It takes a lot of energy to hold a UN climate conference — and lots more for delegates, activists, journalists and others to get there. That means a lot of carbon emissions. Reuters reports: “Despite efforts by the Danish government to reduce the conference’s carbon footprint, around 5,700 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be created by the summit and a further 40,500 tonnes created by attendees’ flights to Copenhagen.” According to the same report, the this is the equivalent of the amount of CO2 generated in a year by 2,300 Americans or 660,000 Ethiopians.
UPDATE: Of course it’s impossible to have a carbon-free UN conference. Some day, virtual interaction and teleconferencing might be a replacement for face-to-face negoations, but not yet. Still, by any measure, the carbon use for this conference was excessive. As the Telegraph reported, conference attendees rented over 1,200 limos, only a handful of which were hybrids or electrics. The Copenhagen airport also reported an extra 140 private jets at the peak of the conference. This exceeded the airport’s hanger capacity, so many of these planes had to fly to other regional airports to park. If convention delegates and other attendees were really interested in sending a message, much of this excess would have been avoided.
californiamom says:
Apparently they never heard of video conferencing.
December 17, 2009, 3:24 pmtheobromophile says:
It’s sort of like eating filet mignon and foie gras at a vegetarian conference. Crikey.
December 17, 2009, 3:37 pmrbj says:
Or eating filet mignon and foi gras at that UN poverty summit in South Africa a few years ago.
December 17, 2009, 3:41 pmKen says:
Blaming future worldwide catastrophe on a statistically insignificant gas based on computer modeling of what is supposed to happen is highly suspect–on several levels.
December 17, 2009, 3:42 pmBrea says:
I needed to share this with you. If you care about the direction this world is going, I urge you to read more:
http://www.maolovesyou.com
December 17, 2009, 3:58 pmSyd Henderson says:
In other words this major conference produced less than .0000007 times the annual carbon footprint of the United States.
December 17, 2009, 4:17 pmroger thistle says:
check your math, Syd
December 17, 2009, 4:25 pmFub says:
But the conference delegates are important people who are saving the world. Those 660,000 Ethiopians or 2300 Americans are just little people. No doubt the delegates can explain why they should be glad to stop leaving carbon footprints for a year just to further this important effort.
December 17, 2009, 4:34 pmArrowSmith says:
They hypocrisy is stunning. If the AGWists truly cared, they’d have done the video-conferencing thing to SET THE EXAMPLE. But no, we’re supposed to swallow this along with Al Gore’s indulgences.
December 17, 2009, 4:57 pmSamgee Gamwise says:
What a bunch of hypocrites. If they really cared about the planet they would all walk to a meeting in a cave lit by organic soy candles and take notes on old bits of discarded newspapers. Anyone who flies an airplane or drives a car or uses electricity has no right to complain or care about global warming.
December 17, 2009, 5:04 pmArrowSmith says:
Ever hear of “lead by example”. If anyone walks the talk it’s GW Bush with his Crawford Ranch’s use of geothermal energy. But he’s not a communist trying to wreck the Western economy out of misplaced guilt by Gaia.
December 17, 2009, 5:10 pmBD says:
The unfortunate thing is that the “do as I say not as I do” types like Algore would like the 2300 Americans to live more like the 660,000 Ethiopians
December 17, 2009, 5:18 pmjccamp says:
“… equivalent of the amount of CO2 generated in a year by 2,300 Americans or 660,000 Ethiopians.”
or 2.5 Al Gores.
December 17, 2009, 5:24 pmSamgee Gamwise says:
Exactly right, Arrowsmith and BD. These tree-hugging commie pinko ennviro-nazis are the ones who are destroying the planet with their hypocritical “conferences” about so-called “global warming” and their giant polluting patchouli factories. The best example of someone who REALLY cares about the planet is obviously George W. Bush, a man who clears brush with his BARE HANDS. Lying Algore Hypocriteface and the Obamassiah just sit at their electricity-guzzling laptops in their gas-guzzling jets planning the collapse of the U.S. economy and the downfall of Western society. Stinking hypocrites.
December 17, 2009, 5:37 pmGuest101 says:
Professor Adler, quite seriously, is there a point to this post other than riling up the comment base to say things from which you can distance yourself? I’m sure that you (unlike some commenters) understand that the emissions generated by the conference are justified from the conferees’ perspective if the conference leads to long-term reductions in emissions that (hopefully more than) offset the carbon footprint of the conference itself. There’s no more hypocrisy here than one might allege against an entrepreneur who, hoping to make money on a business venture, sets out by outlaying some startup capital. So, other than plausible deniability for the badly-reasoned rants it was sure to encourage, what exactly is the point here?
December 17, 2009, 5:57 pmJust Dropping By says:
Of course all the sneering outrage just establishes the commenters’ ignorance (as usual) given that the Danish government is buying carbon offsets in the form of high-efficiency kilns for Bangladeshi brickmakers that will (a) reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by substantially more than the conference creates; (b) improve air quality; (c) reduce fuel costs for the brickmakers (improving their profit margin and/or lowering costs to consumers); and (d) produce better quality bricks than current kilns. But, hey, why bother to educate yourself when you can demonstrate your brilliant wit by making fun of Al Gore!
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/ 50386/title/Countering_Copenhagen%E2%80%99s_Carbon_Footprint_
December 17, 2009, 6:39 pmFantasiaWHT says:
Guest101, I agree with the principle, but it ignores the possibility of less-carbon-producing alternatives, like has been mentioned, video conferencing. If the same amount of future good in carbon terms can be generated by a carbon-cheaper present method, shouldn’t such a method be used?
December 17, 2009, 6:43 pmBruce Hayden says:
I have a better idea. Why don’t they build the kilns in Bangladesh and have everyone stay home and video-conference. Or, maybe even better, open an abortion clinic there. In the long run, reducing their birth rate will likely do more for the climate than some kilns.
Assuming of course that you buy into the CO2 concept in the first place, and the carbon offset indulgences in the second.
December 17, 2009, 7:11 pmCurt Fischer says:
This sounds too good to be true! If those kilns do reduce fuel costs and produce better quality bricks than current kilns, shouldn’t the brickmakers be trying to obtain them on their own?
Suppose in World A, kiva.org gave some brickmakers a loan with which they could buy the kilns. In World B, kiva.org decides not to do the loan and Denmark’s climaterati have to cough up the money instead. World A and World B would have the same reduction in carbon emissions from the new kilns, because in either world, the brickmakers get the newer, better kilns…but only World B would have the “offsets”.
Carbon offsets are only meaningful if they off set emissions that would have happened but for the offset. But offset-funded projects seem to have many other merits besides mere emissions mitigation. If they’re all so meritorious, it seems that at least some of them would have happened even without the offset.
December 17, 2009, 7:33 pmJestak says:
The “why don’t they just video conference?” argument sounds good at first glance, but it isn’t really valid. If you know anything about how international conferences like Copenhagen really work, you know that a very great deal of important interaction takes place outside of the formal conference sessions. It takes place over lunch or dinner, in the hallways, in informal meetings late at night, and so on. I’d encourage people to read Paul Blustein’s recent book, Misadventures of the Most Favored Nations. It’s about the WTO, and in Blustein’s accounts of recent WTO meetings, you can see many examples of the informal interaction I’m talking about, and of how important such interactions often are.
Needless to say, if you video conference, you lose all this informal interaction outside the formal sessions. Therefore, the notion that a video conference could accomplish as much as face-to-face meetings is simply not valid.
I agree with Guest101 in not seeing any real point to this post, aside from Mr. Adler wanting to be snarky.
December 17, 2009, 7:35 pmFantasiaWHT says:
Jestak:
1st, generally agree about Adler here
2nd, that’s a pretty good point, but couldn’t private IM’s and or even separate chat rooms provide a forum for the back-hallway politics? I wouldn’t say the idea is “invalid” as you do, although I would concede “less likely” or maybe even “unlikely”
hehe… that just gave me a great mental image of Obama in bed, presidential PJ’s on, sleek little netbook on his lap, typing in leet-speak when Michelle turns over and says “Barry, hunny, stop chatting with Merkl and go to sleep”
December 17, 2009, 7:53 pmstill skeptical says:
Jestak, I see your point about how video does not work as well as a live conference, but that is true as a matter of current habits. If we are all expected to change our ways dramatically to address carbon, why can’t people learn to call each other up for those separate one-on-one discussions and such? If I’m supposed to ride the bus or accept other tradeoffs, why can’t my Benevolent Masters do a bit, too?
Really, why does Al Gore have a McMansion (or two) as an empty-nester? The other 90% of us are heating smaller houses.
December 17, 2009, 7:54 pmFantasiaWHT says:
Actually I take that back, I think the internet and world-wide communication should allow MORE of the meetings where things really get done than the current system that requires all participants to be in the same geographical location. All it requires is some adaptation.
I know big shots are loathe to give up on the expensive dinners, liquors, and cigars they can fete each other with all week long, but maybe we should expect less costly and more productive uses of their time from them.
December 17, 2009, 8:01 pmSamgee Gamwise says:
Great point, Bruce Hayden, but why stop at abortions? If the liberal tree-huggers used nuclear weapons to vaporize all Christians, children, and Medicare recipients, they would reduce CO2 emissions much more than their silly “offsets” will. Therefore, this “offset” idea is completely useless and they are a bunch of stinking hypocrites. Besides, CO2 is part of AIR. The more the better, I say.
December 17, 2009, 8:05 pmFantasiaWHT says:
Another point against the idea that it’s ok to “spend” (or “waste”) carbon this way so long as it results in an equal or greater amount of carbon NOT being “spent” elsewhere.
Isn’t that the same justification those who collect money for charity and skim off the top for their personal gain use? That’s a recurring theme for wholesome teenage drama tv shows – teenager decides to collect money to help some downtrodden folk, gets a ton of cash, and decides it would be just peachy-keen for her to use some of the money to buy herself some nice clothes. Then teenager gets caught, learns the true meaning of charity, repents, and apologizes to all the homeless people.
December 17, 2009, 8:06 pmnicehonesty says:
I think everyone here understands how international conferences like Copenhagen really work:
Countless government officials and bureacrats jet off to a foreign country, stay in luxury hotels, get chauffered around in limos, are fed lavish meals, make a bunch of shady backroom deals to advance their personal interests, fail to do anything to substantively address the problem under consideration, and then announce that they’ll have to hold another international conference on the topic next year.
The hoi polloi are more tolerant of these shenanigans when they’re not being lectured about the need to cut back on excessive lifestyle choices in order to save the planet.
December 17, 2009, 8:16 pmmarkm says:
If they really needed to conference in person, there are still a few carbon-neutral square riggers sailing the Atlantic. And they’d get all the informal togetherness they could stand pulling on lines, reefing sales, and bunking in hammocks slung 18 inches apart in a tiny fo’castle.
December 17, 2009, 8:36 pmSnack McSnarkerston says:
Yeah that worked out nice for Mike Dukakis riding the train to work. Hah!
December 17, 2009, 8:48 pmCato The Elder says:
Apparently we have a cool $20 billion lying about to bribe developing (and despotic) countries to do absolutely nothing tangible about global warming except pinky-swear they won’t yell too loudly at the next conference. The Administration is not even pretending to have the numbers add up anymore.
December 17, 2009, 8:49 pmCopenhagen’s Carbon Footprint | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] more here: Copenhagen’s Carbon Footprint Share this [...]
December 17, 2009, 9:14 pmTatil says:
In other words, one millionth of the targeted annual emissions. If this is any kind of travesty for you, I’d like you to meet the word “bias.” Bias, here are the people deeply disturbed by the attempts to deprive them of their right to live in denial. I am sure you’ll get along well.
December 17, 2009, 9:20 pmlgm says:
What a letdown. This kind of childish post is more appropriate for MichelleMalkin than VC. Indeed MM has been posting versions of it for years (Al Gore’s carbon footprint, …). Please grow up.
December 17, 2009, 9:24 pmFantasiaWHT says:
I think pointing out Al Gore’s hypocrisy is vastly different than this. Al Gore can’t claim that his mansions are contributing to reduced carbon emissions in the long run.
December 17, 2009, 9:35 pmgimpyhippy says:
You gotta spend money to make money. Similarly, you gotta emit tons of carbon to reduce carbon . . . or something like that.
December 17, 2009, 9:37 pmA. Zarkov says:
But why do many of the attendees need fly in on private jets, and travel around in limos? Surely setting some kind of an example means something? Why can’t the conference accomplish its goals without all that profligacy?
How about simply banning private jets? Do they serve any social purpose? Someone can get to his destination on commercial aviation just as easily.
December 17, 2009, 9:43 pmKen says:
This is rich. If indeed Bangledeshi brick makers are the beneficiaries of Danish guilt, this scheme is so wildly against its purported aim it becomes a farce.
If the new imported kilns are, in fact, pumping out high quality bricks at a lower cost, then it stands to reason that the supply of these bricks should spur a higher demand for brick construction; as opposed to say mud hut shanty construction (not as sturdy but definitely less carbon intensive).
This higher demand for bricks will result in the new kilns being utilized more than the old ones ever were, negating the modest energy/carbon savings.
As the demand for bricks grows, because the market is now being supplied with a steady stream of cheap, high quality bricks, other suppliers will come online to meet this demand. Generally speaking, this second stream will not be as efficient as the subsidized Danish kilns, but we are in the beginning of a brick bubble, so efficiency be damned. It would not be surprising if this second stream actually started using the kilns that were abandoned in favor of the Danish kilns. These second stream bricks will sell for a little more than the Danish bricks, but demand has to be satisfied.
Soon a third supply will come via cheap imported Chinese bricks that will come to market even cheaper than the first stream Danish bricks, but at a higher carbon cost. Soon these cheap but high carbon Chinese bricks will begin to chip away at the local producers market share, thereby depleting the demand for the more “green” local bricks. This lack of demand will eventually result in the operators of the Danish kilns to stop investing in the upkeep of the imported kilns and their expensive imported parts. Soon thereafter the high efficiency Danish Kilns will cease to operate, as the upkeep is not worth the investment.
The local brick makers will likely abandon those kilns for the good ol’ days of local kilns for local bricks. But, they cannot compete in the new high brick demand environment that the Chinese bricks now dominate. The local brick makers, not being as daft as one might think, begin a “local brick movement” imploring their fellow Bangladeshis to purchase only locally produced bricks. They play on their local customers sense of tradition, as these new-old bricks are produced in the old fashion inefficient kilns. To help prop up the price of the new-old bricks, the local makers sell their bricks at farmers markets and swap meets at highly inflated prices–marketing them as “local” and “slow-bricks.” Their new customers are elite Bangladeshis looking to cash in some of their guilt over building big brick houses, by buying the local bricks–thus creating a new market for new-old bricks where a market did not previously exist. Sensing a new market, the Chinese brick makers begin to make bricks in the old way too, and sell them to middle men who market them at the same farmer’s markets. Soon the old way becomes the new way.
Thus, the Danish, in their effort to “offset” the carbon of the symposium have single-handedly created a brick commodity bubble in Bangladesh which eventually leads to a higher carbon output than was previously there. Have destroyed air quality as more and more kilns are needed to produce even more bricks than before. Of course fuel costs go through the roof, as more kilns are fired up. Moreover, to compete with the Chinese bricks, quality is sacrificed.
Further, all of these brick buildings are put to the test as a rather large earthquake hits the region. Everyone knows that brick construction is not made to withstand such forces. All of the new houses fall down. But instead of building with more sturdy materials, an unintended circumstance of the brick bubble has been the wholesale loss of skills to produce buildings in any other way. Therefore, they need to produce even more bricks–without the Danish kilns, which, being abandoned, are now inhabited by an endangered species or bird and cannot be moved.
Sound implausible? This prediction is based on a computer model. And no you cannot see the numbers behind the model–you just have to have faith.
December 17, 2009, 9:51 pmjccamp says:
Just dropping by –
Take a look at this article. You have to admit some of this is a little excessive. There are so many private jets arriving, that the overflow is being shuttled to outlying airports (at a cost of some level of carbon emissions), only 5 out of 1200 limousines are some version of hybrid, etc. Surely there could have been some more efficient way to manage this, like say, having it in NYC (or Berlin or London or…) and having the delegates use scheduled airline flights that were making the trip anyway, in a place with existing support services.
The link to the “Science news” article is down. Do you remember how many brick makers using the new kilns for how many years equates to the hundreds of limos and privates jets?
And you have to admit, the contrast of the what the conferees are suggesting, and what they are actually doing personally, is, at the least, ironic, if not downright absurd.
And, sorry, but Al Gore just makes one big fat target of opportunity. He does keep opening his mouth and talking about the Earth’s molten center, the Arctic ice, inventing the Internet, you know…
December 17, 2009, 10:19 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Jestak,
The “why don’t they just video conference?” argument sounds good at first glance, but it isn’t really valid. If you know anything about how international conferences like Copenhagen really work, you know that a very great deal of important interaction takes place outside of the formal conference sessions. It takes place over lunch or dinner, in the hallways, in informal meetings late at night, and so on.
Which is why the quality of the food (and of the accommodations and so on) is of major importance. Nothing serious is going to get done in Hoboken over baloney sandwiches in shabby hallways.
Look, I understand the “all the real business gets done informally” part. But I also gather that all the real business generally gets done by people whose names we never hear; it isn’t the heads of state who are doing the negotiating here. Which does make it seem kind of pointless to fly them halfway around the planet to say their allotted three minutes’ worth. Can’t we just fly in the negotiators to some quiet spot and leave the grandstanders in their home countries speaking their three minutes to the camera?
And how can you possibly not snark about people whose idea of saving the planet involves flying to Denmark from (e.g.) California not to negotiate, but to hold up signs and shout?
December 17, 2009, 11:02 pmNobody At All says:
What’s that, you say? An unpriced externality?
Fantastic point. Superb, really.
December 17, 2009, 11:04 pmSamgee Gamwise says:
Right jjcamp — what this is really all about is Lying Algore Stinkypants. He is fat and ugly and stupid, and everything he says makes me want to scream. Besides, how can a liberal be rich like him anyway? I thought they wanted to save the world and get back to nature too. If he doesn’t give away his money and live in a mud hut or at least a house smaller than mine, then why should we listen to anything he has to say about so-called “global warming”? That’s just being a hypocrite, and everyone knows you don’t have to listen to hypocrites – you just plug your ears and make fun of them instead.
I’m with you on this so-called “conference” too — as long as there’s some way they could do it that would be “better for the planet” as the tree-huggers would say, they’re a bunch of lying hypocrites like Algore Twoface Sissypants. Going to this conference and causing CO2 to get there is like saying you support charity but you only give away 10 percent of your money. Selfish much? I thought you said you cared. If those enviromentasnobs or world leaders or whoever they are really cared about the planet like George W. Bush, they would find a way to have a conference with NO CO2 — and no cheating with some phony “offset” thing, either. That doesn’t count. And as long as I can point out some way they could do it better, like driving a stupid Prius or not driving at all or having their meeting on Facebook and eating beans and rice, then they are a bunch of stinky lying hypocrites like Algore McInternet-Inventor-Head.
December 17, 2009, 11:39 pmjccamp says:
I’m doing it already, jumping back and forth between here and the “Who are you?” thread…this is going to become difficult when EV stops bumping the identify yourself threads up to the top.
December 17, 2009, 11:40 pmjccamp says:
Samgee –
I don’t think I said anything remotely like any of that, but then, you’re making my point for me.
Would you not agree, for instance, that if all those thousands of people could have flown to the conference on scheduled airliners, instead of private jets, that may have indicated they had some sense of purpose in what they are preaching? Then perhaps, those same private jets would not have needed to be shuttled around to other airports, to make room for yet more private jets. So why is the conference being held in Copenhagen, and not somewhere with better commercial service? Maybe in a large urban center with public transportation, the delegates could have demonstrated the effectiveness of such, instead of requiring gas-guzzling limousines to be brought in from other countries, so, presumably, the delegates wouldn’t have to, what? Mingle with the regular people? Wait for a train? Flag down a cab? Would that have been so bad?
And Al Gore, the fellow who somehow keeps misstating those inconvenient facts, flies hither and yon on his private jet. Which uses more fuel and creates more carbon in one trans-US trip than my SUV does in 18 months. But he wants me to lose the big vehicle and get a Prius. This from the fellow who can’t be bothered to fly on a commercial airline, because his idea of conservation doesn’t apply to him, only to the rest of us. Which is exactly how this conference looks generally. The delegates don’t need to make efforts to conserve. Their job description is to make the rest of conserve.
To me, that’s called hypocrisy. And it’s not a very effective way to convince people of your point of view.
December 18, 2009, 12:03 amDavid Schwartz says:
The point is, it’s hard to take seriously a call that you have to sacrifice when it comes from people who find excuses not to sacrifice. Sure, they would have to give something up to not go to Copenhagen and be extravagant. But if they genuinely believe there’s such a serious problem, why aren’t they acting like there’s a serious problem?
What people do says a lot more than what they say. How many people at Copenhagen don’t give a damn about the science and don’t care whether there’s really any danger but just want to increase their own power, bring foreign aid to their country, or otherwise gain from the fear they’re sowing?
They don’t act like they believe what they say. And win-win offsets are a scam.
December 18, 2009, 1:32 amtheobromophile says:
Snark aside, to me, this is about more than hypocrisy; it underscores one of the largest problems that a lot of people have with our government.
In theory, the states were to be “laboratories of experimentation,” so that anything that failed would fail on a small scale and anything that succeeded could be adopted by other states. Likewise, if individuals who are running the government are inclined to, whenever possible, live under the regimes that they would foist upon the rest of us before such foisting, there may be fewer bad laws made. It would also underscore the American ideal of rule by citizen-politicians, not an elite group that is above the law.
Should the various politicians in Denmark have actually attended the conference in a way that would be consistent with the carbon caps that they would put on industrialised nations, they would probably have a much better understanding of the opposition. Maybe it would work. Maybe, if they were to divide out the proposed carbon cap of their country by the number of people in it, then limit themselves to about 1/50th of that annual per capita cap, it would not be that big of an inconvenience. More likely, after a week of public transit, commercial air travel, and vegetarianism, they would re-think their position (if rational and honest).
The private sector often has people who will use themselves as the best advertisement for their business or product. You get people like that credit monitor guy who throws his SSN up on television. One of the big-name hair removal creams was developed by a woman who tested formulations on her own daughter until it worked. A lot of companies depend on people’s “works for me” recommendation, like Subway and Jared the Subway Guy. With the government, though, we have little way of getting people to back up their belief in the integrity of what they are selling.
December 18, 2009, 1:45 amDavid Schwartz says:
Samgee: Congratulations, you’ve found the best universal refutation since “That’s what you think!”.
December 18, 2009, 1:53 amMr L says:
Going to this conference and causing CO2 to get there is like saying you support charity but you only give away 10 percent of your money. Selfish much?
This analogy fails pretty obviously because the objection isn’t that they’re increasing carbon emissions while talking about reduction, but rather that the carbon emissions are grossly excessive, orders of magnitude worse than the behaviors they’re trying to curtail. Maybe if you were screaming about how poor people would die in waves without a 50% tithe.
I gotta wonder why on every other front, from Republican family values crap to American foreign policy to celebrities’ love lives hypocrisy matters, and how…but here? “Who cares?” “Stop being so childish!” Waaaaah. These talks have serious credibility problems as-is, this kind of thing will only make things worse – they still have to go back and sell this to the public, after all, and it’s not unreasonable to expect the leadership to set an example. If hypocrisy ever matters, it’s here.
December 18, 2009, 7:39 ambyomtov says:
David Schwartz,
How many people at Copenhagen don’t give a damn about the science and don’t care whether there’s really any danger but just want to increase their own power, bring foreign aid to their country, or otherwise gain from the fear they’re sowing?
I don’t know.
How many people in the US who claim there’s nothing to worry about don’t give a damn about the science and don’t care whether there’s any danger and are just trying to protect their own economic interests or gain political power or increase their radio/TV audience?
If you (and many others on this thread) are going to criticize people for taking firm positions that are based not on understanding the science but on advancing personal interests then you might take a look at those on your side as well, all the more so as one of the major accustions being hurled here is “hypocricy.”
December 18, 2009, 9:23 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Copenhagen’s Carbon Footprint -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Carbon and Eugene Volokh, Rohan Kapur. Rohan Kapur said: Copenhagen Conference more damaging to the environment than 2,300 Americans or 660,000 Ethiopians http://bit.ly/5CA4BE [...]
December 18, 2009, 9:36 amDavid Schwartz says:
byomtov: I fully recognize that there are plenty of people on “my side” of this issue who do my side no favors, believe me. However, they are not guilty of the same kind of hyprocrisy (at least on this issue).
People should be protecting their own economic interests. Radio broadcasters should be acting to increase their ratings. That’s their job.
They’re not the one’s calling for huge sacrifices from others.
December 18, 2009, 11:09 ambyomtov says:
David Schwartz,
People should be protecting their own economic interests. Radio broadcasters should be acting to increase their ratings. That’s their job.
Yes, but does that include making claims for which they have no basis, and which, if they are acted on, and are wrong, will lead to catastrophe?
I took your comment as criticizing people for taking strong stands without understanding the science. Is that OK as long as you make money or win an election by doing it?
I think blindly urging people to ignore a possibly quite serious threat, in the interests of personal gain, is a lot worse than whatever the Copenhagen delegates may be guilty of.
December 18, 2009, 11:31 amA. Criminal says:
As a criminal I understand that Gore and his cohorts need their mansions, private planes and limos to get their important live-saving message across, for without those props the peasantry might confuse them with regular old run-of-the-mill hucksters such as myself, and Gore etc are far more savvy, hypocritical and sanctimonious than that.
But it’s all okay because a different shyster spent someone else’s money on a brick factory in some other country.
December 18, 2009, 11:31 amDavid Schwartz says:
That was a minor part of it, but the major part is about hyprocrisy. The major part is about advocating the use government force to compel others to make massive sacrifices while yourself engaging in conspicuous consumption. And how much worse is it if they actually do believe they’re contributing to a massive catastrophy that will destroy the lives of millions?
I just don’t see these two things as comparable. To find comparable hyprocrisy on the other side, you’d have to find someone who genuinely believes humans are causing catastrophic global warming but nevertheless, for his own advancement, acts to prevent reductions in emissions that he thinks would be effective.
December 18, 2009, 12:16 pmwws says:
And now the Copenhagen conference is collapsing, and all of the hopes for cap’n'tax with it!
Sweet, sweet justice, the warmist’s agenda is dead111
December 18, 2009, 12:28 pmjccamp says:
byomtov –
“How many people in the US who claim there’s nothing to worry about don’t give a damn about the science…”
I can only speak for myself, but I don’t claim there’s nothing to worry about. I do, however, assert that claims of looming catastrophe have an insufficient basis to accept at face value. The ostensible arguments in favor have been so manipulated and distorted that they have zero believability. Whatever credible argument existed has been so buried by political hot air and buffoons like Al Gore that the genuine article is being painted with the same brush. And then we get the current media circus in Copenhagen…
How should we react? There may actually be some substance to theories of AGW, but I recognize a boondoggle when I see one. And, unlike so many in Copenhagen, I’m not flying around on a private jet or riding in a limo as a benefit of my opinion.
If the average person is expected to give a damn about the science, then perhaps the GW science should no longer be run like La Cosa Nostra, where dissenters are rubbed out and the law of omerta is supreme.
December 18, 2009, 1:23 pmSam says:
…”a very great deal of important interaction takes place outside of the formal conference sessions. It takes place over lunch or dinner, in the hallways, in informal meetings late at night, and so on. I’d encourage people to read Paul Blustein’s recent book, Misadventures of the Most Favored Nations. It’s about the WTO, and in Blustein’s accounts of recent WTO meetings, you can see many examples of the informal interaction I’m talking about, and of how important such interactions often are.”
Someone please tell me what any of the super duper totally awesome informal meetings over steak have produced, anything? Can you actually point to anything that has ever improved the climate as a result of these awesome informal meetings? They are super duper important aren’t they? So tell me, what have they produced? I hear all this talk about great stuff being done, yet no one has mentioned anything great that has been done. How many degrees have they saved? That is the point of the totally awesome informal conversations that must take place in far away places by these really smart people isn’t it? To lower the temperature right?
December 18, 2009, 2:05 pmtonetel says:
Daryl Hannah would not agree with you. There are some “True Believers” out there, and they see right through people like Al Gore.
December 18, 2009, 2:17 pmFederal Dog says:
“Going to this conference and causing CO2 to get there is like saying you support charity but you only give away 10 percent of your money. Selfish much?”
Actually, it’s like saying you support charity, but you never offer any, and you fraudulently convert funds donated for charity so you can travel around and publicly proclaim how much you support charity.
December 18, 2009, 3:24 pmbyomtov says:
David Schwartz,
I agree that it would have been wise, desirable even, for the conference attendees, other than those with very good reasons, to take commercial flights and otherwise try to minimize their energy use.
But the conference was going to use energy regardless, and whatever the total we were going to be treated to snarky “Al Gore is fat” comments and the like, which really do very little to advance the discussion. Like some commenters above, I see little point to this post other than to invite that sort of thing.
December 18, 2009, 4:51 pmMark Buehner says:
Eh, Com Ed is gonna make electricity regardless, are we really gonna dwell on whether they use coal or something else? Who cares, just buy some indulgences and appease the volcano god… excuse me the carbon god. What do the high priests have to worry about anyway? Faith, not acts.
December 18, 2009, 4:56 pmMark Buehner says:
Exactly right- and moreover these are EXACTLY the kinds of excesses they have come together to build a political coalition, ideally with the force of treaty and law, to put a stop to… for everybody else. Its rather like having a temperance meeting in a saloon, or better yet an anti-exploitation of children meeting in a Bangkok brothel. These people have NO intention of living by the rules they intend to force on everyone else, that is obvious.
At least the pigs in Animal Farm played the workers role a little bit before they established their revolution.
December 18, 2009, 5:01 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Do you mean wise strategically? The point of this post is that the people demanding sacrifices from us are acting like they don’t believe that what they’re saying is true. Why don’t you think that matters?
If the average person can’t evaluate the science, why can’t they (and why shouldn’t they) judge the behavior?
December 18, 2009, 5:29 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
That’s it.
And further – if Al Gore, as much as he supposedly cares about all this, can’t find a way to dial back his carbon dioxide generation, how in the heck are the rest of us (who have day jobs) supposed to?
I will go ahead and say that I would not be NEARLY as skeptical about AGW if I saw the proponents of it acting like they believed it.
December 18, 2009, 7:47 pmmarkm says:
If their physical presence is truly necessary they could have flown commercial flights (or trains, for those starting in western Europe), taken the airport/hotel shuttle bus instead of limos, etc. But they didn’t. By flying private jets and riding limos, they say one of three things:
1) I don’t really believe CO2 emissions are endangering the planet, I just want to use that claim to increase my power or wealth.
2) I believe CO2 emissions endanger the planet, but I don’t care enough to inconvenience myself.
3) I deeply care about reducing CO2 emissions, but I’m too important to be inconvenienced. Let 10 unimportant people who uses 1/5 as much carbon as I be forced to cut that in half, instead.
December 18, 2009, 8:05 pmTed says:
Has anyone considered that maybe the attendees couldn’t attend the conference in a more carbon-friendly way? Not because it wasn’t physically possible or that alternatives couldn’t be imagined – buses, commercial flights, rice and beans, etc. – but because most of the attendees wouldn’t attend at all if the conference didn’t supply the usual accoutrements. That is, because of selfishness.
I imagine most world leaders, even from developing countries, are accustomed to being treated like dignitaries. They may truly believe in the cause, but are simply be unable to alter their behavior and expectations – even momentarily – to conform to the cause. That may be equally true for the humans throwing the party, who want to create an atmosphere of legitimacy to those dignitaries. The only thing that the attendees’ actions prove (to me) is that it’s very hard to voluntarily change human behavior to conform to a particular cause; it does not comment on the correctness or worthiness of the cause itself.
I am reminded of when Congress asked the management of the Big Three to beg for their jobs. Because the public appeared concerned with corporate spending habits, GM’s CEO drove a Malibu (the cheapest possible piece of crap his company produces) to Washington. I’m not convinced the CEO’s behavior proved a willingness to reduce corporate spending. Nor am I convinced that it proved every domestic use of a private jet is a gross waste of shareholder profits. To me, it appeared to be a public relations decision, which did not inform, one way or another, the underlying issues.
Viewed this way, the attendees’ behavior may underscore why AGW is such a serious problem and actually supports the conference’s goal of moving toward a global climate treaty. If people who have the current means and beliefs to alter their behavior to be more carbon-conscious are unable to do so, it simply emphasizes what kind of incentives will be necessary to convince others, who may not possess similar means or beliefs, to change their behavior.
Sufficient incentives – for example, the ever-increasing scarcity of carbon-based fuels – might not occur for a long time. But people’s strong aversion to voluntarily reducing their use of such fuel, as evidenced by the attendees’ failure to alter their own behavior, doesn’t bode well for the future generations, who will need to deal with those “incentives.” Of course, it will make for spectacular Fox News reports.
December 18, 2009, 8:44 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Ted: If they don’t believe the threat is real enough to convince them to break their own habits, then they don’t believe it’s real enough to convince me to break mine. If you believe X is good and Y bad, then you should do X and not Y. If you want to compel me to do X instead of Y, you need a greater belief, not a lesser one.
December 18, 2009, 10:12 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Ted,
If people who have the current means and beliefs to alter their behavior to be more carbon-conscious are unable to do so, it simply emphasizes what kind of incentives will be necessary to convince others, who may not possess similar means or beliefs, to change their behavior.
Bravo! Truly virtuosic spin. But . . .
If your country is beset by food shortages, and its leaders meet to discuss the crisis at a sumptuous banquet, is the lesson you take away “Even people who know there is a shortage and are concerned about it can’t help gorging themselves when they’re allowed; so let’s have mandatory food rationing for all”?
December 18, 2009, 11:12 pmbyomtov says:
Do you mean wise strategically? The point of this post is that the people demanding sacrifices from us are acting like they don’t believe that what they’re saying is true. Why don’t you think that matters?
David, I do wish you wouldn’t interpret my comments in the worst possible light.
No, I didn’t mean strategically (by which I take it you mean in the interests of influencing public opinion). I meant that that’s what they should have done as a matter of principle. Strategically it would have been useless since, as I mentioned earlier, whatever amount of carbon they emitted it would have drawn similar snarky posts and comments.
So I disagree that the point of the post was, as you put it, “that the people demanding sacrifices from us are acting like they don’t believe that what they’re saying is true.” I think the point was just to take a cheap shot, and might well have been written had the conference produced half, or a tenth, the emissions it did. “Wow, 66,000 Ethiopians, or 230 Americans.”
Still, I’m glad you’re keeping the hypocrisy watch. I hope you’ll be equally alert and outraged the next time someone wonders why conservatives are so eager to start wars, and so reluctant to fight in them.
December 18, 2009, 11:23 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
byomtov,
Still, I’m glad you’re keeping the hypocrisy watch. I hope you’ll be equally alert and outraged the next time someone wonders why conservatives are so eager to start wars, and so reluctant to fight in them.
And I hope anyone who has ever used the word “chickenhawk,” or snarked about this or that conservative’s sexual misbehavior, will recuse him/herself from complaining when people are amused at the spectacle of so many private jets flocking to a conference on global warming that some had to be parked in other countries.
There is this small difference, which is not favorable to your side. Putting yourself, or people you love, under military discipline and the drudgery and danger it entails is hard. Living up to the demands of Christian sexual morality is, for many, very difficult. Not having the “carbon footprint” of, well, basically anyone at Copenhagen whose name is familiar to you or to me is trivially easy for the vast, vast majority of humanity. We are not talking impossible moral standards or heavy personal sacrifices here.
December 18, 2009, 11:46 pmDavid Schwartz says:
So, given that they didn’t do that, we are left with two possibilities. Either they are not men of principle, and/or they don’t believe AGW is a genuine threat.
I honestly don’t see how you can defend this point. Do you think it doesn’t matter whether the people who are trying to lead us to massive sacrifices by means of fear do or don’t believe there’s a genuine threat? Or do you really not think this bears on that question?
It’s honestly really hard not to take your responses in the worst light.
I notice you didn’t reply to: “If the average person can’t evaluate the science, why can’t they (and why shouldn’t they) judge the behavior?”
Isn’t that the point?
December 19, 2009, 12:01 amprivate jet ownership says:
@ Laura(southernxyl) , I visited your blog. Really nice and lot of poems. Nice work.
December 19, 2009, 12:26 amDavid Sucher says:
Better with your update but you are still reaching to find something to complain about.
You state “Still, by any measure, the carbon use for this conference was excessive. As the Telegraph reported, conference attendees rented over 1,200 limos, only a handful of which were hybrids or electrics.”
Show me the beef on “by any measure, the carbon use for this conference was excessive…” What’s your factual basis for that conclusion? Mere assertion won’t cut it. You have to show us your line of reasoning — “show your work” — isn’t that what they say elementary school? Now you have “spotted an issue” and you get a point for that; but honestly, you need better for such a huge statement.
As to “conference attendees rented over 1,200 limos, only a handful of which were hybrids or electrics” is it possible that there are simply not enough hybrids or electrics in existence in or near Copenhagen to satisfy the demand?
December 19, 2009, 3:32 pmDavid Sucher says:
Btw, I want to make it clear that your point may be well-taken and that this conference might have been organized so as to create far less environmental impact. Your comment as a question would be a good one. “Could Copenhagen have been done so as to create less carbon?”
But you conclude on the basis of no information that “much of this excess would have been avoided.”
That’s an assertion and is not backed-up by even the slightest evidence.
December 19, 2009, 3:36 pmDavid Schwartz says:
You seem to be forgetting that they’re the ones trying to convince us.
December 19, 2009, 6:06 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I’d be very surprised to learn that there is no public transportation in and around Copenhagen.
December 19, 2009, 6:34 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
As to “conference attendees rented over 1,200 limos, only a handful of which were hybrids or electrics” is it possible that there are simply not enough hybrids or electrics in existence in or near Copenhagen to satisfy the demand?
Um, what Laura(southernxyl) said just above. It is not, so I’m told, entirely impossible to get around Copenhagen without a limo. Granted (provisionally) that heads of state might need them for security reasons, but even if they and their entourages each needed three limos per nation, we’re off by a factor of three or so.
And I would bet that there are lots of hybrid/electric cars for rent in Copenhagen. Only they’re maybe not the size and shape of a limo. Might even be somewhat aged first-year Priuses or something. That should matter why?
December 19, 2009, 9:32 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
David Sucher,
As to “conference attendees rented over 1,200 limos, only a handful of which were hybrids or electrics” is it possible that there are simply not enough hybrids or electrics in existence in or near Copenhagen to satisfy the demand?
I forgot entirely to say the first and most obvious thing, which is that apparently even to get to 1,200, vehicles were having to be imported from other countries. That’s not hybrid/electric limos; that’s limos, period.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091214094410AA1ycKF
was the first place I found the report when I searched.
I mean, other considerations aside, presumably Copenhagen has hosted conferences before; used the same space before; had to deal with a lot of foreigners needing to get into the city and around it in a short space of time before. Have they ever before needed to bring in limos from other countries? Park people’s private planes in other countries, because there wasn’t enough space at the domestic airports?
Really, there’s expected and (so to speak) reasonable profligacy and then there’s WTF?
December 19, 2009, 9:48 pmjccamp says:
David Sucher –
“show your work”
You’re right, of course, in that I personally did not test for and estimate total carbon use for say, an average day in Copenhagen, and the effect of the addition of a hundred or more private jets flying in, shuttling to other airports, limousines being driven in from other countries and then being driven around and allowed to sit idling in Copenhagen, etc. I relied on published reports from reputable media outlets, such as the link I inserted in my original post. Perhaps I also relied too much on common sense.
My suggestion was that the conference could have saved considerable carbon generation if the attendees flew in on commercial airliners which would make the same trip, filled or empty, and that in a more urban environment, public transportation exists – at no small public expense, I might add, and for precisely this reason, i. e. resource conservation and non-pollution – which might have negated a need for those thousand plus gas guzzlers. You know, the ones that get worse gas mileage than my personal vehicle that has been the source of so much political opprobrium lately, such as in Congress (“GM needs to quit making gas guzzlers and concentrate on the hybrids that Americans really want”). But I digress. You can’t possibly disagree that flying on a scheduled airline flight, which adds nothing to the planes carbon impact but lessens the per-passenger impact, is preferable (from a carbon reduction standpoint) to flying in on a private jet. Or 140 private jets. Making multiple flights around the country to make room on the tarmac for yet more private jets. You also cannot fail to understand that using an existing subway or bus (or taxi, whatever) also does not add to carbon generation, since its exists separately and independently from the event, but that adding a thousand or two limos into the city does significantly add to the carbon footprint of the event. So, in an event intended to discuss and effect the reduction of – specifically – greenhouse gases, why hold the event in a locale guaranteed to generate excessive greenhouse gases?
“Is it possible that there are simply not enough hybrids or electrics in existence in or near Copenhagen to satisfy the demand?”
Sorry, I guess I was unclear. That was exactly my point.
“But you conclude on the basis of no information that “much of this excess would have been avoided. That’s an assertion and is not backed-up by even the slightest evidence.”
Well, I suspect – without direct evidence, granted – that you’re just being deliberately obtuse.
December 19, 2009, 11:50 pmTed says:
Michelle,
If rationing food is a solution to food shortages, and a banquet is held to enact a law or treaty prescribing such rationing, then I don’t see the relevance that the types and amounts of food served at the banquet has to the issue of food shortages and rationing. It might be a poor public relations decision, but it is not “hypocrisy” in the sense that it undermines the actual cause of the banquet. Assuming, of course, that the dignitaries will be subject to the enacted food rationing laws if the banquet succeeds.
The argument being made by AGW and climate summit hopefuls is that (1) AGW is real, (2) it is or will be dangerous, (3) it can be affected by changes in human behavior, and (4) that such changes must be compelled by laws/teaties. What is implied by the fourth and final conclusion is that people won’t do change their behavior voluntarily, at least not soon enough (whenever that is). This assumption seems more justified, not less justified, by the attendees’ apparent inability to change their behavior at the conference, particularly when failure to do so may be a poor public relations decision.
The same reasoning applies to your example. The food shortage may be caused by excessive gluttony, which people, including the banquet attendees, may be unable to curb voluntarily until it’s too late (famine). But under the current laws, gluttonous banquets are the norm, occurring often. Presumably, without the gluttonous banquet at issue, no rationing laws would ever be enacted and the gluttonous banquets would continue unabated, eventually causing famine in all or significant parts of the country.
The ultimate point is, the behavior of the proponents of a cause does not inform, one way or another, the validity of the cause or the validity of responses to the cause. It is simply more evidence of people behaving as people do, often in their own interests and often irrationally. I agree that such behavior may be uncouth, even offensive, but don’t confuse the legitimacy of a cause or argument with your reaction to the person promoting it.
As it is, private jets and limos are the norm for heads of state and foreign dignitaries. No one appears to disputes this. To expect the attendees’ to change their behavior voluntarily simply ignores the social pressures, traditions and, frankly, the human desires of the actors. Politicians are people. Be alarmed when the final treaty curtailing carbon use excludes international climate conferences and the law on food rationing excludes gluttonous banquets. Then I’ll join your and the other comments’ accusation of hypocrisy.
December 21, 2009, 1:20 pm