Hagerty - Enthusiast Carbon Offset (ECO) program

[Peter Gariepy]

https://www.hagerty.com/carbonoffset

 

Introducing ECO

At Hagerty, everything we do is geared toward saving driving and car culture for generations to come. A big part of saving driving means saving the beautiful, scenic landscapes that help make driving the memorable and meaningful hobby that it is.

 

The fact is, driving the vehicles we love produces carbon dioxide, which has a negative impact on the environment. And while it’s true that collector vehicles represent a tiny fraction of the emissions generated by the global transportation sector, we are committed to helping steer the future toward a cleaner, healthier planet where we can continue enjoying the things we love — like getting out on the open road.

 

That’s why we’re proud to introduce the Enthusiast Carbon Offset (ECO) program. Thanks to a partnership with Chrome Carbon, perhaps the only carbon reduction and reforestation program started by and for automotive enthusiasts, we’re offering our car lovers the opportunity to easily calculate their carbon footprint and take tangible steps to help offset it.

 

Join us as we drive toward a future filled with fun cars and beautiful places where we can enjoy them.

[Angelfish]

 

 

https://time.com/6264772/study-most-carbon-credits-are-bogus/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Angelfish (see edit history)

[TAKerry]

The idea of this is borderline 'opening a can of worms'. No offense but I cannot believe the moderator opened it! 

 

[1912Staver]

I now own 2 acres of very large rain forest trees. That has to be better than any phoney offset scheme. But I don't get any credit/ tax break or anything else  for it. In fact the goverment would prefer I cut them all down and grow a crop that would probably do no more than get me a ag. tax break. 

[Peter Gariepy]

42 minutes ago, TAKerry said:

The idea of this is borderline 'opening a can of worms'. No offense but I cannot believe the moderator opened it! 

 

Don't shoot the messenger. 

Its worthy of a conversation.

[prewarnut]

...for another data point we should keep in mind water vapor is one of the strongest (and most abundant) greenhouse gas without an antedote like attempts at carbon sequestration. Thus, steam car drivers are not immune.😁

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour

 

[Hemi Joel]

The fact that Hagerty is buying into this fraud, and apparently part of my premiums are going to support it, causes me to re-think whether I want to continue with them. 

[28 Chrysler]

Back almost 50 years ago I was in a business class we had a exercise on pollution credits that failed at reducing any of the numbers.

 

[Peter J.Heizmann]

3 hours ago, Peter Gariepy said:

https://www.hagerty.com/carbonoffset

 

Introducing ECO

At Hagerty, everything we do is geared toward saving driving and car culture for generations to come. A big part of saving driving means saving the beautiful, scenic landscapes that help make driving the memorable and meaningful hobby that it is.

 

The fact is, driving the vehicles we love produces carbon dioxide, which has a negative impact on the environment. And while it’s true that collector vehicles represent a tiny fraction of the emissions generated by the global transportation sector, we are committed to helping steer the future toward a cleaner, healthier planet where we can continue enjoying the things we love — like getting out on the open road.

 

That’s why we’re proud to introduce the Enthusiast Carbon Offset (ECO) program. Thanks to a partnership with Chrome Carbon, perhaps the only carbon reduction and reforestation program started by and for automotive enthusiasts, we’re offering our car lovers the opportunity to easily calculate their carbon footprint and take tangible steps to help offset it.

 

Join us as we drive toward a future filled with fun cars and beautiful places where we can enjoy them.

Thank you, Peter for your obvious devotion to keeping all of we AACA members “awake” of what can be or is brewing by outside sources that could ruin our club’s goals of passing on to future generations one great hobby.

 

Stay our mission via SEMA partners and ignore the detractors who forget what we are all about.

[60FlatTop]

3 hours ago, Peter Gariepy said:

we’re offering our car lovers the opportunity

I am a detail person and when I see any type of business/sales offering that uses contractions I get turned off right away.

 

All my negawatts ever did was reduce next year's budget. Negatonnes of carbon will not fare much better.

[Twisted Shifter]

10 hours ago, Hemi Joel said:

The fact that Hagerty is buying into this fraud, and apparently part of my premiums are going to support it, causes me to re-think whether I want to continue with them. 

 

13 hours ago, Peter Gariepy said:

https://www.hagerty.com/carbonoffset

 

Hagerty says: "We’re offering our car lovers the opportunity to easily calculate their carbon footprint and take tangible steps to help offset it."

 

 

 

The fine print in the article says:  "Yes, the cost to offset is based on factors such as vehicle, type of driving and fuel consumption. On average, a classic vehicle driven 1,000 miles that achieves an average of 15 MPG will cost approximately $33.70 per year."      

 

Does this mean Hagerty will be adding $33.70 to the insurance policy of each car we insure with them, or is this just an optional offer to voluntarily contribute according to their calculator to this Enthusiast Carbon Offset (ECO) program with ChromeCarbon?

 

Who/what is Chrome Carbon?

Edited October 4, 2023 by Twisted Shifter (see edit history)

[f.f.jones]

8 hours ago, Twisted Shifter said:

Who/what is Chrome Carbon?

 

(Hagerty customers should send a copy of this article directly to the management and directors of Hagerty Insurance Company)

 

https://carwitter.com/the-truth-about-chrome-carbon-and-why-you-shouldnt-use-them/

 

The truth about Chrome Carbon, llc.– and why you shouldn’t use them

Adam Tudor-Lane | February 14, 2023 | Car Features

 

"Chrome Carbon, llc. is simply a way to take 20-30% of your money for making the right choice.

And in our opinion, that’s plain wrong."

 

 

Recently, Hagerty the classic car insurance behemoth, partnered with a little-known UK carbon offsetter called Chrome Carbon, llc. Apparently, they’re a reforestation company (according to some terrible journalism by Forbes). Sadly they’re not. But we’ll get to that.

Chrome Carbon in a nutshell: Use an online calculator to figure out how much CO2 your classic car produces in a given year. Then it figures out how many trees need to be planted to eliminate those emissions.

You pay the fee and then feel great because “all my emissions were offset by planting XX trees”.

 

Who is behind Chrome Carbon

Chrome Carbon was formed in 2020, and founded by “modern classic and adventure motorcycle enthusiast” Julien Lescure, as stated on Chrome Carbon’s About page.

But dig a little deeper, and Lescure is an ‘Entrepreneur’ according to his LinkedIn, while his own website says:

I coach leaders, founders and teams to make better decisions and bring to market the products and services their customers really want.

I’ve co-founded 2 startups that have resulted in 2 acquisitions, led award-winning product teams whose work has generated millions of dollars in revenue, and held general and product management positions in start-ups and scale-ups. I am also an investor and advisor to several startups.

 

So Chrome Carbon has gone from the selfless effort of a passionate car enthusiast who wanted to make the world a better place, to the brainchild of a startup founder “generating millions of dollars in revenue.” Hmmm.

Lescure, 43, is the sole owner/employee of ChromeCarbon LTD, according to Companies House. Their listed address has more than 40 other companies registered to it in Leigh-On-Sea, Essex. A quick glance at their financials shows that he made £10,000 in the first year and £12,000 in the second year.

Donating other people’s money for the good of the environment is a pretty nice little side earner, right?

Sharpening the axe

As Chrome Carbon truthfully states on its website, they take 20% of your personal donation and 30% of your corporate donation and keep it for itself to run Chrome Carbon.

What did they do for that 20-30%?

As far as I can see, they simply act as an intermediary. Sending your funds to either One Tree Planted, The Future Forest Company or Gold Standard.

Even Mr. Lescure doesn’t go out, shovel in hand and a few saplings in the other to plant your trees.

But what really bugs me is that the only real service they offer is a very basic emissions/tree calculator. Well, they’re raising awareness about vintage car emissions, which is a good thing in a way, but taking 20% of your donation in return for a calculator and awareness? Come on.

Offset directly without Chrome Carbon

By all means, offset your carbon footprint. But go straight to those that plant the trees. That way, you’re not giving Chrome Carbon 20-30% of your money for nothing.

For example, if I drive my classic car 1,000 miles a year at 18 MPG (calculator’s default), it equates to 27 trees. This costs me the suggested amount of £27.16 (essentially £1 per tree from the looks of it).

By going direct to One Tree Planted and picking the United Kingdom as one of their project locations, that £27 can actually plant 35 trees as they promise ‘One Dollar. One Tree.’ – this depends on the current exchange rate, of course. That’s eight more trees or 29% extra than if I’d used Chrome Carbon.

Deduct the £5.40 or 20% ‘running costs’ that Chrome Carbon charge from your £27 and 20% more trees to the 27 they would plant is 32. Which is still less than you’d be planting by going the direct route.

Lescure must have some friends in high up places, or be a great salesman to get Hagerty to put their name behind Chrome Carbons’ scheming endeavours. No doubt their profits will soon soar.

 

The alternative to Chrome Carbon

Because we’re ethical, and believe the coming climate catastrophe shouldn’t be seen as a money-making venture by various ‘carbon offset’ companies – yes, I’m looking at you Carbon Neutral Britain.

So we reverse-engineered the calculator that Chrome Carbon offers Hagerty ECO and came up with our own classic car carbon offsetting scheme – Carwitter ECO.

But, we don’t take a penny of your money.

All we do is offer the calculator and place links to two different tree planting charities – one that Chrome Carbon ‘partner’ with. I use that term incredibly loosely.

It’s simple to use. Just select the type of vehicle you want to offset. Enter a rough idea of your MPG, then select the miles you’re going to cover in a given year.

Once you’ve got the number of trees you need to plant (which is more realistic and much higher than Chrome Carbon suggests). Click the link below and make your donation.

 

Why planting trees isn’t the answer to climate change

You see, the thing is, carbon offsetting doesn’t actually work. It’s just clever accounting and a way to make you feel all warm and fuzzy while you still go about polluting.

The only true way to make a difference is to drive your classic car less.

 

That’s without delving into the world of failed tree-planting schemes. I can’t find anything negative regarding One Tree Planted, which is why we’ve decided to link to them with our own calculator. But it would be good to visit one of their UK schemes to see how the little saplings are getting on.

By and large, the money you put towards carbon offsetting, usually just covers the cost to plant the tree. Not the years of care it needs to actually get to the point where it sequesters 22kg of carbon per year.

This is where the mathematics of Chrome Carbons calculations gets even worse.

Chrome Carbon – It doesn’t add up

The European Environment Agency state that a mature tree will suck up around 22kg of CO2 per year. This means that the Chrome Carbon calculator is out by nearly 50%.

If you take the 1285.05 kgs of CO2 produced by driving a classic car 1,000 miles at 18 MPG and divide that by 22kg, you’ll need 58 trees, not the 27 that Chrome Carbon states. That’s a 46.5% difference in the numbers.

We have no idea how Chrome Carbon get to their figures. There’s no explanation. You just have to trust them that they’ve got it right.

Trees also take between 20 and 40 years to mature and take up that amount of carbon. So any trees planted today, could be offsetting your carbon in 20 years’ time. Helpful.

And this is before you look at the biodiversity aspect of tree planting and reforestation. Planting one type of tree in a single area, or in neatly ordered rows does nothing to rewild the landscape.

The BBC cover the subject in a Climate Question podcast episode. You can listen to it here.

The great climate change cash in

It seems there’s no end of clever people who have seen an easy way to make a quick buck by preying on our eco-conscious do-good nature. Which is immoral given that they’re telling us that we’re saving the planet, but we really aren’t.

While raising awareness of CO2 and your carbon footprint is a great thing, Chrome Carbon is simply a way to take 20-30% of your money for making the right choice.

And in our opinion, that’s plain wrong.

Edited October 4, 2023 by f.f.jones (see edit history)

[Fordy]

12 hours ago, Peter Gariepy said:

Don't shoot the messenger. 

Its worthy of a conversation.

Perhaps you shouldn't have posted it like a sales pitch? A small intro first with some thoughts to promote a healthy discourse perhaps were in order?

[Lee H]

4 minutes ago, Fordy said:

Perhaps you shouldn't have posted it like a sales pitch? A small intro first with some thoughts to promote a healthy discourse perhaps were in order?

In the 21st century, it’s OK for an umpire to pitch, and long as they mean well. Just ask any member of the media.

[TAKerry]

Carbon credits were created by the better than off hypocrites to make them feel better (and above the average man) about their unnecessary and extravagant lifestyles. I would be willing to bet that the majority if not all of the people preaching this nonsense have a much greater carbon footprint than I ever will.

 

For the record, I am not a communist and believe in a capitalist society. (and my 3 acre slice of heaven has more trees than blades of grass, LOL)

[Fordy]

1 hour ago, Bills Auto Works said:

Thank you @f.f.jones for taking the time to post the real answers!

Consider how much carbon is created in the manufacturing stream for most products like automobiles and how it is way many times more than keeping older vehicles on the road despite any "dirtier tech engines". Throw into the mix a bogus scheme that we have in Australia where tree "planting" is done by aerial dumping of seed on barren Commonwealth land. The brains trust behind it claim to be planting millions of trees per annum. Quite likely just 1% may germinate and of that another 1 % may make it to maturity. Meanwhile someone somewhere is raking in the cash!

[60FlatTop]

2 hours ago, Fordy said:

Throw into the mix a bogus scheme that we have in Australia where tree "planting" is done by aerial dumping of seed on barren Commonwealth land. The brains trust behind it claim to be planting millions of trees per annum.

I just read that to my wife. Imagine the pomp and circumstance of the dignitaries in a grand stand as the plane flies past. It is a glider, right? If we did that locally maybe I could show them my time travel feat. "I'm back!"

 

Connivers is a word that has fallen out of common usage and so appropriate for many ventures today.

 

"The King is naked. Long live the King."

[Lee H]

22 hours ago, Hemi Joel said:

The fact that Hagerty is buying into this fraud, and apparently part of my premiums are going to support it, causes me to re-think whether I want to continue with them. 

I’m with Hagerty as well, and I really think they are mis-judging their customer base. This is perhaps not a Dylan Mulvaney / Bud Light mis-step, but under the right circumstances (ridicule from social media, or forums like this) they might scrutinize it a bit more.

 

There was a book by Laura Ingraham a few years back, called “Shut Up And Sing”. I feel like telling Hagerty to shut up and sell insurance, and don’t waste my premiums on feel-good BS.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Lee H (see edit history)

[f.f.jones]

If Hagerty thought or knew that Chrome Carbon and their ECO program were a non-profit charitable organization, they probably would have mentioned it in their announcement. They would also have said that your tree-planting contributions were tax-deductible.  They did not.

Chrome Carbon is "donating" whatever contributions they get to actual non-profit tree planting charities after they take 20-30% off the top, per the above article.

The critic/reporter's article from Car Features (also above) states that you can donate directly to those same entities (not through Hagerty or Chrome Carbon) and by so doing, the charities receive 100% of your contribution - not 70 or 80%.

I wonder what "arrangement" Hagerty and Chrome Carbon may or may not have...

 

 

 

[Lee H]

Usually it’s safe to “follow the money”, although that trail can become rather tortuous at times.

[Scooter Guy]

Hagerty is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ. They merged with Aldel a couple of years ago to make that happen - the deal was said to be valued at over $3B (that's billion). Hagerty is far from a small-time mom-and-pop operation, and you can bet that they know exactly what they're doing and who they're working with on their ECO program.  We should not forget that it's another "product" that they can offer for sale and another way for them to generate revenue and ultimately profit for the company which creates value for the investors (shareholders).  Maybe you have a problem with that, maybe you don't but it's something and there is certainly money to be made all the way around or none of these companies would be doing it.

 

But...There is no need to get upset about the program even if you are a Hagerty customer...it's optional. You can be a Hagerty customer and decide not to participate in the ECO program and still get your insurance and whatever other products and services you want from Hagerty. In my case, I've been a long-time Hagerty customer and it went like this: I received information from them about the program, looked it over, did some cursory research out of curiosity and decided not to purchase it - no problem and Hagerty hasn't been hounding me about it. I renewed my insurance there anyway as I have otherwise been happy. Hagerty has competitors - that's not a secret - and one can certainly do business with them instead if this is a deal-breaker for you. 

 

It just seems that fussing about it is a bit like saying that because you don't drink you're not going to go to the grocery store because they have a beer aisle. You can take your business elsewhere or you can still shop there and decide not to buy products that don't interest you - this is really no different.  

Edited October 5, 2023 by Scooter Guy (see edit history)

[Brass is Best]

This gets into prohibited conversation topics really fast...

[30DodgePanel]

On 10/3/2023 at 2:13 PM, TAKerry said:

The idea of this is borderline 'opening a can of worms'. No offense but I cannot believe the moderator opened it! 

Since that can is open let's see what "facts" are allowed and what facts are not allowed. 

Fact:

Again, using their own sources the earth has been regulating for millions of years 

Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia, new study finds | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

Fact:

According to the EPA and other like minds... I guess we should just ignore the effect manufacturing of electric vehicles has comparitively, especially vs population and via demand? Meaning how can a smaller sector of manufacturing create such a negative influence yet they just ignore it year after year? 

 

 

 

 

On 10/3/2023 at 3:53 PM, Peter J.Heizmann said:

Thank you, Peter for your obvious devotion to keeping all of we AACA members “awake” of what can be or is brewing by outside sources that could ruin our club’s goals of passing on to future generations one great hobby.

 

Stay our mission via SEMA partners and ignore the detractors who forget what we are all about.

 

With all due respect Peter, "WE" don't need the holier than thou treatment as if SEMA partners have it all figured out. Go ahead and pretend to know the answers for "US", but us deplorable detractors can see through the lies clear as day. This is nothing less than sleeping with your enemy while closing your eyes as they slip out the back door and "hoping" they don't rob you blind as they sneak out quietly. 

 

Also, please don't use "US" as your "WE" again without our permission. The membership is a group of individuals and the leadership should not act as totalitarians. 

Thank you 

 

On 10/4/2023 at 1:02 AM, Twisted Shifter said:

 

 

The fine print in the article says:  "Yes, the cost to offset is based on factors such as vehicle, type of driving and fuel consumption. On average, a classic vehicle driven 1,000 miles that achieves an average of 15 MPG will cost approximately $33.70 per year."      

 

Does this mean Hagerty will be adding $33.70 to the insurance policy of each car we insure with them, or is this just an optional offer to voluntarily contribute according to their calculator to this Enthusiast Carbon Offset (ECO) program with ChromeCarbon?

 

Who/what is Chrome Carbon?

 

You weren't suppose to see that  

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by 30DodgePanel (see edit history)

[Peter J.Heizmann]

1 hour ago, 30DodgePanel said:

Since that can is open let's see what "facts" are allowed and what facts are not allowed. 

Fact:

Again, using their own sources the earth has been regulating for millions of years 

Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia, new study finds | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

Fact:

According to the EPA and other like minds... I guess we should just ignore the effect manufacturing of electric vehicles has comparitively, especially vs population and via demand? Meaning how can a smaller sector of manufacturing create such a negative influence yet they just ignore it year after year? 

 

 

 

 

 

With all due respect Peter, "WE" don't need the holier than thou treatment as if SEMA partners have it all figured out. Go ahead and pretend to know the answers for "US", but us deplorable detractors can see through the lies clear as day. This is nothing less than sleeping with your enemy while closing your eyes as they slip out the back door and "hoping" they don't rob you blind as they sneak out quietly. 

 

Also, please don't use "US" as your "WE" again without our permission. The membership is a group of individuals and the leadership should not act as totalitarians. 

Thank you 

 

 

Joined the AACA around 1996 or so after reading their mission, goals activities, etc.  Especially the caretaking of old vehicles.  SEMA’s collective efforts to broadcast to the powers that be that “we” are serious in protecting “our” hobby is certainly more than you are doing as an individual from what I have read in your posts.

 

Regards,

 

Peter J.

[30DodgePanel]

10 hours ago, Peter J.Heizmann said:

Joined the AACA around 1996 or so after reading their mission, goals activities, etc.  Especially the caretaking of old vehicles.  SEMA’s collective efforts to broadcast to the powers that be that “we” are serious in protecting “our” hobby is certainly more than you are doing as an individual from what I have read in your posts.

 

Regards,

 

Peter J.

Why try and make it personal? It's okay, "WE" are used to it. 

Although I agree with most of your post regarding SEMA's collective efforts, my point is that not ALL of what they are supporting (the OP for instance ) is one direction some of "US" disagree with. Count us out as you will, ignore us all you want, but the fact is these are the kinds of partnerships that usually end up turning in a direction us detractors have seen countless times in recent past. 

 

Kind and best regards

David A.

 

[Brass is Best]

Perhaps some other countries need this program more than the USA?

 

[Peter J.Heizmann]

3 hours ago, 30DodgePanel said:

Why try and make it personal? It's okay, "WE" are used to it. 

Although I agree with most of your post regarding SEMA's collective efforts, my point is that not ALL of what they are supporting (the OP for instance ) is one direction some of "US" disagree with. Count us out as you will, ignore us all you want, but the fact is these are the kinds of partnerships that usually end up turning in a direction us detractors have seen countless times in recent past. 

 

Kind and best regards

David A.

 

This is going nowhere.  Made my point and moving on…

[1935Packard]

12 hours ago, Brass is Best said:

Perhaps some other countries need this program more than the USA?

 

 

I don't think that chart is useful: It only tells us a single year's estimates of changes in CO2 production for that one year.  A more obvious question to consider is overall C02 output per person, for which the top 10 C02 emitters looks like this:

 

 

[Brass is Best]

2 hours ago, 1935Packard said:

 

I don't think that chart is useful: It only tells us a single year's estimates of changes in CO2 production for that one year.  A more obvious question to consider is overall C02 output per person, for which the top 10 C02 emitters looks like this:

 

 

That is great. I don't care. Let 2 through 10 deal with it.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Brass is Best (see edit history)

[1935Packard]

36 minutes ago, Brass is Best said:

That is great. I don't care. Let 2 through 10 deal with it.

Your lack of concern for the human race is duly noted.   Seriously, I appreciate the honesty!  

 

As for the Hagerty program, it doesn't seem well thought out, although I don't think it adds any cost to Hagerty, either.  It seems to be just an opportunity to voluntarily pay to this "Chrome Carbon" company.  As noted, the smarter move is to donate directly to the services Chrome Carbon is giving to once they take their cut.  But I agree that carbon offsets right now are often iffy; it's very hard to know what is real and what isn't.

[Littlestown Mike]

On 10/4/2023 at 11:38 AM, 60FlatTop said:

I "The King is naked. Long live the King."

THIS!! How many people nevr must have learned that fairy tale!    The king was naked, but everyone lied and said how beautiful were his clothes.  A lie is always a lie, reagrdless of how many people say it is true.

 

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Would be interesting to understand how those per capita stats were calculated, especially if it is self reported.

 

 

[Brass is Best]

8 hours ago, 1935Packard said:

Your lack of concern for the human race is duly noted.   Seriously, I appreciate the honesty!  

 

As for the Hagerty program, it doesn't seem well thought out, although I don't think it adds any cost to Hagerty, either.  It seems to be just an opportunity to voluntarily pay to this "Chrome Carbon" company.  As noted, the smarter move is to donate directly to the services Chrome Carbon is giving to once they take their cut.  But I agree that carbon offsets right now are often iffy; it's very hard to know what is real and what isn't.

The world has been going to end my entire life. The date just keeps getting pushed back and miraculously if we give up something or pay money, we can push the date back more. Expiration dates come and expire and a new one is given by the same folks who gave the last one. But we have hot days, cold days, record hot days, record cold days, it still snows, it still rains, and the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west. Follow the money both ways. See where the push for the idea comes from and where your money really ends up. Then ask yourself why does that group want this. Who is funding them? Then ask who is funding them? Saying any more might get me banned. 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Brass is Best (see edit history)

[leomara]

This "climate change" nonsense is the biggest farce ever fed to the public.  Want to know who really benefits from any of these remedial endeavors: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[60FlatTop]

3 hours ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

Would be interesting to understand how those per capita stats were calculated, especially if it is self reported.

Per capita statistics can be very misleading. Be careful of the statistic and who uses them.

 

A recent event statistically calculated deaths based on populations of 100,000 people in various counties. The county adjacent to my county has 49,000 people. One person died and the "science" driven statistician said "Two, here". I wondered how many counties of less than 100,000 there were.

 

It would be interesting to see a study of the number of quietly observant cynics compared to the vocal ones. Per capita, of course.

Edited October 7, 2023 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[Pete O]

I don't give a fig about carbon emissions.  A by-product of owning antique cars is that I'll still have gasoline powered cars after they've been phased out by new car manufacturers.

[1935Packard]

4 hours ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

Would be interesting to understand how those per capita stats were calculated, especially if it is self reported.

 

 

 

This is a significant focus of international climate change agreements.  The basic idea is to calculate nationwide emissions and divide by the number of people in the country.  The key question becomes devising the most accurate way to measure emissions nationwide, and there are methodologies agreed to as part of international agreements designed to do this most accurately.  The main standard was arrived at and adopted in 2006, and then slightly amended in 2019.  Here are links to the main reports on this:

 

https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/

 

 

[1935Packard]

2 hours ago, Brass is Best said:

The world has been going to end my entire life. The date just keeps getting pushed back and miraculously if we give up something or pay money, we can push the date back more. Expiration dates come and expire and a new one is given by the same folks who gave the last one. But we have hot days, cold days, record hot days, record cold days, it still snows, it still rains, and the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west. Follow the money both ways. See where the push for the idea comes from and where your money really ends up. Then ask yourself why does that group want this. Who is funding them? Then ask who is funding them? Saying any more might get me banned. 

 

I was more convinced when you said you didn't care!  Seriously. no one thinks the world is going to "end," or that the sun will stop rising in the east or setting in the west.  It's just that the planet is very quickly getting hotter. pretty much exactly what scientists predicted when I first studied the question 35 years ago.  i mean, the scientific models from 35 years ago nailed it, predicting the rise in temperatures a half century a head of time and exactly within the temperature range of their models.  I think that's pretty impressive.

 

But I guess you don't visit a forum of classic car hobbyists and people who work in the classic car business to get your assessment of climate modeling, any more than you would go to a scientific conference of climate modeling and ask people how to repair a 1932 Ford carburetor.  (Maybe they have the same conspiracy theories about old cars needing repair that people here have about climate change?  Ever notice that when you take a car to a mechanic, they always find something wrong and give you a big bill?  Follow the money....)

 

BTW, for those wondering, there are several competing models to measure overall global temperature.  They all use different data in different ways.  And they're almost an exact match every year.  The good scientific models predicting global temperature rises came around in the 1980s, before a rise in temperatures was noticeable.  

 

 

[AzBob]

I recall the 1970's when the much talked about threat was global cooling and a new ice age on the horizon. The climate has changed for millions of years before mankind arrived and will continue to change.

[1935Packard]

16 minutes ago, AzBob said:

I recall the 1970's when the much talked about threat was global cooling and a new ice age on the horizon. The climate has changed for millions of years before mankind arrived and will continue to change.

 

But even in the 1970s, when the models were brand new and very primitive,  the scientific models mostly predicted warming.   The media sometimes wrote about cooling, but don't listen to the media: Listen to the scientists. 

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

 

 

 

And while it's true that the climate has changed for millions of years before mankind came around, that has traditionally been change over tens of thousands of years.  One-way change toward warming with the astonishing speed that we have already seen, and which is only now accelerating, that's unheard of.    Anyway, I guess it's either fake or totally okay to folks here, but it turns out that the younger people who are going to have to live on this planet when we're all gone are pretty seriously worried about it—and very understandably so, it seems to me. 

 

Anyway, I'll let others have the last word if they like.  Have a good weekend.