Zerofootprint: save the planet, impress attractive hippies

Buying "carbon credits" are not the answer. They are just a way to avoid feeling guilty. If every one really cared we wouldn't just be throwing money at the problem, we would be doing things to fix the problem. If you conserve and reduce your emmisions as much as you can then sure carbon credits *might* help. If you want to really help stop driving that SUV. Let the Flaming begin!

This is so incredibly stupid. First off, CO2 levels are lower than they have been in the past, say, when Greenland could support crops. Increased CO2 levels would mean...more plant food which would mean...more food for people which would mean...deserts would become smaller as plants spread which would mean...Africa would have food again. Ever wonder how the "ancient" Egyptians had food and what happened to fertility of the land next to the Nile river? No? Well, think about it.

Secondly, and I know this is a tough one to comprehend...everything alive on this planet is carbon-based. Shocker, isn't it? All this CO2 lunacy is like the morons in California who banned water. Maybe those are the same morons who now work in D.C. where they've declared CO2 is a pollutant. Remove all the plant food and see how long people live.

Thirdly, the only people who think planting a tree will "offset" the carbon created by taking a plane ride are ignorant or fools or both. It's like spitting in the ocean.

Fourthly, what the hell does this have to do with technology? This is a political issue. Oh, this company has a downloadable calculator. I guess that qualifies as news? Please, Please, PLEASE leave this type of crap for sites like Slashdot. This has NOTHING to do with downloadable software of any relevance. Although, it's really funny the OP thinks Canada will do anything to reduce carbon emissions. They're only a major oil supplier.

Ha! Right on, my fellow commenters, right on! Want to reduce CO2 emissions? ...then STOP BREATHING

Fred I have to say I couldn't agree with you more. I am so tired of all this global warming BS, and if it's gonna happen its gonna happen (there is no stopping it), you don't like to bad it won't happen in your lifetime anyway. Besides there was a thing called the ice age, maybe it is just a reverse effect which will lead to another ice age.

I think there was a 60 minutes brew-ha-ha about how much of your money actually goes to green causes and how much goes into someones pocket. I couldn't find anything about whether or not they are an NPO or not. Does anyone know?

DLS, why are you advertising a flat-out scam, on your front page, for what I can only hope is free? If the con artists are paying you for a link, please put it on the side with the other ads, and if not... WTF? Nearly every "carbon offset" scheme is a con to bilk well-intentioned, stupid hippies (but I repeat myself...) out of their money. I am not trolling; I merely state the facts.

If you honestly believe the "consensus" (look! another once-meaningful word co-opted by the radical left and reduced to worthlessness) on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), there are ways you can change your life that will *actually* reduce your personal carbon footprint. Even if you're lazy enough that all you're willing to do is spend money, you can do so by switching to a "green" electricity supplier (if your state allows you) or paying someone to install some home solar panels -- at least we'd be that much less dependent on foreign oil. Buying indulgences from the Church of the Green is about the least helpful thing you can do -- I'm talking to you, Al.

I'll bet you and some of these other people like Fred T., speaking of morons, still think the world is flat or that AIDS is a gay persons disease. Your all more intelligent than the scientists who study these things. Fred T., speaking of morons again, yes the body is carbon based as are the majority if not all of living things that exhange a fairly balanced exhange of carbon dioxide with the atmosphere. The use of fossil fuels, like coal which is 95% carbon, is just one example of how we throw that balance off. Methane and Chlorofluorcarbons, also byproducts of human activity, are as lethal to our enviroment. Please, don't call others morons because of their beliefs, we all entitled to an opinion ..... you idiot!

Look, I don't claim to understand Fred's comment about "everything is carbon-based" (you're also water based, but how long do we survive 100 feet under the ocean?) either, Jack. That doesn't mean you get away with making ad hominem attacks on me or him. I don't think anybody worth listening to is going to blithely suggest that we aren't generating CO2 (or CO, or methane, or CFCs) in amounts measurably different from what would naturally occur if we (humans) weren't here. BUT. That does not address several key points. Briefly:

1.) What causes climate change? Specifically, what forcing factors are most significant, and how significant are they relative to each other? Last I heard, water vapor (not any man-made gas) accounts for a very large majority of temperature forcing.

2.) How much do man-made substances in the atmosphere affect climate change and in what direction? Remember the "coming ice age" scare of the 70s.

3.) Does the amount of difference due to humans actually matter? That is, if CO2 can cause warming, how much is needed to make a measurable difference? I believe that year-to-year man-made CO2 output is a very low single-digit percentage of the total atmospheric CO2 level, which itself is a low double-digit percentage of the cause of any warming observed (see #1).

4.) Would climate change harm or help mankind? Fred sort of addressed this, but to put a finer point on it, would a few degrees of warming over the next few centuries actually do more harm than good?

5.) *If* 1-3 actually indicate that man does have a significant role in shaping climate, what's the economic cost to slow/stop warming? Would developing nations like China and India have to revert to pre-industrial civilization? Would they ever actually do that? I've seen estimates that double-digit percentages of world GDP would have to be invested over the course of several years to affect even a single degree of temperature drop.


So, Jack, in summary: we are all entitled to an opinion, but some people form opinions without examining all available information first. I freely admit that I, like the rest of humanity, don't know for sure what impact we have on the climate, but I tend towards skepticism when evidence points in that direction.

I think people that proclaim to have The Truth (like saying that methane and CFCs are "lethal to our environment") when nobody really knows for sure are the real idiots.

Also see www.terrapass.com

I tested the Zerofootprint calculator and got ludicrous results. It is a scam.

I went to the website and entered in data for a 2001 Ford Focus (4 cylinder), 5000 miles per year, 1 person in household, $10/month electric, $10/month natural gas and NOTHING else. According to Zerofootprint "That's right on the average."

I think we can all agree that such low energy use is not "right on the average" and that it is actually way below average for the U.S. or Canada. But try it yourself if you don't believe me.

It is interesting to follow the controversy about global warming wherein an increasing number of reputable scientists are stepping forward to say that maybe, just maybe, the "consensus" view of global warming (the view that Al Gore is pushing) isn't actually correct.

Here's a link to an interesting article by a reputable scientist in a reputable newspaper who says that the consensus view of global warming is wrong and that we may soon be heading into a period of global cooling:

------ Article link -------------
Read the sunspots
By R. Timothy Patterson,
Financial Post, June 20, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
or
http://tinyurl.com/35x68k

Summary: The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
---------------------------------

Al Gore says that it is the "consensus opinion of scientists" in the world that global warming is real and that it is caused by mankind. It may be true that such is the consensus opinion. But sometimes the consensus opinion is wrong.

After all, at one time it was the "consensus opinion of scientists" that the earth was flat. It has also been the "consensus opinion of scientists" that the sun orbited around the earth. Further it has been the "consensus opinion of scientists" that a "luminiferous ether" must exist in order to support the transport of light waves. And it has been the "consensus opinion of scientists" that the speed of light was infinite. We now know that in each of these cases the "consensus opinion of scientists" was just plain wrong.

Time (and the accumulation of reliable data) will tell whether the current "consensus opinion of scientists" on global warming is correct. Until then I believe it would be wise to keep an open mind on the issue and not engage in rash actions promoted by politicians and businessmen who likely have ulterior motives (i.e., power and money).

Don't let them bamboozle you. Think for yourself!