Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, wrote in January 2010 on the Huffington Post that President Barack Obama was “The Greenest President Ever“.
Weeellll….maybe not. You see, today we have these headlines:
The Daily Mail: Forty planes and six armoured cars: Obama visit to India the ‘biggest ever by a US President’
NDTV reports: US to spend $200 million a day on Obama’s Mumbai visit
(Note: snopes.com posted on November 4th that this $200 million figure was wrong, but at the same time the White House can’t provide the actual numbers for security reasons. However, the numbers are likely inflated and a result of an error that started with an Indian News Agency that got repeated. – read details here The Daily Mail has not retracted their story as of the evening of November 4th. If they do, we will certainly follow. -Anthony)
…About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments…
Of course we know any US President doesn’t travel lightly, and needs security details and armored cars…but really, 3000 people and forty aircraft?
Let’s do the carbon math:
Estimate of the carbon footprint of President Obama’s trip to India
We are constantly told how bad air travel is for the planet. For example the UK has a whole organization dedicated to the issue, called “Plane Stupid”. Fortunately it is groups like these that enable us to calculate the carbon emissions of air travel using the handy dandy Terrapass web page.
1. If one assumes that all 3,000 people fly commercial from Washington, DC to New Delhi and back (and nowhere else), their cumulative carbon footprint can be calculated according to Terrapass at http://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator/#air.
Here’s the info on their calculation methodology.
So here’s what we get for the maximum number of people, ten, that we can select at one time on that website. Note that Bombay India is now called Mumbai, but the airport code is still BOM in Terrapass:
So multiply 62,238 lbs of CO2 for ten people times 300 (to make three thousand) and we get: 18, 671,400 lbs, or 9,336 short tons (2000 lbs) or 8,469 metric tons of CO2
To get the per capita figure in metric tons, divide that again by 3000 people which gives us 2.823 metric tons per person for this round trip.
2. The Brookings Institute did a survey in 2008 ranking major US cities by their per capita emissions. You can read the full report here. (PDF). If we were to compare his trip to the city table:
Obama’s trip comes in between Memphis and Raleigh on a per capita basis.
3. Caveat: Of course, this calculation excludes the carbon footprint for also traveling to Indonesia, S. Korea and Indonesia as part of this Grand Tour, as well as any other activity while in those places. Plus vehicles, and other forms of travel.
If we figured in all the travel, it would well be higher.
The message? Travel lightly but carry a big hockey stick.
4. If Obama wanted to offset the Carbon using the tool of choice of his buddy, Al Gore, the Chicago Climate Exchange, he could do so pretty cheaply since carbon offsets there are selling for 5 cents per metric ton.
So with 8,469 metric tons of CO2 emitted for the Washington to Bombay round trip, he could buy a carbon indulgence for a mere $423.45. That’s chump change when you are blowing a cool 200 million per day to keep everybody traveling in style.
Some people think the $200 million figure is ludicrous. Well, there’s no denying that.
You want ludicrous? how about this:
Mile long bomb proof tunnel so Obama can visit the Ghandi museum
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_tunnel-for-obama-near-mani-bhavan_1461946
The $200 million per day is no less credible than the Lancet article which claimed 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians.
You left out a zero. IIRC, they had it at 600k at first, and then upped it to 1.2 mil.
Anyone who knows anything about the Iraq War (or the Iran-Iraq War) found the Lancet report to be risible.
A billion $ just doesn’t go as far as it used to. What with inflation and all. (Oh, never mind, we’re experiencing deflation.)
First off, I’m as big a skeptic as the next poster and I do realize politics unfortunately go hand in hand with alarmist “science”. However, what I do like about this blog is that much of the argument is based on science and/or a review of so-called “settled science”, and much of the success of this blog and others is that facts are brought to light. Now here we have a report claiming the $200M per day figure and all the other support allegedly anticipated for Obama’s trip that was generated from an Indian reporter and an undisclosed source. Can we just sit back and calmly examine these numbers and see if they make sense? I’m not an Obama apologist but I hate to see attacks based on suspect information and sources. Isn’t that behavior the very behavior we skeptics abhor? Before you slam our president, can’t you at least make sure your attacks are based on something more reliable than an non-cited single source?
I’ve always been uncomfortable when I read support for Tea Party and other conservative politicians speaking out against climate change and global warming – I don’t trust them any more than I do the kool-aid drinkers. They often possess no more intelligent capacity than the Al Gores of climate change. They tend to push the notion that higher education is something is bad. No, the opposite of failed science isn’t the absence of science, it’s better, more accurate science. As far as slamming the current president for taking over a large contingency of business owners, staff, and Secret Service, well that’s just hypocrisy – many politicians of BOTH parties grease the wheel and help supporters of their respective candidacies on these foreign trips. Politicians from BOTH parties have been using their juice to gain political power and often at the taxpayers’ expense. Look, I don’t like expensive junkets but if this trip means more jobs for middle class workers, and maybe keeping some of the jobs here at home versus using Indian and other foreign workers, then I’m for it. At this point, none of us knows the extent of the trip’s final cost and success in establishing better business relations with India. Americans are losing jobs to foreign workers and if Obama and his guests can generate more jobs here, then it’s worth it. If he tries to do something abroad, then he’s wasting money. If he stays home and hopes foreign companies come to us for work, then he’s Pollyanna – he can’t win.
As far as pointing out the inconsistency of the “greenest” President and his trip’s purported outrageous cost daily figure, I think Anthony should stick to the hard science at hand and refrain from stooping to the level of alarmists and throwing something that suits our ideal and see if it sticks on the wall. Leave the one-sided mudslinging to the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and liberal mass media – we skeptics need to be better than that. Skeptics’ arguments should be based on examination of data and not emotional sentiments. It shouldn’t be a matter of winning at all costs but because it’s honest and accurate.
Don’t forget the 34 warships.
And the US military building Obama a 6/10 mile long bomb-proof tunnel just so he can visit the Gandhi museum.
Can we refuse him entry when he returns with his imperial court, due to lack of a valid Indonesian visa?
In addition to all the good points on Fallujah, I’ll remind about Hussein’s (Saddam, not Barack) uranium stockpiles and biological and chemical warfare stockpiles. Some were released during the initial UN-mandated fighting, and some have been captured and reworked by the Iranians for the terrorists to use against the Iraqi population.
Anthony Watts:
“Mile long bomb proof tunnel so Obama can visit the Ghandi museum
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_tunnel-for-obama-near-mani-bhavan_1461946 ”
The tunnel would be a kilometre long and measure 12ft by 12ft — enough to let Obama’s cavalcade pass through. The tunnel would be centrally air-conditioned, fitted with close-circuit television cameras, and will be heavily guarded at every point, including, of course, its entry and exit.
Sounds to me more like an unintended invitation/opportunity for terrorists to try something – long confined space….
Hmmmm. Why does that date ring a bell? Oh I remember November 3 was the election. Having a bad day are you eadler? It’s showing.
Whoa, calling Anthony a liar (and the commenters worshippers), or are you accusing the Indian news agency, which is it?
So what are the actual numbers, you offer none? asnyway, I say we go with your Precautionary Principle (heh, literally hoisted with your own petard!). Assume the worst, or even worse than that. In all seriousness, since this is a bonafide state secret (at present time) YOU cannot possibly know the actual answer, nor can …
(IMHO) Snopes is a left-wing website run by moonbats, sorry. They were untrustworthy even before Wikipedia, a looong time ago. At least Wikipedia is open about their biases and we see the backroom discussion. So what did Snopes tell you: nothing! They told you to trust them that the price is inflated. Yeah, sure.
You say Conservative (I think a better word is ‘Constitutionalist‘) like it is a bad thing. Bachmann is always citing the Constitution as her guide, as should all 537 of the elected federal public servants. You have a problem with this? Would you like her better if she chucked the Constitution and cited ideology as her guide instead? Honestly? Well, here’s what I think: I see your comment as a classic case of mouth frothing smearing by liberals when women, blacks and hispanics stray off the reservation, refusing to be slaves to the democratic socialist party. Many wonderful examples of this occured on November 3, which explains these hyperbolic bedwetting comments seen on November 4. Emancipation, and there is much more to come.
P.S. How ironic is it that Eadler whines about allegedly incorrect cost projections because of missing data (heh heh). Pointing to
WikipediaI mean, Snopes for moral support, accusing the website host of lying and its commenters as being religious worshippers! AGW :: Politics. Life imitates Art 😉[snip -off topic, religious issues]
Arrrgghhh! Let me try again!
Sorry for the mistake (not a typo!) No excuse except for being tired.
I actually did vote at 6am (3rd person in the door) in fact I left a post here right before leaving for the polls.
If I were a liberal I’d blame the lack of post preview (or the mods for letting it through 😉 <— sarc!
H.R. says:
November 3, 2010 at 8:06 am
tallbloke says:
November 3, 2010 at 7:00 am
:o) I appreciate your point, tallbloke, but this trip isn’t even to start a war. As near as I can make it, it’s pure sightseeing… and photo ops. of course.
I’ll eat my cyberwords if he makes it back home having accomplished anything of consequence.
————————————-
Regardless of the true cost of the trip, which won’t be cheap by any measure, I’ll be interested to see if I have to eat my cyberwords after the trip is done and the list of “accomplishments” on this trip is trumpeted throughout the land. I still predict nothing of consequence will result given the money spent.
I’m hoping for a followup main post after the trip is over, but that’s in the hands of Anthony.
Little insight from the Economist on Obama’s trip: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/11/obamas_india_trip
Sad to see how inconsistently reports from the media are now being treated here. Media report on global warming? Question and examine aggressively for minute errors. Media report from anonymous source casting bad light on Obama? Vehemently defend conclusions or pass blame onto other site for reporting it. Amazing.
Re: Matt on November 8, 2010 at 3:54 am
The headline is ‘Greenest President Ever’ trip to India has a carbon footprint bigger than the citizens of many US cities. Your Economist link doesn’t dispute that. The “$200 million a day” was tossed around and eventually shot down, although as such estimates go, on the final tally figuring in all the behind-the-scenes logistics, it might not be that far off.
As it is, “reports from the media” are treated rather consistently here, despite what you say. “Global warming” is climate science and gets examined critically, as this is a science site. “$200 million a day” was simple politics, not related to climate science, and was tossed in “just for fun.” This is a science site, after all. ☺