Spudnik wrote:Carbon footprint? When is someone going to address the real problem? If we reduce CO2 emissions substantially but continue to deforest the Amazon, one of the world's largest carbon sinks, what good is it? Carbon footprint is one of the hot words the media likes to use to get everyone stirred up into a frenzy.Dead on. "Carbon Footprint" also allows schmucks in Cali to brag about what they're doing for the cause, and make it about them, rather than the poor brown people whose fields are turning into swamps. (The schmucks drinking 5 bottles water daily from a remote Pacific atoll and flying out of state 20x/yr, that is)
There are bigger issues and concerns that need to be addressed before we should get serious about reducing carbon emissions. I would say potable water, consistent food sources for a growing global population, logically preparing for climate change, and the rapid loss of biodiversity are far more important in the immediate future than reducing carbon emissions by 1% in Boulder. Who knows, though?
Its been noted here that newbies sometimes get a rough treatment. Here is one response, written by Old Dog, that might help those thinking of making their first post understand a little bit about this place. After you read this take a moment (or two or three) and look around and get a sense of this place. If you're still interested make your intro and join the fray. —Jed