As we’ve all been hearing lately, we must do something to conserve our energy. We must find alternate methods of powering our houses and our toys.

If we fly somewhere we should buy carbon offsets so someone can plant a tree for us.

But, at what point is the sacrifice too great?

Take a look:

How can we do that to these good bluebloods?

We need to protect Mother Earth.

At 8 on a Saturday morning, just as the heat was permeating this sprawling Orlando suburb, Denise Kirsop donned a white plastic moon suit and began sorting through the trash produced by Northland Church.

She and several fellow parishioners picked apart the garbage to analyze exactly how much and what kind of waste their megachurch produces, looking for ways to reduce the congregation’s contribution to global warming.

“I prayed about it, and God really revealed to me that I had a passion about creation,” said Kirsop, who has since traded in her family’s sport-utility vehicle for a hybrid Toyota Prius to help cut her greenhouse gas emissions. “Anything that draws me closer to God — and this does — increases my faith and helps my work for God.”

Her conversion to environmentalism is the result of a years-long international campaign by British bishops and leaders of major U.S. environmental groups to bridge a long-standing divide between global-warming activists and American evangelicals.

The emerging rapprochement is regarded by some as a sign of how dramatically U.S. public sentiment has shifted on global warming in recent years. It also has begun, in modest ways, to transform how the two groups define themselves.

“I did sense this is one of these issues where the church could take leadership, like with civil rights,” said Northland’s senior pastor, Joel C. Hunter. “It’s a matter of who speaks for evangelicals: Is it a broad range of voices on a broad range of issues, or a narrow range of voices?”

Hunter has emerged among evangelicals as a pivotal advocate for cutting greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are warming Earth’s climate. A self-deprecating 59-year-old minister who can quote the “Baby Jesus” speech that Will Farrell delivered in the 2006 movie “Talladega Nights” as readily as he can the Bible, Hunter regularly preaches about climate change to 7,000 congregants in five Central Florida sites and to 3,000 more worshipers via the Internet. He even has met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to talk about environmental issues

Story

The Live Earth concerts are taking place this weekend purportedly to save the planet from global warming.

I don’t claim to be an expert on global warming, but the Daily Mail reports the following:

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists’ and spectators’ travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

This means nearly 7.5 Britons would each generate as much waste in a year to equal the amount of waste in these concerts.

Dr Andrea Collins, an expert in sustainability from Cardiff University, has researched the impact of such mass gatherings on the environment.

“An event of this size at Wembley - which holds 65,000 at a rock concert, will generate around 59 tonnes of waste,” she says. “That is largely composed of the rubbish from food and drink consumption.”

She found that a Wembley-sized football match generated an ‘ecological footprint’ of 3,000 global hectares - an area the size of 4,166 football pitches. This is the amount of bioproductive land required to absorb the C02 emissions produced by such an event.

3,000 global hectares would be equal to 7,413 acres. Does this not seem to be an exhorbitant waste for a group of people who claim they want to cut down on CO2 emissions?

Dr Collins estimates that the global audience for Live Earth will generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste. An extraordinary one million people are expected at the free concert at Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana beach, featuring Lenny Kravitz, Macy Gray and Pharrell Williams.

Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest will go into landfill sites.

One third of the waste in London will be recycled. Is it environmentally friendly to dump the other two-thirds in landfills?

But wait! Live Earth has an explanation:

Andrea Robinson, Live Earth’s green manager, says her message to celebrities is: “Leave the Learjet at home - fly commercial.”

Wembley Stadium will be lit using low energy fluorescent lightbulbs, while the backdrop is composed of recycled tyres and oil drums. The organisers tried to introduce re-usable cups for interval refreshments, but found that - like many green strategies - this was not practical on such a huge scale.

Some bio-produced plastic, made from corn, will be used, and artists’ changing rooms will be fitted with energy-saving lightbulbs - all rather a drop in the ocean compared to the pollution generated by fans traveling across the UK to the concert or using the stadium’s 2,618 toilets. Plans to ask the British public to turn off their electrical appliances during the Live Earth broadcast were scuppered when the National Grid pointed out that as everyone switched on again, a giant power surge could cripple the country.

Some stadiums are greener than others. The Aussie Stadium in Sydney will run the event on 100 per cent green energy supply. Each Australian Live Earth ticket comes with a free public transport voucher, while all the bathrooms will be waterless with waste being composted into fertiliser.

Conversely, in New York’s Giants Stadium, trade unions have blocked Live Earth’s attempts to recycle, and the 52,000-seater arena is not situated near public transport. The smallest - and least polluting - concert will be held at the British Antarctic Survey’s base in Rothera.

It appears from reading this article only the site in Australia will be completely green.

So just how does Gore claim that Live Earth will be carbon neutral? He does so by convenient use of ‘carbon offsetting’ - a trendy new method of absolving yourself of guilt.

[...]

However, critics say that the practice is simply a way for consumerist industries and nations to export their responsibility to developing countries. Others say it simply does not work.

Carbon-offsetting is, it turns out, how celebrities square green issues with their extravagant lifestyles and use of private jets.

To buy your carbon offsets go to Generation Investment Management a company in which Al Gore is the chairman, partner and co-owner.

According to The Tennessean as quoted in Bill Hobbs’ blog that’s where Mr. Gore purchases his carbon footprint offsets.

The following quote seems to say it all:

Dr John Barrett, from the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York, says: “There is a huge irony in flying halfway across the globe in a private jet, eating up fossil fuel.

“The idea that you can offset the pollution you cause is just ridiculous. What these people at Live Earth have done is defined their boundaries to suit themselves, but there is no sense in which this concert is carbon neutral.

“Planting trees or investing in renewable energy does not reverse the damage of releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the environment.

“It is far better not to pollute in the first place. Carbon offsetting can be a removal of guilt, but it is not an effective one.”

Good old Arnold.

It’s bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public’s health and welfare.

California, Connecticut and 10 other states are poised to enact tailpipe emissions standards — tougher than existing federal requirements — that would cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars, light trucks and sport-utility vehicles by 392 million metric tons by the year 2020, the equivalent to taking 74 million of today’s cars off the road for an entire year.

Since transportation accounts for one-third of America’s greenhouse gas emissions, enacting these standards would be a huge step forward in our efforts to clean the environment and would show the rest of the world that our nation is serious about fighting global warming.

Yet for the past 16 months, the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to give us permission to do so.

Even after the Supreme Court ruled in our favor last month, the federal government continues to stand in our way.

Clean it up.