The fight against global warming

[Gob]

He'd get mine!

[BoSoxGal]

I'll happily criticize her for not divesting from oil revenues, but not for flying. Flying is necessary, it's a small part of the global warming problem, etc. Your argument is just not terribly credible.

[Gob]

Flying may be "necessary" (that's debatable,), but there are ways on mimising your carbon footprint.

Oh and lecturing on global warming, and then taking private jets? Hypocrisy much?

Oh well, it looks like she's decided to change....

In a press conference Tuesday that was tightly controlled by her top press aide, Hillary Clinton refused to take questions about her campaign's pledge to go 'carbon neutral.'

The Clinton camp made the promise to CNN on Tuesday morning, following a DailyMail.com story featuring video of the candidate climbing aboard a carbon-spewing private jet shortly after adding a climate-change plan to her White House bid.

Clinton traveling press secretary Nick Merrill carefully stage-managed the 13-minute press conference in Nashua, New Hampshire following a town hall meeting at an elementary school.

Merrill hand-picked reporters and called on them by name, including one chosen so Clinton could wish her a happy birthday.

'Are you going to go carbon neutral by flying private less, or by just giving money to carbon offset funds, Secretary Clinton?' we asked. 'How are you going to go carbon-neutral?'

Clinton said nothing, but turned and walked slowly away from her podium with Merrill and other aides following close behind.

Monday's two-hour, 15-minute flight from Des Moines to Manchester, New Hampshire burned an estimated 781 gallons of jet fuel, producing 8.24 tons of carbon emissions.

The French-made Dassault business jet burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour.

The claim of carbon neutrality would not be a first for a major federal election campaign. Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign did the same thing.

'This campaign will be carbon neutral,' a Clinton aide told CNN Tuesday morning. 'We'll be offsetting the carbon footprint of the campaign and that includes travel.'

[BoSoxGal]

Not hypocrisy; again, flying is less than 5% of global warming related activity, it's necessary to modern life, the jet was filled by staffers and smaller jets use proportionally less fuel as large commercial jets so no, I don't think it's the big case of hypocrisy you make it out to be.

[Gob]

Utter bollocks.

In attempting to aggregate and quantify the total climate impact of aircraft emissions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation’s total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its direct CO2 emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement). This is measured as radiative forcing. While there is uncertainty about the exact level of impact of NOx and water vapour, governments have accepted the broad scientific view that they do have an effect. Globally in 2005, aviation contributed "possibly as much as 4.9% of radiative forcing." UK government policy statements have stressed the need for aviation to address its total climate change impacts and not simply the impact of CO2.

The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. The IPCC has produced scenarios estimating what this figure could be in 2050. The central case estimate is that aviation’s contribution could grow to 5% of the total contribution by 2050 if action is not taken to tackle these emissions, though the highest scenario is 15%. Moreover, if other industries achieve significant cuts in their own greenhouse gas emissions, aviation’s share as a proportion of the remaining emissions could also rise.

Still, if you're happy to be lectured about global warming by a jet setting hypocrite, have at it!

[Scooter]

Flying is necessary when you are in Des Moines, IA and are headed to Manchester, NH - that's over 1100 miles. So let's not pretend there is viable option other than flying by some sort of aircraft.

I'll ask the question whose answer could render any other considerations moot - she is the wife of a former president, is a former Secretary of State, and a presidential candidate. Would the Secret Service even permit her to take a commercial flight? But assuming it would, there is no non-stop commercial service between Des Moines and Manchester, so she would have had to take two very short flights on small planes. On short flights, most of the fuel is used for takeoff and ascent, so fuel consumption is pretty much double what a non-stop flight would use. A larger plane is generally more carbon efficient than a small one, but commercial flights are using 50-70 seaters on those routes. Their carbon footprint per passenger is almost certainly less than a 19 seat plane, but once you have to double it to account for the two flights, will it still be less?

Pictures of her entourage on the plane looked like there were at least 5 or 6 of them. $5000 to rent the plane wouldn't have been enough for 5 full fare economy tickets

And yes, there are ways to minimize your carbon footprint while flying; they are called buying carbon offsets, which have been a fixture of the airline industry for many years. But of course when Hilary proposes to do what everyone else does to mitigate the carbon emissions of flying, it's not good enough.

[Scooter]

What was utter bollocks about what bsg said, because nothing in that passage refutes anything she wrote. Oh, except for the fact that she said air travel was responsible for 5% of global warming, while it says that the IPCC estimates 3.5%, which includes the effects which you highlighted.

[Gob]

But of course when Hilary proposes to do what everyone else does to mitigate the carbon emissions of flying, it's not good enough.

But "everyone else" doesn't go around lecturing others about the perils of global warming, oh and "everyone else" doesn't jump on private jets.

[Scooter]

And yet I'm still not seeing anything to support the assumption that her flight would have anything more than comparable emissions to a commercial flight. And saying "private jet" over and over because you think there's something decadent about it doesn't make it a greater carbon emitter if it turns out that it actually isn't.

And if she purchases the offsets as she has done before and has said she will do again, then regardless of how much carbon any plane emits, then she is funding projects that reduce carbon emissions, so the result will be zero additional carbon emitted by her "jetsetting".

So remind again what the problem is...

[Gob]

I've not said anything about "comparable emissions". The problem is she's lecturing people on global warming, then swanning about in a private jet..

[Scooter]

Ok, so now you're gonna play stupid.

Fine, let's connect the dots.

Clinton, according to you, "lectures" the world about global warming while flying in private jets.

So what makes those antithetical, if not the emissions they create? Why would you have posted a passage about the greenhouse effects of aircraft emissions if emissions are not the issue. How is Clinton "contributing" to global warming by flying in a private jet, as you said in a previous post, if not due to the emissions it creates?

Because if you are now saying that emissions are not the concern, then both statements are complete non sequiturs.

I am not sure where you lost the plot, but now that you realize it you are pulling a rubato, and I'm too tired to care anymore.

[Gob]

No, you raised "comparable emissions, " when |I had not. She could have organised her time and tours better and taken a commercial flight, or a train even. But there again, she could also have not lectured us on global warming. (Even if she does avoid the issue of fossil fuels and she gets funded by the oil industry.)

[Crackpot]

OTOH over here the Pink person is off his nut.

[MajGenl.Meade]

If I campaign against sexual abuse and teen pregnancy and donate money to the cause of unwed teen mothers and rape crisis centers, I have a certain credibility.

If then I proceed to rape underage girls and get them pregnant, have I truly not contributed to the problem because of all the off-sets I've earned?

[Crackpot]

False analogy.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It is a valid analogy of the logic used in Scooter's suggestion that buying carbon offsets and then contributing to carbon emissions does NOT constitute "additional" carbon effects. Do the math:

-2 for carbon offsets + don't use a private jet = -2 carbon offsets
-2 for carbon offsets + use a private jet = -1 carbon offset

The second case is worse than the first. Obviously I'm not suggesting an absolute equality in quantity - the numbers are symbolic representations but valid as such.

Furthermore, the commercial jets are already flying - with or without our pols aboard. Therefore taking a private jet is a plus factor in carbon emissions, not a net-zero.

[Guinevere]

"Could have taken a train" shows how little you know about this country. First of all, just Boston to DC takes 7+ hours. To go from Des Moines, Iowa to Manchester NH, would require, presumably, Des Moines-Chicago - Chicago-DC (an overnight train, typically) - DC- Boston, CHANGE to a different station in Boston, then Boston-Manchester. An epic train journey probably taking 24 hours. This isn't itty bitty England.

Plus, as I mentioned with the security issue on the airplane, there is no way the Secret service lets a former FLOTUS take the train on such a long trip. Biden took Amtrak when he was a Senator, he doesn't now (he takes a combo of helicopter and plane from Andrews AFB), and Wilmington, DE to DC is under 2 hours on the train.

As for "lecturing" - its a campaign, that's what they do. Thank god she is at least talking about the issue. Would you prefer she ignored it, like the Republicans?

Oh, and tell me please, what efficient mode of transport for 30 people halfway across the US is carbon neutral?

[Guinevere]

Finally, as an FYI, I'll add that we (the US) have had a difficult time regulating greenhouse emissions generally, and especially from airplanes. Anything EPA tries to do on GHG is smacked around by the Republicans, and the last big case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The airline industry is one of the biggest group of whiners if you try to regulate them in any way - complaining about how they are still struggling financially (which isn't possibly true any more). Regardless, just last month, EPA announced that it is finally doing something about airline emissions, and is in the early stages of preparing some new regulatory controls.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm#endangerment

The EPA proposed to find that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from certain classes of engines used in aircraft contribute to the air pollution that causes climate change endangering public health and welfare under section 231(a) of the Clean Air Act. At the same time, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that provides information on the process for setting international CO2 emissions standards for aircraft at the International Civil Aviation Organization, and describes and seeks input on issues related to setting an international CO2 standard for aircraft, and the potential use of section 231 of the Clean Air Act to adopt a corresponding aircraft engine standard domestically.

[Big RR]

Scooter--

Would the Secret Service even permit her to take a commercial flight?

Permit? What could they do if she insisted on taking a commercial flight, arrest her? They might well discourage her from taking a commercial flight, but they have no authority over her and she doesn't need to seek their permission.

[Guinevere]

BigRR, do you think she declines the protection? I highly doubt it.