Artist Releases Neglidgable Amount of CO2 And Everyone Goes Crazy
July 6th, 2009
|
| Share |
On 29 September, Francesca Galeazzi walked to the top of a small hill in Greenland’s Jakobshavn fjord carrying a black gas tanks, kneeled down, opened the valve and released 6 kilograms of pure carbon dioxide into the air.
Galeazzi, part of an expedition of artists and scientists, later wrote on her blog:
The CO2 came out violently, freezing the air around the nozzle and producing an unpleasant whistle.
She had purposefully chosen a pristine spot. Others on the expedition were shocked by her actions. According to an interview she did recently with the UK Royal Society of Arts, one stopped talking to her entirely.
Galeazzi makes a powerful point. The average UK citizen emits 100 times as much CO2 in holiday flights each year, and producing the food and drink we each consume emits another 600kg. We don’t tend to think of these emissions because we don’t physically see them being released over the Greenland ice sheet.
But the real point of Galeazzi’s “installation” is about carbon offsets and, as she puts it “justifying bad behaviour”.
Okay, while I agree that “carbon offsets” are a crock of bull, this is even worse. Apparently it’s another example of “raising awareness” but this also includes the classic guilt trip. Yes, now it’s “bad behavior ” to take your family on holiday so that you might actually get to bond with the kids or see a pristine place in the world (notice her “bad behavior” of flying to Greenland in the first place is not mentioned). Of course the reality of things is that aviation doesn’t account for all that much CO2 and trying to call innocent travel “bad behavior” is not going to do much when one considered the amount of emissions that things like coal produce.
The other part nobody seems to want to mention is that had this artist not released this CO2 from a tank, it would have ended up being burped up by a soda drinker, shot out of a paint ball gun, released from a portable cooling system or otherwise vented from any of the numerous end users of industrial Co2.
You might think I carried out an evil horrible action. I would like to reassure you, I didn’t! I have done something great: I have offset the carbon emissions generated by the CO2 cylinder, through an online Gold Standard Carbon Offsetting scheme! Cool no? This is great stuff; one can go about consciously polluting the world, wasting energy, producing tonnes of waste and abusing natural resources without feeling guilty at all!! One can simply pay somebody to compensate for his/her ‘bad’ actions somewhere else, and become carbon neutral!
Don’t you think this is great?
Do you?
Personally I think it is appalling.
The only thing “appalling” about this is that it’s a cheap stunt passed as art. Believe it or not, there was a time when people who covered their car with Cheetos or stood motionless on a corner of Soho were just known as “weird and slightly creepy people.” Now apparently the idea of actually having talent or producing something of beauty or insight is totally unrelated to art. This is a stunt pure and simple and in my book, that makes it no more or less noble than the radio “shock jock” who gets listeners by having a pair of stripper twins on during the morning rush hour.
So who payed for this publicity whore to take a trip to someplace pristine for a cliche photo op? Cape Farewell, a program that unites artists and scientists and takes them to exotic places to delve into the “cultural response to climate change.” Excuse me while I vomit, but this is apparently how things are done now. Screw the whole aspects of engineering and science, lets turn this into a philosophical, political excuse to go out and pretend that we’re super insightful. Yoko Ono should be proud!
Anyway, since this behavior is seen as so horrible by so many and since we’re only concerning ourselves with the immediate, independent and smallest aspects of things and not the greater reality, let me go ahead and offer a fix to this sinful behavior:
There ya go. Just open up one of these bags and all your sinful behavior will be absolved! Note: You’ll still be worthless as an artist, but there’s not much that can be done about that, other than perhaps getting a real job.
Lets just hope that nobody happens to call you on any of this crap or the fact that you’re wearing clothes made from synthetic fibers that take quite a bit of energy to produce as you take some photos for your website. But then again, you’re one of the beautiful people, right? Not the unwashed masses. No, it would be appalling if any of them were to ride first class on their way to give a lecture on consumerism at an art gallery. No darling, you’ve done good for the world, so just continue to enjoy your grande organic soy latte – after all, it is “fair trade” right?
This entry was posted on Monday, July 6th, 2009 at 9:02 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Education, Obfuscation, Paranormal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
July 6th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
This sort of posturing makes me sick too, and it also trivializes the whole thing, obscuring the real issues. But we will see more of this sort of nonsense before we see less.
Consider this breathtaking bit of gall via Klaus Allmendinger over at the Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum
http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/G8_Scorecards_2009.pdf
“The above document, prepared jointly by the WWF and the Allianz insurance giant, and distributed to the media and policy makers, compares CO2 emissions and progress on mitigation for the G8 countries. When noticing France AND Germany in similar places on the list, I looked a little further. France, according to this report, has still fairly high emissions from electricity production. A small footnote under one of the graphs though explains why:”
Quote:
‘The WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option. The indicators “emissions per capita”, “emissions per GDP” and “CO2 per kWh electricity” for all countries have therefore been adjusted as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas). Without the adjustment, the original indicators for France would have been much lower, e.g. 86 CO2/kWh.‘
“So basically, France’s CO2 emissions from electricity production are produced by ideological bias, not by fossil fuel combustion. It looks like the German emissions are lower than actual tons of CO2 also because of emission trading schemes. Allianz is of course also a trader in CO2 certificates.”
I just don’t know how we can any rational discussion about this problem when we are face with the actions of this self-described ‘artist’ on one hand and the mendacity of the WWF on the other.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Why does travel (especially air travel) always get picked on so much for producing CO2? Aviation does produce small but significant amounts of CO2 and other emissions but it’s well under 1.5% by the worst estimates and as Buzz0 has pointed out, it’s the WORST place to look for cutting rates because it is vital to world comerace and has numerous benefits to the world (including supporting tourist areas that would otherwise be forced to plunder their natural resources to stay in existence). Also there’s no viable alternative for hydrocarbon fuels in flight.
I think the only rational thing to do is just accept the emissions from aviation. On a global scale, they’re not huge. Power generation is at least 40 to 50 times worse and probably more so and there IS an alternaive there.
Pick the big low hanging fruit. Not the tiny high ones!
It just makes no sense. Leave planes alone. They’re beneficial and useful enough that we can just take a hit on the amount they produce. We don’t need to cut emissions by 100%. Cutting them by just 90% would be more than enough. Actually cutting emissions by 70% would be a big achievement.
I see this more and more. Travel by aircraft is made a big deal. What do they want? The world to stop flying around? Oh yeah, screw the tropical islands that have no other industry and have an incentive to keep their endangered species from going extinct. Lets drive them to poverty so their people start killing and eating monkeys and reef fish to stay alive. Lets end cultural exchange and world appreciation all for a measly sliver of saved emissions.
All I can guess is this is an appeal to a “luxury” item that people can be guilted on.
Now I wonder how much in the way of resources were burned up to get this prestine little bitch to the furthest fronteer of the world so she could pull her little publicity stunt. All that fuel to keep her warm in Greenland, the flight there, the designer winter-wear (look at it, very slimming, chic and of course matching. No dusty old parka for this society lady). Then the snowmobile ride out to the site along with the photographers and everyone.. then back and the flight home so she could post it on her website. How the hell much was used up in that PATHETIC stunt?
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 2:55 am
DV82XL said:
That is revoltingly dishonest! My god, that’s a new level of deception. I had been under the impression that WWF was not as bad as most of the others.
There needs to be a bigger stink made out of that. Can someone sue them for something? Perhaps the French government could sue for slander? That’s so dishonest it’s amazing they can get away with it. There has to be some way to attack that. A lie with some fine print under it is still a lie!
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 3:33 am
This is why I always weary of public money going to art grants. There is no black and white criteria for what is worthwhile art so when you just pay for art that way anyone can create any worthless or stupid crap with no value. I would rather let the market decide. Galleries will pay to have talented people produce worthwhile works for others to enjoy. If the piece is worthless nobody will want to buy it for their own or to display it.
The one problem is that you still can have this idiocy supported by patrons who think they’re very in vogue and with it by paying a million dollars for a piece of dog crap on a pedestal or for a stupid Italian attention whore to go fart up in Greenland, but at least then it’s their own waste of money.
The only way the worth of this can be affixed is in a marketplace. It is what it is. You can’t write a formula. I just have faith that most people will see that this is crap.
Not to get off topic ——-
The whole concept of sending artists to remote places to express climate extremes or to create a cultural response seems silly to me. This is an issue of public policy and science and how we apply technology. I don’t see the use of this whole thing to begin with.
Also, I think the disaster scenarios are way way overstated. I don’t expect the ice caps to all melt tomorrow.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Now there’s a buisiness idea! You could sell “carbon offsets” in the form of big bags of lithium hydroxide. I wonder if anyone would buy it. It wouldn’t surprise me if they did.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Pathetic stunt.
I like your message at the end though, because it really captures the essence of the chic, trendy euro-artsy uber-vogue kind of mindless self-promoter that this appeals to. Sacha Baron Cohen has a new movie coming out about a similar kind of stereotypical trendy idiot named Bruno.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Engineering Edgar said:
Come now, Edgar! We all knew wrestling was staged!
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I think we have to consider where this 6kg of CO2 came from. It was likely condensed out of some atmosphere into a solid and then placed in a tank. Ignoring the CO2 from the energy used to freeze the CO2, it’s a carbon neutral activity. CO2 was sucked from the atmosphere and later added back.
This doesn’t even compare to deforestation, pumping up carbon from fossil fuel deposits or converting CO2 into methane in terms of environmental impact.
People so miss the point on CO2.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
ruidh said:
Industrial CO2 gas (which is a pretty common industrial gas you can buy at any bulk gas supplier or welding shop) does not generally come from atmospheric extraction. A small amount does because atmospheric distillation to produce nitrogen, oxygen and argon also produces some small amounts of CO2, but that’s not a significant source.
Most of it is a byproduct of other processes. One of the biggest is hydrogen production from methane gas which leaves behind carbon dioxide after steam reforming and a water gas shift reaction. Also when methane is used as feedstock to produce other products (alcohols, carbon fiber, plastics) there is often pure CO2 that is produced in the process. Many chemical processes produce CO2 in large quantities. Usually combustion of anything other than methane is not a good source though because it is too dirty (coal for example, the waste gas would have to be scrubbed of all kinds of nasty stuff to get pure Co2).
Some of it also comes from making things like quicklime or from reactions with acids. Usually it’s not the end product of CO2 that is the real desired one. The chemical industry has gotten very good about getting the most of what they produce by using all the marketable byproducts. Of course, this is all stuff where things happen in a closed controlled enviornment to begin with and that makes getting the purified CO2 easy.
CO2 is used so much for things like welding, pressure cartridges, pneumatics and stuff because in part, it’s cheap. We basically produce a surplus of it which is why a lot of it gets vented anyway if it’s not compressed and used.
When I say vented though, don’t confuse that with exhaust from combustion. In most cases that’s no good as a source of industrial gas to begin with. Methane being the exception. Methane exhaust also can be used as a source of ultra-pure water that is purer than most enviornmental sources. Spectroscopy grade water, that stuff is wicked expensive. It’s just water, but it is absolutely “perfect” even the isotopic ratio of both deuterium and oxygen isotopes in it is controlled by the specs it is sold under to within a fraction of a percent.
But anyways, getting back on topic – since we produce more CO2 than we use, if someone doesn’t buy a given volume of the stuff it gets vented anyway. The only cost of CO2 is compressing and transporting it.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I’m sick and tired of being lectured on scientific issues by narcissistic artists and their vocational kin. You’d think they invented climatology or something.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Engineering Edgar said:
I don’t know about how things work outside the US, but in the United States there might be recourse. Charitable organizations and non-profits do fall under certain regulations. They can’t solicit donations using false pretense and there are certain restrictions on how they spend their money, as in it must be consistant with their messages. They can’t, for example, say that they are an organization which is trying to send African kids to school and go around soliciting contributions and such under that kind of message and then spend 95% of their funds on buying their top officials expensive cars. They have to be open about finances as well.
You might be able to make the case that the WWF is using deception in their publications toward the end of collecting funds or promoting the organization or that they are violating their commitment to provide accurate information toward the end of improving the enviornment.
It may be a tough case to make though. If you could find more deception, especially if it is even more explicit, it could help.
The agency to go to would be the IRS. They could potentially lose their tax exempt status and donors would no longer be able to write off donations on their federal taxes. That would be baaaaaad for them. In theory an investigation could go to the point where individuals could be prosecuted for defrauding donors and tax evasion, but that I very much doubt. Just losing their good standing with the IRS could be disastrous.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Josh said:
Hi Josh. I want to say (although I’ve said it many times before) I really like your website.
However, I’ve taken a look at it again and I don’t see any performance art or poetry or any kind of traditional dance or festive hats on it as a means of justifying expenditure on fission. Please explain how you can still advocate fission when you do not have any festive hats. I shall remind you that many of the opponents of fission have festive, eclectic clothing, a large proportion are capable of expressing their opinions through the use of an acoustic guitar.
Your website lacks even a single link to any specialty coffee blends of any type. There are no pictures of any other tribal societies. You are unable to quote even a single old balding man with extremely long hair (along the fringe that still grows) and an unkempt mustache.
Sure, you may mention the ceramic nature of the fuel, but what about the ceramic pottery which has been lovingly produced by Native American women for generations? And where is there mention of what the white man did to them?
I just don’t see how you can continue to advocate nuclear power without these issues being covered!
(sarcasm, by the way)
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
drbuzz0 said:
That more or less describes me. If Josh really feels it’s necessary to quote such a person, he’s welcome to quote me.
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Finrod said:
Do you have beads in your hair and mumble incoherently? Also, do you look anything like this: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Old%20Hippie%20man/shanequinn/old_hippie_bilder_hippies8.jpg
?
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2009 at 3:25 am
drbuzz0 said:
Er… no, not really. I’m more of an aging metalhead than an aging hippy.
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
She was there as part of the Cape Farewell project, so in fact, she travelled there in a sailing ship. Not that the artwork itself isn’t ****ing stupid.
Quote Comment
July 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Alex said:
Interesting. I wonder if that actually reduced the co2. Planes are pretty efficient means of transport. A sailing ship might be powered by the wind but the journey is longer and the cabin must be heated. Also I’m sure it had a power generator on board. Then she gets there she will need to stay some place heated. I wonder if the sailing ship was a pure sailing ship or had an auxiliary motor as most do these days.
Quote Comment
July 14th, 2009 at 11:08 am
To be fair, I do agree with her that the “carbon offset” concept is ridiculous, and her scheme does point out the absurdity of it. Not that I’m generally a big fan of concept art like this; she’s managed to do something that hardly anybody will notice except those who already are ideologically aligned with her, so what exactly is she really achieving here, besides self-aggrandizement?
But I will give her credit for one thing in her “art” — at least it’s comprehensible. There’s a fair amount of performance or concept art which is so absurd that it is impossible to grasp the artist’s point even after it’s explained to you. So it’s not as bad as those.
Quote Comment
July 17th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Ooh – she gave someone her credit card details and insinuates that they might have planted a tree!
Let’s burn down some forests and pay someone to plant trees!
I’d just like to point out the obvious: we can’t even plant trees fast enough to “offset” 20% of the CO2 we put out by burning the remains of ancient plants and animals. So, assuming that trees *were* planted (or a hydroelectric power plant built to replace a coal-fired plant – hah, sure) people have got something wrong with their heads if they believe they can then throw out all the CO2 they please. Well, I guess the artist is demonstrating yet again that there’s a huge disconnect between science and public perception.
That sack of lithium hydroxide is too bulky and awkward to carry about. A teaspoon of potassium cyanide would be much better in my opinion (unless of course you’re not keen on humane disposal of bad artists).
Quote Comment
July 18th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
MadScientist said:
The notion that humanity needs to be absolutely zero CO2 producing is absurd. Right now we produce billions and billions of tons a year, and clearly that is more than the various natural carbon sinks of the earth can absorb, but the notion that we should never ever use hydrocarbon fuels in any application is unrealistic.
I tend to think of CO2 producing energy sources in the same way as I think of something like saturated fat or cholesterol in one’s diet. It’s unhealthy to have a diet that is very high in saturated fat, but that does not mean that it is necessary to have zero milligrams of saturated fat in your diet. That would be extremely difficult to get to and probably wouldn’t have any greater benefit to it than just keeping the number reasonably low.
Anyway, when it comes to “throwing out all the CO2 they please.” let me put it this way – I don’t consider it my responsibility to suffer in the cold and dark for the sake of the atmosphere, because my government has created a regulatory structure that has forced most of our energy to come from fossil fuels. I’m the first one to write to elected representatives or try to drum up support for other options, but don’t expect me to take one for the team because of someone else’s sheer incompetence. Rationing of energy is never the answer to anything except perhaps an overly healthy economy.
MadScientist said:
You don’t have to lug it around with you. Just dump it somwehre and let it sit there and soak up CO2
Quote Comment
July 19th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Great paragraph, but I’d suggest (as per Rod Adams) that pork-barrel politics and corruption of politicians by fossil fuel money — rather than incompetence — is the problem with the government.
Quote Comment