The Pickering Post
Saturday, 19th January 2019

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.

Viv Forbes

Viv has a degree in Applied Science Geology and is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


Carbon Footprints – Good, Bad and Ugly

Australians are supposed to feel guilty because some bureaucrat in the climate industry has calculated that we have a very high per capita “carbon footprint”.

By “carbon footprint”, they mean the amount of carbon dioxide gas produced by whatever we do.  Every human activity contributes to our carbon footprint – even just lying on the beach breathing gently produces carbon dioxide.

Producing carbon dioxide is not bad – it an essential gas in the cycle of life, and beneficial for all life. There is no proof whatsoever that human emissions cause dangerous global warming. 

Moreover, it is not per capita emissions that could affect the climate – it is total emissions, and on that measure Australia’s small contribution is largely irrelevant. This is just another PR weapon in the extreme green alarmist arsenal.

Even if carbon footprints were important, not all footprints are environmentally equal – some are good, some are bad and some are just plain ugly.

“Good” carbon footprints are the result of producing unsubsidised things for the benefit of others. An example is a grazier in outback Australia whose family lives frugally and works hard but has a high carbon footprint producing wool, mutton and beef from sustainable native grasslands and may use quad bikes, diesel pumps, electricity, tractors, trucks, trains, planes and ships to supply distant consumers. Many productive Australians with good carbon footprints produce food and fibres, seafood and timber, minerals and energy for grateful consumers all over the world. Activities like this create a large “per capita carbon footprint” for Australia. That so few people can produce so much is an achievement to be proud of. 

A “bad” carbon footprint is produced when government subsidies, grants, hand-outs, tax breaks or mandates keep unproductive or unsustainable activities alive, leaving their footprint, but producing little useful in return. The prime examples are subsidised green energy and the government climate industry, but there are examples in all nationalised or subsidised industries and activities. (Russia and East Germany easily met their initial Kyoto targets by closing decrepit Soviet-era nationalised industries.)

An “ugly” carbon footprint is produced by green hypocrites who preach barefoot frugalism to us peasants while they live the opulent life style.

Examples are the mansions, yachts and jet-setting of prominent green extremists such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio.

The ultimate ugly carbon hypocrites are those who organise and attend the regular meetings, conferences and street protests, drawing thousands of globe-trotting alarmists and “environmentalists” from all over the world by plane, yacht, car, bus, train and taxi to eat, drink, chant and dance while they protest about over-population, excessive consumption and heavy carbon footprints of “all those other people”.

Maybe they should lead by example and stop travelling, eating, drinking and breathing.



What are They Plotting in Poland



Antarctic Sea Ice at Record High, but Global-warming Doomsayers Unimpressed

Hello Mr Forbes... thank you for being you , smile sent~

the year 2014 when all we have left is Hypocrites.Green slime has no footprint and they are not about the environment,they are about the World Order,but if sharia law gets there first that will probably do.....Thank God for Larry's site it a least allows one to bleat.

Ugly carbon footprint, last weeks bribe of $25 million by Liberal Governments for China to take Victorian Brown Coal ~ Very ugly ......

I think I may believe the gospel of St John.

Thanks again Viv. Love your work. Facts, something that alarmists don't seem to understand

I have no time at all for environmentalists who live in urban environments where nature has been totally repressed. The Yarra is a dead river flowing between bleak stone banks but has electric frog sounds at Southbank. The Melbourne City Council is treating the plane trees with hormones so they won't put out pollen to annoy people. City environmentalists should look to their own environment before lecturing others.

NO Breathing OUT...

For CO? read carbon dioxide. Post shunned my subscript 2. Phooey!

When living things die the body breaks down to become part of various cycles like the Carbon Cycle, Nitrogen Cycle and so on.Whether the process is fast or slow the end result is inevitable. A dead tree produces a given quantity of CO? whether it is consumed rapidly is a fire or rots over a longer time frame.

Especially breathing.

Hear, hear, Viv - and thank you, once again.

Or plant one on a greenie?

Notice how the 'minder' of that twat DiCaprio pushed away a journalist for daring to comment about Dicaps opulent lifestyle and his global warming beliefs.....HYPOCRIT!!!!

Gillard's Book - Target catalogue arrived this morning and Gillard's book, launched only weeks ago, is now on special at $24 as against recommended retail price of $49.99. Another few weeks from know it will be cheaper than a roll of toilet paper but not as useful. Wonder how many copies the ABC bought using taxpayer funds.

If I never again hear the ridiculous term "carbon footprint" it will be too soon.

Are you proposing that no practical and effective strategies be implemented to prevent the build up of fuel resulting in disastrous bushfires? The bushfire has the same effect as controlled burning - both releasing approx same amount of CO2 - but the controlled burn prevents loss of life (human as well as wild and domestic animals) and property. The controlled burn also provides a steady recycling of essential minerals, such as potassium (in which Aust. soils are deficient.) Being released slowly, with small fires, these minerals are more likely to be returned to the soil, rather than be washed away. A little realistic and practical thinking is called for here. Thankyou, Viv, for disseminating some very needed truths.

You know the world's gone mad when they start taxing cow farts.

Why do they Greens expect our government to do what private enterprise will not. If there's money to be made or a benefit to society as a whole should not the Green machine be funding this themselves with donations from the likes of Al and Leo? Those who think it a bunch of horse pucks. Even Bill Gates who throws millions a year at Africa for no good return I would think would be inclined to throw some at the Green movement. If he does it's minimal.

Nail hit on the head. "Over Population" the biggest driving force in power consumption and CO2 is population growth. Even Bindi Irwin got that one right. Imagine agreeing with a 15 years old. Pity Hilary Clinton didn't.