2.5 Million Kilograms Of CO2 Emitted Just Getting To Conference On Climate Change In Davos Switzerland.

Kloster Ski Resort at Davos SwitzerlandOne more screwed up example of “do as we say, not as we do” environmentalism. From Grist:

“The 2,630 attendees cumulatively traveled over 550,000 kilometers by plane; in doing so, they generated 2.47 million kilograms of carbon dioxide. 2,470 metric tons. Add in train travel — 57,860 more kilograms — and the total footprint for those jetting in to Davos is 2,520 metric tons of carbon dioxide.”

The Grist article points out that maybe we could excuse the carbon emissions created by world leaders and CEOs to attend the WEF Conference because their intentions, reducing the use of fossil fuels, are for the greater good. But I’m not buying it and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few attendees wore their ski boots to a meeting so they could cut out the middle step, changing, and go right to the slopes.

In a past career, I had to pick tradeshows to attend and the weather and location were very important factors. That’s why I wouldn’t be surprised if the primary motivation of leaders attending this conference was to expense a ski vacation in Switzerland and not tackling climate change. It’s hard to not be cynical but these kind of forums / events play right into the hands of FOX News. They’re chomping at the bit to show how hypocritical it is to host a conference on climate change that furthers climate change. [Grist]


Scientists Skeptical Of Climate Change, All 3% Of You, I Hope You Are Right

Tar Sands Oil

“…I suspect we’re just not genetically programmed to worry about two generations downstream, that may be the heart of the problem.”

Kerry A. Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist MIT

Whether you believe clouds will counter the effects of global warming or they won’t and we’re the cause – why can’t we accept both ideas and minimize the risk? We pointed this out in our post about the “If I Wanted America To Fail” video.

The New York Times Green Blog has an article on the issue of ‘how and why’ large groups of people still deny science and refuse to accept that our actions contribute to climate change. The article focuses on Kerry Emmanuel of MIT and his reasonable appeal to skeptics is “why risk it?” It’s a good 5 minute read that frames the climate debate more in terms of risk to future generations and less about the data used by both sides to support their positions. [NY Times]