanol comes from corn...
First the farmer has to plow the field.
Then disc the field.
Then drag the field. Keep in mind all of these are trips back and forth through a field by a tractor.
Then he has to plant the corn - another trip.
Then he has to fertilize.
Spray pesticide
Spray herbicide
Cultivate between rows later. - All more trips.
Irrigate the crop - Large amounts of electrisity - that comes from somewhere.
Another trip of spraying pesticide/herbicide
Finially, harvesting. Picked by a combine and transfered to a gravity box behind another tractor and taken to a semi truck.
Now that corn has to be taken to a dryer - dryers consume HUGE amounts of fuel.

So now the corn is ready to be shipped to a place that can transform it to ethanol. Then the energy involved in that process.

I think you see my point. Ethanol does nothing to combat "climate change". Infact for one gallon of ethanol produced, how many gallons of oil are used to make that one gallon - many.
Now add to this that ethanol is not that efficient as regular gasoline when used in cars. So your miles per gallon goes down.

One also gets the feeling that all that we do to reduce our carbon footprint is more than offset by the increase in population. That, combined with government foot-dragging, political wrangling and the natural tendency for the public to reject changing their respective life-styles, is still the standard recipe for ultimate disaster.

Mick - Yes, averyone agrees that corn-based ethanol is a really bad idea, but it will continue happening as long as corporations are calling the shots. There are many solutions to global warming that actually DO work, most of which are beneficial things to be doing anyway.

I think a carbon "label" would be rather difficult to calculate, or at least to negotiate how it should be calculated, but it would certainly be good to educate the public that their choices have consequences.

Quietman,

I guess I didn't explain myself to well! I understand that hybrid vehicles are just a re-arrangement of more or less standard technologies.

However, to produce a car or any of its components requires quite a lot of energy, generally electrical energy mainly derived from fossil fuels. I wonder what the delta in the carbon footprint is for say a Ford Escape in its original standard gas engine form and its hybrid brother. I suspect that the hybrid actually requires more energy to produce. This is partly because of the added complexity and partly because of the battery issue. Battery production is energy intensive - at least in the aerospace field. Does this increase in energy required to produce the vehicle not mean it has a larger carbon footprint to start with and that using less fuel over its life just brings it back to the norm. Once the norm is reached then continued use will allow it to become carbon positive. This may be true of regular vehicles too, so where is the gain? Have we done enough? Do we know enough?

Cturple,

Yes, more information is good but how long did it take for the connection between smoking and lung cancer to become universally recognized.

How closely do you or I read the labels in the grocery stores? I usually read them at home, but then the damage is done, I own the product - good or bad!

This carbon/energy thing will be the same, it will take a long time for the message to become universally recognized.

Andy Clark

New battery tech is basically the same across the transportation industry. The big car makers are also into marine and aerospace technology.

One of the newer techs in civilian transportation is the use of carbon fibre (its not new tech but has new uses). Even crankshafts can be, and in some cases are, made from it. Now there's a place to bury carbon.

Andy Clark: I read the label of everything before I buy it, and compare them side by side when I'm deciding which to buy. I look at calories, fat, fiber, sodium, protein ....everything.

The connection between smoking and cancer would have been made sooner had not the tobacco industry paid scientists to provide false evidence. It wasn't all that long, really. I'm in my 50's, and remember when doctors were talking about which cigarette they preferred on TV. And does anybody remember that Sheriff Taylor smoked?

I don't think carbon labels would take more than a few years to take off. Society moves at a much faster pace than it did in the 60's and 70's.

Cturple,

I'm glad you have time to read labels in grocery stores; me, I just want to get in and then OUT as fast as possible. Guy thing, I guess; but I do read some labels in the stores and some - maybe most - at home.

However, the point I want to make is a response to yours where you say that society moves much faster these days. That is true, but people as a group are no faster now than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Today we are swamped with "information" and most of us tune it out. People also tend to ignore things they don't understand like the labels on the patent medicine bottles in drug stores. Now those I do read in the store!

Quietman,

The more I hear about Hybrid vehicles the more I am coming to believe that they only have a modest operational advantage over regular vehicles. This is only because they have small engines and hence produce less CO2.

Using carbon structurally is a good way of providing a carbon sink as long as the energy cost is not prohibitive. Recycling such materials may also be a positive thing.

What we really need is a new energy source that is as good as gasoline.

Andy Clark
That's where the fuel cell comes in. Unfortunately the technology is still in its infancy. The technology is very expensive but it does work.

Andy Clark : I guess my comment about society moving faster is the speed with which the public now acclimates to new technology. Five years ago when I started my own business - people still hired other people to set up new computers and printers, and install new software. Ipod and Bluetooth technology came about within the last 5 years, and now everywhere I go - I see people with a headset on, or an Ipod hanging out of their ears. We are much more accepting of new technologies - I think carbon labels would be accepted without much of an eyeblink.

Quietman, I don't know if fuel cells are more carbon friendly or not. I suspect that they still use a lot of energy to manufacture and their is carbon usage there. Certainly they do not - as far as I know - put CO2 out as a waste product

I would prefer to see a good fusion reaction in place. I think such a source of power could be scaled quite easily, both up and down. just have t o put the money into it I guess.

Cturple,

I guess we are not using the same benchmarks. Just because people can use Ipods and so on does not mean that they have read the instruction manual, just that they have mastered the things that mean something to them. It is the same with cell phones and computers. People tend towards minimum effort in most things, so, make it intuitive and people will use it. Apple is very good at that. I know from my own work that few people use computers to their full potential and most just use the word processor or games.

I respectfully suggest that Carbon Labels do NOT fall into the category of "Interesting" or "Intuitive". Consequently, with no perceived value few will read them and fewer yet will understand them.

Carbon dioxide is what we exhale and plants BREATHE! Carbon monoxide (that is NOT being regulated in China, India and the rest of the developing world)is pollution that is harmful to US, AND the planet. Carbon offsetts do NOTHING to "save the planet." All it is, is another TAX being pushed by the privledged on the backs of the many who have far, far less than they themselves. (Do you honestly think YOU pollute more than THEIR private jets?) I can't believe a typo could cause so much autocratic confusion. This proves that Gore and his elk, are not only liers, but shameful opportunists that choose to profit off of deceit while you are punished trying to avoid a sheer act of NATURE! (? What's causing the "global warming" on Mars, and the other planets in the solar system? After all, it CAN'T be humans!!! Could it be... I don't know---THE SUN!!! Is logic finally dead? No wonder our education system is so screwed up!!!)