Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, July 18, 2007 09:20 AM

  It isn't just about the carbon dioxide... it's about the carbon cycle!

  What is ironic, is the letter writer appears to get so angry at what someone calls "carbon neutral" vs "carbon dioxide neutral". If one does any research (even with good ol' Wikipedia) one can get a better ideaof why carbon was chosen and not carbon dioxide. Which is disappointing that Cary chose not to do any research on the terminology and encouraged the ignorance by letting the LW just assume everyone else was being ignorant (and therefore being guilty of what the LW is complaining about!). The combustion of non-renewable energy sources like oil and coal increase carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, which contain various mixtures of hydrocarbons, even gasoline is a mixutre of various molecules containing different numbers of carbon atoms, which use of these causes increase in an individuals carbon footprint, and carbon neutrality is a method devised to find a means to offset this usage, or not using carbon energy sources to begin with. To refer to it as carbon dioxide only would dismiss all the other components of the carbon cycle! And imagine how long every article would be if you started listing every carbon containing compound involved in the creation of carbon dioxide by name.

  Only one "Editor's Choice" letter even points out that other compounds other than carbon dioxide!

  Now if the LW had written to complain about how people think they are carbon neutral (when this is virtually impossible... I think Al Gore is full of himself when he says he is carbon neutral). It is admirable to try to be so, but I believe the majority who think they are carbon neutral probably aren't even close.

  —juls Read juls's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel