Rev Al Gore Leads The Way

[theshire]

LOL - Did you see this item (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367)?

As you probably already know, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has collected an Oscar for best documentary feature. But now the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy too!

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh - guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

It gets worse!!! Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has INCREASED from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

This is typical of the Green Crusaders. They fly - first class - around the world lecturing us all on our lifestyles whilst they themselves are two-faced hypocrites. Betcha the the MSM will keep quiet on this one!

[drew70]

God, that's hilarious and so typical. I think the title of the article says it all: Al Gore's personal energy use is his own Inconvenient Truth. I shudder to think how close this hypocritical MF came to being President.

[DEV]

God, that's hilarious and so typical. I think the title of the article says it all: Al Gore's personal energy use is his own Inconvenient Truth. I shudder to think how close this hypocritical MF came to being President.

Yes, I mean, he may have gotten America involved in a pointless war that would have destabalised an entire region along with causing anti-American sentiment to spike sharply across the globe... Hang on...

[Goodieluver]

Yes, I mean, he may have gotten America involved in a pointless war that would have destabalised an entire region along with causing anti-American sentiment to spike sharply across the globe... Hang on...

So you are claiming the middle east WAS STABLE during clinton, bush sr, reagan and.....how far u want me to go back?

[bugman]

LOL - Did you see this item (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367)?

As you probably already know, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has collected an Oscar for best documentary feature. But now the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy too!

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh - guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

It gets worse!!! Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has INCREASED from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

This is typical of the Green Crusaders. They fly - first class - around the world lecturing us all on our lifestyles whilst they themselves are two-faced hypocrites. Betcha the the MSM will keep quiet on this one!

Thank you sir,for pointing out what hippocrits so many of the enviromental extremists are.

[DEV]

So you are claiming the middle east WAS STABLE during clinton, bush sr, reagan and.....how far u want me to go back?

Actually I was referring to the region of Iraq.

more than 20 times the national average.

Actually, Al Gore doesn't have an average house, so really, the fact he uses so much electricity is understandable.

[drew70]

Actually, Al Gore doesn't have an average house, so really, the fact he uses so much electricity is understandable.Understandable, perhaps. But does that make him any less hypocritical? He's telling the world to do one thing, while he's doing the opposite. Does winning an oscar somehow make him exempt?

[General Zod]

Actually I was referring to the region of Iraq.



Actually, Al Gore doesn't have an average house, so really, the fact he uses so much electricity is understandable.
So that entitles him to tell the working class people him and his party is supposed to represent to use less energy? I guess all those those rich liberals need the energy for themselves :rant:

[tickledgirl]

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

Nope, that's actually according to the whiny conservative group trying to smear Gore.

According to the AP "Nashville Electric Service company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information."

But I believe they did confirm that "Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs."

[Redmage]

Nope, that's actually according to the whiny conservative group trying to smear Gore.

According to the AP "Nashville Electric Service company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information."

But I believe they did confirm that "Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs."It's a good thing for you that I'm already married, TG. Twice, even. :wub:

[Goodieluver]

Actually I was referring to the region of Iraq.



Actually, Al Gore doesn't have an average house, so really, the fact he uses so much electricity is understandable.


So since rich people have the money to afford hummers and SUV's, its acceptable for them to buy more gas and burn it up? If yer eco friendly, you downsize. If yer eco friendly, you'd drive a geo or hybrid compared to a gas guzzler

[Iggy pop]

Nope, that's actually according to the whiny conservative group trying to smear Gore.

According to the AP "Nashville Electric Service company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information."

But I believe they did confirm that "Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs."

It is true that the Tenesse Center for policy Research is a right wing group, but Gore did not deny that he using 30 times the amount of electricity than the average family. Yes he claims he is using "carbon credits" solar energy, an wind energy, and he also claims that he and Tipper works out of the mansion. Still, Nowhere is Gore denying that he is using this amount of electrictiy. So you can call it a smear job, and it some sense it is, but what Gore is doing is misdirection without issuing a denial.

[Goodieluver]

Also Alternative energy sources are already low due to the slow development of it. I forget how many windmills per sq\ft are needed to power an area, but if the majority of wind developed power in the region is going to his home, how does it benefit anyone else?

[Redmage]

Thank you sir,for pointing out what hippocrits so many of the enviromental extremists are.I hope you noticed that there's actually no hypocrisy happening here, once the customary right-wing smoke screen is blown away.

It is true that the Tenesse Center for policy Research is a right wing group, but Gore did not deny that he using 30 times the amount of electricity than the average family. Yes he claims he is using "carbon credits" solar energy, an wind energy, and he also claims that he and Tipper works out of the mansion. Still, Nowhere is Gore denying that he is using this amount of electrictiy. So you can call it a smear job, and it some sense it is, but what Gore is doing is misdirection without issuing a denial.How much energy he's using isn't much of an environmental issue in and of itself, so there's no need for him to address it. What matters, as far as Gore putting his money where his mouth is, is how much carbon he's generating. If he's getting all his energy from renewable sources then he's living strictly by the principles that he preaches.

Also Alternative energy sources are already low due to the slow development of it. I forget how many windmills per sq\ft are needed to power an area, but if the majority of wind developed power in the region is going to his home, how does it benefit anyone else?It has the same environmental benefit no matter who uses it. As long as capacity isn't being wasted, it's just as good for Gore to use it as is for anyone else. In fact by making sure that demand for renewable energy remains high, Gore encourages local utilities to add capacity.

[Robace252]

Whether or not Al Gore (which I am not a fan of, oboviously) uses more electricty than the "average" american, is really no big deal. He has a 20 room, 8 bathroom manison, I mean, (here's my common sense thing again) its logical and natural to assume and understand that his dwelling would use more power than the average Tennessean's home, which is probally like a 3 bdr., 2 bathroom.

The only real way for me to even take this seriously is if they show the standard ammount of electricty that is used for other 20 bedroom, 8 bathroom mansions.
When they can supply me with that information, then I will be able to make a determination whether or not Mr. Gore is using more than his fair share.

Nope, that's actually according to the whiny conservative group trying to smear Gore.

It is true that the Tenesse Center for policy Research is a right wing group, but Gore did not deny that he using 30 times the amount of electricity than the average family.

Is the The Tennessee Center for Policy Research a right wing hack group, I dont know. I visited their home web page and several several stories reporting on pork-fat bills within the state and some middle of the road items, but there did to be at least one strange item for it to be a "right winged" website....this was something adverstied on its website...
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research welcomes Stephen Slivinski author of Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government.

Today, Republicans hold the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. But instead of reducing the size of government, they have embarked on a spending spree not seen since the days of LBJ. In fact, real discretionary federal spending increased by 25.2 percent during the first five years of the Johnson Administration, and by 35.8 percent during the first five years of George W. Bush's.
I severly doubt that a "right-winged" website would promote such a person on their own website. But as always Ill let all of you be the judge yourself...
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/page.php

But I believe they did confirm that "Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs."
Here's the problem I have with this....Al Gore himself might buy other sources to suppliment his energy needs, but the fact is he did use more than he advocates everyone else uses. The diffrence here is that Al Gore can afford to and everyone else can not. He is out there telling everyone to reduce energy usage, when he himself uses his fair share(perhaps more), and then purchases more from other clean sources to increase his usage but keeping his enviromental concious clean.
But again, until I see what the average 20 room/8 bath mansion uses in energy per month, this is really nit picking.

Rob

[Redmage]

I severly doubt that a "right-winged" website would promote such a person on their own website. But as always Ill let all of you be the judge yourself...
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/page.phpWhy does that surprise you? Pat Buchanan is about as far right as one can get, and this sort of rhetoric is exactly the way he talks about the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress. This is the sort of talk you should expect from someone who is so far to the right that the GOP looks liberal to them.

Here's the problem I have with this....Al Gore himself might buy other sources to suppliment his energy needs, but the fact is he did use more than he advocates everyone else uses.The thing is, "energy reduction" by itself isn't Gore's message. Gore's emphasis is on CARBON REDUCTION. Carbon dioxide from human machinery is what's mainly behind global warming, and that's what Gore cares about. There are two ways to reduce the amount of carbon you produce: One is to use less energy overall, since 87% of the world's energy comes from burning fossil fuels. The other is to make sure that the energy you do use comes from sources that don't produce carbon, such as renewable energy generation like solar and wind.

As you point out, we can't tell whether Gore is doing the first, since we can't compare his energy use to that of a house of similar size. But we can tell from news reports that he's doing the second, which is ultimately the most important. By getting all of his energy from renewable sources, Gore has reduced his household's energy carbon footprint to zero, no matter how much energy he's actually using.

As I said in an earlier post, this means that he's practicing exactly what he preaches.

[Robace252]

Why does that surprise you? Pat Buchanan is about as far right as one can get, and this sort of rhetoric is exactly the way he talks about the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress. This is the sort of talk you should expect from someone who is so far to the right that the GOP looks liberal to them.
True. But the site in itself to me did not seem overly "right-winged", but everyone can judge for themselves.

As you point out, we can't tell whether Gore is doing the first, since we can't compare his energy use to that of a house of similar size.
This we and hopefully most can agree on. To me again its just common sense. But we could compare, if someone else that owns a house his size would tell us how much they use.


But we can tell from news reports that he's doing the second, which is ultimately the most important. By getting all of his energy from renewable sources,
Actually that is not true. From what I read, even on a left-leaning website is that Al purchases "carbon offsets".
On to another left-leaning website (which I hate quoting because my nephews middle school does not allow it as a referance for science projects since it is seen as unreliable) wikipedia which had this entry under carbon offsets....
Not all environmentalists agree with carbon offsets. George Monbiot, an English environmentalist and progressive writer, has compared carbon offsets to the practice of purchasing Indulgences during the Middle Ages, whereby people with money could purchase forgiveness for their sins instead of actually not sinning. Monbiot also says that that the trade in carbon offsets is an excuse for business as usual.[13]

In addition, some economists have questioned if carbon trading schemes are delivering the expected benefits. These questions result from a collapse in the price of carbon credits at two of the major carbon trading schemes.[14] There are also concerns that using carbon offsets actually increases demand for polluting sources of power since overall power consumption isn't being reduced and polluting sources of power aren't being ended.[15]

Other controveries around carbon offsets revolve around the absence of market regulation or standards. This has resulted in number of offset projects being questioned over their supposed benefits.
So I need someone who understands this better than I do to make sense of it, but from what I can tell.....
If your rich enough you can use all the energy you want because you can reduce your "carbon footprint" by purchasing "carbon offsets" which in a mathmatical sense turns your "carbon footprint" to 0. But the fact remains you used the energy in the first place, now in real time and from what I read many "carbon offsets" are purchased for the future as in developing new technologies, planting forests, and investing (money money money) in windfarms, solar plants and such.
But if you are like me(not rich), the only way to reduce my carbon footprint is to only have on 1 light at a time, keep my heat at 65 during the winter and A/C at 75 during the summer, drive only when really really necessary, take cold or lukewarm showers and plant 10 trees a day.
Now I will admit I dont understand everything and will be happy to have someone show me more on this subject....but it seems as if rich people not only get "tax breaks" from the GOP, but "energy breaks" from the Enviromentalists.
So the moral of this story seems to be boys and girls, if you have enough money you can purchase your way to a clean carbon footprint. If not, you have to bike to work, and read at night by candlelight.

Gore has reduced his household's energy carbon footprint to zero, no matter how much energy he's actually using.

As I said in an earlier post, this means that he's practicing exactly what he preaches.
But from I read he is using the energy in the now, but the carbon offsets are for the future. And using a formula that is almost as diffcult to read as an NFL QB Rating, that I would like to know who devised this formula in the first place, and created the "offsets" programs which certainly to me seem to benefit the rich and elite, while the rest of us just get to cut back.

Rob

[Iggy pop]

The thing is, "energy reduction" by itself isn't Gore's message. Gore's emphasis is on CARBON REDUCTION. Carbon dioxide from human machinery is what's mainly behind global warming, and that's what Gore cares about. There are two ways to reduce the amount of carbon you produce: One is to use less energy overall, since 87% of the world's energy comes from burning fossil fuels. The other is to make sure that the energy you do use comes from sources that don't produce carbon, such as renewable energy generation like solar and wind.

As you point out, we can't tell whether Gore is doing the first, since we can't compare his energy use to that of a house of similar size. But we can tell from news reports that he's doing the second, which is ultimately the most important. By getting all of his energy from renewable sources, Gore has reduced his household's energy carbon footprint to zero, no matter how much energy he's actually using.

As I said in an earlier post, this means that he's practicing exactly what he preaches.

But his carbon footprint is far from zero. That was the point of the article. The 30,000 year electricity bill is not from alternative sources, instead it is from carbon sources and natural gas. So no he is not practicing what he preaches.

[red indian]

........Gore behaves and sounds like what he is....an American!

[Redmage]

So I need someone who understands this better than I do to make sense of it, but from what I can tell.....
If your rich enough you can use all the energy you want because you can reduce your "carbon footprint" by purchasing "carbon offsets" which in a mathmatical sense turns your "carbon footprint" to 0. But the fact remains you used the energy in the first place, now in real time and from what I read many "carbon offsets" are purchased for the future as in developing new technologies, planting forests, and investing (money money money) in windfarms, solar plants and such.
But if you are like me(not rich), the only way to reduce my carbon footprint is to only have on 1 light at a time, keep my heat at 65 during the winter and A/C at 75 during the summer, drive only when really really necessary, take cold or lukewarm showers and plant 10 trees a day.Not really. What has happened is that we, as a society, have gotten used to what amounts to subsidized energy. Our energy use carries a lot of costs, both immediate and long-term, that are not factored into the bottom lines of our energy bills.

Carbon offsets represent a way to pay some of the actual costs, especially carbon dioxide damage. There are some people who doubt that they're effective, but there are many others who don't. That's a controversy. So it goes.

So, yes, for people who can afford to pay the actual costs of the energy they use, that is one way to do it. Those who can't afford that method simply have to reduce their energy use in order to reduce the damage they do. But that's just a matter of either paying for what you actually use - the full real cost of undoing the damage it causes - or using less of it. This isn't a matter of rich or poor, it's just common sense: either pay for it, or don't use it.

Nor is that the only way Gore balances his carbon load. He uses carbon offsets to reduce the impact of things like his gasoline use - where renewable sources simply aren't available. However as noted in more balanced discussions of this story, Gore buys energy from renewable sources for his home energy needs.

This is just a case of a right-wing special interest group using disinformation to attempt to discredit someone who's saying something they don't like. But strip all the smoke and mirrors away and Gore is staying right on track with what he says.

[Robace252]

Not really. What has happened is that we, as a society, have gotten used to what amounts to subsidized energy. Our energy use carries a lot of costs, both immediate and long-term, that are not factored into the bottom lines of our energy bills.

Carbon offsets represent a way to pay some of the actual costs, especially carbon dioxide damage. There are some people who doubt that they're effective, but there are many others who don't. That's a controversy. So it goes
Okay so it seems I kind of am on the right track. "carbon offsetting" is not an excat science, there is not a huge swing either way in the scientific community on this. So why would someone as smart as Gore hinge his bets on something that is not as widely accepted as Global Warming.
That worries me a little.

So, yes, for people who can afford to pay the actual costs of the energy they use, that is one way to do it. Those who can't afford that method simply have to reduce their energy use in order to reduce the damage they do. But that's just a matter of either paying for what you actually use - the full real cost of undoing the damage it causes - or using less of it. This isn't a matter of rich or poor, it's just common sense: either pay for it, or don't use it.
Your putting it in nicer terms, but basically I think Im right again. If you have enough money to pay for it, use it. If you dont, dont use it. And it is a matter of rich or poor, and that is common sense. Only those that make enough money could possibly pay the "real costs" as determined by other rich people. Its a simple power grab. Keep those not rich and elite in the dark, with no transportation and you can control their lives.
But such is life. Im not complaining about it. Just stating what I think. I have no problem with what Gore is doing. I think its "grasping at straws" for his pundits, but nonetheless perhaps these whole "carbon footprint" and "carbon offset" programs are real problems.
Because Al Gore is not leaving and covering a "carbon footprint" like you or I Redmage, he is leaving and covering up a "cabon crater".

Nor is that the only way Gore balances his carbon load. He uses carbon offsets to reduce the impact of things like his gasoline use - where renewable sources simply aren't available. However as noted in more balanced discussions of this story, Gore buys energy from renewable sources for his home energy needs.
I dont know where you read that at, Id certainly like to see where it was noted he bought the renewable sources for his home. How I read it was that he used the regular "dirty" electricty first, paid for it, then bought the "carbon offsets" including investments in wind energy, planting forests and solar power. Not that he purcahsed them first then used them directly. That does not in my mind "clean" anything up, because if Gore didnt buy those they would have been used by someone else or a business.
But if you have some more balanced or even straight left discussions on the subject Id like to read them.

This is just a case of a right-wing special interest group using disinformation to attempt to discredit someone who's saying something they don't like. But strip all the smoke and mirrors away and Gore is staying right on track with what he says.

And I agree its grasping at straws, for no other reason than to make a stink. However I am now more concerned about the "science" that is in dispute over "cabon offsetting"

Rob

[tickledgirl]

It is true that the Tenesse Center for policy Research is a right wing group, but Gore did not deny that he using 30 times the amount of electricity than the average family. Yes he claims he is using "carbon credits" solar energy, an wind energy, and he also claims that he and Tipper works out of the mansion. Still, Nowhere is Gore denying that he is using this amount of electrictiy. So you can call it a smear job, and it some sense it is, but what Gore is doing is misdirection without issuing a denial.

I'd disagree that it's misdirection. You can discuss the science of it (as Rob and Red do above) and maybe decide that he's not making the best choices. But there's a big difference between "I question the science behind your decision" and "You hypocrite!"

If you want misdirection, how about a "policy" organization arguing that global warming isn't caused by human activity...because Al Gore uses lots of electricity. That's a pretty classic example of an ad hominem attack.

[Redmage]

Okay so it seems I kind of am on the right track. "carbon offsetting" is not an excat science, there is not a huge swing either way in the scientific community on this. So why would someone as smart as Gore hinge his bets on something that is not as widely accepted as Global Warming.
That worries me a little.Because he thinks it's the best option available, even if it's not perfect. By and large, the people who criticize carbon offsets are even more radical than Gore is. And it's not the science they criticize so much as the philosophy behind it. They want people to radically reduce their energy use - and I mean radically: far more than even Gore does. They feel that carbon offsets are simply an excuse to avoid doing that. Gore disagrees (as do many other environmental activists). So he's using the best option he can, as he sees it. You really can't fault him for that.

Your putting it in nicer terms, but basically I think Im right again. If you have enough money to pay for it, use it. If you dont, dont use it. And it is a matter of rich or poor, and that is common sense. Only those that make enough money could possibly pay the "real costs" as determined by other rich people. Its a simple power grab. Keep those not rich and elite in the dark, with no transportation and you can control their lives. I'm sorry, Rob, but that's nonsense. The costs of carbon offsets are not just arbitrary numbers determined by "other rich people." It's a simple equation using factual information.

You figure how much coal/oil/gas you have to burn to generate X amount of energy, or how much gasoline you're using in a month to drive your car. Those numbers are well-known. Then you calculate the amount of CO2 that's going to generate - again, a simple matter. Then you figure out some method of offsetting that carbon load, such as planting X number of trees, and determine how much that's likely to cost, on average. And that number is the cost of your carbon offset.

This isn't some plot by the rich to keep the little guy down. This is a frank assessment of the actual damage our energy use does to the environment and how much it costs to undo that damage. It means that the true cost of energy is a lot higher than we've gotten used to thinking, because of all those hidden charges.

Those costs have been there all along, but we've been ignoring them. Now the bill is finally coming due on the last 150 years of the Industrial Revolution, and it's pretty ugly. We're suddenly being told to pay as we go, rather than run a tab for our grandkids to pick up, the way our grandparents did to us. If you think that's unfair, then I have to say I agree with you. But Gore didn't make it unfair. We need to take that up with our ancestors.

Yes, Gore's money gives him options for dealing with these costs that aren't available to people with less money. That's what money does: it gives people options. But you make it sound like some sort of sin, and that's ridiculous. Gore can afford to wear better suits than you or I can too, but that's not a crime.

I dont know where you read that at, Id certainly like to see where it was noted he bought the renewable sources for his home. Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_re_us/gore_electric_bill_12): "Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs."

This is an option that many local electrical companies (http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/pricing.shtml?page=1) are giving to consumers these days. If yours offers it, then you can tell them that you want your money to go to renewable energy sources, usually for a small premium (a couple of cents per kWh). It's different from carbon offsets, because it means you're buying your power directly from green producers.

How I read it was that he used the regular "dirty" electricty first, paid for it, then bought the "carbon offsets" including investments in wind energy, planting forests and solar power. Not that he purcahsed them first then used them directly. That does not in my mind "clean" anything up, because if Gore didnt buy those they would have been used by someone else or a business. Carbon offsets clean things up no matter who uses them, Rob.

Let's suppose that everyone in the US is out digging holes in their yards, and the sizes of the holes are proportionate to the amount of energy they use. Buying carbon offsets means that someone is paying a guy to come along and fill in some of their holes, and plant grass on top of them again. Gore's holes are bigger than most peoples', so he has to pay more to fill them in again. But the fact that he's filling his holes doesn't mean that someone else can't fill theirs. Carbon offsets aren't limited in capacity in the same sense that electricity production is (only in the sense that you can only plant so many trees in a year, and so on). And the fact that Gore is filling his holes means that holes are getting filled. Things ARE being cleaned up.

However carbon offsets aren't the only method Gore is using to reduce his carbon load.

[Robace252]

K, Im starting to understand things a little better. Let me see if I can put into my own words to ensure Im understanding....thank you Redmage for bearing with me.....

The way Al Gore goes about reducing his carbon footprint might not be the most accepted, most proven method, but he is comfortable with it and honestly believes in it. Most people that do not believe in "carbon offsetting" and such are much farther "left" enviromentalist than Al is, and main argument is that its an excuse not cut back, but to continue using resources while buying a "clean carbon footprint". There are many people also however that believe that this is the best, most economical and easiest way to reduce your "carbon footprint" thus is accepted and widely used not only by Al Gore but others and companies.
He is using the best option he belives with the evidence and science available to him at this moment.

I'm sorry, Rob, but that's nonsense. The costs of carbon offsets are not just arbitrary numbers determined by "other rich people." It's a simple equation using factual information.
Okay explain....
You figure how much coal/oil/gas you have to burn to generate X amount of energy, or how much gasoline you're using in a month to drive your car. Those numbers are well-known. Then you calculate the amount of CO2 that's going to generate - again, a simple matter. Then you figure out some method of offsetting that carbon load, such as planting X number of trees, and determine how much that's likely to cost, on average. And that number is the cost of your carbon offset.
Im not aware calculating the ammount of CO2 that is generated is a simple matter. As far as I knew it was diffcult, because the warmer the temperature the more CO2, the diffrences in wind, geography, weather, etc all can increase or decrease the ammount of CO2 that something generates(or more so how much is naturally absorbed and the the rest released). Is this a scientific formula? Was it created by enviromentalist scientists? Was it created by pure scientists? Was it created by the electirc companies? Im not be sarcastic here....(I want to make that clear Redmage because I am actually learning here and enjoying this discussion)...Id really like to know more about this formula and since I am not versed well on such matters I would like to learn more.

This isn't some plot by the rich to keep the little guy down. This is a frank assessment of the actual damage our energy use does to the environment and how much it costs to undo that damage. It means that the true cost of energy is a lot higher than we've gotten used to thinking, because of all those hidden charges.
And again who determines this. Who assess the damage, and who determines how much it costs to undo the damage. I will agree that the costs for using and replacing energy that we use is higher than the actual ammounts we pay. Because most likely if we paid real costs it would be more than 75% of the population could afford. But to me (my opinion) this formula (whether by accident or on purpose) to make people "carbon neutral" is set up that only the rich could be, and can lecture the rest of us while they continue consuming the same ammount while we poor working slobs have to get by on less. I still have to say that if thats the way it is...then so be it. Im not going to be critical of people because they can afford to do such a thing, but at the same time Im not going to feel bad about my situation and perhaps if they can do so much....perhaps they should give a little more to cover the little guy if they are so concerned about the enviroment as a whole.

Those costs have been there all along, but we've been ignoring them. Now the bill is finally coming due on the last 150 years of the Industrial Revolution, and it's pretty ugly. We're suddenly being told to pay as we go, rather than run a tab for our grandkids to pick up, the way our grandparents did to us. If you think that's unfair, then I have to say I agree with you. But Gore didn't make it unfair. We need to take that up with our ancestors.
I agree. I do think it is unfair, and Im going to do some more research and thought into this whole subject. I certainly know Al Gore did not make this unfair. I hope you can tell by my posts Im not attacking him, but as TG put it Im trying to make sure Im discussing the science of it. And perhaps we should take it up with our ancestors, by finding those now that have profited for decades, have more than a few million dollars to spare and make them make up the diffrence. Perhaps a good idea....but I think we both will agree that very few if any would be willing to chip in.

Yes, Gore's money gives him options for dealing with these costs that aren't available to people with less money. That's what money does: it gives people options. But you make it sound like some sort of sin, and that's ridiculous. Gore can afford to wear better suits than you or I can too, but that's not a crime.
Im not mad or upset about him personally...to a degree. Its not a sin that he (with your analogy) can afford to buy and wear better suits than you or I. But if we (you, I and Al Gore) are all at the same restaurant and he comes over to our table telling us "we need to buy better suits like his, and follow his example" then I start getting a little fidgety...especailly when we inform him we can not afford to and then he pulls out a pad and paper and dictates to us what we should and should not buy to show us how we can afford a suit like his. Thats what irks me.

"Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs."
Its his spokeswoman....of course shes going to say that. Id like to see them offer proof. But of course they wont because its a "witch hunt" and honestly they really dont have to. Which I will agree they have no reason to have to prove what he does or does not do.
Also I read that many of these purchases are non-traceable, in a non-regulated market and that many of these programs can not be verified.
Again that makes me skeptical.

This is an option that many local electrical companies are giving to consumers these days. If yours offers it, then you can tell them that you want your money to go to renewable energy sources, usually for a small premium (a couple of cents per kWh). It's different from carbon offsets, because it means you're buying your power directly from green producers.
Im certainly going to look into this, I had read about "green tags" purchasing through your electric company power that comes from green producers, but what little I read again show there is no real assurances where the power comes from, and it is not centrally directed at one home. But if you have some more info on this other than the link you gave me Id be more than happy to read it, as well as Im going to do some more reasearch myself.

Let's suppose that everyone in the US is out digging holes in their yards, and the sizes of the holes are proportionate to the amount of energy they use. Buying carbon offsets means that someone is paying a guy to come along and fill in some of their holes, and plant grass on top of them again. Gore's holes are bigger than most peoples', so he has to pay more to fill them in again. But the fact that he's filling his holes doesn't mean that someone else can't fill theirs. Carbon offsets aren't limited in capacity in the same sense that electricity production is (only in the sense that you can only plant so many trees in a year, and so on). And the fact that Gore is filling his holes means that holes are getting filled. Things ARE being cleaned up.

I think I understand this, my only problems is of course HE can afford to pay someone else to fill his holes which are more and larger than everyone elses. But to yell at everyone else in the neighborhood to do the same, when he knows they can not afford to seems strange. Not wrong, because its not his fault he can afford to and not many others can, but the principal of the matter is troubling to me. If he was really concerned perhaps he could find ways to help everyone else to fill their holes instead of filling his own and complaing about the mess. Certain groups are always talking about (with taxes) that the Rich should pay more taxes and scream when they get breaks, well to me this seems like one big break for those that can afford it to continue using as much as they can while the rest of us have to cut back.
Again, perhaps Im still not 100% in understanding, but Im certain this discussion as it goes further will continue to educate myself and others reading this.

However carbon offsets aren't the only method Gore is using to reduce his carbon load.
Not the only, but a good portion of it is.

But Redmage again I must say this is a great discussion and I hope people are learning more from this than by personal attacks, or screaming "HYPOCRITE". I hope we can continue this, because I certainly am learning a lot.
Thanks...

Rob

[Iggy pop]

Im not aware calculating the ammount of CO2 that is generated is a simple matter. As far as I knew it was diffcult, because the warmer the temperature the more CO2, the diffrences in wind, geography, weather, etc all can increase or decrease the ammount of CO2 that something generates(or more so how much is naturally absorbed and the the rest released). Is this a scientific formula? Was it created by enviromentalist scientists? Was it created by pure scientists? Was it created by the electirc companies? Im not be sarcastic here....(I want to make that clear Redmage because I am actually learning here and enjoying this discussion)...Id really like to know more about this formula and since I am not versed well on such matters I would like to learn more.

Rob

First I have to say I am no expert and the information I have heard is from radio and television, and I have not done my own reasearch, but from what I've heard is that carbon offsets are sort of like fines you pay. For example, you fly a private jet round trip from the west coast to east coast then you have to pay certain amount to an organization that plants trees. This organization will then plant a number of trees that will supposedly counter the CO2 in the atmosophere. However, the science is far from exact, and there are some who think that to counter the emisions from the private jet you would have to plant 12,000 trees. So let's say you fly round trip twice a month on a private jet then you would have to plant nearly 300,000 trees in a year. You can see the problem with this. You start running out of area where you can plant all these trees.

[Mr. Blue]

Yes, Gore's money gives him options for dealing with these costs that aren't available to people with less money. That's what money does: it gives people options. But you make it sound like some sort of sin, and that's ridiculous. Gore can afford to wear better suits than you or I can too, but that's not a crime.

I don't think Gore is a hypocrite, but I think this point here is more or less the problem. Having money isn't a sin, I agree, but at the same time don't preach a lifestyle that you don't practice.

If he preaches you should ride your bike to work, use mass transit, and then he hops into a limo or a private jet...it may not make him a hypocrite, but does the average person want to listen to his advise? Probably not.

It kind of reminds me of the old practice of tithing in the church...basically paying a tax to have your sins absolved. Oh sure you commit the sin, you probably enjoy it to, but you buy your way out of the sin after the fact. That's kind of what Gore is doing.

[Icycle]

The way Al Gore goes about reducing his carbon footprint might not be the most accepted, most proven method, but he is comfortable with it and honestly believes in it. Most people that do not believe in "carbon offsetting" and such are much farther "left" enviromentalist than Al is, and main argument is that its an excuse not cut back, but to continue using resources while buying a "clean carbon footprint". There are many people also however that believe that this is the best, most economical and easiest way to reduce your "carbon footprint" thus is accepted and widely used not only by Al Gore but others and companies.
He is using the best option he belives with the evidence and science available to him at this moment.
That is a pretty accurate summary of carbon offsets and some of the controversy over them. I might argue that disagreeing with carbon offsets isn't necessary a far-left position. I can easily imagine an economist arguing that voluntary carbon offsets are not the most market efficient way of achieve targetted carbon reductions throughout an economy.

Im not aware calculating the ammount of CO2 that is generated is a simple matter. As far as I knew it was diffcult, because the warmer the temperature the more CO2, the diffrences in wind, geography, weather, etc all can increase or decrease the ammount of CO2 that something generates(or more so how much is naturally absorbed and the the rest released). Is this a scientific formula? Was it created by enviromentalist scientists? Was it created by pure scientists? Was it created by the electirc companies? Im not be sarcastic here....(I want to make that clear Redmage because I am actually learning here and enjoying this discussion)...Id really like to know more about this formula and since I am not versed well on such matters I would like to learn more.
Actually, calculating the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in many cases is relatively straight forward. Each type of fossil fuel has a specific amount of carbon locked inside of it, and when you burn it, that carbon combines with oxygen in a very well understood chemical reaction to form carbon dioxide, water, and other compounds. For example, burning one gallon of gasoline produces 19 pounds of carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide produced doesn't depend on wind, geography weather or anything else. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activities is very well understood and is governed by chemical formulas that have been around since the 18th century.

And again who determines this. Who assess the damage, and who determines how much it costs to undo the damage. I will agree that the costs for using and replacing energy that we use is higher than the actual ammounts we pay. Because most likely if we paid real costs it would be more than 75% of the population could afford.
This is a much more complicated and controversial question. You could simply charge the amount of money that it costs to remove an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (or other greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere. The cost of doing this is highly variable. Some things, like planting a tree, are cheap and easy. Other things, like retrofitting a coal-fired powerplant to capture and sequester (store deep underground) carbon dioxide emissions, are very complicated and expensive.

But to me (my opinion) this formula (whether by accident or on purpose) to make people "carbon neutral" is set up that only the rich could be, and can lecture the rest of us while they continue consuming the same ammount while we poor working slobs have to get by on less. I still have to say that if thats the way it is...then so be it. Im not going to be critical of people because they can afford to do such a thing, but at the same time Im not going to feel bad about my situation and perhaps if they can do so much....perhaps they should give a little more to cover the little guy if they are so concerned about the enviroment as a whole.
Carbon offsets are a voluntary way to "cancel out" one's carbon emissions, and as such, only those people with disposable income and a guilty conscience are going to use them. Given the current scientific consensus, and growing political consensus, I think it is highly likely that there will be mandatory programs imposed soon.

For example, California recently passed sweeping legislation to impose an economy-wide "cap-and-trade" system for carbon dioxide emissions. The state will auction off permits to emit carbon dixoide. Those who can't afford to reduce their emissions will be forced to buy more permits. Those can easily reduce their emissions will do so, and buy fewer permits.

Based on existing carbon trading markets, the cost of carbon abatement really isn't that high, the equivalent of about 25 to 50 cents per gallon of gas.

Im certainly going to look into this, I had read about "green tags" purchasing through your electric company power that comes from green producers, but what little I read again show there is no real assurances where the power comes from, and it is not centrally directed at one home. But if you have some more info on this other than the link you gave me Id be more than happy to read it, as well as Im going to do some more reasearch myself.
The way electricity production and distribution works, you can't really guarantee that the electrons going through your house are the very same ones that were produced by a windmill or a solar array instead of a coal plant, because all the electricity gets mixed together in the electrical grid. But when you choose a green electricity provider, they are guaranteeing that they will produce and put into the grid as much electricity from green sources as you use.

[kurchatovium]

Why does he not use the Solar Panel option? I think you could probably reduce your carbon footprint a lot, if you had a really good solar array which I am sure he can afford.

I believe he also owns a second home in Arlingtom Va. 4000 sq ft.(the first home the one discussed is 10000 sq ft and is in Nashville) and a third home in Carhtage, Tenn. Not sure how he is carbon ofsetting those homes as well. Would seem thats a lot of offsetting to do?

[maniactickler]

Why does he not use the Solar Panel option? I think you could probably reduce your carbon footprint a lot, if you had a really good solar array which I am sure he can afford.

I believe he also owns a second home in Arlingtom Va. 4000 sq ft.(the first home the one discussed is 10000 sq ft and is in Nashville) and a third home in Carhtage, Tenn. Not sure how he is carbon ofsetting those homes as well. Would seem thats a lot of offsetting to do?

Simple answer...hes your typical do as i say, not as i do liberal.

[Robace252]

First off thank you Icycle for your responses...I had contemplated PMing you to get your input on this, but figured you would find your way here in a day or so, but if you had not I would have by Saturday...now then....

That is a pretty accurate summary of carbon offsets and some of the controversy over them. I might argue that disagreeing with carbon offsets isn't necessary a far-left position. I can easily imagine an economist arguing that voluntary carbon offsets are not the most market efficient way of achieve targetted carbon reductions throughout an economy.
I had not thought of that. Perhaps disagreeing with the carbon offsets is not as far-left as I was initially led to believe by certain websites and articles I read.

Actually, calculating the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in many cases is relatively straight forward. Each type of fossil fuel has a specific amount of carbon locked inside of it, and when you burn it, that carbon combines with oxygen in a very well understood chemical reaction to form carbon dioxide, water, and other compounds. For example, burning one gallon of gasoline produces 19 pounds of carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide produced doesn't depend on wind, geography weather or anything else. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activities is very well understood and is governed by chemical formulas that have been around since the 18th century.
OK, I think I understand that, but I was led to believe (or maybe I misunderstood) that when the air is hotter or colder or at higher elevations things happen that can increase or decrease...thus the old montra of not driving when the temperature is its hottest, using less energy during certain times, etc...etc... Could you answer these for me. Again this is a question as I am confused on that.

This is a much more complicated and controversial question. You could simply charge the amount of money that it costs to remove an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (or other greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere. The cost of doing this is highly variable. Some things, like planting a tree, are cheap and easy. Other things, like retrofitting a coal-fired powerplant to capture and sequester (store deep underground) carbon dioxide emissions, are very complicated and expensive.
Also, like I stated before, many people say that the there is no real-time help to the situation by doing this. That people that use these are still creating a now problem but paying to fix it in the future, if and when it helps, which can not be determined until sometimes 20 to 50 years down the road. I understand that it costs money to remove CO2, but how much of it would really benefit us in say the next 5 years.

Carbon offsets are a voluntary way to "cancel out" one's carbon emissions, and as such, only those people with disposable income and a guilty conscience are going to use them. Given the current scientific consensus, and growing political consensus, I think it is highly likely that there will be mandatory programs imposed soon.
I hope not...I really do because it all seems very fishy to me. My "BS" alarm is going off like when Bushie says "I promise". I dont know why, and Im not about to start accusing anyone or anything yet...but I will continue doing research and reaching out to you and Redmage when I have question or I am not understanding what Im reading.

For example, California recently passed sweeping legislation to impose an economy-wide "cap-and-trade" system for carbon dioxide emissions. The state will auction off permits to emit carbon dixoide. Those who can't afford to reduce their emissions will be forced to buy more permits. Those can easily reduce their emissions will do so, and buy fewer permits.

Based on existing carbon trading markets, the cost of carbon abatement really isn't that high, the equivalent of about 25 to 50 cents per gallon of gas.
That sounds really bad for the people of CA. Although most of hollywood lives there so perhaps its best they get the first go at it. But the average people is whom Id worry about. I wonder where the money will really go, I wonder if in 10 years we will fiind out it was some big scam, sounds like another government oversight program...more spending...more employees, more of the same. Most of the things I read on a lot of these markets say that those markets are unregulated and no controls are on them and there is no way to verify excatly what if anything is beng purchased. I think this thing could turn out worse than Enron.

The way electricity production and distribution works, you can't really guarantee that the electrons going through your house are the very same ones that were produced by a windmill or a solar array instead of a coal plant, because all the electricity gets mixed together in the electrical grid. But when you choose a green electricity provider, they are guaranteeing that they will produce and put into the grid as much electricity from green sources as you use.
OK, now that makes sense. So you still are using the "dirty" energy and hoping that your electricty company goes through with the guarantee and purchases what you use, after you use it, back in clean energy which in turn is used and shared by the whole system.
Strange and probally a question I should know, but isnt Nuclear Power considered clean. Where I live most power is from a nuclear power plant. How does this effect people who use nuclear power.
It still sound like some kind of strange to me, but I am understanding it better and thank you for your input Icycle.
Ill be waiting your next response, as well as doing some more research myself.

Rob

[Icycle]

First off thank you Icycle for your responses...I had contemplated PMing you to get your input on this, but figured you would find your way here in a day or so, but if you had not I would have by Saturday...now then....
I'm glad to hear that you respect my opinion. :) And I very much appreciate that you seek out information from many sources!

I had not thought of that. Perhaps disagreeing with the carbon offsets is not as far-left as I was initially led to believe by certain websites and articles I read.
There are certainly people on the far left who feel that anything short of an 80% per capita reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is a failure, but there are also more moderate people who feel that they simply don't do much, since they are a voluntary program with relatively small participation. There are also some who feel it may be harmful because it encourages people to pollute and then wipe it clean with offsets.

OK, I think I understand that, but I was led to believe (or maybe I misunderstood) that when the air is hotter or colder or at higher elevations things happen that can increase or decrease...thus the old montra of not driving when the temperature is its hottest, using less energy during certain times, etc...etc... Could you answer these for me. Again this is a question as I am confused on that.
Power companies have an economic incentive to use the most efficient, cost effective, least polluting power sources first as "base load", and only fire up the less efficient, higher polluting "peak load" facilities when absolutely necessary. Peak loads typically happen on hot summer days when lots of people are running their power-gulping air conditioners.

Similarly, your car is less efficient when the air conditioner is running, because it draws power from the engine. You will use more gas, and thus emit more carbon dioxide when driving with the air conditioner on.

Also, like I stated before, many people say that the there is no real-time help to the situation by doing this. That people that use these are still creating a now problem but paying to fix it in the future, if and when it helps, which can not be determined until sometimes 20 to 50 years down the road. I understand that it costs money to remove CO2, but how much of it would really benefit us in say the next 5 years.
Emitting carbon dioxide into the atmophere is a cumulative problem, and global climate change is a slow process. No actions we take for better or worse will have much visible impact on a one to five year timescale, since trends of climate change take place on a longer timescale.

However, many of the carbon offset projects do have an immediate impact on carbon emissions. For example, TerraPass (one of consumer carbon offset providers) funds wind energy projects that wouldn't otherwise have been built, thereby decreasing the amount of fossil fuels being burned for electricity generation. Other projects capture methane emissions from landfills and agriculture. Unlike planting trees, the impact of these kinds of offsets are almost realtime.

That sounds really bad for the people of CA. Although most of hollywood lives there so perhaps its best they get the first go at it. But the average people is whom Id worry about. I wonder where the money will really go, I wonder if in 10 years we will fiind out it was some big scam, sounds like another government oversight program...more spending...more employees, more of the same. Most of the things I read on a lot of these markets say that those markets are unregulated and no controls are on them and there is no way to verify excatly what if anything is beng purchased. I think this thing could turn out worse than Enron.
California's program is not a carbon tax. There isn't any new money flowing into state coffers. This is a cap-and-trade system, similar to the program that was used to reduce the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain. The government determines the level of permissible emissions, and then issues or auctions off permits to emit. This gives a strong incentive for businesses to look for inexpensive options for reducing their carbon emissions. In many cases, businesses can reduce their carbon emissions and save money in the process, and then sell off their spare carbon permits. Compact fluorescent lighting and better building insulation are two examples of the kinds of money-saving efficiency gains that are likely to come out of this.

I suspect that there will be a net benefit to Californians. Studies by the state Air Resources Board and UC Berkeley show that the program will save billions of dollars and provide tens of thousands of new jobs.

And this is not just California. A majority of states and hundreds of cities are working on plans to reduce carbon emissions. There is growing pressure on the federal government to introduce a national program to address carbon emissions, so that businesses don't have to face a patchwork of dozens or hundreds of different programs. My best guess is that shortly after Bush leaves office, we'll see a nationwide greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system, similar to the one in California.

OK, now that makes sense. So you still are using the "dirty" energy and hoping that your electricty company goes through with the guarantee and purchases what you use, after you use it, back in clean energy which in turn is used and shared by the whole system.
That's more or less correct. The electricity that arrives at your house is a mix of "clean" and "dirty" electricity, and that mix is more or less the same regardless of whether you pay for green electricity or not. But the more people who buy green electricity, the "cleaner" the mix of electricity on the grid will be, since the power company will build, buy, and use more renewable sources to meet the demand for green energy.

Strange and probally a question I should know, but isnt Nuclear Power considered clean. Where I live most power is from a nuclear power plant. How does this effect people who use nuclear power.
In some ways, nuclear power is considered to be fairly "green", since nuclear fission doesn't generate any greenhouse gasses. So if you consider just the power generation phase of nuclear energy, it is nearly as green as wind and solar. The problem is that building, and later decommissioning a nuclear power plant is very carbon intensive. And mining, refining, transporting, and disposing of nuclear fuel is also very carbon intensive. Not to mention that spent nuclear fuel remains highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years. So nuclear power is a mixed bag at best.

I think by far the best options for reducing carbon emissions are efficiency and conservation. These are by far the cheapest and easiest methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and they are available right now. In many cases, you can save hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in fuel and electricity costs by taking simple efficiency and conservation measures. See my earlier thread for more details.

It still sound like some kind of strange to me, but I am understanding it better and thank you for your input Icycle.
Ill be waiting your next response, as well as doing some more research myself.
It's my pleasure. I'm glad you find my responses to be helpful. Hopefully Redmage will suffice for the next week or so, as I'll be on vacation and won't be logging into this series of tubes we know as the internets for awhile. :)

[PainTrain]

If there is one thing that I've learned in life, it's that every single human being on this earth, is a hypocrite.


I listen to/contemplate the MESSAGE, not the MESSENGER.


This is a concept that many people do not seem to understand.

[Redmage]

If he preaches you should ride your bike to work, use mass transit, and then he hops into a limo or a private jet...it may not make him a hypocrite, but does the average person want to listen to his advise? Probably not.Well, here's his choice: he can tell people to use carbon offsets, which he knows perfectly well most people can't afford. Or he can tell them to use methods that he knows most of them can afford. Which is better?

The way Al Gore goes about reducing his carbon footprint might not be the most accepted, most proven method, but he is comfortable with it and honestly believes in it. Most people that do not believe in "carbon offsetting" and such are much farther "left" enviromentalist than Al is, and main argument is that its an excuse not cut back, but to continue using resources while buying a "clean carbon footprint". There are many people also however that believe that this is the best, most economical and easiest way to reduce your "carbon footprint" thus is accepted and widely used not only by Al Gore but others and companies. Basically, yes. As Icycle noted there are other reasons to criticize carbon offsets, but those are what we might call "higher level" reasons.

For example, Icycle mentioned possible economic criticisms. The problem there is the fact that carbon offsets are voluntary, and expensive. This is a problem if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gases overall, as opposed to just decrease your own carbon footprint, because it means that most people can't or won't use them. I call that a "higher level" criticism because it's not saying that any given person who uses them is doing the wrong thing, but only that they're not a good solution for an entire society.

Obviously the solution in that case is to find something mandatory, rather than voluntary, and you can see the problems that's going to raise. It may come to that, though.

Im not aware calculating the ammount of CO2 that is generated is a simple matter. As far as I knew it was diffcult, because the warmer the temperature the more CO2, the diffrences in wind, geography, weather, etc all can increase or decrease the ammount of CO2 that something generates(or more so how much is naturally absorbed and the the rest released). Is this a scientific formula? Was it created by enviromentalist scientists? Was it created by pure scientists? Was it created by the electirc companies?That's just a question of chemistry, and the equations have been around ever since we started to understand what combustion really is - call it the late 1700s. I won't load you down with details, but just say that it was really a major discovery when a Frenchman named Lavoisier figured out that there was something in air (we now know it's oxygen) that actually combined with flammable matter as it burned, and produced something else that was invisible (carbon dioxide and water) but that had a total mass equal to that of the fuel and the air-stuff. If you're interested in knowing more then scan Wikipedia for Lavoisier and "phlogiston." (Seriously, that's a word. You'll find it there.)

There are variables, but not the sort you're thinking of. For example if a car's engine is running poorly then it might burn the gasoline incompletely, producing carbon monoxide or plain old soot in addition to carbon dioxide. But the chemistry of the internal combustion engine is pretty well understood, and we can make some very accurate averages over large numbers of vehicles.

Who assess the damage, and who determines how much it costs to undo the damage.These calculations are more complex, since some of the abatement methods are well-understood (like fixing dirty power plants) and others are still being studied (like the ability of plants to take up carbon). Also some methods are very expensive and have to be done in big chunks (fixing coal plants) while others are cheap and can be done a little at a time (like planting trees). But the costs of doing these things are largely set by the people who do them - power plant engineers, gardeners, and so on.

I will agree that the costs for using and replacing energy that we use is higher than the actual ammounts we pay. Because most likely if we paid real costs it would be more than 75% of the population could afford.Partly true, but there's more to it than that.

You might remember that in another post (about my concerns about China) I mentioned that per person the United States uses almost twice as much energy as Japan or most European nations. That's sort of startling when you think about it: why should someone living in Los Angeles use twice as much energy, on average, as someone living in Tokyo or Paris?

The reason is fundamental differences in American society, as opposed to those in Japan and Europe, and that in turn goes back in part to the fact that our government has long shielded us from the true costs of our energy, whereas other governments don't. This means that American cities tend to be big, sprawling things. Residential neighborhoods tend to be far away from the things people need, like shops and restaurants, so they usually can't walk where they need to go. We drive everywhere, because gasoline is cheap and our mass transit systems are usually very bad. Our houses tend to be large and poorly insulated, because it costs more to build them better than it does for us to heat them and cool them with our subsidized energy.

You can see how this all adds up. Our energy could cost twice as much as it does, and we'd pay no more for it in total than we do now, if we had a society that encouraged the sorts of behaviors that other industrialized societies do. Our subsidized energy costs have not been doing the little guys any big favors in the long run. They've just encouraged us to use far more energy than we really needed to, and now we're paying for that.

But to me (my opinion) this formula (whether by accident or on purpose) to make people "carbon neutral" is set up that only the rich could be, and can lecture the rest of us while they continue consuming the same ammount while we poor working slobs have to get by on less.Here's my problem with that sort of language: You're assuming that people who are advocating carbon reduction aren't really interested in that at all, but are simply trying to cook up a way to stick it to the average joe. There's no real reason to believe that, and actually a fair bit of reason not to, since many people who are concerned about the environment are average joes. The rich simply have more options when it comes to carbon reduction. That's all there is to it.


Im certainly going to look into this, I had read about "green tags" purchasing through your electric company power that comes from green producers, but what little I read again show there is no real assurances where the power comes from, and it is not centrally directed at one home. But if you have some more info on this other than the link you gave me Id be more than happy to read it, as well as Im going to do some more reasearch myself.
You can start on the page I linked you to (that's a US government website, by the way). Check your state and your local power company, and see what programs they offer for this (if any). You should be able to click through to your company's green power program directly from that site.

There is no assurance that the actual Watts coming into your home came directly from a solar power plant, or whatever, because that's not how the electrical grid works. It's more like you're pumping water out of a big pool. However paying for green power still has the same benefits as it would if you WERE wired directly to the solar power plant, because the water in that pool has to come from somewhere. If you don't pay for "solar water," then instead you're paying a coal-burning plant somewhere to produce it. If you pay for solar energy, then somewhere a solar plant gets your money, uses it to pay their production costs, and pumps that amount of power into the grid without burning fossil fuels to make it. See what I mean?

I think I understand this, my only problems is of course HE can afford to pay someone else to fill his holes which are more and larger than everyone elses. But to yell at everyone else in the neighborhood to do the same, when he knows they can not afford to seems strange.But he's not. He's not calling on people to fill in their holes when they can't afford to. He's calling on them to find ways to make smaller holes. They CAN afford to do that.

If he was really concerned perhaps he could find ways to help everyone else to fill their holes instead of filling his own and complaing about the mess.He does. Gore is actively advocating increased use of renewable resources, increased fuel efficiency, better technology for the plants that do burn fossil fuels, and so on. All of these are ways for everyone, rich and poor, to reduce their carbon footprint.

[red indian]

........come on guys, its simple, and you know it. "Do as I say, not as I do" thats the name of the game Gore is playing. He is full of it, he wants his extravagant life style at your expence, and to sooth his concience, he bangs on about global warming.

When are you septics ever going to wake up to the fact that you have no "left wing" politicians worth the name. Having left wing views is just fine, I have no problem with that, but you have all these millionaire "lefties" telling you how to live, and how you need to cut back, or stop doing this or that, but they carry on like fiddling while Rome burns.

They live like Oil Sheiks, while telling you what bad citizens you are, and how you need to buck your ideas up and live more responsibly and frugally.

Are you all really so stupid as to swallow this crap?

[tickledgirl]

........come on guys, its simple, and you know it. "Do as I say, not as I do" thats the name of the game Gore is playing. He is full of it, he wants his extravagant life style at your expence, and to sooth his concience, he bangs on about global warming.

When are you septics ever going to wake up to the fact that you have no "left wing" politicians worth the name. Having left wing views is just fine, I have no problem with that, but you have all these millionaire "lefties" telling you how to live, and how you need to cut back, or stop doing this or that, but they carry on like fiddling while Rome burns.

They live like Oil Sheiks, while telling you what bad citizens you are, and how you need to buck your ideas up and live more responsibly and frugally.

Are you all really so stupid as to swallow this crap?

Red, you're pretty much completely ignoring the previous ten screens or so worth of intelligent discussion on this point.

There's a lot of complex discussion to be had over what the best path is. I tend to think Gore's following a decent path, but I can see why others would argue against that. But "He's just a lying hypocrite" is simple, easy to understand...and wrong.

[Redmage]

Are you all really so stupid as to swallow this crap?I'm guessing that you just drop by to make random posts, without actually trying to respond to anything on the thread.

[Iggy pop]

Gore contributes his "carbon offsets" to a for-profit company he cofounded? Why does this sound like a scam?

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management

[tickledgirl]

Gore contributes his "carbon offsets" to a for-profit company he cofounded? Why does this sound like a scam?

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management

About Bill Hobbs (from his own site):

I am self-employed and work in media relations and also consult with large corporations on the use of weblogs as public relations tools... Then read his article, where he says that Gore "presumably" is or will be making money off this.

So an astroturf specialist writes an attack "presuming" Gore might make some money off what he's doing. This is a pretty transparent hit piece.

[Robace252]

Well I did some backwork Tgirl and found the article from the Tennessean (the newspaper itself) and this is what it said.........
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702270382

You can read the whole article, so can anyone else to make up your own mind,
but it does say........
"Every family has a different carbon footprint," said Kalee Krider, a spokeswoman for Gore. The Gores' 10,000-square-foot house on Lynnwood Boulevard has a large one.

The Green Power Switch program isn't all that Gore and his wife, Tipper, are doing, Krider said.

They use compact fluorescent light bulbs and are in the midst of a renovation project that includes having solar panels installed on their home to reduce fossil fuel consumption, she said.

Their car? A Lexis hybrid SUV.

"They, of course, also do the carbon emissions offset," she said.

That means figuring out how much carbon is emitted from home power use, and vehicle and plane travel, then paying for projects that will offset that with use of renewable energy, such as solar power.

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said.
So whether or not Bill Hobbs is using an attack job....he is 100% accurate.
Al Gore does pay his carbon offsets to a company he founded, and receives benefits from his own company in monatary pay and stocks.
I even checked Wiki link, and checked several other websites to verify Al Gore is indeed still on with the company he founded and he is.

Like I said before, I dont blame Al Gore, he is doing the smart thing and I would also if I could...but the whole thing does smell a little to me.

Rob

[Redmage]

So whether or not Bill Hobbs is using an attack job....he is 100% accurate.
Al Gore does pay his carbon offsets to a company he founded, and receives benefits from his own company in monatary pay and stocks.
I even checked Wiki link, and checked several other websites to verify Al Gore is indeed still on with the company he founded and he is.I don't quite see the problem here.

I recall complaints on this thread to the effect that if Gore REALLY cared about the environment, he'd be out there doing something on a large scale to increase the use of renewable energy, rather than "only" reducing his own carbon footprint.

So it comes to light that Gore has established a corporation to invest his own personal money, and persuaded others to invest as well, in solar power, wind power, and other renewable energy resources around the world.

And now people are complaining that this "smells funny."

Could the man possibly do anything right, I wonder?

[Robace252]

Redmage, you forgot this part of what I said though........
Like I said before, I dont blame Al Gore, he is doing the smart thing and I would also if I could...but the whole thing does smell a little to me.

Like I said, I dont blame him for it, and I would do it also.
The smell funny to me, basically with me means like I stated earlier I am worried about an Enron type thing.
These industries, and programs including the one Al Gore started (which I have no problem with, even as you say it shows he is doing something on a global scale) are all unregulated, with no oversight and no real means of checking up on it. I could tommrrow from what I read start a group like it, ask investors to give me money and I will issue them carbon offsets that their money will be used to plant trees and build power plants in the future. They are paying for the same use and burn now, and hoping in the future I will deliever on the promise that there is no way of knowing for sure it will ever happen.
The other issue is basically he is paying himself, like many rightly accuse Bushie with when it comes to oil. The diffrence is Gore paying himself is helping to save the enviroment, while Bushie depleates it.

Also Gore and those investing are getting something out of it, which is certainly no problem, but again this market is non-regulated and selling off the enviroment now to maintain a lifestlye while banking on the technology of the future or the plans of others in the future is what Im finding out a lot of enviromentalist are upset about...and perhaps rightly so.

Again, I have no problems with this, in fact if I could I would. And maybe I will start up my own comapny...everyone here in the TMF can pay me to plant trees, and reduce their carbon footprint. I will need several people though to hire and of course you will be paid for various things from the company. But then we can all continue to use all the energy we currently are but I assue you all, when you pay me to reduce your carbon footprint, it will be done.

Rob

[Icycle]

Until very recently, society has paid relatively little attention to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. That means there are still a lot of low hanging fruit to be claimed, relatively easy and inexpensive ways to offset emssions, ripe for the taking for those enterprising enough to claim them.

For the time being at least, carbon offsets are within reach of people with even very modest incomes. My wife and I just spent a week on vacation, and it cost less than $20 to offset the carbon for both of our round-trip plane tickets, as well as all the driving we did at our destination. Offsetting the carbon dioxide from driving my car for an entire year cost less than $30.

TerraPass is one of several companies that sells carbon offsets to the general public at very affordable prices, and they are audited and certified by an independent third-party so you can be pretty confident that your money is actually going towards worthwhile carbon reduction projects.

[MrMacphisto]

If there is one thing that I've learned in life, it's that every single human being on this earth, is a hypocrite.


I listen to/contemplate the MESSAGE, not the MESSENGER.


This is a concept that many people do not seem to understand.

Good points... but I'm beginning to wonder if it's all for naught.

Maybe the safest route is to enjoy our short lives, not have any kids to subject to the world's growing ills, and then die satisfied albeit somewhat complacent.

Globalization positions the world in such a way that, no matter what we do as a nation to clean things up, China and India will likely make it dirty many times over. With so much of the world still in the industrializing phase, there's really not much we can do.

[Robace252]

Icycle,
I havent had time yet, but I plan to look into TerraPass. Not to use, yet, but to investigate. From all I heard even through regulatory commisions is that the "carbon offset" industry is unregulated with no controls or oversight.
Ill do some looking, and will not make judgement on it until I can find out more.
But that you are taking a step, economically is very noble and certainly noteworthy of my respect.

Rob

[Icycle]

I havent had time yet, but I plan to look into TerraPass. Not to use, yet, but to investigate. From all I heard even through regulatory commisions is that the "carbon offset" industry is unregulated with no controls or oversight.
Ill do some looking, and will not make judgement on it until I can find out more.
But that you are taking a step, economically is very noble and certainly noteworthy of my respect.
I think it would be more accurate to call the carbon offset industry a voluntarily self-regulated industry. There is no governmental organization that is regulating and certifying these companies, but there several non-profit, and for-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that audit and certify carbon offset providers. These NGOs include the Center for Resource Solutions, Environmental Resource Trust, and the Chicago Climate Exchange. And TerraPass is far from the only company providing carbon offsets in the United States. Other companies include CarbonFund and DriveNeutral.

It seems to me that free-market libertarians and small government conservatives would be delighted to see the market actually succeeding rather nicely at providing this service as well as providing the certification services to give consumers confidence in what they are buying.

I would certainly urge you or anyone else considering buying carbon offsets to do the research before paying for the services. Make sure the company is certified by a reputable certifying agency. And make sure you are getting your money's worth. The price for carbon offsets caries from about $4/metric ton at the low end to $30/metric ton at the high end.

[Icycle]

Globalization positions the world in such a way that, no matter what we do as a nation to clean things up, China and India will likely make it dirty many times over. With so much of the world still in the industrializing phase, there's really not much we can do.
I don't believe that is necessarily true. I think there is a lot we can do. First of all, the United States sets a powerful example. If we show contempt for international cooperation, and do nothing to address climate change, China and India will follow our lead. However, if we set a good example, India and China may follow. Not to mention that the United States is a large and powerful market, and if we start to invest heavily in cleaner technologies, they will become more available and more affordable for the developing nations.

Finally, the cost of outfitting all the projected coal fired power plants in the developing nations with carbon capture and storage technology could be paid for with a one percent tax on the electricity bills of consumers in the developed nations. So if we have the politcal will, we can avoid the climate problems of China and India's rapid industrialization, while still allowing them to enjoy the benefits of electrification, all at a price that is frankly very inexpensive, even if it is politically unpalatable to some.

[MrMacphisto]

Those are great ideas, but I have little faith in them actually happening....

[WorkInProgress]

Politicians are hypocrites. They feel entitled to live it up, no matter what their ideologies. I don't deny that Gore is a hypocrite, and in fact I've never particularly liked him much. But given that potlicians in general are all hypocrites, I just happen to prefer the policies of the Democratic hypocrites to the Republican ones. That's why I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. And believe you me, I'm going to have to hold my nose bigtime when I vote in 2008, if the Democratic contender is Hilary Clinton.