The British government thinks it is vital for us to be able “to calculate” our so-called “carbon footprint“:

…Everyone has a carbon footprint - it’s your own personal measure of how much carbon dioxide you create and how much you contribute to climate change…

And the department head responsible has already tried it. The Telegraph reports:

…The Environment Secretary David Miliband was one of the first to use the calculator and revealed his own footprint was 2.76 tonnes of CO2 which is below the estimated annual average of more than four tonnes…

Having used it myself yesterday, I have to say I’m pleased. For I see that according to that “calculator“, there are ways I could look to increase my output considerably.  (Who says we can’t all do our share?)

I do apologize for being one of those who just cannot accept at face value this (latest) “We’re doomed!“ scenario. There are reasons for that. They are perhaps best summed up by one scientist, who pointed out (and one would think he would hardly have to) in Newsweek back in April:

Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth’s climate history, it’s apparent that there’s no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right…

…Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn’t be as steep as the climb in emissions…

Therefore, it is hard not to find it grating, realizing that constantly increasing taxes actually go to fund the production of foolishness like that “calculator” . . . while children suffer from want, waiting lists remain, criminals cannot all be appropriately incarcerated, and serious questions are raised regarding the quality and amount of food supplied to British soldiers fighting to defend freedom.

_____________________________

Still, that does not mean we should be rampant polluters and wasters of resources.  In fact, did you know that our parents were actually “eco-warriors”, but just didn’t realize it?  Harkening back to the 1970s, so says Alice Thomson, also in The Telegraph, who informs us:

…Looking back at my childhood, it was astonishingly green…

I know precisely what she means. Particularly, I remember my parents’ 1964 Ford Thunderbird and 1971 Dodge Charger. Yeh, now those were two cars just built to lead the way in “the struggle against climate change.”

…My mother was amazed when my husband suggested throwing away some eggs from her fridge when they were two weeks past their sell-by date…

…We wander around our houses in T-shirts in midwinter, while 30 years ago we wore jumpers and dressing gowns. The Prime Minister is driven 100 yards from Downing Street to Parliament; the rest of us drive to the supermarket, rather than walk to the butcher and baker. We fly to Corsica rather than take the train to Cornwall. We are addicted to fuel…

…it’s strange that this generation is busily formulating plans to save the planet when all we need do is look back to the example of the last. In order to go green, we have to turn the clock back, not forwards…

Indeed, fretting about illnesses caused by spoiled food (but not knowing from where the illness comes; perhaps “bleeding” will cure the patient?), shivering through winters in which homes could barely be heated, and having no access to powered transportation. To reach back to those days of true environmental balance and eco-harmony-yore, one suspects it may well be necessary to go a lot further back than just “the 1970s”. 

_____________________________

Some, however, appear utterly unreachable on this issue . . . shamefully creating harmful and unnecessary C02 emissions at every opportunity: