Hypocrites or just caught in insoluble puzzle?

Bono is a hypocrite. This one is pretty simple: you fly around the world on private jets, engage limos and support an entourage ... to get the message out for environmental consciousness and peace. That is crazy on the face of it.

But so is Obama: he likes to fly into cities to make speeches and raise funds for friends (like Duval Putrid in Massachusetts) costing the locals millions of dollars each time. In Obama's most recent Boston gig, the support is estimated as having cost over $2 million. The goal? A speech at MIT and a fund raiser for Duval Patrick at the Hyatt -- $6,000 per person for the meet and greet which did NOT sell out. I'll bet the "stupid" Cambridge Police Department was just crazy about Obama's visit.

So, with all the hoopla, Patrick raised less than $1 million, but the whole charade cost the state $2 million? The speech at MIT? Only an idiot would fail to see this as a cover to support his Chicago homie, Doofus Putrid. Why not just write his campaign the check next time? And how much did the affair cost in terms of carbon footprint? How can you ask the American people to cut down -- forgo their machines -- if the President is part of the problem?

Which leads me to the "puzzle." People identifying with the Green movement are also, typically pet lovers ... there are always lots of dogs around to show how much these people love animals and the environment. It sort of fits in a most visceral and emotional level. But studies have just come out showing that the average mid-sized dog -- say a border collie -- is responsible for a carbon footprint equal to that of a mid-sized SUV.

"Robert and Brenda Vale said in their new book, "Time To Eat The Dog: The Real Guide To Sustainable Living," that a medium-sized dog eats about 362 pounds of meat and 209 pounds of cereal each year, with 43 square miles of land needed to create just 2.2 pounds of dog food cereal, Sky News reported Friday.

The Vales calculate the carbon footprint of a medium-sized dog as 2.08 acres, more than twice the 1.01 acres needed to create enough energy to build a Toyota Land Cruiser. However, the pair said the average driver travels about 12,000 miles a year, making the carbon footprint of the Toyota and the dog roughly equivalent."

Even if this is debatable -- that is, the actual numbers may be smaller -- the point is clear and unequivocal.

I am not suggesting that mankind abandon their closest ally for the past 100,000 years, far from it. If you (Enviro-weenies) want to place this burden on the Earth, then you should be entitled to it. But in the same way you want to tax my SUV, I should be able to tax dog food: an idle SUV doesn't make much footprint, but running it does ... just like feeding a dog. I wonder how many of the hairy-Earth-tree-hugging population would keep their pets if they had to fork over the same intended environmental taxes as the hated Expedition driver? I am all for taxing both of them!!

Our church is doing a walk for a sister church in Honduras ... and the congregation often sends mission trips there. Let's consider this in the light of the carbon game: how much should this really cost the missionaries? Do we really need to fly to Honduras to work? Would it not be better to simply send them the money? Or is it really about assuaging our conscience? Could we not achieve the same by helping out in Kentucky someplace? Actually, in Boston we have our own slums. So couldn't we work there instead and take the "T" to our mission? Sure it doesn't quite have the allure of having done a foreign mission trip, but carbon-wise it sure makes more sense, not to mention the money wasted on air fare.

Then I got to thinking ... but if we sailed over there wouldn't that work out better? No, because we'd have to stock the food, and who could afford the time for the trip. Not to mention the boat, the upkeep, etc. No, it seems pretty clear that environmentally responsible charity ... begins at home.