CITIZENS IGNORE NEWSPAPER

• The amount of greenhouse emissions generated in Victoria during the Age’s first week of monitoring: 1.919 million tonnes.

• The amount of greenhouse emissions generated in Victoria during the most recent week of monitoring: 1.925 million tonnes. Way to go! The Age’s partner in this project, The Climate Group, notes with sadness: “This week’s Greenhouse Indicator is 25.2% above the weekly average for emissions from energy in 1990.”

Posted by Tim B. on 01/29/2007 at 08:28 AM
    1. Strange, my calculations make it more like a 0.3% increase.

      Posted by rabidfox on 2007 01 29 at 08:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. A good thing, too.  Trees and other growing things need the carbon.  Otherwise the earth’s supply of life-sustaining carbon would be depleted.

      The earth’s precious carbon supply is thus replenished.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2007 01 29 at 08:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. From NSW, I’ve been doing my bit, by running the air conditioner to keep my home at 18 degrees instead of 22 and driving the Landcruiser instead of my Swift where possible.

      Every little bit counts!

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2007 01 29 at 08:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Between the first week and the most recent week, greenhouse emissions went up by 0.3%. This obviously means that the Age needs to increase its pro-Gaia content by at least, and preferrably more than, 0.3%. Or, Victoria could adopt the Flannery plan, and reduce the population by 0.3%. Or, everybody could just turn to the sports page for cricket updates and ignore the greenhouse issue altogether. I highly recommend this last alternative.

      Posted by paco on 2007 01 29 at 08:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. I can’t say I helped to decrease. Good Lord, my emissions were off the scale this weekend after eating a very spicy spiessbraten on Saturday. Probably didn’t effect the readings from Victoria, but you never know. It was pretty bad. Sorry everyone.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2007 01 29 at 09:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Just a question – why is it just Victoria’s greenhouse emissions?

      Do these emissions stop at the borders? I thought that air circulates around the place

      It could be China’s emissions blown south couldn’t it?

      OK I’m a science ignoramus but I do know a lot about cricket

      Posted by aussiemagpie on 2007 01 29 at 09:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. 25.2%?  That’s about the same amount Canadian greenhouse emissions have increased since 1990.  The Canucks are signatories to the Kyoto treaty.  Thanks for showing Victoria the way!

      Posted by Mystery Meat on 2007 01 29 at 09:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. I hate to ask awkward questions, but being a technical person, I would like to know who measures these “greenhouse emissions” and what is the order of accuracy.  ±5%, 25% ???

      As someone who lives in Canada and spends a fair amount of time working in Mongolia, I have difficulty in seeing global warming as a bad thing.

      Also , can someone explin to me why it is so damned chilly in HCMC these mornings???

      Posted by Jack from Montreal on 2007 01 29 at 09:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. .. explain …

      PERVIEW IS MY FIEND

      Posted by Jack from Montreal on 2007 01 29 at 09:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. Greenhouse Indicator…hey, Yanks, remember when the press and TV used to run the UV index every day like the timer on 24?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 01 29 at 11:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. How do we know these “scientists” aren’t using one of those double lying ruses in order to scare us all?  For our own good, of course.

      Well…, for somebody’s good <kof> more funding <kof> anyway.

      Posted by saltydog on 2007 01 29 at 02:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. I hate to ask awkward questions, but being a technical person, I would like to know who measures these “greenhouse emissions” and what is the order of accuracy.  ±5%, 25% ???

      Its the sames folks who assure us that there is 100% literacy in Cuba.

      You can rest assured that the accuracy is to within a tenth of a percent.  Honest.  Why would they lie?

      Posted by R C Dean on 2007 01 29 at 04:17 PM • permalink

 

    1. What was the population growth of Victoria since 1990? I see your population right now is a little over 5 million but I can’t find anything other than “around 3 million” for 1990.

      I’m guessing that greenhouse emissions per capita are way, way down. So the greenies should be celebrating… or, if they really want to do something about global warming, actively killing mass quantities of their fellow citizens.

      Posted by Matt Moore on 2007 01 29 at 04:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. Last stat I can find is 4.37 million in 1996 and 4.02 million in 1986… so population growth is somewhere between 14 and 20 percent since 1990. So I stand corrected, your greenhouse gas growth is nicely outpacing population!  Good job!

      Posted by Matt Moore on 2007 01 29 at 04:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. #1 rabidfox

      “This week’s Greenhouse Indicator is 25.2% above the weekly average for emissions from energy in 1990.”

      Yeah, wouldn’t 25% of 2 million be, er, .5 million, so, that’s a quarter, so it’d be, ah, something like 2.4 million….

      Posted by kae on 2007 01 29 at 05:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. “This week’s Greenhouse Indicator is 25.2% above the weekly average for emissions from energy in 1990.”

      How pissy of them not to add “Congratulations!”

      Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2007 01 29 at 07:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Strange, my calculations make it more like a 0.3% increase.

      Yes but you aren’t pedalling like crazy generating enough power to run your calculator.

      Posted by Contrail on 2007 01 29 at 07:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. Contrail, you can get solar powered calculators, at least you used to be able to…

      Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2007 01 29 at 08:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. #18

      Forgot about them. Explains a lot. Global warming is over charging them, leading to gross errors.

      Posted by Contrail on 2007 01 30 at 08:32 PM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.