Al Gore Rumbled

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


If identifying with ordinary people who don't live in mansions and can't afford to buy 'carbon-neutral' solutions, pay more tax, or lower their living standards

Nonetheless most of them often have to lower their living standards for any of a variety of reasons. Whether they can "afford it" or not. Like I said, if you really think ordinary people have too little, and rich folks have too much, lets redistribute from those with too much to those with too little. Lets not use the unfair distribution of income and well being as an excuse to avoid doing something to preserve our planet.

[Arrian]

It would be best, of course, if rich advocates such as Gore went out of their way to practice what they preach, wouldn't it, LotM? You know, leading by example?

While it appears that Al is working on that, his efforts thus far aren't terribly impressive.

I'm in favor of stronger gummint policy to protect the environment, but I disagree with you on this. This is a pretty straightforward "gotchca."

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

I favour creating a bigger cake over redistributing the existing small one.

First world countries would be better able to deal with climate-change related problems than third world countries, which is why I favour the right of those countries to industrialise, in the face of green-led calls to keep them backward.

[ixnay]

the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program — electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

yeah man what a hypocrite, powering his large house with renewable energy

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Anyway, you can surely understand that a carbon tax is a far smarter policy than absolute reduction regulations? We've been using pollution credits for SO2 for at least a decade now, and the system works just fine.

As with any credit trading scheme much depends on the details of its implementation. For example, CO2 reductions in the form of closed industry or reduced outputs moved to more laxly regulated and more heavily polluting areas do not serve the better good (assuming it good to reduce CO2 emissions that is).

Pollution monitoring and credit trading has never been tried at the individual level. God forbid we have to deal with another IRS in the making.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
It would be best, of course, if rich advocates such as Gore went out of their way to practice what they preach, wouldn't it, LotM? You know, leading by example?

While it appears that Al is working on that, his efforts thus far aren't terribly impressive.

I'm in favor of stronger gummint policy to protect the environment, but I disagree with you on this. This is a pretty straightforward "gotchca."

-Arrian

1. Just once, Id like a pol to actually say - look subsidizing X is bad policy but Ill be damned if Im going to harm my family by foregoing subsidized X. But Im not counting on that, its not like pols. Something like that WAS attributed to Milton Friedman once upon a time (its claimed that he said he lived in a rent controlled apartment) But economists seldom get elected. So, youre right, the gain to clarity of thought from a pol NOT practicing what they preach probably does not apply in this instance.

2. Insofar as Gore is advocating "carbon neutrality" it looks like he IS practicing what he preaches and has been doing so for some time. Now you can, like CH, object to Carbon Neutrality in principle, but that hardly makes Gore a hypocrite.

3. Gore would not be a hypocrite even if he used only fossil fuels as long as he bought credits to be completely carbon neutral. That he uses renewable energy as well would seem to go beyond the call of duty (or else is a good way to reduce costs for buying carbon credits)

4. Similarly, having done the above, it hardly seems like he needs to put up solar panels - OTOH that does save him money on buying renewable power commercially - but isnt that the way markets are SUPPOSED to work - they create INCENTIVES - the high cost of carbon credits drives you to buy renewable energy instead, and the high cost of renewable comm power drives you to install your own solar panels.

In the immortal words of Irving Kristol - Two Cheers for Capitalism!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I favour creating a bigger cake over redistributing the existing small one.

First world countries would be better able to deal with climate-change related problems than third world countries, which is why I favour the right of those countries to industrialise, in the face of green-led calls to keep them backward.

I hadnt heard Gore or any sane voice on climate change calling for keeping them backword.


And you cant make a bigger cake if you dont pay for the ingredients - in this case use of GHG absorption capacity is one of those ingredients.

BTW, CH, has it ever occured to you, that when one country buys carbon credits, theres another country on the selling end? Carbon credits could actually be a windfall for many third world countries, that could be invested in cleaner industries?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


As with any credit trading scheme much depends on the details of its implementation. For example, CO2 reductions in the form of closed industry or reduced outputs moved to more laxly regulated and more heavily polluting areas do not serve the better good (assuming it good to reduce CO2 emissions that is).

Pollution monitoring and credit trading has never been tried at the individual level. God forbid we have to deal with another IRS in the making.

Im inclined toward credit trading at the national level (IE manufacturing heavy China buys credits from service sector intensive India, or both buy from non-developing Mali, or China buys from the deindustrializing US, or the US buys from more efficient Japan, or whatever) , and any of a variety of policies, not excluding a carbon tax, are used to reduce carbon use within a country.

I agree that the form of trading scheme matters. What was ironic about Kyoto is that we got pretty much the scheme the US had been pushing for, IIUC, and the treaty proved a no-go here anyway.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by ixnay

the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program — electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

yeah man what a hypocrite, powering his large house with renewable energy

a) Although the electricity he buys has components of solar and wind generated electricity methane is carbon based and generates as much CO2 per BTU on average as most other hydrocarbons. As such methane typically should not be considered a renewable source. Granted the other off gas pollutants such as SO2 and particulates are less than say that of coal, still the point at hand is CO2 emissions.

b) Electricity is fungible. So despite the desire to prop up these higher costing sources of electricity, demand is met by requirements on the grid. Especially surge demand using surge sources.

c) The article in question deals only with the electricity needs not the home heating and pool heating requirements of natural gas.

d) Why did I bother even writing any of this as I could care less about Gore?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

a) Although the electricity he buys has components of solar and wind generated electricity methane is carbon based and generates as much CO2 per BTU on average as most other hydrocarbons. As such methane typically should not be considered a renewable source. Granted the other off gas pollutants such as SO2 and particulates are less than say that of coal, still the point at hand is CO2 emissions.

Is it really possible to buy in todays market clean power in different flavors ie Including bio or waste sourced methane for those concerned with peak oil, or energy security, or SO2, vs GHG-Pure Green Energy? I mean the way i have choice of low-fat, low-cal, or low-sugar?

b) Electricity is fungible. So despite the desire to prop up these higher costing sources of electricity, demand is met by requirements on the grid. Especially surge demand using surge sources.

c) The article in question deals only with the electricity needs not the home heating and pool heating requirements of natural gas.

So presumably thats why he still feels the need to buy carbon credits.

d) Why did I bother even writing any of this as I could care less about Gore?

Haha!

[Kuciwalker]

Although the electricity he buys has components of solar and wind generated electricity methane is carbon based and generates as much CO2 per BTU on average as most other hydrocarbons. As such methane typically should not be considered a renewable source.

This is one of those cases where non sequiter is appropriate.

[mactbone]

Actually, I don't understand why people buy SUVs. If you can afford one, then why not get a diesel truck? Hell, you can probably get one and a car. Anyway, if you own a house as big as that, you're getting stuff delivered and hiring movers.

It also might be nice to know how many people live or stay at the Gore residence. If the family's always over, etc. then it's really the "carbon footprint" of multiple people.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by mactbone
Actually, I don't understand why people buy SUVs. If you can afford one, then why not get a diesel truck? Hell, you can probably get one and a car. Anyway, if you own a house as big as that, you're getting stuff delivered and hiring movers.

It also might be nice to know how many people live or stay at the Gore residence. If the family's always over, etc. then it's really the "carbon footprint" of multiple people.

yah, well when massuh is entertaining, he has all da kin come ovuh, and also lets the more favored of the neighbors come down. They get out the band, and dance some quadrilles, and then sing all the old songs, and toast in champagne, and Port wine. Everyone gets up early for a good ole plantashun breakfast, and some fox hunting.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
As such methane typically should not be considered a renewable source.

I'm being nit-picky, but methane is renewable. Cows' butts are making more everyday. What you meant to say is that methane, being carbon-based, when burned results in carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


yah, well when massuh is entertaining, he has all da kin come ovuh, and also lets the more favored of the neighbors come down. They get out the band, and dance some quadrilles, and then sing all the old songs, and toast in champagne, and Port wine. Everyone gets up early for a good ole plantashun breakfast, and some fox hunting.

I get no kick from champagne...

but...

Dee camp town ladies sing dis song doo dahh....



Never heard of it.