Carbon Bloody Footprints.

**awa355** · 13th November 2012, 05:49

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7...ines-solo-mums

Can someone explain, what a 'carbon footprint' was before the name was invented 20 years ago?

If Dinasaur footprints can be found after 65 million years, why hasn't anyone found a single 'carbon' footprint from the millions of humans that have existed?

I know the greenies are talking about the waste left behind from everyday life, but that has always been the case. Every form of life uses and disposes elements of its enviroment.

I remember being taught in science, that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. ( except in a neucleur reaction ? ). We were taught that there is no more material on this planet than when we kicked off.

That theory is probably out of date by now, is it???

**oneofsix** · 13th November 2012, 06:01

Originally Posted by awa355

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7...ines-solo-mums

Can someone explain, what a 'carbon footprint' was before the name was invented 20 years ago?

If Dinasaur footprints can be found after 65 million years, why hasn't anyone found a single 'carbon' footprint from the millions of humans that have existed?

I know the greenies are talking about the waste left behind from everyday life, but that has always been the case. Every form of life uses and disposes elements of its enviroment.

I remember being taught in science, that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. ( except in a neucleur reaction ? ). We were taught that there is no more material on this planet than when we kicked off.

That theory is probably out of date by now, is it???

There must now be less material on this planet now and less carbon due to all the junk that has been fired into space, especial the high carbon steel etc.

Seems funny to worry about carbon on a planet that is basically an environment for carbon based life forms and has its own inbuilt carbon to oxygen exchanges. I guess when all the fuss about hydrocarbons causing ozone depletion proved a dead end they just switched tact to another form of carbon, after all there is plenty of it around

**FJRider** · 13th November 2012, 06:09

Originally Posted by awa355

Can someone explain, what a 'carbon footprint' was before the name was invented 20 years ago?

A carbon footprint is simply the amount of effort (read energy) to perform any task/produce any product .... and the amount of waste produced in the process/journey.

The more energy required ... and waste produced ... the bigger the footprint.

**awa355** · 13th November 2012, 06:15

Originally Posted by FJRider

A carbon footprint is simply the amount of effort (read energy) to perform any task/produce any product .... and the amount of waste produced in the process/journey.

The more energy required ... and waste produced ... the bigger the footprint.

I realize that, so why, with less children, average 2 as against 6-8 children 60 years ago, and all the energy saving appliances today as against the manual effort required back then, to wash, clean, cook, are we 'supposingly' using more energy than ever before?

**oneofsix** · 13th November 2012, 06:19

Originally Posted by FJRider

A carbon footprint is simply the amount of effort (read energy) to perform any task/produce any product .... and the amount of waste produced in the process/journey.

The more energy required ... and waste produced ... the bigger the footprint.

That is the energy footprint, if anything, and typical of the muddle thinking that affects a lot of people on this subject. Carbon footprint is the amount of carbon released by an activity and even that is muddled as when you burn a log you release all the carbon in it, or do you? A lot of the carbon actually remains in solid form as ash and soot but the calculations typical show it all being released as atmospheric gas.

**Maha** · 13th November 2012, 06:25

The word/term used before 'Carbon Footprint' was Excessive.
Wasn't used so much after 1987.

**YellowDog** · 13th November 2012, 06:31

I just can't wait until we have an annual

'Bash a Greenie Day'

Those guys are soooooooo insignificantly trivial and annoying.

Put them on boats and send them all to India and China where they can preach some significantly valuable messages

**FJRider** · 13th November 2012, 06:31

Originally Posted by awa355

I realize that, so why, with less children, average 2 as against 6-8 children 60 years ago, and all the energy saving appliances today as against the manual effort required back then, to wash, clean, cook, are we 'supposingly' using more energy than ever before?

What about the energy/machines/processes required to make/deliver those energy saving appliances ...in the numbers required to meet the increased population/demand. Appliances that don't get repaired ... but designed to be replaced. And what happens to those appliances that stop working.

60 years ago things were built to last. And the only energy wasted was our own.

**scissorhands** · 13th November 2012, 06:36

Originally Posted by awa355

I realize that, so why, with less children, average 2 as against 6-8 children 60 years ago, and all the energy saving appliances today as against the manual effort required back then, to wash, clean, cook, are we 'supposingly' using more energy than ever before?

transportation mainly, freight too, beers from Holland, holidays in Bali every year, and car ownership rates increasing

we may be more efficient, but our appetites have increased

efficiency could be way better, mandatory insulating of homes, electric cars, discourage commuting and overseas holidays

encourage supermarket shopping online, home based employment, flexible residential dynamics making moving closer to work easier to achieve, reduction of number of personal items

ownership of so many tools and gadgets and toys, material objects taking more energy in purchasing, storing and ownership than what they provide in usefulness

**bogan** · 13th November 2012, 06:38

Originally Posted by awa355

If Dinasaur footprints can be found after 65 million years, why hasn't anyone found a single 'carbon' footprint from the millions of humans that have existed?

Its not their footprints that are the problem, its the fact we set whats left of them on fire...

In addition to the fact T-rexes find matchboxes difficult to use, they also didn't have as much dead stuff to burn, so they had a far smaller carbon footprints than we do.

Carbon footprint is a bit of a misnomer anyway, cos isn't it related to the amount of carbon that is put into the air. In light of this I propose we rename it a carbon fart.

**FJRider** · 13th November 2012, 06:39

From Wiki ...

A carbon footprint has historically been defined as "the total set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by an organization, event, product or person."

However, calculating the total carbon footprint is impossible due to the large amount of data required, the relatively recent attention brought to this issue within the last century, and the fact that carbon dioxide can be produced by natural occurrences. It is for this reason that Wright, Kemp, and Williams, writing in the journal Carbon Management, have suggested a more practicable definition:

"A measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of a defined population, system or activity, considering all relevant sources, sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal boundary of the population, system or activity of interest. Calculated as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) using the relevant 100-year global warming potential (GWP100)."

Greenhouse gases can be emitted through transport, land clearance, and the production and consumption of food, fuels, manufactured goods, materials, wood, roads, buildings, and services. For simplicity of reporting, it is often expressed in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide, or its equivalent of other GHGs, emitted.

Most of the carbon footprint emissions for the average household come from "indirect" sources, i.e. fuel burned to produce goods far away from the final consumer. These are distinguished from emissions which come from burning fuel directly in one's car or stove, commonly referred to as "direct" sources of the consumer's carbon footprint.

The concept name of the carbon footprint originates from ecological footprint,discussion, which was developed by Rees and Wackernagel in the 1990s which estimates the number of "earths" that would theoretically be required if everyone on the planet consumed resources at the same level as the person calculating their ecological footprint. However, carbon footprints are much specific than ecological footprints since they measure direct emissions of gasses that cause climate change into the atmosphere.

**awa355** · 13th November 2012, 06:55

Originally Posted by FJRider

What about the energy/machines/processes required to make/deliver those energy saving appliances ...in the numbers required to meet the increased population/demand. Appliances that don't get repaired ... but designed to be replaced. And what happens to those appliances that stop working.

60 years ago things were built to last. And the only energy wasted was our own.

My mothers old Kelvinator fridge from 60 years ago, was still going after some 40 years. I doubt my current fridge will last half that distance. My appliance is undoubtedly far more energy efficient, than the old Kelvinator. Having said that, mums old fridge always had plenty to eat in it. Not like my current fridge.

Modern commerce wouldn't want us owning appliances that lasted 40 years.

**FJRider** · 13th November 2012, 07:03

Originally Posted by awa355

Having said that, mums old fridge always had plenty to eat in it. Not like my current fridge.

I'm guessing the amount of food in your current fridge has nothing to do with it's efficiency ... nor it's size ...

**skippa1** · 13th November 2012, 07:18

Originally Posted by awa355

I realize that, so why, with less children, average 2 as against 6-8 children 60 years ago, and all the energy saving appliances today as against the manual effort required back then, to wash, clean, cook, are we 'supposingly' using more energy than ever before?

you might want to try going outside and looking at the world. It has changed. Families may have less children but the world population is the highest it has ever been. When I was a kid, people had a washing machine, transistor radio, toaster, iron, the wealthier ones had a stereo and TV. I walk through my house now, I have a 50" plasma in the lounge, a 32" LCD in the bedroom Blue ray, sky, 3 x computers, ipod dock, stereo x 2, enough kitchen gadgets to sink a small row boat, battery chargers, phone chargers, 3 x phones, clothes dryer, dishwasher,fridge, every light fitting has 4-5 bulbs hanging off it. In the garage, there are all manner of power tools, battery powered and charged tools, fridge....and on and on....you know the score. Bottom line is that the appliaces are energy saving but we have 10 times more than we used to have............multiply that over a growing population.....what do you think?