katies points well said.
james
OSP - Obnoxious Smog Producers
Jerry Mouton wrote:
> Katie Elder points out that calculating and arguing with Alameda is not going
> to work, we have to present how all our carbon emissions are offset. And we
> need to offset the travel to and from events too, at least until the carbon
> cap and trade system offsets all our gasoline usage.
>
> So, how much carbon do we all emit going and coming from an event? Here's a
> guess to dispute with.
>
> 150 entrants
>
> Average distance traveled to and from: 80 miles
> (12 from out of the bay area last event, San Jose-Alameda the Average
> distance: 39 miles each way?)
>
> Average MPG (including Minis and Tow rigs): 15 MPG
>
> Total gallons used in travel: 800
> Total gallons at the event: 60
>
> Each gallon makes 6.3 lbs of CO2, for a total of: 5418 lbs of CO2, like 4.7
> tons. That would be the equivalent of less than 9 CFLs replaced for a year.
>
> As we calculated before, planting 900 tropical trees for $90.00 will offset
> 45,000 lbs of CO2, or about 9 events. For $10.00 an event (or so) we can be
> completely carbon neutral including travel.
>
> Katie points out that when the government implements the cap and trade system,
> carbon costs will push up fuel costs and theoretically completely offset all
> our gasoline based carbon emissions, so no further autocross club offsets
> would be necessary. She suggests we offset our carbon through the Alameda
> offset program (if there is one), because it completely removes any objection
> to our sport from this area, and we will be able to point to other users of
> Alameda who don't offset theirs and claim advantage over them. Note that this
> will soon be an issue at all the municipalities we currently get permits for
> use from.
>
> We can only gain by being ahead of the curve here. People who think this
> carbon footprint stuff is all foolishness, consider it part of the usage fee
> for our sites, which it is if it works.
>
> Jerry
|