I am not sure, but I doubt traffic on I81 is the main cause of carbon emissions in the County since that figure comprises all vehicular travel on primary and secondary roads and I81 is only a portion of all those miles. Gene Marrano
I thought I’d remind Gene of this nugget of analysis that he “dared” me to post a few weeks past. Yesterday, Virginia Tech’s Sean McGinnis, who is the go to “scientist” for the green supporters around here, gave an update the Board of Supervisors on Roanoke County’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 2020.
Here are some highlights from Sean’s report.
The County’s carbon footprint for calendar year 2010 is 1.81 million tons of C02 compared to 1.84 million tons for the baseline year of 2007.
Whoops we are way behind. If I am doing the math right, they would have to get carbon emissions down to 1.267 million tons in just 8 years. How could the county be failing to meet this lofty goal with the studious help of the award winning Gene Marrano and RCCLEAR?
Well according to McGinnis,
“in the past, the use of electricity is the greatest source of carbon emissions, due to the fact that our electricity is largely (80+%) produced through the burning of coal….Transportation continues to be the sector which produces the most carbon emissions, part of which is due to the fact that 1-81 passes through the western part of the County. This interstate traffic accounts for approximately forty percent (400/0)of the vehicle miles traveled even though it is only two point five percent (2.5%) of the total road miles in the County.”
As a “journalist” you would think Gene might understand that you can look back at the county records. You know, notes from meetings and stuff. This isn’t the first time Sean McGinnis has said this…he said exactly the same thing in 2007 when he presented the baseline study. Next time Gene, when you are pretending to be knowledgeable on an issue, you can do some research. I mean the last time I checked, that is what you get paid to do as a “journalist.”
The other striking thng from this is that both electric power and cars are the main source of carbon emissions. Which one is it Sean?
Sean points to some reductions but they are hardly things the county did to reduce them. Cars produce less carbon now then they did in 2007; efforts have been made to reduce emissions in a variety of ways that have NOTHING to do with the county. But I guess if you print fliers on driving slower, you can take credit for the slight drop. Is that how it works Gene?
But a larger question remains.
So lets go on the premise that global climate change is really caused by carbon emissions. I know that is silly, but bear with me. If climate change is a man made phenomenon caused by carbon emissions then:
The county will have to find a way to remove large numbers of cars from the road and stop electric companies from using coal to make electricity. Since the county can’t do those things, why on earth are we wasting resources and time chasing an unattainable goal? That is unattainable unless perhaps you can implement some of the long term sustainability goals (which are in the current county comprehensive plan BTW) of “encouraging” high density population centers.
And maybe building giant wind turbines on Poor Mountain if the Feds will fund that scam again.
Because (as anyone could have predicted) caulking windows and other RCCLEAR initiatives are failing to have any significant impact on the 30% reduction goal. So either the goal is unrealistic and doomed to fail, all of this effort is just a show to salve the conscience of Gene and his merry band of green warriors or they will need to work harder to implement the more invasive ideas on the table to reach the 30% carbon reduction goal.
Which one is it?