Neutralizing Our Environmental Impact
 

Think about it: https://www.targetneutral.com/TONIC/targetneutral1.jsp

We'll prolly be much less than average because our mileage is so kick ***, for me it estimated like 15 bucks for me, but I need to find out for sure about my co2 output just to get it right. If anyone has any other sites that do the same that aren't "look at us, we're BP" put them up.

Can google carbon footprint there are several sites. BP has one too.
https://www.carbonfootprint.com/
https://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongen...ace=1604280000

The place I listed is BP as well, :p

CAUTION: conversions must be made for an accurate reading. This is a British site -- their "gallon" is a bit different, so MPG will be off. Take your MPG and multiply it by 1.1673 to get the English figure (if my calcs are correct). I made this mistake while visiting there and renting a car...

...and by the way, good find SVOboy -- it's all about reducing the "Carbon Footprint", I agree. Also, I'm a fan of "WhatCar?" magazine in Britain, which sponsors the site.

edit: also visit https://www.fueleconomy.gov

To convert tons to grams/kilogram: take the (tons*0.44)/(cars weight*2.2) to get the Metric equivalent (I think)...

edit2: www.edmunds.com for your vehicle weight

edit3: or just wait for someone to post a different site (zpiloto you beat me to it!) Now I get to check my calcs...

RH77

i'm at 12 pounds, it seems they want my money to spread the message? i think the trees in my yard should offset my co2.

They want money to plant more trees, :p

I don't think your trees count, because they are not there for the purpose of offsetting your footprint, they would've been there anyway.

Why I'd grow all sorts of 'trees' if I had my own property...

Trees rule. Nothing like carbon-neutral biofuels.

So, I produce a certain amount of carbon dioxide driving. I pay someone to plant trees. They require energy to run this business, and energy to plant the trees, which won't mature for years, which means more GHGs than if I were to drive, unless they factor in the GHG cost of their own operation...

On top of that, they'll take the profit they made and spend it, probably encouraging more economic growth, most of which is powered by fossil fuels. If this was funded by a group of fossil fuel interests, not only would they be making ph4t l00tz, they'd be spiking the short term fossil fuel emissions of every "greenie" who payed for trees, which probably won't eventually offset all of their GHG emissions because they're creating more GHGs doing something about their GHGs. God that's wrong... :thumbup:

If you'd read the faq, you would realize this is not the case.

People seem to invent issues with charitable initiatives to persuade themselves to hold on to their money, but people never stop to consider that these things would not exist if they did more harm than good.

For example, if I had reasonable reason to believe that my being vegan harms more animals than not, I would not be. But your arguement is tantamount to saying that my lack of demand for dairy products creates a drop in price that results in an increase in consumption, which means I'm actually harming the little creatures. It doesn't make much sense.

They could have asked you to plant a tree yourself, but in my experience, people are much more willing to give you 20 dollars than miss their favorite tv show to go do something for themselves.

So, if you want to believe that this is a fund driven by people with the aim of destroying the environment, fine, that's your perogative, but don't insult the people who are trying to do something rather then sitting back with the attitude "nothing makes any difference besides to my fat wallet."

What faq?