Al Gore Rumbled

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

then i guess current economic policies arent so great if theyve left us so poor, then, huh?

What are you talking about? You don't have to be poor to not want to pay higher prices .

Not want to pay != cant afford.

[Drake Tungsten]

Not want to pay != cant afford.

The terms are somewhat interchangeable in everyday use. For example, I could technically afford to buy a brand new car at the moment, but I don't want to allocate that much of my income/savings to that purchase. When I say that I "can't afford" a new car, however, people understand what I mean, ie. "I don't want to pay" for a new car...

[lord of the mark]

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year

per OP

at about half a pound of carbon per KWH, IIUC.'

Thats 5000 pounds of carbon. two and a half tons.

Carbon trades on the chicago climate exchange at about $1000 per ton, if i read the contract specs right.

So we're talking about $2500. Not trivial by any means. Not something bankrupting to an average household. (yes thats not including auto usage, but the OP provides no info on that)

and thats assuming youre trying to be carbon neutral, which seems like a stretch goal. If you only wanted to say cut back by a percentage, you wouldnt have to go nearly that far. and thats what we need to do to meet Kyoto type goals.

[Drake Tungsten]

What possible reason is there for the average American family to spend $2500 a year on carbon offsetting? What reason is there for them to spend $100? To assuage their sense of moral superiority? I can see carbon credits having some success with the organic food set, but I don't see it having much broad-based appeal...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Not want to pay != cant afford.

The terms are somewhat interchangeable in everyday use. For example, I could technically afford to buy a brand new car at the moment, but I don't want to allocate that much of my income/savings to that purchase. When I say that I "can't afford" a new car, however, people understand what I mean, ie. "I don't want to pay" for a new car...

Thats cause youve probably got an old car you can drive. If I didnt have one, and needed one and I said "i cant afford one" it would mean Im poor. If i didnt have one, and said i was going to steal one, cause I cant afford one, it would mean im really poor. Its like if i bought a car and didnt drive it, cause i said i couldnt afford the gas, folks would say why didnt you just buy a smaller car. Buying the car means you can affford the gas. Buying the junk from the mall means you can afford to schlep it home, and you can afford the trash pickup for the boxes.

If you cant afford the carbon, you cant afford the minivan, or the TV set. Its absurd to say were a rich country, where we people can afford more than at any time in the past but we cant afford to deal with the waste products we generate.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What possible reason is there for the average American family to spend $2500 a year on carbon offsetting? What reason is there for them to spend $100? To assuage their sense of moral superiority? I can see carbon credits having some success with the organic food set, but I don't see it having much broad-based appeal...

I dont know it will have appeal. Im always surprised at how much ordinary folks in this country give to charity.

All Im saying is that Goreman aint a hypocrite for asking, is all. Any more than somebody who gives money to a charity and then asks folks, including those who have less to give is a hypocrite. Maybe some will decide they cant affford it. Thats life.

[Berzerker]

If he's willing to pay a carbon tax on his usage, I dont see that he's a hypocrite.

My willingness to suffer pain I'm inflicting upon you doesn't exonerate me of hypocrisy. He can afford his tax, not everyone else can...

[Berzerker]

All Im saying is that Goreman aint a hypocrite for asking, is all. Any more than somebody who gives money to a charity and then asks folks

A tax aint giving to charity

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker


My willingness to suffer pain I'm inflicting upon you doesn't exonerate me of hypocrisy. He can afford his tax, not everyone else can...

geez, if its a question of poverty, Im sure Goreman would be willing to give income tax credits to the poor to enable them to afford the tax. Its called an offset (cause you give income tax credits, and still collect a carbon tax, you still keep the incentive effects to use less carbon, since you dont lose the income tax credits when you use less carbon)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker


A tax aint giving to charity

But Drake was talking about whether people would choose to follow Gore voluntarily.

It would help if youd actually read the damned thread.

[Drake Tungsten]

Its absurd to say were a rich country, where we people can afford more than at any time in the past but we cant afford to deal with the waste products we generate.

People in rich countries still have to decide how to best use their scarce resources to fulfill their wants. Many of them can technically afford to offset their carbon use, but they're not going to do so because it's an inefficient use of their resources. The costs far outweigh the meager benefit that carbon offsetting offers to the average citizen.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

OMG! PEOPLE IN BIG HOUSES USE MORE ELECTRICITY THAN PEOPLE IN SMALL HOUSES!

BTW, for any of you who believe that the group who found this is an innocent, self-described "non-partisan" organization who loves nature and ****, check this out:

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/index....&news_id=54683 - "Last week, our paper reported on a series of internal e-mails within the revenue department deeming the Tennessee Center for Policy Research “not a legitimate group.” "

Its a think-tank. Does anyone take think-tanks, either side of the aisle, seriously anymore?

And another thing: How come, after being the NUMBER ONE story on Drudge yesterday, there is nothing on the homepage about this? You'd think Drudge would LOVE to keep this up...but, NOTHING. I mean, there are still stories on their from last week (and Drudge continues to assult Helen Mirren for no forseeable reason). How come this one, which was IN RED all yesterday no longer exists on page one?

[Drake Tungsten]

Does anyone take think-tanks, either side of the aisle, seriously anymore?

Yes. People on both sides of the aisle do.

OMG! PEOPLE IN BIG HOUSES USE MORE ELECTRICITY THAN PEOPLE IN SMALL HOUSES!

If Gore were really gung ho about conserving energy, he could move to a smaller house. Warren Buffett seems to get along ok in a modest home...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Oh blow me.

Al Gore's stance has nothing to do with conserving energy. Al Gore's stance is to find, produce, and switch to renewable energy that doesn't harm the environment. THAT'S the point.

There is a difference, which is: no matter how much oil, natural gas, etc. he consumes, IT WILL RUN OUT. He wants to find alternate sources, ones that are renewable, ones he can pay 30,000 per year for that his children can pay loads for in 50 years, which will not further harm the environment.

[Drake Tungsten]

Wow, that's a pretty dumb stance. I guess Coulter was wrong; Gore really is a moron...