Inauguration Carbon Footprint

I’ve been privileged to  view a pre-release copy of a study by the Institute for Liberty which analyzes data from federal agencies, environmentalist organizations and news accounts to extrapolate the estimated environmental impact for the 2009 Inauguration. On the basis of this data, IFL estimates that the total carbon footprint for the Inauguration will likely exceed 570 million POUNDS of CO2 – the equivalent of 57,698 YEARS of carbon produced by a standard household.

This estimate doesn’t even include additional emissions from security, the energy required from large screen TV’s, people watching it on TV or the hot air emitted by politicians.

Like IFL, I make no criticism of these emissions, merely note the hypocrisy of the left using the coercive power of the state to punish business and hurt working American families while themselves acting outside the standards they want to force upon others.

I’ll post the link as soon as the study goes live.


Tags: , ,

4 Responses to “Inauguration Carbon Footprint”

  1. Alex Says:

    You make a good point highlighting double standards.

    Assuming the analysis is correct the real benefit of such a study is show that activities we do not usually connect with emissions can be costly on a number of levels.

    You saw it as a political point to be made. OK.

    I see it as a chance to reveal the reality of our activity whether or not political.

    Is possible you are looking at everything with accute political glasses? Governments should leadership in this area so we may ask how does the new administration recognise their environmental effect and how will citizens change behaviour withou leadership?

  2. Tim Says:

    Leaving aside the debate over the negative effects of carbon, I think the fundamental difference we share is – indeed quite possibly one of the most fundamental political debates there is – is over precisely what leadership the government is entitled to show.
    For me, Leadership comes from the community, not the State. Vesting government with the power to “change behaviour” is fraught with danger – to put it mildly.
    If people wish to effect change, set a good example and persuade others to follow you. Don’t rely on an omniscient government to socially engineer for you. Firstly, it rarely works, and secondly, it can set a very, very dangerous precedent (ie when people with slightly … odd … views about what behaviour should be accepted get into power, if we’ve already given the government to regulate behaviour it gets rather difficult)

  3. Alex Says:

    Leadership is not social engineering, nor coersion or regulation.

    Showing the community how there may be alternatives to the status quo is not central control of the economy.

    Your view of libertarianism is verging on anarchy.

    Sorry about the typos above in my first post – it was another Blackberry post.

  4. motion29 Says:

    haha! There’s a cruel irony in all this. Hopefully the ultimate steps taken to curb overall emissions will include the inaguration’s emissions! hehe

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: