No One Wants An Electric Car

Even though yesterday I said that this subject made my ass tired, I think that I'm going to have to talk about it now because I just paid $3.85 a gallon for gasoline and I'm not happy about it. Maybe, if I thought that prices would go down anytime soon, I wouldn't be so concerned about it. Maybe, if I thought that there was a reason for it (gasoline goes up all the time for no reason at all, so I'm not so sure that unrest in Libya is not so much of a reason as much as it is a semi-reasonable sounding explanation), I wouldn't be so annoyed by it. Or maybe, even if I thought that there were people working on a solution that wouldn't involve such a dependence on oil, it wouldn't cause me great despondence. But none of that is happening. The price isn't going to go anywhere but up. I have no idea if the craziness in Libya has anything at all to do with it. And the people who are "working" on getting us all something besides a gasoline powered automobile have their heads so far up their collective asses, I don't know how they'd come to be able to drive the thing in the first place if they ever did manage to create a viable alternative method of individual transportation.

See, I've been hearing about the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf for at least three or four years now. Both are supposed to be wonderful electric cars that will be the beginning of a beautiful friendship with things that don't run on gasoline. And believe me, I would take great pleasure in being able to flip both barrels at every single gas station that I drove by, were I given the opportunity or the alternative to drive something that doesn't require gas. And before you start harping about public transportation to me, just stop it. I'm not about the environment. I mean, I am. But I'm not so much about it that I'm going to be inconvenienced by the bus. Good Lord, no. I'm about not having to feign any sort of a relationship with abhorrent dictatorships in the Middle East simply because they're sitting on top of a bunch of oil that we want. That's what I want. I want to not give a flying crap what happens over there in the sand lands. Give me an alternative to gasoline and I'll be able to not give that flying crap.

And briefly, before I move onto ranting about the Volt and the Leaf, I need to mention that while I don't want to have to worry about what happens in the sand lands, there is an alternative at our fingertips that doesn't require any innovation what so ever. If people would stop being so damned concerned about whether or not a pigeon gets a drop of oil on its wing and let people start drilling out the 100 to 200 year supply of oil that is underground in the United States, we would have a great deal less to concern ourselves with. Y'all in Afghanistan want to blow the crap out of each other because you're fighting over a group of rocks? Have at it! Think I give a crap? I don't! You know why? Because we have oil, you backwards living weird beards! Fight amongst yourselves. I'm outta here!

Whew! That felt good. Now, on to the electric cars. I'd like to start with the name of the Nissan Leaf. Um, that's not exactly the coolest name that you ever could have come up with. It's a little sissy-like. The Leaf. Does it run on leaves? No? Does it have anything to do with leaves? No? OK, then. So how about naming it something that doesn't make you feel like a freaking pansy when you mention it? "I drive a Leaf." Yeah, I'd never tell anyone that. At least the Volt sounds kind of cool. Unfortunately, that's about all that they got right.

A car that runs entirely on electricity must get that electricity from somewhere. The Leaf and the Volt are able to be plugged in directly to an outlet in your home (provided you buy some sort of an adapter that runs, from what I can figure out, somewhere between one and two thousand bucks). Thus, they're using the energy that is generated to electrify your house. Where does that energy come from? Why, it comes from coal! Wait. I thought that the idea of the electric car was to get away from coal usage so that it would be 'green' and good for the environment? It was! But is it really doing any good for the environment when the electricity that it uses is produced by coal? Hard to say, but my guess is no. My guess is that it makes it so that you don't pump all of the harmful emissions into the air. So that's good. But is it really a 'green' product? I take umbrage with that statement (mainly because it's extremely rare that I can take umbrage with anything).

With both the Volt and the pansy-ish Leaf in production, let's take a look at how sales have gone so far. We'll even do a little comparing to other vehicle models that are not electric. First the Volt. According to their monthly sales report, there were 281 Chevy Volts sold in February. 281. That's it. What was GM's best selling vehicle? Why, that would be the behemoth Chevy Silverado C/K Pickup. They sold 31,728 of those bad boys in February. That's almost 113 times as many Volts as they sold. Oh, and their mileage? Right around 15-17 mpg in the city. Yeah, if that doesn't tell you that people don't care about electric cars, I don't know what does.

But maybe the Leafs numbers will tell you that very same thing in a different way. According to Autobloggreen, while Chevy was only able to unload a mere 281 Volts, Nissan could only get rid of a paltry 67 Leafs in February. 67. And it's ten thousand dollars cheaper than the Volt! 67! Why do I have the feeling that they could give these things away and people still wouldn't want them?

And that brings me to my final point. The price of these things. The base price of a Chevy Volt is $40,280. Yes, you can qualify for a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 and that will take it down to $32,780, but that is still a lot. (Personally, I don't see why my tax dollars should help someone else buy a car that may or may not do any good to the environment. Then again, I don't see a lot of the need for a bunch of crap that my tax dollars are spent on, so maybe that's my problem.) In comparison, the Leaf starts at $32,780 and with the maximum tax credit, that could go as low as $25,280. Then again, without the maximum tax credits, you're looking at two very small cars that are over $30 thousand and $40 thousand dollars. There aren't a lot of people who are going to pay that for a car. Wait. I take that back. The Chevy Silverado is more than the Volt and people seem to have no problem paying for that.

What have we learned here? Plenty. But the main point is that people don't want electric cars. People want big, big cars. And they want to drive them fast and they want to pull a boat behind them all the time and without using a trailer! That's what we want! Drill on US soil or in US waters for our own damn oil! Make big-ass cars and stop trying to make us drive shoe boxes with solar panels! This is a failed experiment! Please stop! Please! I can't take any more inane-ness in this department! No one wants an electric car! Got it?! Good!

Sphere: Related Content

Step Right Up and Throw Away Your Money!

I guess I'm a little slow. If I were a little faster on the uptake, perhaps I would have thought of this brilliant idea which totally exploits the adage "A fool and his money are soon parted."

At San Francisco International Airport (known for some reason as SFO. Why the "O"? Is it supposed to represent the globe since its the International Airport?) they have installed kiosks that will allow those who so choose to free themselves of the guilt that they carry around by flying around. Wait. What? Guilt? Whatkinda guilt?

The kinda guilt that you have when you fly because you're contributing to global warming by leaving carbon footprint! You know! That kind! Don't you feel guilty when you fly? (NO! But go on!) Well, pack your bags, 'cause you're going on a guilt trip!

Here's the theory: If you fly, you contribute to global warming by getting on that plane. God forbid that you do anything differently (such as not fly), so in order to make yourself feel good (no clue as to whether or not it actually does anything to help the environment) what you're supposed to want to do is to give money to...um, someone and then you're supposed to trust (yes, trust) that they're going to use the money to...um, do something that will help the environment.

In case that was too complicated, let me simplify: There is a machine that takes people's money that they willing put into it and they get nothing in return other than a warm and fuzzy feeling that they've created in their own mind. Is this a great country or what?!

So what's the average cost of being a fool and needing to part with some money? Let's find out, shall we? Of course there is a carbon footprint calculator at the kiosks for you to use. And if you're not at the kiosks (but want to get some sort of an idea as to how far you have to fly in order to lose X-amount of money should you choose to contribute to this project with absolutely no guarantee that your money will be spent for anything useful at all) you can use the handy calculator online to figure out how big of a sap you are how much it will cost you.

For instance, it says that if we take a long flight of 6,000 miles (round trip) that is allegedly using or burning or making 5,608 pounds of CO2 (aka carbon dioxide) that is equal to 2.543 tons and at $13.50 per ton our guilt can be absolved for a mere $34.34. I wonder what it would take to absolve their guilt? Oh, that's right. They likely have none.

Here's my first (but not my last) problem with this: The figure that they're using for a "ton" is 2204.6 pounds. That is not a ton. 2000 pounds is a ton in the US. 2204.6 is a metric ton. Metric? Since when does the US operate on the metric ton principle? I don't think we do! Oh, wait. Is it that damn "International Airport" designation again?! No, I'm guessing that it's that a metric ton is 204.6 pounds more than a US ton (or short ton) and that benefits them considerably. I noticed that we're not calculating the flight length in kilometers, why is that? Because they don't want to, that is correct.

They don't seem to give any sort of formula as to how they have calculated the amount of CO2 which they are claiming per flight. OK, they give a formula as to how to calculate how much money you can give them, no questions asked. But they don't give you a formula as to what was taken into consideration when determining the CO2 amount. How many people were on this plane? What kind of a plane was it? What direction was it flying? Was there a headwind? A tailwind? A side wind? (Is there a side wind? God, I hope not.) Does the plane use the same amount of fuel regardless as to the number of passengers? Do they take the size of the crew into consideration? (I mean how many crew members there are, not if they need to butter their sides to squeeze themselves down the aisle or not.) Shouldn't flights with more people on them cost you less money to throw away than flights with less people on them? Because with a whole boatload, er, planeload of people, all of the sinning can be split up over all of them, but if you only have two people on the plane, then you're going halfsies with the sin. Not good.

And what does your money go toward in order to absolve you from your guilt? Why, according to the website, it goes to the "...Garcia River Forest, a conservation-based forest management project located in Mendocino County, California." It goes on to tell us about that particular forest and how it is "...dominated by native Redwood and Douglas Fir trees that are remarkably resilient to pests, fire, and disease." Well if they're do damned resilient, why is it that money is needed for them? They seem to be doing just fine on their own. With me so far? Of the $13.50 per ton of CO2 that they're charging you, $12.00 of it goes to "...covering costs associated with locating, researching, and verifying high quality projects as well as the other general operating costs typically incurred by any organization." Wait a minute. How is it supporting the forest one minute and then going on to support a bunch of locating, researching and verifying? Wouldn't "researching" cover the "locating" and the "verifying"? You might notice it doesn't say that they're doing anything once they're done with all of the "researching". So they're just looking into stuff and you're supposed to pay for it. Sounds fair. Sure. And do tell, what "other general operating costs" might they they speaking of? Who knows?!?!

But here's the BEST part! According to Anthony Watts over there at Watts Up With That? (catchy) "...you can buy a ton of carbon offset on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for 20 cents. That’s about 60 times less than what you would pay at the SFO kiosk!" Behold!

Oh, for hell's sake. What?!?! And an article in the Times Online details how the "clean energy auditor" was suspended by the UN because they couldn't prove that they did anything or that if they did that they were qualified to do so.

Look, if you're going to feel that guilty about flying around that you need to just throw your money away, please don't throw it into a kiosk at SFO. Please throw it to me. I promise to detail every little thing that I do with it. Here, I can detail it right now just to save time.

• I bought beer. Then I drank it. I don't remember much after that, but your money was already gone, so it's really a moo point.

Done!

Sphere: Related Content

Amusing Crap That Will Destroy Our Planet

Recently, I've been made aware that there really is too much waste on this planet. It's not like I didn't have some sort of an idea that there was a whole bunch of stuff that gets thrown out every second of every day that is taking up valuable space on the earth. I knew that. I just hadn't fully grasped the magnitude until lately. There's too much stuff and we don't need to keep churning out more, especially if that which is churned out is useless. We definitely don't need more of that. And I found a website that has a bunch of useless crap that is eventually going to end up inundating the landfills and (in all likelihood) the oceans and that's unfortunate. What's even more unfortunate is that the stuff on this website is such crap that I found it amusing.

The site is J-List and it's freaking weird. It's Japanese, but the site is in English. And to the credit of whoever is responsible for the site, they have gone to great lengths to be all inclusive, not only with their products (aka, crap), but also with their descriptions of said products. Lengthy they are. And detailed! Sometimes, with too much detail. The thing with the Japanese is that they never do anything half-ass. Everything there that is popular isn't just popular, it's a crazed craze. It's like everything is a "must have" and if you don't "have" it, you "must" and soon! The Japanese also seem to figure that if a certain item is popular, then an item that is kind of like that item (but not really) will be popular as well. That's when they take their life savings and pour it into that item, only to find out it's ridiculous and worthless and that they never liked the item that was the popular one in the first place.

But here was what I was greeted with today when I stumbled over there (and really, for no apparent reason is this there):

Oh, what the hell is that?! Well, to their credit, they're talking about not being wasteful. After all, Mottainai "essentially means "What a waste!" But their website is just chock full of such utterly cheap and ridiculous crap that no one really needs, it's hard to take them seriously. (That, of course, is my biggest complaint about all of this "going green" stuff. Any entity can make a "green" claim and no one cares if they are or not and there aren't a whole lot of regulations to determine if they are or not. As long as people can believe they're doing good, they don't care if they really aren't, just as long as they think they are.)

And then for no apparent reason, it delves off down this path: "Japan's toilet culture is quite unique, especially when you're coming from the outside. First, there are two types of toilets here, standard Western units you're familiar with -- they come in normal, butt warming and butt washing types -- and washiki or Japanese-style, which you squat over to use." Good Lord, make it stop!! After that it takes off on the expected tangent...that of Hillary Clinton's impending visit to Japan and whether or not she will bring Valentine's Day chocolates for Prime Minister Aso. (Is that really his name? Aso? You know...um...that kinda sounds like "Prime Minister A-Hole", doncha think? It does a little, huh? Hmm. Poor choice. Moving on!)

I knew I'd likely find an enormous selection of craptastic products when I saw that the product list on the top site banner read: "Hentai Manga, Japan Kit Kat, Tenga Adult Toys". Now that's quite the variety of stuff right there. (By the way, the Japan Kit Kat? Yeah, they're strawberry! What is that about?! I don't want a strawberry Kit Kat! OK, well, I kinda do, just to try it, though! But just one!) But I was not expecting this. Behold!

Oh, what the hell is that? That is the Nagomin Body Sponger -- with Long String. Apparently the "long string" is a selling point because we all know how hard a long string is to come by these days, what with the recession and all. (Hard times, hard times.) For more information, this description is included: Japanese bath products are far and wide some of the most interesting in the world. This new, umm -- sponge-on-a-rope is great for washing those hard to reach spots, without the hard scrubbing of a long brush. This one even has a cute face on it, so it seems to enjoy the washing up as much as you do! Has a long thick string tied to both sides and is very absorbent with a soft plush material. It seems to enjoy it as much as I do?? I'm not so sure inanimate objects are capable of that sort of enjoyment, but if they were, I don't think I'd be using that product in the shower. Anywhere, really, but especially in the shower. Little perverted sponge. Naturally, there are variations on the theme.

Continuing the parade of crap, haven't you always yearned to erase your mistakes with an eraser shaped like fruity produce? Your dreams have come true! Behold!

Here's a funky little item that will surely turn some heads. How many times have you found yourself rubbing away with your old eraser thinking, "This is boring!" -- now even erasing can be fun with this wacky electric banana eraser that rubs out pencil faster than you can imagine, thanks to its vibrator action that makes the retractable eraser work great. Will you ever go back to erasing things manually? Who needs pens when you've got a vibrating electric eraser that looks like a banana? Your life will never be the same again. Unfortunately, they're probably right; my life might not be the same if I actually insisted on using the vibrating banana to erase things. It would be lonely, as no one would come near me if I was spotted using that thing. ("But wait! Come back! It's fruit and it vibrates!! Wait!!")

But hey, why limit your love of erasers to just bananas? Actually, why be bound by fruit at all? Break free of the fruit! Break free of the doldrums of buying your erasers already made. Wait. What? That's right. Make your own erasers in the microwave and have them shaped like sushi! Behold!

Good Lord. I'm thinking the planet is worth a heck of a lot more than an eraser that looks like unagi that I cooked up in the microwave. It says that it comes with "...various cut outs to bring that more authentic restaurant feel to your creations." Because if I'm going to be erasing with sushi, I need that authentic restaurant feel, otherwise it's just not the same.

And now onto the Japanese wieners. Wait. What? Among the foreign community, the Japanese are famous for their perfectly cut mini-wieners you find in so many lunches (bento boxes). What's the secret behind these ubiquitous morsels you ask? Why the Wiener Cutter of course.

Guys, I apologize for the term "Wiener Cutter". That's enough to make any guy cringe. (Heck, I cringed when I read it and I don't even have one!) But when was the last time you heard a wiener called an "ubiquitous morsel"? Huh? It's probably been a looooonnnngg time, hasn't it? Good!

Now you too can have the most perfectly cut wieners on the block, and not only that, they'll be shaped like tulips!, complete with a bulb and leaves Be the hit at school. Be the talk of the water cooler clique at work. Wonderfully wacky.

There you go! Wonderfully wacky wieners! Shaped like tulips! But those aren't the only shapes you can cut your wiener into! (Again, sorry guys.) There's more!

• "...they'll be shaped like cute penguin!, complete with eyes and arms!"
• "...they'll be shaped like cute crabs!, complete with eyes and legs!"

Yep! Crabs for your wieners! Order now! Operators are standing by!

Then there's the Say It In Japanese Publication which claims to "...go into detail over sample conversations and useful expressions to accomplish what you need." Well, I like to accomplish what I need. This should be handy, yes? How the hell should I know? Just look at it for cryin' out loud! Do you know? Behold!

I don't know if I need to accomplish any of that! But then again, I don't know what half of those things are, nor why I would need to know them! The only examples that they give over at J-List are "expressions such as "Me o sara ni suru" ("Saucer Eyes" aka to open one's eyes widely in search for something or someone), "Te ga hayai" ("fast hands" or a womanizer) and "Icha Icha" suru (a couple necking)." So, what I need to accomplish is keeping an eye out for a womanizer and if I see a couple necking, I might have found one? Should I just wait until they're done? Those are strange examples of why I would want that book. (Why is that pink squirrel staring at that watermelon? Is that what goes on in Japan? I've never been. The man above the squirrel does not want that box! And next to him, a samurai fights with wanton letters.)

And finally, one of the more degrading products they had is an item called the Working Women's Simply Style Notepad. It's confusing even after you've seen it, but I'll explain. Behold!

When I saw this, my first thought was, "Do I want cut out sperm on my notes? I don't think I do." But I guess they're not sperm, although they could be. That's up to you and that's part of the intrigue (I suppose)! I mean, haven't you always wanted, as a working woman (sorry again, guys) to have a notepad with a little character? Thanks to J-List, your prayers are what? Answered, that is correct. "Here's a note pad with a little character. Simply use the pad to write notes and reminders to yourself when necessary, however there are 3 flap that can flip up allowing you to create different characters that allowing you to create different expressions based on what you draw on them. Great for making parodies of yourself or others in order to liven up the day." Why is this weird thing just for women? I don't get it. I suppose I should appreciate the thought, but if I'm going to "liven up my day" I'm going to do so by drinking six martinis at lunch. That alone will liven up a lot of people's day, not just mine! Count on co-workers, the boss, the cute copy chick and security to have their day livened up as well!

Look, this stuff is a riot and all, but only because it's just so ridiculous. We don't need this crap on the planet. Please stop. There's only so much room on the planet and I really don't think that we need to be taking up space with items that their sole purpose is for us to have pretty and shapely wieners. It's just crap and there's too much of it. Make something worthwhile and then we'll talk. But right now you'll have to excuse me. I just heard my microwave timer go off and I need to go check on the DIY Bunion Pads that I cooked up!

Sphere: Related Content

Vindication, Baby

Look, I know when I'm right about something. Even if someone else is screaming at me and telling me I'm wrong, while I may take that into consideration, I know when I'm right. And there's a word for it when I run across something that, at the very least, backs up my point to where I can then proclaim something else as well. And I call it 'vindication'.

I had a discussion a while back with an individual about the whole "going green" concept. I am not a fan of the green in general. Things that are green, it has been my experience, are not good. Broccoli? Too furry, blah. Spinach? Pile of slime, blah. Brussel sprouts? The grossest, most disgusting, never-meant-to-be-eaten, all condensed down into one little ball of wretchedness. Blah. So when I continue to hear over and over the term(s) "green" and "going green" along with "environmentally friendly", "natural", and my new non-favorite "sustainable", it just irritates me beyond all irritation. It's not because I have an aversion to saving the planet (which, I will say, I believe is increasing in temperature that is mostly caused by humans. It's not that I don't believe that. I do.). It's because people are morons. And they're going to make it worse before they make it better if it keeps going like it is.

People are, as a semi-blanketing general rule, also greedy bastards who will pounce on any opportunity that they see to make a quick buck. Note the term "quick". It has to be a "quick buck" and not just a "buck". That's because people, as a semi-blanketing general rule, are also lazy asses. Money for nothing and your chicks for free is the unrealized motto of several hundreds of thousands of individuals out there. (And it doesn't sound all that bad if you think about it.) And the whole "green" thing has just brought the "quick buck" people out of the woodwork. (I have no idea where that phrase comes from. 'Out of the woodwork'. It sounds kind of scary if you think about it. People just popping out of wood all of a sudden. That's enough to give you a heart attack, not to mention unexpected company.)

I have said many times that just because something says it's "green", that doesn't mean crap. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, who's to know because there is no set standard for what is or is not green. (The only semi-exception to that statement is in the building industry where they do have standards for what constitutes a "green" structure. It's questionable as to whether the end result has to be "green" or whether just the products used have to be "green".) It seems as if any moron out there (and there are a bunch to choose from) can slap a "green" label on something and that's good enough. NO! No, it's not!

And today, my pessimistic and somewhat negative attitude toward all of the "green" movements, products, talk, movies, crap, etc. was vindicated by a one Susan Lewicki, the senior environmental educator for the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission's new Environmental Center. :::gasp!:::: (Geez, you couldn't come up with a shorter title, ma'am? Good Lord, I'm out of breath.) She said, "The word 'green' doesn't mean anything." That right there? That's vindication, baby.

She continued, "A lot of products that claim to be green really have no benefit on the environment. It's just a way to get your attention." That's vindication again, baby. She cited a study by an eco-marketing firm called Terrachoice which tested a thousand products which had all claimed that they were 'green'. The study found that all of the products except for ONE made some sort of claim which was deceiving, vague, irrelevant, unproven or just a flat out, big, fat lie.

Take when a product comes in a aerosol can, for example. That can could be labeled that it is CFC-free. Well, CFCs are bad for the environment! It makes that unseen, theoretical hole in the ozone layer (which IS there, I know that!) just get bigger and bigger if we keep pumping products with CFCs into the air! So an aerosol product that is CFC-free must be good for the environment, right?! Right! So you should buy the aerosol product that claims to be CFC-free, right? Not so fast. Oh, don't get me wrong, you should buy aerosol products that are CFC-free. And you will. As ALL aerosol products have been CFC-free since 1978. Ah-HA!

See, that's just weaselly. And people are what? Right, lazy morons. Because they're lazy, they are highly unlikely to do any sort of research on this stuff. AND because they also want to feel good about doing something while, at the same time, doing absolutely nothing they will look for ridiculous things like that. And then what happens? The part that makes me crazy, of course. The company makes money, the person feels happy and absolutely nothing gets done and nothing changes. What a great way to save the environment! Fool ourselves into thinking something is being done when actually nothing is. Brav-o, morons. Brav-o.

It's a money thing. This saving the environment gig means huge bucks for people and companies. Without some sort of standard or regulation, it's going to become a bigger mess than it already is. The thing is, most people don't realize that it's already a big mess. But that's for two reasons. Either they don't want to realize it because they're making too much money the way things are, or they feel like they're helping the environment by buying something that says it's green and it's really the "feel good" aspect that they're after, so why change that? We're doomed, I tell you. Doomed.

And if money and profit are going to be driving this 'green' movement, it's all the more reason for a universal standard and some sort of regulation. (By the way, I am not one to be in favor of more laws, believe me. I really wish things could regulate themselves most of the time. But there are instances where that is going to be impossible and this is one of them.) But really, the best direction to go with the 'green' thing is a direction that companies won't want to go in.

Rather than make products that are 'green' in nature or that are manufactured through a 'green' process, what if companies made products that lasted longer? Products that could be upgraded instead of replaced? Products that you wouldn't have to keep buying over and over and over again? You can have a ton of stuff that's manufactured in a 'green' process, but is that really going to matter in the end when you have the ton of stuff that you just made and sold discarded within a year? Now you have a really large 'green' ass landfill, full of crap that was obsolete before you got it home from the store. Nice. How much sense does that make? None. But are companies going to want to make things that you don't have to continually keep buying from them repeatedly? Um, no.

So, fool yourself all you want. Buy anything you want that says 'green' if all you're looking to do is to make yourself feel better and not looking to really do something that matters. But if you would like to feel like you're doing something that is better than nothing (or at least something that isn't making something worse), you can always check things out for yourself. :::gasp:::: I know! The horror! Yes, it will require some effort on your part, but the worst thing that can happen (I think) is that you might learn something and you might actually start doing something that is actually doing something.

There are even handy sites online to help you out with all of your 'green' fact checking quests. Sites such as:

• The Food and Drug Administration
  
  
• The US Department of Agriculture
  


• The Global Ecolabeling Network
  
  

• Green Seal
  

The Global Ecolabeling Network and Green Seal both help you identify which types of labeling are deceptive. They also have info on things that are legitimately 'green.' I can hear the soft-heads saying, "Well, they could be lying also!" Sure, they could, but they're not. So put on your helmet and do something instead of nothing.

Vindication is a pretty good feeling.

Sphere: Related Content

Carbon Footprints In The Sand

All right. I have had it with this global warming crap. (Oh, calm down! I'm not done yet!) If I never hear the term "global warming" ever again in my lifetime it will be too soon. Don't get me wrong, I am aware that the earth is gradually getting warmer. (I'm also aware that human beings generate heat and there are an awful lot of us hanging around the globe these days.) And I am also aware that there are plenty of things that people can do that will help not make the current condition of the environment any worse. But what I'm really aware of is how softheaded a lot of people in this country and on this planet really are. And, in a rare moment when I am going to advocate regulating something, if someone doesn't come up with some sort of a standard for what some of these actions relate to, we're never going to get anything done. Oh, hey, kind of like now.

The term that I dislike as much as "global warming" is "carbon footprint". Whenever I hear "carbon footprint" I want to plant my "carbon footprint" right on that person's arse. The "carbon footprint" is supposed to refer to the amount of carbon that is being emitted by something or someone and through their actions or activities. And regardless as to how much I dislike the term, the "carbon footprint" is a real thing. However, I have yet to see a standard method for measuring what the "carbon footprint" actually is. Thus, that means that people or organizations that claim to be all for saving the environment (and who are usually, ironically, doing so via some sort of business that they hope to capitalize upon. Shocking, I know.) seem to measure the carbon emissions of things however they want to. And we wouldn't really know how that is because they don't tell us. But for some reason, if you claim to know about the "carbon footprint" and how to measure it, they will line up in droves, like zombies, to listen to you and to throw money at your feet.

I'm not exaggerating. Here's an example: Delta Airlines has a "Carbon Offset Program" where you can choose to contribute $5.50 per round trip domestic flight ($11.00 per international round trip flight) to help "offset" their "carbon footprint". That money goes into their Conservation Fund. The Conservation Fund uses that money to plant trees. I find it interesting that it's the same $5.50 regardless as to the length of the flight that you're taking. See, I find it doubtful that my "carbon footprint" if I flew from California to Utah would be the same as if I flew from California to New York. But they're "offsetting" something with "carbon" in it, so it must be good. Offputting is what it is. But I digress.

So, over at the "Global Footprint Network - Advancing the Science of Sustainability" they have a "Personal Footprint Calculator" which claims to help "you see how your living habits relate to your use of the planet's resources." I don't know how they figure stuff out based upon your answers, and neither will you because they don't say. But that's not my entire issue. No, my issue is with some of the questions. Let's begin.

They have only figured out how to do carbon footprint analysis in the United States and Australia. So if you're reading this in Europe (where I'm HUGE), sorry, you're going to have to continue ruining the planet blissfully unaware of the damage that you're doing. (Oh, how I wish I was in Europe right now.) Once you select your country, you're given the opportunity to create an avatar that will represent the Earth killing you throughout this activity. I guess the purpose is to make your gradual depleting of the earth's resources seem kitschy and fun. You can custom design your avatar or have one randomly generated. If you don't like the randomly generated one, you can randomly generate them until the cows come home. (Or, if you don't hear any mooing, until you find one you like.) Here is the avatar I chose to represent the wasteful me (I liked the hair):

The questions can be answered with a general response or with a more specific response. The questions covered the basics. How much of and what kind of food do you eat? How much trash do you generate? What are your driving habits? How often do you fly a year? Stuff like that. Those questions seem reasonable. But then I ran across some questions that did NOT seem reasonable.

The first question I had a problem with was, "Which housing type best describes your home?" You are then given seven choices. One of the choices is "Free standing house without running water." WTF?! What am I? A yurt dweller? (With the Internet, oddly enough.) WITHOUT running water? Are they serious? They must be, because there it was. Grrr.

But the question that just made me want to twist right off was, "Do you have electricity in your home?" ::blink:: ::blink:: ::stare:: ::blink:: ::blink:: Is it really asking me if I have electricity in my home as I take this quiz on the freaking INTERNET?!?! And it's asking me this right after it asked me if I have running water in my home?! Who am I? The Unabomber?! (Although, now that I think about it, that guy was pretty environmentally friendly. Aside from all the bombs, of course.)

OK, so I DID manage to finish the quiz. (The quiz that wasn't sure if I had electricity or not because they're taking into consideration I could be living in a teepee on an island in the middle of the Pacific somewhere as I use what little power my solar cells have generated for my computer to take their ridiculous quiz). And for me the bottom line was that my habits, running water and electricity and all, allegedly require 4.1 planet Earths "if everyone lived like me". My habits allegedly take up 18.2 global acres of the Earth's productive area and emit 19.8 tons of carbon dioxide. That's when I moved to Australia.

I took the quiz again, but this time I clicked on Australia. The only difference in the questions was that they did include one about how often I used a bicycle for transportation and they also had the responses in metric units. It also asked for which region of Australia. Now, I don't know why that would make a difference, as it didn't ask for what region of the US I lived in, but it definitely seemed to. If I had the exact same electricity using, water running, food eating habits that I had in the US in (Western) Australia, I would only require 2.6 planet Earths "if everyone lived like me" and I would only take up 2.6 planet earths 4.7 hectares (6.67 acres) 8.6 tonnes (9.47 tons) of carbon dioxide. HOW is that possible?!? Oh, and if I moved to one of the other regions in Australia, my usage needs were even less than that!

I mean, if it were a little bit different, that would seem different, but normal. Kind of like how the water in the toilet swirls a different direction in Australia. It's different, but it seems normal, so I'm OK with that. But the difference between the wasteful US me and the wasteful Australian me seems greatly different and for no apparent reason other than location, location, location.

Now, I'm not saying that this particular company is trying to scam people into...something. I'm not sure what their overall goal it (although it does say that they're non-profit). But that just doesn't make any sense to me. And if they have to ask if I have electricity when I'm taking their Internet quiz, that raises some serious concerns about their overall competence for dealing with environmental issues. I mean, maybe they know what they're doing, maybe they don't. But you and I have no way of knowing because there are no standards for which comparisons can be made. That's why we need some standards. And until we get some, if everyone (except for smart scientist folk) could please just pipe down, we'd appreciate it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to tote some well water back to the yurt.

Sphere: Related Content