To add to all of the above, on international trips BOTH presidential 747's are usually deployed in support of the president (one as a backup). Also, in many instances all of the fuel used to top the tanks of both of these aircraft is flown in as well to assure it is from a secure source. Add this in to the other support staff, cars, equipment that must be flown into position as well, and one realizes the massive scope and cost that even one trip must generate...

LimeGreen Earth --using fearmongering in the media to overstate their agenda. How bout this: we save the hassle and the emissions (from the trucks to transport the 1000+ trees, and not have the President attending the climate conferrance in AF1.) Maybe just maybe his time would be better spent finding a way to keep all those campaign promises.:eek:

When Obama came to Des Moines he had AF1, 5 helicopters, a C-17 and secret service flown in. He wanted to go from Des Moines to Newton. That's about a 45 minute drive. It is ridiculous how hypocritical politicians are about emissions. Does anyone know what the fuel burned from the 3 Sea Kings and 2 Black Hawks were? How about a fully loaded C-17 with all the amenities and AF1 with full fuel? This is a bigger issue than a trip with 1 747. This is a crapload of support a/c, equipment, and personnel. On the trip to Africa that Bush took a couple of years ago I think (don't quote me on it) he took 2 fully loaded C-17's with both of the Presidential 747's with constant full fuel which as stated earlier was also flown in.

Wow. This IS a waste of money. I love the idea of video conferencing by KC-10 FATBOY. Now THAT is a good idea.

.....no offense to AF-1's crew, I'm sure they have a good time flying the President around but sheesh...

I agree, a lot of resources are used for one person, but let’s remember that it is the leader of the most powerful country. Recent history has proven that all means of security are necessary. And about video conferencing, if you have used it before, you will understand its limitations. Presidents of the US have extremely full schedules so if they could, they would gladly call someone up rather than spend hours traveling and weeks arranging resources.

Preparing Air Force One for a flight is not something that you do on a whim. Presidents do not use Air Force One for personal convenience; they use it when it is determined to be the safest solution. Bottom line, the President needs to travel to run this country and work with other nations and it must be done in a safe way.

The Pentagon spends about $185 million a year to transport the President and top government aids. When you compare that with the $515.4 billion DOD budget or the $3.1 trillion national budget, the cost to move high level government officials around is only 0.006% of the national budget. I would cut many things from the national budget before I removed any funding for the security of the highest office in the land.

How wonderful, let us all plant many trees and celebrate the death of carbon.
By the way, I have many carbon credits for sale if anyone is looking to buy!
I can promise the trees will sequester the CO2 in fifty years or so, and of course the trees wil be planted and harvested.
Let's start trading nothing for an imaginary something and we can all be enriched.:D

Bearing down on them
 

Well, if their conference is hit by a rain of polar bears, they will have only themselves to blame. :p

Ad uses falling polar bears to illustrate jet emissions

The Kyoto protocol allows rich countries to meet their greenhouse gas reduction commitments by investing in projects abroad. But research shows that many of these projects would have happened anyway.





In the run-up to the Copenhagen climate change summit, the European Union likes to portray itself as the world climate leader by pointing to its commitment to reduce its CO2 output by 30 percent – if only the other countries would show the same ambition. What European leaders fail to mention is that two-thirds of the EU's carbon dioxide reduction is accounted for by carbon credits: investments in projects in the developing world that count towards a rich country's own greenhouse gas reduction commitment. And many of those carbon credits don't lead to any CO2 reduction at all.

The Kyoto protocol set up a system of trading in carbon credits called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). In return for investing in clean technology in poor countries, rich countries are granted 'certified emissions reductions' or carbon credits. For instance, investing in a CO2 reducing project in Mexico gives the Netherlands the right to emit more CO2 at home. The logic behind carbon credits is that it doesn't matter where on the planet CO2 emission is reduced so long as it is reduced. So why not do it where it can be done cheaper?

In practice, however, carbon credits have become a big swindle. CDM has resulted in little to no reduction in CO2 emissions. The credits are used mainly to pour money into energy projects that would have been carried out regardless of Western funding. Less than 10 percent of CDM projects are even directed at saving energy.

Plants that would have been built anyway
Take the Allain Duhanyan hydroelectric power station in India, for example. It has sold 75 million dollars worth of carbon credits, even though it was clear before the project began that it would be an economically very profitable project. In other words: the power station would have been built with or without carbon credits. This means that by buying carbon credits Western countries are financing theoretical CO2 emissions reductions that never take place in reality. Billions of consumer's and taxpayer's euros are thus channelled to project developers and a growing army of carbon credit traders.

Stanford University in the US estimated that a third to two-thirds of all carbon credits do not result in actual emissions reductions. A study by the German Öko institute confirmed these findings. A survey of CDM participants showed that 71 percent agreed with the statement that many CDM projects would have been carried out with or without carbon credits.

More than half of all CDM projects are in 'poor' China. Even new coal-fired power plants in China and India are allowed to sell carbon credits because they are supposedly more energy-efficient than the existing coal-fired power plants.

An example of this is the Reliance Power Group in India. It wants to build a new 4,000 megawatt coal-fired power plant, whose CO2 yearly emissions will be the equivalent of a year's worth of traffic pollution in a country like the Netherlands.

Europe has to do nothing until 2020
The importance of carbon credits to the negotiations in Copenhagen cannot be underestimated. They allow the EU countries to pat themselves on the back for committing to a 30 percent carbon dioxide reduction. What the European leaders never mention is that EU member countries have agreed among themselves that two-thirds of this reduction will be achieved by buying carbon credits in CDM projects in the developing world.

So Europe is really committing to only a 10 percent reduction by 2020 as compared to 1990. Statistics released by the European Commission's environmental agency this week show the EU countries are already at that level, so all they have to do is maintain current emission levels. The bottom line is that carbon credits are allowing Europe to do nothing about a fundamental transition to a CO2-poor economy until 2020.

If we want real climate change it is crucial for the European economy to change drastically both by saving energy and by generating renewable energy in substantial quantities in Europe itself. What is Europe's promise in Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gases by 30 percent really worth if it plans to achieve that promise by buying up fake credits abroad, while refusing to take politically-challenging climate measures at home?

Mirjam de Rijk is the general director of the Society for Nature and the Environment foundation.

HAHA! What a croc! That is the funniest and most disgustingly realistic thing I've seen in a while. I'm not against being a little green but come on. That's just ridiculous. :rolleyes:

I don’t remember bringing up any environmental factors or cap and trade. I am merely saying that what seems like a waste of resources is actually nothing in the grand scheme of things and that the leader of our country needs to be able to travel safely no matter who he or she is, but as usual on APC, it turns into a petty debate with heavy political undertones.

Generally I agree that the green political elite are hypocrites in their G-V's but I make an exception for the commander-in-chief. I want my strategic command-and-control and leadership to be well-rested, well-fed, and extremely secure. Fuel tankering and a backup airplane make perfect sense to me.

I admire Rommel for living off the same rations and sleep that his men enjoyed, but I would prefer that my higher-echelon leaders be able to think straight...that's what they get paid to do.

Also remember that AF-1 will evacuate the president in time of major crisis...they have to practice on a regular basis anyway. And No, a simulator doesn't cut it for that mission.