individual emissions rise steadily as their income increases.

Here we go again ! ! !

This is only one example, from the above article, that makes obvious observations from manipulated/agenda-focused data. It is clear that the sole purpose of the report is to promote AGW and wealth redistribution.

Stalin would be proud !

Strange they "forgot" Algore for their name dropping ..........wonder why?

"The simple way you get people's carbon use down is to tax it,"

And this will do what?

As soon as these whacked out liberals realize that CO2 is a gas that travels all around the whole planet maybe they will get serious and stop singling out the US.

When you add up the countries on the list that the UN says have to do nothing
it makes anything the US does look stupid

The only reason they even have a voice in this country is because we actually do have enough people that care.
Why don't they try this tired propaganga in Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, etc?
Because those countries add up to a lot more emissions than we do
and they are not about to change anything.

Those homeless people crank out a lot of CO2 panhandling on street corners.

The important metric is carbon intensity, and the US is one of the most efficient in the world. Obviously the large industrial and agricultural output of the US causes our per-capita CO2 output to increase substantially.

MIT should be embarrassed to have junk like this associated with them. The one thing they got right is that raising taxes will indeed reduce our CO2 output - by driving industry, jobs and CO2 production to Asia.

This one should be filed under "Who gives a...?"

Having said where this thread should be filed, I decided to check my "carbon footprint" just for fun.

For a house hold of three I get:Your estimated greenhouse gas emissions are 140 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent per year, which is above the U.S. national average.

Alright!!!

Actually, it should be higher. I forgot to add in my diesel powered F-350. Oh, well.

Can anyone top 140?

Reply: Did you calculate your own individual #?

"The simple way you get people's carbon use down is to tax it,"

That says it all about the article. Another thing that is rarely pointed out in articles such as this, is that the US generates about 30% of the wealth globally, and that everyone from the EU to China and India depend on the US economically for thier well being.

Taxing CO2 is about the surest way to bring down living standards (consumers are now finding out what high energy prices can do to thier bottom line), and would be political suicide for any legislator who voted them in.

Our Household rated 74.
I am working to get that number up however and should be able to get to at least 1/50th of Al Gore by late summer.

I personally don't care about the magnitude of my carbon footprint. I don't get guilted into thinking I'm destroying the planet by driving a vehicle, purchasing meat, or by not recycling.

If the brain-washed Liberals on here believe that they are destroying the planet, then they should lead the way and cut back. The truth of the matter is that they won't.

Let's see how much Liberals practice what they preach.

1) How many have not and will not have children in order to save the planet?

2) How many Liberals on here sold their house to move into one that is smaller and closer to work? Now I'm not talking 5-bedroom to 4-bedroom. You should purchase absolutely nothing more than what is necessary to live. You Liberals love to guilt people into believing that all of us live such a profligate lifestyle. Lead the way my friends. If you have a family of 4, 2 bedrooms at most are needed. No need for a dining room as that is just more space that will require heating and cooling.

3) How many have sold their motor vehicles and commute solely by non-fossil fuel based transportation? That includes absolutely NO transportation that requires fossil fuels.

4) How many will completely rid their lives of any convenience that is unnecessary to living? This includes cell phones (we survived without them before), computers (once again we survived without them prior), dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, etc. Please don't use the excuse that your work requires a cell phone or computer. You should tell your boss that the planet is in peril and it's more important for you to not use those items of luxury. If the boss disagrees, quit your job. The planet will thank you.

5) How many follow Sheryl Crow's advice and only use 2 sheets of toilet paper? Heck, for that matter why use toilet paper at all. Many third world countries (who we're supposed to emulate according to this story) don't use toilet paper. Considering that most Liberals are full of s@#$, this would save a tremendous amount of trees and the planet.

6) Trips to Starbucks should be eliminated. If for some reason Karl Rove and his minions kidnap you and take you there, ask the baristas to pour the coffee directly into your mouth. Tell them you're doing it for the planet. The same can be said for fast food. Since you're already forgoing meat, cup your hands and ask the server to place the salad into your hands. (Think communion in a Catholic Church) Ask them to say "The Body of Gore" when doing so and then say "Amen" each time you place a piece into your mouth. After all this is Environmental religion.

The list could go on but I'll stop here to gauge a response from our Liberal save-the-planet friends. Come to think of it, I'm sure none of them are hypocrites and definitely practice what they preach. Thus, no one will ever reply again to this blog because the use of a computer requires fossil fuel-derived energy.

My carbon footprint is around 1/100th of Al Gore's. But, it's all quite silly. CO2 is a harmless, naturally occuring gas necessary to sustain life. CO2 is not a pollutant and has not been shown to cause warming.

We should all use the best, most efficient technology to heat our homes. We should insulate our homes and use energy efficient appliances. We should re-cycle whenever possible. I'm not convinced that CFLs are the way to go because of the hazardous levels of mercury they contain. I think biofuels are a disaster for the environment. I think nuclear power generation is the most environmentally friendly source of electricity.

All this fuss over CO2 is bogus so I really don't care about my carbon footprint because it's irrelevant.

Validate the CO2 global warming cause and effect link before you ask me to give up meat to "save the planet."

I found this summary sentence highly slanted toward understating the problem:

The students found that anyone who lives in the United States contributes more than two times as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere as the global average and that individual emissions rise steadily as their income increases.

I've followed the Global Warming blog for some time now, and I must say that the ignorance displayed in the comments is simply breathtaking. Change "Gore" to "Darwin" and "communist" to "atheist", and the vast majority of comments here would be indistinguishable from those of any creationist cheerleading squad. Those of you who complain of being "censored" on serious discussion forums like RealClimate, please note that repeatedly citing irrelevant statistics ("It's -60 F in Greenland"), and denialist canards that have been debunked many times over, does not constitute meaningful discussion.

Brett: you said you had problems with your spam filter deleting comments from the regulars. Perhaps you need to change the filter setting from "junk science" to "junk mail"? : )

This was interesting. I ran the test for me and then my family and the results were interesting.

For me - 28. For my whole family - 75.

Not sure what the article is implying by saying that a homeless American still emits more CO2 than the average world citizen?? Of course the world average would be lower than the US average.

By the way, we try to conserve as much energy as we can. It might not make a difference as far as saving the planet, but it does save us money.

Mine was 33 on this one. Do I win a prize? I know it could be higher because they didn't even ask about my boat, atv, snowmobile, weed trimmer, chain saw or lawn mowers.

ps. I took 2 other "tests" and got 17 and 13.5 tons.

pps. "The simple way you get people's carbon use down is to tax it," Professor Timothy Gutowski says. Dear Professor, take a long walk off a short pier.

The students found that anyone who lives in the United States contributes more than two times as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere as the global average and that individual emissions rise steadily as their income increases.

REPLY: Well fancy that! The University that houses anti-American faculty in the person of Noam Chomsky blaming it all on (wealthy) Americans. Never mind that China is the most populated country in the world, and is it's biggest polluter. Never mind that they have no intenetions of signing that stupid Kyoto treaty. Just blame it all on those evil rich yankees. The only thing is THERE IS NOTHING TO BLAME THEM FOR!!!!! As the Farce and Fraud that is Glo-BULL Warming, and trying to sell the world that Carbon is a pollutant, continues to bamboozle the naieve (or however you spell it) into running to big brother to tax us (punish us) into the horse and buggy days to even the world playing field. Yet another CROCK in the never ending lunacy. Way to go MIT! Way to live up to your usual anti-American Chomsky standards.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

"But the biggest factors in most people's lives were the obvious energy-users: housing, transportation and food. "The simple way you get people's carbon use down is to tax it," Professor Timothy Gutowski says."

I have to heat my house in the winter, drive to work, and cook food. None of these thing will change up or down because of a tax or the lack of a tax. What I don't need is another tax which will reduce my personal income. Could we call this proposed tax it is? An existence or a way of life tax? C02 has become the fuel for some to try to sequester economic activity and redistribute weatlh.

and if we actually implement the carbon reductions called for by both Democratic Candidates (80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050) or the Republican candidate (somewhat lower reductions) the carbon footprint of Americans will have to shrink to 2.5 tons/yr. Of course it is interesting to note that Americans in Colonial times had a larger carbon footprint than 2.5 tons/yr...

Let's tax carbon consumption. Then when people can't afford to buy food or clothes, we'll create a new government program to subsidize their purchase. We'll have to raise taxes for this, too. Raising taxes means less money to buy necessities, so we'll have to expand government some more.

The well-off will be fine. The middle class will shrink and fewer people will be able to move up economically. The poor will become more plentiful and more dependent upon the government. Anybody who doesn't work for the government will be hard-pressed to find work.

The world economy will go into a recession, at least until China, India and other emerging nations find new customers. The citizens of nations that are smart enough not to fall for this baloney will become the new rich.

BTW: I just planted some new trees. How much credit do I get for that? Reply: I would guess you can deduct a tenth of a point off your score.

I can see it coming...an individual carbon dioxide sequestering kit consisting of a mask, a tank, interconnecting hoses and gages. At first it will be voluntarily hoping all will take a few hours a day to breath into the mask..when the gages show you have a full tank take it to your nearest CO2 recycling center. Later it will become mand....oh never mind Ill end it here.

Reply: That's good Jack! LOL

Calculate my carbon footprint? What utter nonsense. This is a scam beyond the bounds of decency.
The questions asked are too few and simplistic for any meaningful ability to say what your carbon footprint is.
And of course the pitch is for you to feel guilty because it just so happens that they have a plan to ameliorate your guilt by offsetting your incredibly huge carbon footprint. How convenient! What chutzpah!
This scam is exactly like the medieval practice of selling indulgences. The whole concept of an indulgence is based on the medieval doctrine that sinners must not only repent of sins that they've committed, they must also confess these sins and pay some sort of retribution. You see, the problem with this AGW repentance and confession is that the only evidence you have of repentance is the sinner's claim to be repentant and of course a bill for offsetting a carbon footprint or planting some tree in some far off place that doesn’t exist. If it does exist it’s on the property of the indulgence selling scam artist who wants to start a tree farm. LOL
All these folks do is asking for a donation so they can advertise for more donations. You pay your “sinner’s tax” (Sorry offsetting carbon footprint indulgence) and can then brag at the next cocktail party about how much you are doing to save the world.

Whose driving AGW? Just follow the money!

My household scored 79 vs. 80 average. This however is probably low vs. our reality.

We have a house, apartment and use the in-laws cabin where we've a boat. We have multiple computers.
We also eat a lot of organics which inexplicably gave us a credit. We run air filters constantly, leave windows open 6 months of the year, drink bottled water, eat out frequently and never finish the leftovers, obsessively wash everything, etc.

Conservation is an incentive if it adds to my disposable income. Eco-guilt is no incentive whatsoever.

Gary B.

"Not sure what the article is implying by saying that a homeless American still emits more CO2 than the average world citizen?? Of course the world average would be lower than the US average."

You could also look at it this way.
The poorest of the poor in the US are richer than the poor in the rest of the world. Otherwise their homeless carbon footprint would not be so high.

Is that a reflection of the poor in the US or the whole concept of a carbon footprint? HMMMMMMMMM

Why tax carbon? Is it becoming more scarce? Perhaps we should enact carbon rationing instead?

Or is carbon a pollutant? I was taught that carbon is an essential building block for life as we know it. For example, the new trees I planted can't grow without carbon, and neither can wheat, corn, barley or algae.

When I breathe, I emit carbon. Not only carbon, but water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Let's tax breathing, too. People who exercise should be taxed at a higher rate as they breathe more and consume more.

I also want a "breeder" tax for people who have children. People without children who get themselves sterilized would get a tax credit. Of course, we must do away with the Earned Income Tax Credit for poor people with children.

Or, we could first show that carbon is causing real harm before doing anything. Yeah, let's start with that.

I don't buy that calculator. I have not been on a plane this year, I drive 75-100 miles a week in a small car, recycle, got the stupid lights, use energy star products, and I am still well above the world average! I don't know what these people expect me to do, but there is not much more I can do.

Brett,

I hadn't, but here are the results: Your estimated greenhouse gas emissions are 75 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent per year, which is above the U.S. national average.

I included my truck this time. However, it didn't add much since I rarely drive it now that my daughter doesn't require me to haul her horses around that much.

As expected, we see our resident right-wingers congregate to shout their anti-government propaganda and predictions of reverting to the stone age if we help the environment. Of course, these predictions never come true, but they hope that if they shout loud enough, maybe they will

I agree with BT: Oz really should do stand up comedy. And maybe join his bro, PH. They could be a traveling sideshow.

this is awesome. I bet I have a bigger footprint than anyone on here. I LOVE IT. MINE IS BIGGER!!!!!!!

Reply: Then give us your number!!!!!

The US carbon footprint would be reduced considerably if the climate warmed up. My heating bills this past winter were outrageous. A 10 degree warm up would cut my carbon footprint substantially. (Starving Zimbabweans clearly have a much more enviable life than Americans because they don't need or get as much food or shelter, plus they have a much shorter lifespan.)

Thankfully, Al Gore is doing his part to accommodate the warmup. I calculated his footprint at 817, though I suspect that is too low based on his 20,000 sq ft. house.

For our 2 person hovel and our boring go-nowhere life, our carbon footprint is 26 tons per year. This is embarrassing, we need to get out and have some fun in order to increase our carbon footprint.