Weather 101 - Carbon Footprints

I'm a meteorologist and a math tutor. So, I guess these qualify me to ask this question, "How big is a carbon footprint?"

When it comes to shoe sizing, we know that a size 9 is bigger than a size 6 and that an EEE has a larger width than an EE. It's an area problem - length times width.

But how hard we press down could be a measure of height, giving us a volume measure: length times width times height.

Carbon Footprints?

So, what exactly is a carbon footprint?

I'm not sure. There are scores of definitions online, although most key on energy usage over a particular period of time so that one's use can be compared among other uses and users.

The problem is that the algorithms used to compute these footprints are not transparent (good luck finding out how the infamous "they" compute the footprint); many computations (e.g., carbonfootprint.com and epa.gov) bring with them lots of questions. For example, when one computes home energy use (electricity) there is no way to distinguish between clean energy use (wind, solar, nuclear) and coal or fossil fuel-generated electricity.

The result is that all the measures only provide "estimates" or "ballparks" (as EPA notes at its calculator website). Yet, the media reports these as absolute numbers.

I finally undertook a web search and discovered more than 5 million links for "computing a carbon footprint." There were about 5 million for "carbon footprint" alone and 2.7 million for "carbon offset."

Carbon Offsets

Within this now fuzzy framework, many companies have jumped on the bandwagon to help offset carbon footprints. Yes, they state what they are doing in terms of saved carbon emissions or they request contributions to help offset your carbon footprint. For offsets, the idea is that one can contribute to some organization that will generate some form of carbon dioxide savings to make up for the carbon dioxide that you've generated. The gist of many of these is to make one feel guilty that they are polluting and that they should ante up to atone. The last time I checked the Ten Commandments, "thou Shalt Not Pollute" was not listed! But, there are some countries, organizations and peoples that seem to be coveting what is mine and what is my Nation's (Commandment 10).

For example, check out the Delta website to see how Delta will match your contributions up to a paltry sum of $25,000. My professional weather society (the American Meteorological Society) has "recommended" 4 companies that they feel are legitimate carbon offset purchase sites. You can even give carbon offset "gifts" to family and friends.

So, my wife suggested that we demonstrate our concern for carbon footprints, too. She thought that we should get a post office box and then post a web site that highlights our concerns and allows people to atone for their carbon sins by contributing to us. After all, if Al Gore and others are going to make a fortune on this, why shouldn't we? In advance (and with a chuckle), thanks for your contribution to our carbon offset program!

Sometimes It Does Not Compute

The problem is that a plane on which you may have flown would have flown even without you as a passenger (unless you have a personal aircraft or have chartered a private jet). Hence, it is possible that one hundred or more people could contribute toward the same carbon offset. This may be a good thing, but it is seriously misleading.

Further, our very existence dictates that we'll leave a carbon footprint. This is biologically-based simply because we breathe and digest food.

Which brings us to the carbon footprint at Copenhagen. According to a Reuters' news story out of Copenhagen on December 14, 2009 entitled, "Copenhagen Summit Carbon Footprint Biggest Ever" we can learn much about the carbon footprint program.

Again, it's very easy to note that when lots of people travel somewhere, carbon dioxide gets produced. Okay, for this climate summit, with the most people ever and with the most ambitious agenda ever, it's not surprising that lots of carbon dioxide was generated. But, if an airplane was already flying to Copenhagen and 20 people boarded it to attend the conference, how much extra carbon dioxide did they really generate? It's not like they flew their own plane there (although some delegates clearly did so).

And, if they were at the conference and not at home, how much less carbon dioxide did they produce because they weren't driving the family car around town?

The UN reports, according to Reuters, that the carbon footprint is going to be about equivalent to the output of 660,000 Ethiopians. How did they arrive at that figure, I wonder. And were the Ethiopians adults or children, rich or poor, farm workers or industrialists?

And 660,000 Ethiopians sounds a lot worse than 2,300 Americans. Besides Ethiopia's population exceeds 80 million people.

Besides, it is unclear if this is the amount produced per day or per year? Big difference!

According to same UN study, about 90 percent of the 46,000 British (metric) tons of carbon dioxide supposedly linked to the conference was tied to flights to the conference. It's not stated how much of this is due to commercial and private aircraft. Let's assume that no one used a private jet because that would be environmentally unfriendly. That means that only 10% of the carbon generation is linked to the conference itself.

Now we are down to 230 Americans or 66,000 Ethiopians. The footprint is quite a bit less impressive.

If much of the other 90 percent was generated by private jets, then what does that say about the attendees - "do as I say, not as I do!"

The key is defining what we are talking about in meaningful terms; and right now the term "carbon footprint" and how we compute it and compensate for it just doesn't measure up.

Atonement

Meanwhile, the Danish government wants to atone for its sins in creating carbon dioxide emissions by hosting the conference. Thus, according to an article in the New York Times, a spokesman for the U.N. secretary general noted that, "The Danish government says it is offsetting the emissions through a (kiln replacement) project in Bangladesh that reduces emissions in a brick manufacturing plant." The effort is to offset more than what is needed to cover all the travel and emissions related to the conference. And, this is a good thing, since the improvements will continue to pay environmental dividends well into the future.

Still, according to the Times article, "...groups like Greenpeace say organizers didn't go far enough in addressing the event's carbon footprint. Tarjei Haaland, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace, told the Copenhagen Post that claims of being 'carbon neutral' were effectively meaningless."

Think First, Think Some More and Then Act

So, let me make my position clear. I'm all for understanding what we do to the Earth and its atmosphere, oceans, lakes and rivers. And I am all for reducing whatever this so-called "carbon footprint" includes. But I don't believe that we need to blindly throw unprecedented amounts of money at a yet fully unproven hypothesis (i.e., humans are causing recent warming). Rather, I think we can make better decisions about how we use energy (home, transportation), the products we chose and how we dispose of our waste. I think we can use capitalism and innovation to continue to push our rapidly improving energy efficiency at the individual, business, local and national levels. Collective, intelligent, meaningful efforts will do more than spending money to help Nations and people "adapt" to what is most likely going to continue happening whatever we do.

Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with learning more about our planet and its wild climatological history, filled with ice ages, warm periods, volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts and changes in ocean levels and continental shapes and orientations. Without this understanding, it will be too easy to succumb to propaganda from anyone involved in climate change science, climate change politics and climate change economics.