Comments on: Blogs Have a Carbon Footprint?

By: Cousin Sam

Cousin Sam — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:52:43 +0000

So, then, the great existential question: Is the blog a concept, comprised of the thoughts and ideas presented on it, and pondered in the minds of its readers and writers, or is it the electrons and the equipment upon which those concepts are stored and patterned? And, if so, what kind of nutz would pay some German kids to claim to have planted a tree somewhere, which may or may not have gotten planted anyway, to somehow, based on something only marginally resembling science, offset the claimed threat, based on proven fraudulent data input into flawed models from biased measurements, of potential imaginary weather in an inherently unpredictable climate?

Tell you what, next time I pass a wishing well, I’ll throw a few pennies in on your behalf – consider the carbon footprint of your blog as having been matched by the carbon offset of my wish!

By: Cool Springs, TN

Cool Springs, TN — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:05:07 +0000

That is ridiculous, blogs don’t have any carbon footprint.

By: adrienne

adrienne — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:23:06 +0000

Technically, that would then be the carbon footprint of the server farm.

By: GreenMom

GreenMom — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:09:22 +0000

Blogs exist on servers somewhere in the world using power to store the data, even if no one reads them.

By: Cousin Sam

Cousin Sam — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:42:02 +0000

I see your point, that the blog is inanimate, and essentially just a concept, and cannot make choices, and that consequences, such as a carbon footprint, must inevitably result from choices, which can only be made by real people. Quite so, and I should have caught on quicker, since I have often made what I think is a very similar argument to those who seem to think that companies pay taxes, or incur expenses (such as huge court settlements, or losses due to theft). The opinion expressed by such people is usually along the lines of “I would never cheat a person, but it’s OK if I cheat a company” or “The government should tax big companies, not us regular folks”. There is, of course, really no such thing as a company – it is a concept, nothing more than a convenient way of organizing peoples relationships in our minds – all taxes are, of course, paid by people, all losses from theft are lost by people, whether the stockholders, employees, private owners, other customers, suppliers or whatever. I’ll try to have more sympathy in the future for those who think that companies exist apart form people, now that I’ve essentially fallen victim to the same fallacy myself.

By: adrienne

adrienne — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:10:26 +0000

No, it’s not that obvious. If carbon footprints are to be taken seriously, the user has a carbon footprint. Inanimate objects cannot. Since a blog does not exist unless I click on a link and read it, it can’t use power or electricity. I have a carbon footprint, but my blog does not.

Based on this model, the owner/writer of a blog bears the burden of the traffic. That’s like asking car manufacturers to pay for the gas of all the cars that they build after they sell them to individuals. If I did agree with the concept of carbon footprints, I am responsible for the energy and resources used to write this blog and the visits to websites that I take. Since people visit my blog of their own free will, I am not responsible for any energy or carbon emissions that they generate.

I agree with you that the purpose of the climate change community is to attack the wealthy and those with resources. The Green movement is another political/cultural outgrowth of the New Left, which was founded by socialists in the 20s and 30s in the US.

The Green movement seeks to redistribute wealth and attack capitalists through efforts like Cap and Trade and carbon offsets. These taxes or voluntary contributions are paid by the Haves, to use an Alinsky reference, and given to the Federal government or nonprofits to be funneled to the Have-nots. Just as feminism is the gender version of Marxism, Greens are the environmental arm of the socialist movement.

By: Cousin Sam

Cousin Sam — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:35:34 +0000

Seems kind of obvious – The internet uses electricity. Generation of electricity (usually) causes carbon emissions. Storing, processing, accessing a blog, sending the signals back and forth, etc. does cause carbon emissions, although I suspect 8 lbs is a completely arbitrary number. I am not “Green”, I have never hugged a tree, and I believe the purpose of the Warmist Carbon-Cult is solely to extract money from suckers, however the fact that Eco-Hippie Green-Fanatic companies such as Google, Yahoo, etc. are responsible for pumping Ginormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere each year by the internet traffic they create and the resulting power consumption just gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.