June 3, 2008 11:28 AM PDT

'Carbon Belch Day' promotes un-green actions

Posted by Elsa Wenzel
  • Font size
  • Print

Smoke cigars, do a partial load of laundry, drink bottled water, and feel no shame. That's what a campaign against a carbon trading bill is urging.

The latest parody of the proliferation of "green" social-networking sites and eco-friendly events comes via "Carbon Belch Day," a campaign from the conservative Grassfire.org alliance that encourages people to pollute as much as possible on June 12.

This carbon calculator encourages ecologically uncouth behavior.

This carbon calculator encourages ecologically uncouth behavior.

(Credit: Grassfire.org)

So far, more than 140,000 people have signed a petition against "climate alarmism," according to Ron De Jong, spokesman for Grassfire.org. If the effort attracts half a million people, it would lead to the release of 105 million pounds of carbon a week from this Thursday.

The effort is strong on shock value, yet weak on social networking and Web 2.0 tools, other than its "belch" calculator. There are no real-world events planned, so expect no sea of SUVs clogging freeways, other than the usual weekday bottlenecks.

The point, instead, is a political campaign to get people to oppose the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would establish a corporate carbon cap-and-trade system, but is already threatened by a promised White House veto.

"Somehow, this bogus idea of environmental indulgences has become accepted as a real and valid way to deal with our carbon guilt," De Jong wrote in an e-mail.

Other popular Grassfire petitions include "Secure our borders" and "Save marriage." Group founder Steve Elliott holds a master's degree in public policy from Regent University, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, which counts many graduates in prominent government positions in Washington, D.C.

The campaign may be a crude attention-getting ploy to which I can be accused of pandering. But its effort seems doomed, swimming against the mainstream tide. Conventional wisdom has shifted to embrace global warming as a near scientific certainty, and, like it or not, popular culture celebrates all things "green."

Even if Lieberman-Warner flops, many experts in the clean-tech sector anticipate a boost as carbon markets expand in the United States, perhaps following the European model, especially as a new administration takes the helm in Washington. Attendees of clean-technology conferences regularly mention the coming carbon markets with the same certainty used to describe melting ice caps.

As carbon trading scales up, however, the next challenge will come as the public grapples with an abstract subject and demands accountability. Personal carbon footprint calculators and offsetting services are hard enough to navigate.

And motivation aside, the "belch" campaign shares a point with which many environmentalists would agree: that promoting fear of climate change could be counterproductive.

Remember the tagline of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? It was supposed to be "The most terrifying movie you'll ever see." A Time magazine cover last spring warned, "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid."

Apocalyptic headlines and images of drowning polar bears sell, but they make people less motivated to "green" their daily habits, according to Michael Shellenberger, author and co-founder of the progressive Breakthrough Institute.

A study commissioned in 2000 by CNN founder Ted Turner found that the more people learned of the dire consequences of global warming, the less they felt they could do anything about it.

"And people were more likely to say they would buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come rather than support increased CAFE standards," Shellenberger noted at a conference earlier in May.

Recent posts from Green Tech
Smart grid companies want stimulus cash from feds
Termite stomach bug to make ethanol
Cree wins contract to light the Pentagon
Energy monitor sees $7.5 million in funding round
Public clean-tech firms get clobbered
Firm claims silver bullet for 'vampire loads'
HP offers money for old tech equipment
Green news harvest: How to create clean-tech jobs
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 33 comments
by Tsee June 3, 2008 2:30 PM PDT
what's this? a propaganda piece from the stupid institute, ghost-written by someone from the Administration?
Reply to this comment
by Indn Maid June 4, 2008 6:34 PM PDT
Sounds like you hit the nail on the thumb to me..
by ajbright June 3, 2008 3:24 PM PDT
Pretty much, after all it's a well known fact that conservative commentators, particularly those on public radio, offer far more reliable information on scientific study than those that have merely studied in their field of expertise, often at the most reputable universities, for a few decades.

We should always take the attitude that people who know stuff are to viewed with the utmost suspicion. We don't need those scientist types, and we should take every opportunity possible to pour scorn on their theories and conclusions. I'd much rather base my children's future on someone that knows how to drink a beer and grill a hotdog.

Seriously though, doesn't anyone find it odd that these people seriously believe their opinions should be taken over those who've studied for decades in their areas of expertise, and hold degrees from the best universities in those subjects?

You have to ask what is behind this idiocy. Because actually it isn't idiocy, but rather the defense of the industry that lines their pockets. If serious investment had taken place over the last 20 years into alternative fuels and alternative energy sources, would the average oil tycoon be laughing over $126 / barrel oil and at the same time receiving government grants to the tune of millions of dollars for oil exploration.

If there was true competition to the use of fossil fuels, there would be no need for signing up to green summits or talk of carbon neutrality, because we'd be using non-polluting energy.

But no, instead we have to listen to retard conservative commentators telling us it's unamerican to figure out how to throw off the shackles of our reliance on foreign oil.

Personally I take pride in the quality of our engineers, scientists and the technological advances we pioneer. I find it odd that these people would prefer China or India to take over as world leaders in science and technology. Perhaps they think our armies should go back to using spears and our doctors return to the days of leeches.

Tell you what, next time we both go to hospital for surgery, you can have the guy that only knows how to grill a hotdog and drink a beer, and I'll take the one that has all that suspicious knowledge and propaganda he got from going to a university and medical school.
Reply to this comment
by b_baggins June 4, 2008 7:41 AM PDT
Yawn. Your first line starts with a fallacy known as appeal to authority. I know a lot of educated idiots with letters after their names.
by Cat_Black June 4, 2008 11:23 AM PDT
You're a little off the mark here. It's not that pundits, politicians, skeptics etc give these scientists too little credit, it's that they give them too MUCH. Global warming denyers believe that somehow, the top scientists from every developed country in the world are ALL communist conspirators who have been involved in a thirty year long world wide conspiracy to make up global warming as a way to bring industry grinding to a stop and usher in a new era of global communism via overregulation of carbon emissions. You can't reason with these people. It's like "Hey, look at Scandanavia, Greenland, Germany, Holland: nations which have already adopted green economies. They have the highest living standards in the world, the lowest poverty and unemployment rates, and booming, growing economies. Yet somehow global warming skeptics still insist green economies = anti capitalist, pro communist economic downfall.


Global warming denyers are simply inheriting the conspiracy nutjob mantle from Flat Earthers in the 1900s who insisted the world was flat and the moon landing was staged. They will never EVER believe reality. Even if we kept on polluting and what every scientist said would happen, happened years from now and we were faced with cataclysmic environmental devastation, they would blame it on God punishing us for homosexuality.
by Cat_Black June 4, 2008 11:40 AM PDT
Like our friend Mr baggins here. He believes that phDs mean nothing. And of course, having a phD in a field does not make you God. Look at Enron. that was run by a bunch of guys with masters degrees and phDs from Harvard. You should never trust something JUST because a phD says it's so. But if 99% of phDs in a given field (like climatology) come to a consensus, then yes, baggins, i think at that point we might want to take what they say into consideration.

Do you get vaccinated? Do you drive a car? Do you use electricity? Have you been in an airplane? USE THE INTERNET? If you do not live like the Amish, then the quality of your life is largely the result of the tireless work of scientists who have spent years STUDYING concepts and then coming to CONCLUSIONS which are then IMPLIMENTED in the world.

Why is it that you trust scientists to invent things that will be INJECTED INTO YOUR CHILDREN but you don't trust them to monitor weather patterns?

but no Bagins, you're right, what's a phD? Everyone knows that all they teach you in college is how to salute Mao and spit on the American Flag.
by Mijgreb June 4, 2008 6:39 PM PDT
Your broad brush approach to such a complex issue is disheartening. For me the question is what role do I play (and all the other humans on earth) is the climate change which may or may not be taking place. The answer to that question is far from settled by the appropriate scientists. Remember in the 1970s when we were headed for an ice age? Now we think we're headed for global warming? The real evidence just doesn't bear out either theory.
by Cat_Black June 5, 2008 6:56 AM PDT
Milgreb,
Unfortunately, what you are talking about is absolute disinformation from skeptics. Yes in the 70s, scientists did indeed suspect global cooling. Now skeptics would have you believe it was republican politicians who swooped in and saved us from those nutty scientists, but in fact the SAME SCIENTISTS who predicted global cooling were the ones who said that they were wrong. They followed basic scientific principles: based on some initial observation, they suspected global cooling. To test their hypothesis, they conducted more tests. They discovered they were wrong, and promptly made an announcement that their fears were unsubstantiated and further testing showed their initial hypothesis had been incorrect. With global warming, the follow up testing by thousands of scientists all over the world of the intial global warming hypothesis from 30 years ago showed that they were correct.

Furthermore, no, there ISN'T variation on scientific thought. There is no scientific journal ON THE PLANET which has debated global warming in the past decade when it has become flat out indisputable.

Every now and again I'll come across a list bloggers like to post of about 20 (20, out of thousands, mind you) high ranking, phD holders who do not believe in global warming. yet a simple google search of all of these names reveal that 18 of these scientists are nothing but charlatans. What has happened is they have not done they're own research, they base their findings off of the research of others (for instance, that sun flares cause global warming). The ones who actually DID the reasearch thenn sued these 18 other science for fraudulantly representing their work.

There are however, two on that list that seem on the up an up. One is a Sweedish scientist and the other is an Israeli. They are both highly respected researchers who have done their own research and seem to genuinely disbelieve in human caused global warming.

I'm sorry, but 2 climatologists disagreeing is not "far from settled." It means just that: out of the thousands upon thousands of the world's top scientists, TWO do not beleive in global warming. But hey, if you still hold with the skeptics, I've got some snake oil I'd love to sell you....
by Tim.b June 3, 2008 4:19 PM PDT
OK if I ride my bike but fart a lot? ;<)
Reply to this comment
by dbargen June 3, 2008 11:02 PM PDT
How about a carbon belch YEAR? Let's all try it together, and we'll see just how effective our man-made carbon output is on global climate. Oh wait. they'll just throw up some kook, unforeseen mitigating factors that will make any results illegitimate. Then again, they call all of the damning evidence of the last couple centuries that counters their theory illegitimate, so there's little chance of another year's worth throwing media doubt on the issue. After all, without them hyping the doom and gloom, what else could they fill the odd hours of their 24 hour broadcast times and fit between the webpage adds?
Reply to this comment
by Robertodesonora June 4, 2008 5:34 AM PDT
A swift but serious kick in the butt is good for people now and then. I like the vision of Permaculturist David Blume using CO2 to make crops grow faster and produce more. tinyurl.com/56rrda

Lets get real. The plan to tax sources of CO2 by Oil Man Albert Gore is to tax Humanity every time they exhale. You are the target. You always have been.

Like the income tax, it won't be aimed directly at You, In the Beginning.....
Reply to this comment
by b_baggins June 4, 2008 7:40 AM PDT
Pollute as much as possible? You have forgotten your third grade science. CO2 is plant food, not pollution.
Reply to this comment
by Robertodesonora June 6, 2008 7:34 AM PDT
I prefer to frame this issue as Emit as much as possible. CO2 is our Friend! I need all the CO2 I can get to grow more food, fuel, and support my fellow polyculture farmers.

It's all Green, and It's all Good!
by stuntman_mike June 4, 2008 8:41 AM PDT
You have forgotten your 1st grade math. Many more people than ever before, plus rain forests being destroyed at astronomical numbers, equals no where near enough plants to eat that food. Nice try though.
Reply to this comment
by george_liquor June 4, 2008 8:55 AM PDT
Plants use CO2 in cellular respiration. It isn't 'food' and higher concentrations of it won't cause crops to grow any faster.
Reply to this comment
by Robertodesonora June 6, 2008 6:56 AM PDT
Your assertion is simply not true. Increasing the parts per million of CO2 will double, even triple food output in greenhouses.

Increased CO2 insures the solar input can be made more efficient. Without more CO2 the solar efficiency is incredibly low, like 1% efficient. Plants can triple their output with increased CO2 to work with.

The limiting factor is a lack of CO2
by bigmc6000 June 4, 2008 9:50 AM PDT
Actually, increased CO2 does make crops grow faster and/or with bigger leaves. Obviously there are limits to this but we are no where near that point. It's not only a basic science principle but has been proven many times over.
Reply to this comment
by memathews June 4, 2008 12:18 PM PDT
Wow! Can't imagine the current administration being unhappy with the Lierberman-Warner Climate Security Act. The act starts a new market where the toadies can make another bundle--I can see an oil company manipulating this market right now--and there will be more lobbyists to give money, and think of how it quells the peons who can't figure out anymore who is lying and who is telling some semblance of the truth.
Reply to this comment
by rick_rodrick June 4, 2008 5:20 PM PDT
Why this on a green tech blog? Seriously every day is carbon belch day in the United States and a green tech blog seems to be an odd place to present this.
Reply to this comment
by Robertodesonora June 6, 2008 7:28 AM PDT
Only if You believe Your lying eyes and are not open to all the data. CO2 is our friend. Big Oil Man Al Gore wants to tax carbon. Who exhales Carbon? You Do.
Who is the Target?
by Indn Maid June 4, 2008 6:33 PM PDT
Is there any way we can be sure that those who subscribe to the 'belch' day and petition(s) are the first to die from global warming? Can we? Huh? Huh? Pleeeease?
As the CEO of a small company which manufactures (among other things) passive solar heating and cooling units, I'd love to see the same kind of encouragement for what we who give a damn about our Holy Mother the Earth - and QUALITY of life on her - have been working on for the past dona hey years as has gone to the oil companies and polluters.
Instead, we've slogged on on our own dollars, so many of us, making slow progress and being hindered by public apathy, ignorance and belief in "someone else taking care of things"; and in the case of us Indns, being told that our Traditional view of humans being a part of a web of life (not the most important part) is "unrealistic" and "backward" - while those same sorts of people 'discover' HR perspectives that come from our Traditions. What's wrong with that picture, hm?
The potential good in this is that as oil prices rise and individual pocketbooks feel squeezed ever more, products such as ours will look ever better, and when enough such units are in use, people will see the truth behind our long-time push for environmental friendliness as the sky and waters clear. Provided enough of us survive the other effects of global warming, such as crop failure....
Reply to this comment
by dank67 June 5, 2008 12:10 AM PDT
It is politics and business vs. science. Look back in history when we first started to turn away from leaded gas. Leaded gas which is gasoline plus a lead additive was more expensive than unleaded gas. This was business corporations solicited politicians so they would not have to change methods and the companies that produced the lead additives could maintain profits. This was before the public knew how toxic and dangerous lead was. Look at us now we are severely afraid of letting our children play with a toy that contains led. So with this example do you think business corporations and politicians always do what is best or do what will gain votes and money, to campaign for their next term. There is a cap and trade on sulfur emissions brought on because of acid precipitation or acid rain. Everyone was afraid of that it turned out to be a successful method of reducing those emissions. The costs were very small and the cost of credits shrunk every year. It is an example of how businesses will not change until they are forced to. Although the carbon trade regulations are different, one could say we will either pay with tax or as oil prices grow we will pay more for everything and just keep feeding the oil executives so they can contribute more to politicians. Oil is a limited recourse how much is left and how much is attainable is unknown. What is known, is the demand of oil will increase every year as the developing nations grow they will demand more and more. With the increased demand prices are only going to continue to rise. So the carbon trade tax will help force business corporations to change and focus more on alternative energy and more energy conscious practices. Not many people realize that the more efficient the industry the less the pollution. Pollution affects all more than we know most of the time it is silenced with money but look at the lead example to see how money can hush what is bad for citizens. So let?s all try to think how the rich people buy people and science so they can make us sick and they can stay rich.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis June 7, 2008 5:56 AM PDT
No, it's politics and business vs. 'junk science', like back when global cooling was the rage.
The enviro-nuts (and I was one at one time, until I started looking at the evidence, then I did a complete 180) need something to terrify people with in order to get their radical agendas put into place.
by Lerianis June 7, 2008 5:57 AM PDT
Oh, and as to the oil being a limited resource.... WRONG! They have recently tested tapped out oil fields..... wonder of wonders, they have more oil there now!

Apparently, our planet creates oil not just through decomposition and the high-pressure on things like dinosaur skeletons, but through ANOTHER process that we don't understand quite yet.
by iff2mastamatt June 7, 2008 8:05 AM PDT
There is 40,000,000,000 barrels of oil in Montana alone. That is enough oil to supply the USA for 10 years. It's a fact.
by Lerianis June 7, 2008 5:54 AM PDT
I am an extreme liberal on most things, but I have to agree with these guys that 'global warming' is the biggest scam since 'global cooling' back in the 1970's and 80's.
We just have to learn that the heating and cooling of our planet is BEYOND HUMAN CONTROL OR EFFECT, meaning that unless we do something EXTREMELY major, like setting off multiple nuclear bombs and starting a nuclear winter, we have very little effect on this planet's temperatures.
Reply to this comment
by iff2mastamatt June 7, 2008 8:01 AM PDT
You're right, but most people are "scared into" global warming. When I was in 3rd grade, I was horrified when I heard about it. I felt like the world was going to end the next week. However, I have learned over the years that politics can destroy science, and decieve the average American to believe what they want you to believe, not what is really fact.
by iff2mastamatt June 7, 2008 7:57 AM PDT
Really, CO2 hasn't really been proven to really "harm" the earth. It is a necessity of life, especially for plants. By the way, how does the government expect to "measure" CO2? It's just like counting the grains of salt on a beach.
Reply to this comment
by Heepspo June 7, 2008 11:42 AM PDT
Haha. It's about time we do something like this.
The ignorance of the misinformed wacko's who believe in global warming are so annoying.
To pronounce that you believe in global warming is like going out of your way to tell everyone that you're a moron.

I think I'll let my car idle for a couple hours and throw a bunch of gasoline on a fire. lol.
Reply to this comment
by Kev50027 June 7, 2008 1:20 PM PDT
Heck yeah, I'm going to keep my dad's Porsche and my BMW running all day, keep my PS3, Xbox 360 and 850 watt computer on all day, and make sure the 61" plasma is displaying a bright white screen. I'll also throw all the paper away, and hide the recyclers at work. I love this idea!
Reply to this comment
by c|net Reader June 10, 2008 2:30 PM PDT
What amazes me is how one can claim such unanimity when it doesn't exist. You can claim, without substantiation, that nearly all appropriately credentialed scientists agree that we're undergoing global warming and that humans are a significant cause, but that doesn't make it so. While I don't question localized warming, I have read about a number of examples of cooling, so there is reason to question global warming. However, even if we are experiencing global warming, there are reasonable questions to address which I haven't seen addressed satisfactorily. First, is this warming just part of a normal cycle? If so, we might be able to reduce its effects, but it may well be totally out of our control and will revert of its own accord. Second, what effect do human activities have on the warming? There are a great many factors that contribute to warming. It may well be that we can do nearly nothing to mitigate the effects. It may well be that our efforts will have the opposite effect due to the flurry of activity surrounding green technologies. There are still offices and factories to build, occupy, and run, etc.

My point is that hysteria only begets the same. Doing "something" isn't good enough, any more than "change" is good enough. One must do the right things and must effect appropriate change or the effort is not only wasted but may cause things to worsen.
Reply to this comment
by c|net Reader June 10, 2008 2:37 PM PDT
My reply was supposed to have appeared in response to Cat_Black responding to ajblack's comment at the top.
by sigloiv June 12, 2008 12:08 PM PDT
I'm puffing on a nice cigar, running my air conditioner at 60 and doing a 1/2 load of laundry. I'm also idling my hummer in the driveway while heating my pool and spa. God Bless America and God Bless people with a brain who KNOW that global warming is a scam.
Reply to this comment
 See all 33 Comments >>
advertisement

In the news now

Yahoo's Decker strong contender for CEO

Sources say the president of the embattled Internet search pioneer has been through two rounds of interviews with the board.


Gadget extravaganza in Las Vegas

CES 2009 is in full swing. Highlights so far include Palm's WebOS and Pre device, Microsoft's Windows 7 beta, and much more.


About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech guru Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right