In Jannette's remarks about her public comments at the Minnewaska meeting:

Did you really say that? It seems to me most people who take up climbing start to travel way more, both on the road and in the air, and dramatically increase their carbon footprint. Your public statements in several climbing fora seem to indicate the same is true for you.

You have a honkin big luxury sport utility vehicle (I think). You now have a second home near your home crag. No doubt you drive back and forth between your primary residence and your home near the gunks in the SUV.

Let's not forget air travel. For each transcontinental trip, the carbon foot print of one passenger is about a metric ton. Such trips you've posted about online: Montana, Yosemite, Jtree, and El Potrero Chico (seven times!!). Let's not count the New Zealand trip because you didn't say if that trip was climbing related. If it was it would be another 4 metric tons.

The average carbon footprint of an American, is about 20 metric tons of CO2 a year, which is, I think, the highest average of any country on earth, by far. Given your lifestyle, I'd guess you are more in the 27-30 ton range, a year. Personally, I don't object to you or anyone living this way. Have at it. More power to you. But proselytizing about how climbing has made you more aware of the environment when your annual carbon footprint is well north of 20 metric tons seems a bit inconsistent. Before climbing, perhaps you were driving back and forth across the country racing fuelies . If not, I'm betting your carbon consumption pattern increased when you started climbing.

Similarly, Terrie said:

Terrie, as you don't have kids, and you don't have a car, I'm guessing that you're carbon footprint is much lower than most climbers, and probably much much lower than the average American. But I had to point out there is nothing ecologically minded about flying round trip to California, kicking out a metric ton of CO2 in the process, to pick up garbage. You wanna fly to California and see your friends, great. See your friends and pick up garbage, even better. But it's not ecologically minded.

I will comtinue to stick my neck out and tell you that the human impact to global warming continues to be a gnat on an elephants back compared to the overall effect of orbital shifts, planetary axis wobble, sun spots and volcanic activity. There have been periods of earth's history when the overall climate has been much warmer and much cooler. It is cyclical. Of course, unless the masses are convinced that they are the problem you can't munipulate them toward a polical gain. You can see paintings of mountainous areas that were made over the last thousand years and see that the glaciers increased through the little ice age period and them started a slow retreat by at least the mid 1800s. You can't blame that on cars. Anyone who remembers the 60s is well aware of how much the overal air quality has improved, especially around the big cities of the east. 'Member when you couldn't swim in the Hudson? Are our activities a factor? Probably. But I think the overall effect of learning to enjoy and love the climbing environment can scarcly be a detriment to that environ. Ask the Peregrins. The greatest gains right now will occur when China and India learn to love their land, too.

Sorry, there's no way you can know that Jannette wouldn't have had the same or greater carbon footprint if she'd never taken up climbing. Knowing Jannette, I doubt she would have been "average" no matter what she did. Frankly though I'm glad she's an advocate for the environment rather than an "average jane" trying to bring NASCAR to Staten Island or something like that.

My carbon footprint hasn't increased since I took up climbing. In fact it's taken a significant drop; before climbing I was taking much longer road trips in a much less fuel efficient vehicle. I certainly fly as much as I did back then, just different locations for different purposes. But just getting rid of the SUV and those long pointless road trips for a much closer destination really cut my footprint.

BTW, Jannette's honkin' big luxury SUV gets nearly the same mileage as my Outback; and since she almost always has her kids, it's 50% more efficient than when I drive up to the Gunks.

Subies aren't exactly known for their high mileage. Anyway QTM, sounds like you're in the 20 plus metric tons of CO2 a year range as well. Join the club.

Kent, besides being mean-spiritedly personal and petty, your point is a non sequitur. It seems rather obvious to me that Jannette wasn't talking about carbon footprint but about stewardship of public spaces.

It's hardly mean spirited or petty. And she did say she was talking about environmental awareness, not just stewardship of public spaces.

I'm below 20, depends on how much travel I do for business.

Now that you mention it, my parents are average folks who don't think much about the environment, I doubt they've ever heard of the term carbon footprint. But they take trips to Japan once a year and bring my son along, and I'm sure he hasn't considered his carbon footprint. This year I'll add those flights to my CF and make the appropriate offset donation.

There is a lot more to environmental conservation than mere "carbon footprints."

I'm with Chip.
Let's blame the real culprits.
Volcanoes.

Very true, but when you want to cause a stir, you throw about an 'intellectual rationization'... Oh wait, that is what Kent spewed earlier about someone else...