A steady rain this evening. Showers continuing overnight. Potential for heavy rainfall. Low 53F. Winds light and variable. Chance of rain 100%. Rainfall near a half an inch..
Tonight
A steady rain this evening. Showers continuing overnight. Potential for heavy rainfall. Low 53F. Winds light and variable. Chance of rain 100%. Rainfall near a half an inch.
I had mixed feelings in reading the April 4 article about San Mateo’s Earth Day statement and planned activities. I was excited to see the city call out cars as the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions in San Mateo; we should attack the primary cause of the problem. Unfortunately, I was less excited to read about the programs that the city is promoting in the face of this existential threat — repairing broken toys and clothing, family gardening, zero waste soup, a seed library, and a few others (including some good ones like home electrification).
In its two previous meetings, the San Mateo City Council has failed to get serious about the primary causes of climate change. The council proposed removing the bike lanes around San Mateo High and College Park Elementary schools to create more free evening car and truck parking. It also endorsed the continued use of gas-powered leaf blowers in all neighborhoods, even though these noisy and dirty nuisances emit as much carbon in one hour as a Toyota Camry would over 1,000 miles.
If we aren’t willing to take real steps to save the planet, let’s not pretend that we are trying to do so.
Thanks for your letter, Michael. I’m sure there are folks that really want to save the planet, but until they’re willing to get China, India, and other developing nations, and even developing nations from increasing their use of fossil fuels, then any local efforts won’t do anything to make a whit of difference.
1. Here are the 2021 stats for the world's biggest carbon polluters:
China generated around 30% of all global emissions, while the United States was responsible for almost 14%. In the ranking below you can find the 10 countries that produce the most emissions, measured in millions of tons of CO2 in 2019.
China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2
2. Are you seriously saying that there's no point in the US doing anything about climate change at local, regional or national levels until other countries act first?
3. Historically, Western industrialized countries have contributed the most carbon pollution, beginning with the industrial revolution. Although China is currently the biggest emitter, it has emitted far less than the US over the past three centuries. Since 1750, the US has produced more than 400 billion metric tons of cumulative CO2 emissions. Do we not have a moral obligation to lead the way in reducing emissions?
1. If we review your list, 6 of the 10 are developing countries, inhabited by over 3 billion people. To become developed countries, they’ll need plenty of energy and most will come via fossil fuels because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine.
The UK fired up coal generators because their “green” energy couldn’t keep up. Germany, last year, purchased over 44 million tonnes of coal, mostly from Russia. China purchased $114 billion worth of oil from Russia and is planning to build almost 200 coal power plants this year. India is planning on importing 33 times more oil from Russia than last year and most of their current energy is provided by coal (75% or so). Global use of coal has climbed to a record high of over 8 billion tonnes. Japan is buying Russian oil at prices higher than the Russian oil “cap.”
2. You’re welcome to do something about lessening your carbon footprint if you feel you’re making a difference. In reality, electrification is virtue signaling - your electricity still comes mostly from fossil-fuel powered generators. Just in CA, over 50% of California’s electricity has been supplied by natural gas power plants for at least the past twenty years. In the USA, gas and coal account for around 60% of all electricity generation, with renewables (including hydroelectric which some greenies don’t consider green) around 20%.
3. It makes sense that Western industrialized countries have contributed the most emissions as they’ve graduated from being developing countries. I have no doubt emissions from developing nations will increase at a greater percentage than developed countries. Do we have a moral obligation to lead the way in reducing emissions? We can try but who will listen to us when the approaches we’re taking consist of moving emissions out of our backyard to someone else’s backyard?
CA wildfires in 2020 created enough carbon emissions to offset 16 years of reductions, twice over. If CA were serious about climate change and emissions, instead of taking money from the poor and subsidizing the rich for "green" projects (not really as green after factoring energy used to mine raw materials and disposing of hazardous waste when solar and batteries have outlived their useful life), CA would put that money towards forest management and wildfire prevention, to the benefit of everyone around the globe.
Why are COP climate conference attendees taking over 400 carbon-spewing jets to attend in person? Why does John Kerry, who single-handedly has contributed over 300 metric tons of emissions since Biden stole office, continue to fly around the world lecturing us on why we should suffer when he’s nowhere close to suffering while polluting to his heart’s desire (bonus for Kerry, he gets to feed at the taxpayer trough). Why not Zoom? It’s obvious these folks feel no obligation, moral or not, to lead the way in reducing emissions. If anything, they’re showing us emissions don’t matter and you can talk the talk but you don’t need to walk the walk.
The question is - what are you doing personally, Michael? Since you feel so passionate about this issue that you are willing to indirectly shame your fellow Americans for some perceived lack of "action" - you obviously have a whole host of personal credentials related to the subject. What is the selective outrage a proxy for? What is this "we" rhetoric? So in your eyes there is nothing relevant that can be done unless everyone is no longer allowed to do certain things. Seems like a profound waste of energy and some strange logic.
The solutions proposed by Mr. Swire are either insignificant solutions to climate change or not a solution. According to the extensively researched Prolect Drawdown , bicycle infrastructure, while good, is not very high on the list of solutions in drawing down carbon. Plant rich diets are near the top of the list in all scenarios.
Banning or limiting gas leaf blowers or off road equipment is not even on the list which is not surprising given that gas leaf blowers, like all small gas engines, do not emit large amounts of carbon dioxide compared to larger displacement engines as found in motor vehicles. Mr Swire a is confusing the polluting gases emitted gas leaf blowers with carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases and claiming that banning leaf blowers will solve the issue of excess carbon gas in the atmosphere, without any documentation.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(5) comments
Thanks for your letter, Michael. I’m sure there are folks that really want to save the planet, but until they’re willing to get China, India, and other developing nations, and even developing nations from increasing their use of fossil fuels, then any local efforts won’t do anything to make a whit of difference.
Mr Y,
1. Here are the 2021 stats for the world's biggest carbon polluters:
China generated around 30% of all global emissions, while the United States was responsible for almost 14%. In the ranking below you can find the 10 countries that produce the most emissions, measured in millions of tons of CO2 in 2019.
China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2
2. Are you seriously saying that there's no point in the US doing anything about climate change at local, regional or national levels until other countries act first?
3. Historically, Western industrialized countries have contributed the most carbon pollution, beginning with the industrial revolution. Although China is currently the biggest emitter, it has emitted far less than the US over the past three centuries. Since 1750, the US has produced more than 400 billion metric tons of cumulative CO2 emissions. Do we not have a moral obligation to lead the way in reducing emissions?
LauraB, thanks for your reply...
1. If we review your list, 6 of the 10 are developing countries, inhabited by over 3 billion people. To become developed countries, they’ll need plenty of energy and most will come via fossil fuels because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine.
The UK fired up coal generators because their “green” energy couldn’t keep up. Germany, last year, purchased over 44 million tonnes of coal, mostly from Russia. China purchased $114 billion worth of oil from Russia and is planning to build almost 200 coal power plants this year. India is planning on importing 33 times more oil from Russia than last year and most of their current energy is provided by coal (75% or so). Global use of coal has climbed to a record high of over 8 billion tonnes. Japan is buying Russian oil at prices higher than the Russian oil “cap.”
2. You’re welcome to do something about lessening your carbon footprint if you feel you’re making a difference. In reality, electrification is virtue signaling - your electricity still comes mostly from fossil-fuel powered generators. Just in CA, over 50% of California’s electricity has been supplied by natural gas power plants for at least the past twenty years. In the USA, gas and coal account for around 60% of all electricity generation, with renewables (including hydroelectric which some greenies don’t consider green) around 20%.
3. It makes sense that Western industrialized countries have contributed the most emissions as they’ve graduated from being developing countries. I have no doubt emissions from developing nations will increase at a greater percentage than developed countries. Do we have a moral obligation to lead the way in reducing emissions? We can try but who will listen to us when the approaches we’re taking consist of moving emissions out of our backyard to someone else’s backyard?
CA wildfires in 2020 created enough carbon emissions to offset 16 years of reductions, twice over. If CA were serious about climate change and emissions, instead of taking money from the poor and subsidizing the rich for "green" projects (not really as green after factoring energy used to mine raw materials and disposing of hazardous waste when solar and batteries have outlived their useful life), CA would put that money towards forest management and wildfire prevention, to the benefit of everyone around the globe.
Why are COP climate conference attendees taking over 400 carbon-spewing jets to attend in person? Why does John Kerry, who single-handedly has contributed over 300 metric tons of emissions since Biden stole office, continue to fly around the world lecturing us on why we should suffer when he’s nowhere close to suffering while polluting to his heart’s desire (bonus for Kerry, he gets to feed at the taxpayer trough). Why not Zoom? It’s obvious these folks feel no obligation, moral or not, to lead the way in reducing emissions. If anything, they’re showing us emissions don’t matter and you can talk the talk but you don’t need to walk the walk.
The question is - what are you doing personally, Michael? Since you feel so passionate about this issue that you are willing to indirectly shame your fellow Americans for some perceived lack of "action" - you obviously have a whole host of personal credentials related to the subject. What is the selective outrage a proxy for? What is this "we" rhetoric? So in your eyes there is nothing relevant that can be done unless everyone is no longer allowed to do certain things. Seems like a profound waste of energy and some strange logic.
The solutions proposed by Mr. Swire are either insignificant solutions to climate change or not a solution. According to the extensively researched Prolect Drawdown , bicycle infrastructure, while good, is not very high on the list of solutions in drawing down carbon. Plant rich diets are near the top of the list in all scenarios.
Banning or limiting gas leaf blowers or off road equipment is not even on the list which is not surprising given that gas leaf blowers, like all small gas engines, do not emit large amounts of carbon dioxide compared to larger displacement engines as found in motor vehicles. Mr Swire a is confusing the polluting gases emitted gas leaf blowers with carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases and claiming that banning leaf blowers will solve the issue of excess carbon gas in the atmosphere, without any documentation.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.