SaveGreenEarth.com Blog

We challenge you to look at our free documentation before making your purchasing decision. You will be amazed at just what the coorelation between CO2 and temperatures has been over the past 100 years.

As we just pointed out, carbon offsets are not cheap. Look, read, and think before buying. What you are buying with any carbon offset vendor is PEACE OF MIND. Peace of mind that your personal actions will not cause or contribute to global climate change.

We do not charge for all of our services. The heart and soul of our efforts are for the children. More specifically, environmental education for children. We encourage child interaction as good stewards for the environment with tree hand-outs, teaching community ecological responsibility (keep your neighborhood clean and the world will follow), and other activities that teach and build stronger and smarter stewards of our environment.

We seek partnerships with organizations that will accept donations of operating cash, training materials, trees, and other assistance. (registered not-for-profit only, please).

SaveGreenEarth.com helps free you from the worry of your family's or business' impact on global climate change. While SaveGreenEarth.com does not license you to burn tires or to do other obviously noxious activities, we do offer you peace of mind as you live your normal lives and conduct your business.

The key to a healthy environment is to conserve resources and to keep it clean. There are roughly 780 billion (7.8 x10^11) tons of carbon dioxide in our planet's atmosphere. With humans contributing 14 percent, there is little wonder at the concern over the impact of human-generated carbon dioxide on Earth's climate. But those 780 billion tons of CO2 constitute less than .04% of greenhouse gases (GHG). The rest of the GHG's are mostly water vapor.

Our carbon credits cost roughly the same as,if not less than the carbon credits for sale elsewhere on the WEB. We do run a profit margin, but we keep it tight. We do make a point that our customers get what they are paying for... our best effort to take actions to offset the effect of one ton of CO2 on climate change. But for an average house, this can cost over $300 PER YEAR.

Hey, I was looking at some comments about bovine global warming. I spent a lot of time on dairy farms as a kid. Cows do not have a mechanism for creating carbon.

Amazing as it sounds, but their CO2 comes from things they eat. Not only that, but the stuff they eat... if they did not eat it would decay and release the same, if not more, CO2.

Of course, this is accepting the premise that CO2 is not a trace gas that is essential to our biosphere.

"Just read a news article that says:
The Danish Tax Commission estimates that a cow will emit four tons of methane a year in burps and flatulence, compared with 2.7 tons of carbon dioxide for an average car."

They eat roughly 7 - 8 tons of grass a year.

If cows contribute 2 tons of methane from the grass they eat, how much would the same grass contribute if it would have been left to grow and rot on the ground?

The cow wastes 20% of the energy it could be getting from the methane. Thus the 2 tons is 20% of what could be emmitted. The 8 tons of grass could generate 20 tons of methane. But this whole paragraph is a SWAG.

Note: see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509021,00.html

Check out this article:
http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html

My favorite line from it:

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

A note about carbon calculators:

They are a bunch of bunk.

1) travel carbon for planes, trains, buses: All of the above carry more than just you. They also carry cargo. Your share is variable based on the percentage of the weight of you and your luggage in proportion to all the rest. There is no way to know. Additionally, the travel lines are hit up to pay for what they emit. So, if you pay for the carbon, it's being double-compensated.

2) Cars, motorcycles, etc: The only way to measure this is to count how many gallons of gas you use. The carbon used in producing and transporting the fuel probably rests on the heads of the companies.

You cannot look up your car model/size, etc and calculate.

3) Home: This is an impossible task. Electricity is generated differently in different parts of each state. The Federal data is available only to the state level. And then throw in the fact that power is piped all over the grid, you have no way of knowing if your electricity was generated using coal, nukes, or cow farts. You can easily measure your gas and propane intake and calculate from there.

Estimating is IMPOSSIBLE. House size, region, weather, trees, appliances in the house, house design (number, size, and type of windows, doors), local heat island factors, ... The list goes on. And then pile on the electricity issue just discussed.

The thrill of it is that the gov't plans to cap-and-trade energy producers into non-existence. They will pay for the carbon. They will pas that cost to you. You will then buy your own offsets. You will pay twice for your emissions.

For the wood-burners... THANK YOU. You are returning an essential trace gas to the biosphere!! But different wood types release carbon at different rates. Some fireplaces burn more cleanly. Etc, etc, etc.

All of these issues assume a 100% transfer of carbon to atmosphere in the form of CO2. That's simple hogwash as well.

In conclusion: The sooner we all recover from the Cult of Global Warming, the better off we all will be.

With all the spinning of the impact of CO2 on global warming, did you realize that the only "proof" of global warming is the output of highly questionable computer models?

As a decades-long computer professional, I can speak to the fact that models can be made to say anything. I recently read that the models used to generate Al Gore's "hockey stick" graphs will produce a similar shape graph even when fed random data.

Oh sure, folks point to anecdotal "evidence" here and there and claim "PROOF!" while they stand freezing on the corner in London. They will dismiss the snow at their feet as both a) anecdotal evidence and should be dismissed, and b) solid evidence supporting the models.

Fossil fuels not the source of current CO2 levels? Check out this BLOG entry for info:
(source: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-available-evidence-does-not-support-fossil-fuels-as-the-source-of-elevated-concentrations-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-part-1/)
***** Begin Quoted Text *****
BECAUSE the increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has correlated with an increase in the use of fossil fuels, causation has been assumed.

Tom Quirk has tested this assumption including through an analysis of the time delay between northern and southern hemisphere variations in carbon dioxide. In a new paper in the journal Energy and Environment he writes:

“Over the last 20 years substantial amounts of CO2 derived from fossil fuel have been released into the atmosphere. This has moved from 5.0 gigatonnes of carbon in 1980 to 6.2 gigatonnes in 1990 to 7.0 gigatonnes in 2000… Over 95% of this CO2 has been released in the Northern Hemisphere…

“A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…

“If 75% of CO2 from fossil fuel is emitted north of latitude 30 then some time lag might be expected due to the sharp year-to-year variations in the estimated amounts left in the atmosphere. A simple model, following the example of the 14Cdata with a one year mixing time, would suggest a delay of 6 months for CO2 changes in concentration in the Northern Hemisphere to appear in the Southern Hemisphere.

“A correlation plot of …year on year differences of monthly measurements at Mauna Loa against those at the South Pole [shows]… the time difference is positive when the South Pole data leads the Mauna Loa data. Any negative bias (asymmetry in the plot) would indicate a delayed arrival of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere.

“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”
***** End Quoted Text *****

Check out this from the Illinois State Museum:

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/

The graphic in the upper left hand corner shows the retreat of "The Great Ice Age" starting 14,000 years ago.

I wonder how many SUVs were driving around during all that time.