Ambitwistor: OMG, they should just sit around in mud huts eating roots and berries!

Oh, HELL naw. They should go to pricey summits, drink champagne and figure out ways to make sure other people living in mud huts STAY in their mud huts.

DamnYankees: Subby - die in a fire.

But wouldn't that emit greenhouse gases?

opiumpoopy: ... aaaand the USA emits that quantity every 70 seconds or so.

Aaaaand you'll notice that instead of looking for ways to make the conference itself more green, the UN is just going to buy some carbon offsets -- IOW, throwing more money at the problem. And as usual, it's someone else's money and the "solution" inconveniences everyone but the perpetrators.

I'll pay attention to one of these ivory tower conferences when they all get there by flying coach, or they just telecommute, or they conduct the meeting in a Third World area with no modern, carbon-producing infrastructure and put up with the same horrible conditions they want to limit the rest of the developing world to.

Otherwise I'm about as impressed as I am by John Travolta encouraging the rest of us to go green when he has three personal jumbo jets parked in his own farking driveway.

Talon: Why not have a teleconference?

This.

Flab: The only useful way the Govt. has of "encouraging people" is by taxing the shiat out of bad behaviour.

Because the government's job is to legislate morality, right?

hitchking: But why on earth would you dismiss the insights of the world's top experts on this problem?

You mean the same geniuses who created Kyoto, screamed bloody murder when both Clinton and Bush refused to ratify it on behalf of the US, and are now screaming because the countries who did sign are saying the requirements are either impossible or will wreck the world's economy, meaning they accomplished nothing but some ideas on paper that no one can actually implement in real life?

Those the top men you're talking about?

hitchking: Are you really suggesting that the attendees of these annual UN conferences aren't climate change experts?

No; I'm suggesting they know fark-all about how to implement such broadscale changes in the entire world's energy policy in real life.

We could say Kyoto was "politically crippled from the get-go." We could also say Kyoto was wildly unrealistic and couldn't possibly be implemented by any given nation without crippling its economy.

Put it on a more personal scale. Which would cut emissions more:

1. Telling a homeowner to get rid of his furnace, windows and insulation right now and buy a brand-new, foundation-installed radiant heating system, triple-paned low-E windows and high-tech reflective insulation that will work great but kill his kids' college funds and use up half his retirement to boot.

2. Tell a homeowner to replace all the incandescent bulbs in his house with fluorescent bulbs. It will cost about $100 up front but save that much in energy bills and replacement bulbs in less than a year.

3. Offer rebates and tax incentives to encourage the homeowner to buy the most energy-efficient appliances he can afford when he has to replace them.

Second question: Which of these is the homeowner likely to do right now? Which is he most likely to do when he has to spend money on the appliances involved?

I spent $19,500 a few months ago to replace all my 20-year-old leaky aluminum windows and reside my house with stucco, both of which will cut my carbon footprint radically. But I did it when I had to because my windows and siding were falling apart. I would have liked to do it several years ago to cut our energy bills, but couldn't afford or justify the cost.

So when I had to get the siding and windows replaced, I got the most energy-efficient units I could afford. Added about $2,500 to the overall price, but I figure I'll recoup the extra costs in energy saving over the next few years, and the other $17,000 in the overall value of the home.

Bottom line: If you push a blue-sky solution that's ruinously expensive, especially when there's still so much debate on the nature and cause of climate change, you accomplish nothing.

If, on the other hand, you encourage others to adopt affordable, incremental steps toward your blue-sky solution, especially if you lead by example,* you accomplish something.

Rather than dodging your responsibility with carbon offsets or telling everyone else what to do but making no significant changes yourself, that it.

This is why, as I said before, John Travolta can kiss my ass. Other celebrities, like Ed Begely and Woody Harrelson, went out and bought hybrid cars -- something average people can both respect and emulate next time they need to replace their car.

You Can't Fix Stupid: Rather than dodging your responsibility with carbon offsets or telling everyone else what to do but making no significant changes yourself, that it.

That is, that is.

hitchking: That's some impressive tough-guy rhetoric!

Y'know, I've been to two concerts in the last year in which this issue was addressed.

The first was a BNL concert. They have spent extra money to purchase biofuel tour buses and the most energy-efficient lighting and sound equipment available.

Then they simply had someone pass out brochures at the gates explaining all this and encouraging them to contact any of a number of organizations that could help the average person make incremental reductions.

The other one was a Sheryl Crow gig. Sheryl was most notorious at the time for

a. Criticizing the oil companies for making lots of money,
b. Suggesting on her blog that we all count toilet paper squares, and
c. Contractually stipulating a specific brand of whiskey be in her dressing room for each night of the week.

The guys in Barenaked Ladies put their OWN MONEY where their mouths are and encourage other folks to do whatever they could do.

Sheryl Crow, on the other hand, blames big oil, suggests we all use less toilet paper,* and does nothing to cut back on her own insanely conspicuous consumption.

* I know she later protested she was making a joke. Okay, so stipulated -- what has she actually done? Nothing that I've heard of.

hitchking: Well I'm glad you're actually engaging the issues now.

I have to do some work and get on a conference call. This is your cue to

a. Wait till I can return to this, or

b. Claim your superior logic scared me away. :)

opiumpoopy: But criticis[/z]ing this conference for the CO2 emissions of the attendees - rather than the probable lack of effective outcome - is just attention-whoring by the journalist (and subby).

Really? This conference produced 1.3 TONS of emissions PER ATTENDEE and you think it's unfair to point that out?