|
|
|
Carbon Footprints - Fact and Fiction
by Harold Hough
OPPORTUNITIES & OTHER VIEWS: A COMMENTARY BY HAROLD HOUGH
Reducing one’s carbon footprint has become the hair shirt of the modern, pious ecologist. Everyone
from Al Gore to Hollywood celebrities have made an issue of reducing their carbon footprint. Of
course, when it interferes with their jet set lifestyle, they purchase indulgences (or “carbon offsets” as
they are called today). But, do carbon footprints even make sense? The fact is that carbon footprint “science”
is a mixture of statistics manipulated by environmentalists who have their own agenda,
whether it is anti-technology or pro animal rights. In many cases, what ecologists advocate is more
likely to cause an increase in carbon emissions. Let’s assume that you decide to sell your car to
save the planet. You will take public transportation for long trips and walk to the local grocery store
instead. A great way to reduce carbon emissions and help the Earth, right? Wrong! You forget that
even something as innocent as eating produces carbon and stuffing your face is more polluting than driving a smoking jalopy to the grocery store.
Here’s something to think about. Driving a typical car three miles to the grocery store adds
about 0.9 kilograms of CO2 to the atmosphere. However, if you decide to walk for the sake of the
environment, you will use up 180 calories. If you decide to replace that energy with a piece of beef,
you will eat about 100 grams, which according to environmentalists, requires the production of 3.6
Kg of CO2 emissions. And lest you think eating organic beef is the solution, you are wrong. Organic
beef produces even more carbon. “Eating less and driving to save energy would be better,” says Mr.
Goodall, a Green Party parliamentary candidate in England.
Of course, animal rights environmentalists will use those statistics to prove that we should only
eat fruits and vegetables. However, vegetarians shouldn‘t gloat. 180 calories of milk (three
quarters of a pint) produce 1.2 Kg of CO2. And the environmentally conscious vegetarian who installs
an energy efficient light bulb actually wastes more energy than the light bulb saves in a year when
buying a couple of pounds of kiwi fruit or mangos. In order to significantly reduce your food carbon
footprint you would have to throw that refrigerator out and eat locally grown cereals. Of course, you
would definitely produce a lot of carbon when you have to go to the hospital because you are suffering
from malnutrition.
Which brings up an interesting question, “Does Al Gore think he is being carbon neutral when
he wolfs down all that fresh, Japanese sushi at a cocktail party?” Does he tell the waiter, “Sorry, I
prefer some locally grown oatmeal?” I don’t think so. Our food production and distribution system does
produce carbon. But, we receive a lot of benefits in return. We have a greater variety of nutritious
food than anytime in history. Freezing and cooling takes energy, but it allows food to arrive in the
consumers hands with more nutritional value and less risk of pathogens. It also saves energy and
reduces pollution. For instance, frozen orange juice is easier to transport, lasts longer, and allows the
producer to make use of the orange skin that the consumer would throw away. And, if you didn’t use freezing and cooling to preserve your food, you
would have to visit your grocery store daily, which would require even more carbon output.
Another misconception of carbon footprints is public transportation. According to the Times of
London, the British Rail Safety and Standards Board admitted that traveling on a diesel train produces
twice as much pollution as the average family car. Former British Transportation Secretary Douglas
Alexander said, “If ten or less people travel in a train, it would be less environmentally damaging
to give each one of them a Land Rover Freelander and tell them to drive. And, that doesn’t consider
the cost of producing the infrastructure that handles public rail transportation.
Recycling is also a big producer of carbon. In fact, it makes more sense to burn newspapers for
heat than it does to put it into the recycling system. And, those disposable diapers are better because they
take up only 0.1% of landfill, while cloth diapers use energy, clean water, and detergent to clean and
reuse. Don’t forget to take those disposable diapers home in plastic bags, which are friendlier to the
environment because they require less energy to manufacture and transport than paper bags.
So, forget the latest ecological fad. The reality is that modern technology, which is a product of
the free market, has done more to improve the environment than most of the efforts of the world’s
eco-radicals.
Harold Hough has been writing about precious metals and mining for the past
fifteen years. He
is the author of three books, including Satellite Surveillance which was named
one of the Outstanding Academic Books of 1993. After graduating from Anderson
University with a degree in Economics and serving in the Navy, he worked as an
economist for two Fortune 500 companies. He now writes full time for the
Miners News.
257 Caroline St. • Punxsutawney, PA 15767
Phone: 814.427.2555 • Fax: 814.427.5164
Toll-free: 1.800.927.0560
www.starironworks.com
|
