Whiting is right, the key issue is the number of passengers carried. A calculation of the emissions and/of fuel consumed has to be divided over the six passengers, and then compared to alternatives such as six seats in an airplane or taking two smaller cars with three people in each.

I'd be interested to hear how "some party members" think the six *should* have travelled. What next, discouraging exercise because it burns oxygen and creates carbon dioxide?

The concept makes some sense - but I am not certain that the fuel use for a Navigator is good enough. Why a navigator when you could have rented something like a Toyota Siena which gets twice the gas mileage of the Navigator, has more seating and is more comfortable? The Sienna is much better to operate on snow and ice than the Navigator. You could have rented two Sienas and used as much fuel as the one Navigator, or 5 Prius

Given that the event was at Sun Peaks, the equation likely makes sense - Kamloops Airport does not have many 737 flights and Sun Peaks is about an hour drive from the Airport, meaning you need a car in any case.

But, if it had been somewhere where WestJet flys, the fuel use in the Navigator would likely have been higher than in the airplane.

The interesting thing is that while car fuel economy has not been getting much better over the last 30 odd years, for planes it has dramatically improved. On average airplanes have been getting 1% more efficient per year. The expectation is that this trend will continue for some decades to come.

If cars had same improvements as airplanes, the average fuel economy of a car would around what the Prius achieves.

Is anyone besides me getting tired of this new religion called Environmentalism?

"Is anyone besides me getting tired of this new religion call Environmentalism?"

I understand much of the oil industry, Stephen Harper, John Baird and most SUV sales people are on side with you Infidel.

Unfortunately, the alternative to 'Environmentalism', as you call it appears to be fundamentalist 'Denialism' and all it seems to be accomplishing is making a mess out of what was a perfectly fine environment before oil was adopted as "Denialism's" choices as a baptismal liquid.

"Why a navigator when you could have rented something like a Toyota Siena which gets twice the gas mileage of the Navigator, has more seating and is more comfortable? "

This may come as shock but maybe it was the only large sized vehicle available? I'm not in the business of renting cars but my guess is you have a limited selection of vehicles to choose from.

Filling the vehicle to capacity, plus the offset carbon purchase is beyond what most of us would do... good on them, I say.

Is "Denialism" really the only alternative? This is why Environmentalism is such a bad religion. Simply questioning it evokes anger. Doubt is sin. Behaviour and practices are monitored by mutawwain. Indulgences (ie: carbon offsets) are sold. And, golly, is there ever a lot of self-flagellation.

And, oh yeah, suicidal tendencies amongst some. Economic suicide.

Namastay ;)

Why a navigator when you could have rented something like a Toyota Siena which gets twice the gas mileage of the Navigator, has more seating and is more comfortable? The Sienna is much better to operate on snow and ice than the Navigator. You could have rented two Sienas and used as much fuel as the one Navigator, or 5 Prius

What would the cost of rentals have actually been for two minivans or five hybrids? I very much doubt that any minivan gets twice the fuel economy of a heavy SUV. Better no doubt, but not by a factor of 2:1. I also question the statement that a minivan would have better traction on icy roads.

This is a complete non story. The vehicle was full of people and luggage. Their only other option would have been to rent two vehicles.

"This is why Environmentalism is such a bad religion. Simply questioning it evokes anger."

To begin with, Infidel, I'd suggest Environmentalism, if anything, might be more like atheism or agnosticism than an organized religion.

But that aside, I don't quite understand the rest as surely I was not evoked into anger, rather clarity was my aim.

Perhaps you perceive an anger among some because of the early effects of climate change on say islanders in the South Pacific who are already getting damp feet, or Inuit who can no longer feed their families from the land.

Up here in the wasteland, the pine is becoming extinct thanks to a little critter who's only opposition is prolonged periods (3-4 weeks) of extreme cold -35 -40. That doesn't happen anymore.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. So, you see there are some people who may have very good reason to be angry when others attempt to downplay or even deny their very real environmental concerns.

The fact they had bought an offset credit should have been enough.

What about the parallels to religion mentioned above, Bleed? They are not typical of atheism or agnosticism.

And so far you've fallen short of your stated aim of clarity. Which South Pacific islands exactly are already getting damp? Are there any South Pacific islands not getting damp? How about islands in the North Pacific or in other oceans and seas?

How do we know definitively that any increasing dampness is due only or mainly to us humans? Is it possible that an increase in average temperatures around the world, which perhaps you will be pleased to know I do not deny, is due more to natural cycles than to us? Are temperatures increasing on other orbs in our solar system or just our little blue marble?

I hope you don't take these questions as downplaying or denying. I think they're valid and, since this is a forum (ostensibly) for debate and exchanges of views, I hope you will consider them and reply thoughtfully.

You gotta love those greenies and their conscience cleansing “offset credits” way of thinking.

After I've visited my local strip club, I’ll purchase a subscription to Single Moms Magazine and claim it’s an “offset credit” in case someone accuses me of exploiting women.

I can now have a “offset credit" for perversion along with a warm and fuzzy feel good solution, to justify my actions.

Think of all the other possibilities.

“Your Honor my client admits he shot the officer and wishes to invoke the Environmentalist Defense because he did purchase an “offset credit” ticket to the Policeman’s Ball.”

“Not Guilty --- next!”

I can't believe this is even a story. Seriously, is there nothing better to report on?

Maybe those South Pacific islanders are merely bad aimers Infidel. It's a little like trickle-down economics, sort of.

I'm not sure what's happening on some of the local orbs as I'm rather obsessed about this one, at least until the Peoples' Shuttle finds a better place for us all.

Oh, and I do worry I won't have "a ticket to ride" when it does come because of corporate bulk buying.

In the meantime, given the increasing heat arising out of Ottawa (and other capitals both national and provincial), over climate change, it would appear the Conservatives and other official "deniers" are having to at least dream up new stalling tactics disguised as solutions.

I realize this isn't adding much in the way of the clarity as you have asked for, but then Stephen's new green plan is the new benchmark for clarity so pull out the old doublespeak manual and start paying attention.