Comments | the0lady: In which I am cross at the Grauniad

the0lady

In which I am cross at the Grauniad

Nov 28, 2009 23:21

Those unfortunate enough to have exposure to my periodic episodes of wibble may recall that a while back a was very upset because, having taken the Guardian's carbon footprint calculator test, I found out that I have a much larger carbon footprint than the average UK consumer (17.6 to the average 15.4 ( Read more... )

Comments 8

blearyboy November 28 2009, 23:54:12 UTC

You could do a mash-up of Mail & Guardian headlines: "Bloody immigrants, coming over here and polluting our atmosphere with their jet-setting lifestyles"

the0lady November 30 2009, 11:09:06 UTC

I was thinking very similar thoughts; it does seem as if the Guardian is on a drive to classify all things in the universe as "good/bad for the environment" (often both) in the same way that the Mail has been doing with "causes/cures cancer".

ailbhe November 29 2009, 00:03:16 UTC

I had a go at their calculator, roughly, and got stuck on calculating travel. I'm way too tired to look up the maps. Google maps and some fudging upwards leaves me about 6-8,000 ish. If we hadn't done international train and ferry trips, it would be significantly less than half that. Clearly I should be avoiding ferries where possible.

Dammit.

anonymous November 29 2009, 07:54:38 UTC

In accounting the carbon, business flights should be accounted to the company's footprint, and not to yours. It's the company's decision on whether or not they need to send you somewhere, and it's the company's policy that determines what the appropriate form of travel is. So you should recalculate without necessary business flights to get what you *personally* are responsible for.

(The comment has been removed)

the0lady November 30 2009, 10:13:52 UTC

Unfortunately even without work related travel I still fly a fair bit more than average. Hence the commitment to fewer airborne holidays in the coming years. I'd still like it explained why that is the worst thing I could possibly be doing to hurt the environment, considering the relatively small impact of aviation compared to other industries (industrial manufacturing, for example).

the0lady November 30 2009, 10:11:14 UTC

That raises another question for me - if my carbon footprint is defined as what I can eprsonally control, why did the Guardian's calculator add a percentage to my footprint that is supposed to cover "my share" of things ilke street lights etc.? I'd ban all Xmas lights if I could, why should I feel guilty about my share in them?

worst_witch November 29 2009, 23:36:38 UTC

Well I just did mine for fun and came out at 10.08 tonnes. They are now saying that the UK average is 9.7 tonnes per person. Apparently my 'secondary' lifestyle accounts for 4.9 tonnes of that. My 16-year-old fuel injection petrol car is allegedly less damaging to the environment than my tendency to buy new clothes rather than second hand ones and eat meat more than once a week ( ... )

the0lady November 30 2009, 10:53:11 UTC

Thank for the link, I've done the gov one and I'm still above average (6.6 tonnes), mainly due to having double the travel footprint of the average person. So some 10:10 type of personal goal on flights still seems to be in order.

It makes me even madder to think that the Guardian are putting people off making this sort of effort by making it seem more daunting than it really is! I don't understand what, other than moralistic holier-than-thou mileage, they think they're delivering to the public with their type of coverage.