How sad of me that my first sentence did not include the word "not". I meant "not entering a new millineum". The universe strikes back.

Stella

"Home in" predates "hone in." Another example of usage-driven changes in our language.

According to Mirriam Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: hone in

Function: intransitive verb

Etymology: alteration of home in

Date: 1965

: to move toward or focus attention on an objective

Usage: The few commentators who have noticed hone in consider it to be a mistake for home in. It may have arisen from home in by the weakening of the m sound to n or may perhaps simply be due to the influence of hone. Though it seems to have established itself in American English (and mention in a British usage book suggests it is used in British English too), your use of it especially in writing is likely to be called a mistake. "Home in" or in figurative use "zero in" does nicely.

1. "Where are you AT?" America's MOST ANNOYING EXPRESSION! We never would say, "Where are you IN?" or, "Where are you ON?" or "Where are you UNDER?"!!!! (digression: There are some punctation marks outside the quotes.)

So, Americans, please say, "Where are you?" Please leave off the "at." It makes you sound bad. Now you know. Ignorance no longer is an excuse.

2. We might call a wine "lachrymose" if the wine were so heavenly that it tasted of Angel Tears.

Bad advice Cary. No synecdoche here.

What the scientists (and environmentalist) are talking about is the manmade oxidation of Carbon atoms to form Carbon dioxide molecules. Pretty simple reaction (usually called "burning" but can be done in other ways), you just add two Oxygen atoms to every Carbon atom in the underlying substance.

It is this chemical reaction which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 released is wholly dependent on the amount of Carbon in the underlying material. IT IS THE CHEMICAL REACTION, NOT THE BEGINNING (carbon containing material) OR END PRODUCTS (C02) WHICH COUNTS.

Being Carbon or Carbon Dioxide neutral means that you are offseting either the amount of Carbon burned or the amount of Carbon Dioxided produced which are really just the same thing.

If you really get technical, the better description would be "Greenhouse gas neutral." This is because the release of other volatile organic compounds -- primarily methane but also your propanes, ethanols, fluorocarbons, etcetera -- into the athmosphere have a greenhouse effect. However, in the long term these molecules will all eventually breakdown (have their Carbon oxidized) into C02. Although some, such as methane have a long half-life [7-10 years] and cause a significant greenhouse effect on their own until they are broken down).

Whether one is Carbon neutral or CO2 neutral, it doesn't matter to me: They are the flip sides of the same coin!

I should have added that you can offset Carbon/CO2 in a number of ways, such as preventing the buring of rainforests, C02 sequestration, and traping and burning methane produced at garbage dumps. All of which demonstrate that Carbon neutral and Carbon Dioxide neutral are really the same thing.

Brought to you by Gene Hackman from "Unforgiven":

Little Bill Daggett: [talking to English Bob, and refering to a book] That you here, Bob, on the cover? "The Duck of Death?"

W.W. Beauchamp: Duke. It's the Duke. "Duke of Death."

Little Bill Daggett: [correcting W.W Beauchamp] Eyewitnesses?

W.W. Beauchamp: Yes, sir.

Little Bill Daggett: Like the Duck himself, I guess.

W.W. Beauchamp: The Duke.

Little Bill Daggett: Duck, I says.

when you tilt your wine glass so the wine goes to the lip, then hold the glass upright, the wine leaves what are called 'tears' on the side of the glass (a clear trail of moisture where the wine receded). the tears are heavier if the wine is from a warmer climate, lighter if the wine is from a cooler climate.

a wine from, say, Chile, is a wine given to tears, and could therefore said to be lachrymose

a stretch, but mine own

And don't be so Lachrymose Intolerant! From the Gecko, bare in mind that many of the expressions we have discussed are Eggcorns.

Please take a look at the wonderful Eggcorn web cite:

eggcorns.lascribe.net

I'm not a chemist, but carbon monoxide is also put out by cars, and thus I imagine it's a significant pollutant too.

whether it is worse to bare my mind or to bear it. Either is burdensome.

Dear LW,

Using the term "carbon" refers to the fact that CO2 contains carbon and that the burning of fossil fuels is a short circuit of the Earth's natural carbon cycle. (Fossil fuels, which are mainly made of ancient carbon synthesized from CO2 long ago by plants, naturally take millions of years to return to the atmosphere. We are digging and drilling them up and burning them at a tremendous rate. This shifts the global carbon cycle to include more atmospheric CO2.) Additionally, as someone else here pointed out, other carbon containing compounds (such as methane, CH4) are also part of the problem.

If you actually knew anything about this problem, you would understand why the term "carbon" is reasonable. So, as a scientist and educator, it’s your letter that alarms me most about the knowledge and understanding of science and the environment among the general public. The use of buzzwords, incorrectly or otherwise, is a minor issue in comparison.

Poor LW--not only pendantic, but wrong too. Try not to make your friends and coworkers feel guilty for being angry with you for the banana peel you have placed on this slippery slope.

Should have said "pedantic" not "pendantic".

pedantic...

(I would know.)

Jesus, Cary.

It's not like you work for a suicide hotline. Not every letter needs answering. Either you can't see that this LW is an insufferable prick, or you're unwilling to call a spade a spade (it hasn't been the first time on both counts). Stupid question, insipid response.

Oh yeah! And how many bracelets do I have to wear to be considered 'with it'. Notice they are all plastic? I mean how 'carbon neutral' is that?

And all those little shrines by the road? What would happen if people put all that effort and money into something that actually addresses the causes?

And WHEN is the rest of the media going to wake up and deliver the otherside of the argument of global warming? There is as much evidence that this is a normal occurance in the world's history as not.

But then that doesn't prey upon society's guilt or sell copy. Not to mention that it indicates two real things. One is that we think we have influence on Mother Nature (never mind the effluent from the Industrial Revolution or the peat fires in Iron Age) and that we have the attention span of a gnat! We are taking 50 years in an historical span of millions.

But you go! Sing songs and sell books, never mind their 'carbon-imprint'. And just how much does it cost to print all that money any way?