The article talked about cleanliness targets missed and uncertainty about the rise in papers left around, but here’s my question, why are papers being given out freely in the first place?

It’s not good for your economy cause some potential income is being lost, wasted by people who aren’t using the papers to the max, not even taking papers left by others and always taking new ones, etc. People aren’t going to stop riding the tube because there aren’t free papers. There’s then garbage, rider displeasure with all that garbage, cost to clean it up too late, apparently, etc.

Why are these papers being given out, never mind trying to find the reason for the increase in paper left around?

The same goes for any other subway that gives out free papers, as I don’t suspect the London underground is the only one in the world that does so. [Envirostats author]

- The Guardian, Dec 10 2007

The greatest emissions resulted from flights to and from Indonesia, but extra air conditioning and car travel during two weeks of meetings added significantly to the carbon budget.

While all UN delegates and most European government delegates had their flights offset with financial investments in schemes which buy up greenhouse emissions, it is not known how many other attendees tried to lessen their impact.

The UN spent nearly £50,000 offsetting its emissions from two dozen UN agencies, funds and programmes, as well as the carbon footprint of secretary general Ban Ki-moon and his entourage. “We at the UN climate secretariat are offsetting by buying emission reductions under the Clean Development Mechanism. Then it is up to the individual delegates and journalists. The responsibility lies with them,” said a UN spokesman.

David Adam, the Guardian’s sole correspondent in Bali, had his carbon footprint offset in a scheme by Climate Care, which invests in renewable energy in developing countries. 

- CO2 statistics courtesy of the United Nations while trees planted statistic courtesy of the Indonesian government, both via The Guardian, Dec 15 2007

“Most people don’t realize that the meat and food items they eat, the soaps and shampoos they use, even some of the biodiesel and ethanol biofuels powering their cars come from cleared tropical forests,” said Michael Totten, CI’s Chief Adviser for Climate, Water and Ecosystem Services. “This calculator shows them how big of an impact they are making, and how to offset the damage by protecting tropical forests that contain some of the world’s richest biological diversity and life-sustaining benefits critical to the wellbeing of local populations.”

Most web-based carbon calculators focus on reducing a person’s carbon footprint through energy solutions, mainly by the purchase of renewable “green” power such as capturing land-fill methane gas, or wind power or energy efficiency options. While CI advocates those options as well, CI’s calculator is a quick and easy way to calculate carbon footprints, learn about ways to reduce emissions, and contribute to one of the least addressed and most important ways to combat climate change — protecting existing tropical forests.

Reducing emissions from deforestation is one of the most effective ways of keeping greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. The United States and China are the world’s two largest emitters due to industry emissions; Brazil and Indonesia are ranked third and fourth due to tropical deforestation.

Users of the CI online tool can offset emissions by donating to the long-term management of threatened forests requiring immediate protection, while at the same time returning the greatest results. CI is establishing forest-carbon projects in Brazil, Colombia, China, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mexico, Peru and the Philippines.

CI and partners designed these projects to provide multiple benefits. In addition to storing carbon dioxide, they conserve critical habitat for plant and animal species, and protect important ecosystems that provide sustainable income for local communities and benefits for all people. All of the conservation carbon projects are designed to comply with standards set by the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance, a partnership between leading companies, nonprofit organizations and research institutes. The Alliance was developed to enable independent verification that concrete benefits are realized for climate protection, biodiversity conservation, and local community benefits.

The CI carbon calculator and offset projects respond to public surveys showing that the majority of Americans are concerned about climate change. The calculator was designed to be transferred easily to other sites that wish to offer the tool.

The carbon calculator is available at http://www.conservation.org/carboncalculator.

- Science Daily, Dec 16 2007

Don’t ask me why gasoline allows for higher concentrations than diesel in America but the more important factor here is look at what China allows in relative proportions.

There are also thousands of new cars per day that was not listed in the source, with over 1,000 just in the city of Beijing each day alone as per Stat 0511. They obviously contribute to the pollution. [Envirostats author]

Mainland Chinese atmospheric scientists concluded in an analysis this year in The Journal of Environmental Sciences that, here in Guangzhou, [soot] particles were the pollutant farthest out of line with air-quality norms 226 days a year. Sulfur dioxide, which comes mainly from burning coal, was the pollutant that exceeded norms by the widest margin 45 days a year, while nitrogen oxides were the most prominent pollutant 23 days a year.

The air was relatively clean on the remaining 71 days a year.

- The New York Times, Dec 8 2007

I love these sort of niche statistics, but I have to say, I thought this figure would have been higher. There was something said about “in Canada”, but I think that’s the press source’s error because no NHL team plays exclusive in Canada and I don’t think the study was just on Canadian teams given the initiative to be carbon neutral through paying for offsets is league-wide. However, the David Suzuki Foundation does good science, has vested interested in putting in a higher number than true, if they would skew anything at all although I am by no means suggesting they are, and they know the NHL players can all afford $290 or a little more if need be so despite all this, it is what it is at 10 tonnes (which would be metric and not short cause we use metric in Canada).

Beware, any NHL player, who refuses to carbon neutralize themselves!

Let’s see the other major sports get on this bandwagon. Kudos to the NHL for doing this!

At $29 per tonne CO2 and if the hockey players are generating 10 tonnes per year with all that jet setting and airport setting, how many of us could offset some of our transport and other CO2 emissions, if we can’t afford it for our entire lifestyle? [Envirostats author]

- The David Suzuki Foundation via Reuters, Dec 7 2007