Jump to content
Boiling water for a drink releases about an ounce of CO2.
One passenger's portion of a 1,000 mile airline flight is hundreds of pounds of CO2 emissions.
So if we stop subsidizing the jets into Hayden from eastern airports then that saves more CO2 emissions that everyone in SB boiling water for drinks and probably cooking.
And that is apparently another failing of the prof's lecture, that it didn't look forward into likely impacts of a low CO2 emissions world such as airplane flights are probably going to be far less common.
According this site, a regional jet has about 30% greater CO2 emissions per passenger mile than a 737. So a flight from the east in which a layover in Denver doesn't add significant mileage has a significantly larger carbon footprint than a direct flight.
So subsidizing regional flights from eastern cities increases CO2 emissions over unsubsidized flights.
USA is not the most efficient, but is comparable to other large countries such as Canada, Australia
And China and India do not accept the relevance of those numbers because CO2 per GDP means a poor person that generates no GDP is not allowed a fire for warmth or cooking.
So what was in the agreement between China and the USA? That USA works harder to reduce CO2 emissions and by 2025 that China stops increasing emissions.
And I go back to SB subsidizing small jets on longer haul flights. Can anyone give an argument on how that is sustainable and is compatible with the city's mission statement on sustainability?
Thunderbird is a very cheap fortified wine.
I guess you never had a skid row alcoholism phase.
Well, this is closer to Thunderbird than to Champagne.
Descriptions can be extremely misleading. Emotional disturbance could mean someone being suicidal.
Though I think fire dept is seeing a long term trend of additional calls for medical issues. That calling paramedics has become the standard reaction to any sort of accident or health issue.
I like it.
I suggest you consider mentioning the importance and relevance of a motion passed by an elected board. It is easy for the general public to think that a ratified motion is nothing but some thoughts on some proposals.
I think something on the rules of order for an elected board and how it is important that they are followed would be instructive to at least the public from someone also on an elected board.
I am not sure what you mean when you say the slide is "disingenuous". That might be what a member of the public could suggest. As a school board member, you know whether or not you have been kept informed. You know what specific issues you believe you have not been adequately kept abreast.
That statement is utterly true.
You are reading something else into it that is not stated, not intended and not correct. It says nothing about an Amazon tribe being better for the planet.
It says that Brazil, for instance, is not willing to say that their population including Amazonian tribes are prevented from emitting more CO2 as part of improving their quality of life to approach that of Americans. That they are not willing to limit their economic growth and personal living standards to a lower level in order to meet a standard requiring that they emit far less CO2 than Americans.
So Brazil, India, and the rest of the developing world insist that they can emit significantly more CO2.
The USA has already cut CO2 emissions, but China has increased their emissions far more than we've cut.
Well, the rules of order for a city council is supposed to matter because otherwise there is little point of being on the city council, having discussions and then making decisions.
City Council spent a few hours in September having a meeting and making a decision setting policy. And now, to what end? City staff has ignored it and decided to present what city council has decided is not to be an option since the BID failed.
City Council might as well agree to disband and declare the City Manager as the Supreme Commander of Steamboat.
Well, as one willing to say that human activity is a major contributor to current climate change, I also thing that speeches like this are so misguided that it arguably does more harm than good.
Global warming is not going to be addressed by consumer potentially boycotting corporations that aren't sufficiently sustainable. We have seen that consumers have not caused Nike to pay their overseas workers the equivalent of the USA's minimum wage.
The developing world is not willing to sacrifice their economic potential so that the US can continue to emit far more CO2 per person.
If there is to be any hope that we might achieve a reduction in the scale of the climate change then it also means that clearly wasteful practices in the US needs to be curtailed.
We have a city council that has agreed that the city of SB is to have sustainable practices.
But when it is pointed out that the airline subsidy is an inefficient way to bring tourists to SB and is so unsustainable that it requires millions in city taxes in subsidies then suddenly that isn't even worth discussing.
If SB isn't willing to consider the sustainability and the added greenhouse gases by subsidizing long flights in small planes to SB then why should we expect that anyone else is willing to make substantive decisions to reduce CO2 emissions?
Last login: Sunday, March 1, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.