Gore Refuses to take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge

[Flubber]

Oh and I think that for anyone espousing environmental causes who thinks that you look to "carbon offsets" before looking at reasonable ways in which you can limit your own energy usage . . . is seriously deluded

[MichaeltheGreat]

Carbon offsets aren't really for those who espouse environmental causes. It's the only way (in the US at least) you will get large industry and financial markets to buy in to a system of regulation of carbon emissions.

It has worked very well for other pollutants in areas where it has been used, so the industry and banking types who argue any form of regulation will doom us all back to the stone age and being overrun by hordes of carbon emitting Chinese barbarians tend to whine less when faced with the history of offsets-based regulation in their industries.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Carbon offsets aren't really for those who espouse environmental causes. It's the only way (in the US at least) you will get large industry and financial markets to buy in to a system of regulation of carbon emissions.

It has worked very well for other pollutants in areas where it has been used, so the industry and banking types who argue any form of regulation will doom us all back to the stone age and being overrun by hordes of carbon emitting Chinese barbarians tend to whine less when faced with the history of offsets-based regulation in their industries.

I understand the implication of carbon offset and generally support them.

But it seems odd that any enviro-eco weenie would every cite them ahead of usage reduction. I EXPECT that a staunch environmental advocate would understand that all usages have impacts (if less energy is used, you need to manufacture fewer windmills). To say " Oh but I use windpower" is just an idiotic justification.

I would respect a Gore or any environmental preachy type if they first say that they have taken steps to reduce consumption and then cite using cleaner sources

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Flubber


I understand the implication of carbon offset and generally support them.

But it seems odd that any enviro-eco weenie would every cite them ahead of usage reduction. I EXPECT that a staunch environmental advocate would understand that all usages have impacts (if less energy is used, you need to manufacture fewer windmills). To say " Oh but I use windpower" is just an idiotic justification.

I would respect a Gore or any environmental preachy type if they first say that they have taken steps to reduce consumption and then cite using cleaner sources

The reduce consumption message has been around for decades. It doesn't have any more traction. People have reduced consumption to the extent that they (a) care; (b) don't feel inconvenienced; or (c) are severely impacted by costs of consumption.

The effect of gasoline prices here are a perfect example of the disinterest in reduction. In general, people just whined and blamed the oil companies, but overall, there was very little real modification of behavior, and as soon as prices declined (to a higher base level than the previous year), then people stopped whining and went back to their old habits.

I think it's more of a stylistic difference between purists and pragmatists. If technology changes lead to the same net effects, but don't require significant modification of consumer behavior (other than signing up for green power or purchasing offsets), then you're likely to gain more acceptance than you are by preaching the same message that's been around since the early 1970's.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The reduce consumption message has been around for decades. It doesn't have any more traction. People have reduced consumption to the extent that they (a) care; (b) don't feel inconvenienced; or (c) are severely impacted by costs of consumption.

Exactly. "THe environment" is supposed to be a huge political issue up here in Canada yet people don't seem inclined to change their own behaviors one little bit.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

The effect of gasoline prices here are a perfect example of the disinterest in reduction. In general, people just whined and blamed the oil companies, but overall, there was very little real modification of behavior, and as soon as prices declined (to a higher base level than the previous year), then people stopped whining and went back to their old habits.

Yup-- I think it was a surprise to a lot of people that the demand for gasoline was not more elastic when pretty large price spikes were experienced. BUt people just muttered obscenities and said 'fill'er up"

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I think it's more of a stylistic difference between purists and pragmatists. If technology changes lead to the same net effects, but don't require significant modification of consumer behavior (other than signing up for green power or purchasing offsets), then you're likely to gain more acceptance than you are by preaching the same message that's been around since the early 1970's.

The bottom line is that although green causes are talked about more, people do not feel any urgency and will not change their opwn behaviors for the most part. Although government in Canada is attempting to influence behavior. In the latest budget, rebates of 1-2K were announced on fuel efficient cars. This will probably make the hybrids as economical as the regular models for a lot of smaller cars. ON the other end there is an additional tax of 1-4K on gas guzzlers that will fund the rebate plan. Only time will tell how this influnces the purchasing pattern but it is a pretty easy way for many people to reduce consumption.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I think the rebate/tax thing is a great idea in the abstract sense, but God, what a political/ideological can of worms you'd open trying that here.

Even my southern redneck DNA starts to get uppity over the concept of excessive government regulation with something like that, but I think we've really hit the point where people's ability to negatively impact the larger world vastly exceed their intelligence or inclination to understand those impacts.

Maybe we just need sea levels to rise enough to flood all the red counties here.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Berzerker
umm...Oerdin... the fact ice shelves crumble at the edges is not evidence of "global warming". When the prophets of doom and gloom cant even get the simple stuff right why should the rest of us care what y'all have to say?

Does the real cause of that phenomenon involve the lost civilization of Atlantis, perhaps? Or the Illuminati?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Flubber


Exactly. "THe environment" is supposed to be a huge political issue up here in Canada yet people don't seem inclined to change their own behaviors one little bit.

I think this is like many issue.
I'm for relative distribution of wealth, but that doesn't mean I'll get involved in tons of charities or whatnot.
I'll just pay my taxes and vote for parties that will pass needed laws on this issue.

Similarly, I think the environment is a VERY important issue.
Yet, I find it very hard to change my behavior.

On the other hand, I'm very favorable to global laws and policies that would be favorable to the environment, even if they also impact me negatively.

Personally I find it easier to adapt as a part of a global initiative than a personal initiative which might be offset by someone else doing even more damage, in the absence of laws.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I think the rebate/tax thing is a great idea in the abstract sense, but God, what a political/ideological can of worms you'd open trying that here.

Even my southern redneck DNA starts to get uppity over the concept of excessive government regulation with something like that, but I think we've really hit the point where people's ability to negatively impact the larger world vastly exceed their intelligence or inclination to understand those impacts.

Maybe we just need sea levels to rise enough to flood all the red counties here.

I think the key reason why the rednecks in Canada were ok with the tax/rebate thing was that they exempted trucks. I think the theory was that they didn't want to tax things like a moving truck or farmers trucks or transport trucks but were instead aiming at the gas guzzler caddyor hummer etc etc.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
OHHH!!!!

I think..... I just herniated myself....

That's because you've always been an ignorant ******** from Georgia. You are never able to seriously debate the science so you just act like a clown in an attempt to discredit the point. The science of global warming is sound and the case is closed. You are free to continue being an ignorant luddite but realize most people don't take you serious on this topic.

[Berzerker]

The increased rate of calving is though. As is the shrinkage of glaciers, and arctic pack ice.

Increases in calving means more ice is reaching the ocean, not less. The calving scenes we see in Algore's movie are in fact evidence of a glacier that has reached the downward extent of its travel - just the opposite of his message.

Does the real cause of that phenomenon involve the lost civilization of Atlantis, perhaps? Or the Illuminati?

That's because you've always been an ignorant ********. You are never able to seriously debate the science so you just act like a clown in an attempt to discredit the point.

The science of global warming is sound and the case is closed.

The science is sound, just not our intepretations of the world around us. Just one example of your sound science, sea levels dropped during a warming period 1900-1940 and rose as the world cooled from 1940-75. But we're told sea levels will rise with rising temps... The prediction based on your sound science doesn't jive with reality...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's because you've always been an ignorant ******** from Georgia. You are never able to seriously debate the science so you just act like a clown in an attempt to discredit the point. The science of global warming is sound and the case is closed. You are free to continue being an ignorant luddite but realize most people don't take you serious on this topic.

I'm wounded, mortally as it were. All this from the mental gigantism on display via the shear comedic genius and stylings of Oerdin's 'political' cartoonings. Call 911!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's because you've always been an ignorant ******** from Georgia. You are never able to seriously debate the science so you just act like a clown in an attempt to discredit the point. The science of global warming is sound and the case is closed. You are free to continue being an ignorant luddite but realize most people don't take you serious on this topic.

Not quite. More to the point I can never seriously debate you in particular as the prerequisite is to take you seriously. (That I gave up some time ago for Lent. Actually, probably around the 20th or so time you referenced southerners or me in particular as a ********.) And as is normally the case, a misguided slam, as I am a true blue PA boy and always will be. ******** perhaps but not a southerner.


One last bit of seriousness before I resume my normally scheduled mocking, the science is and has been agreed to. No questions that CO2 absorbs more infrared. What is not and has never been agreed to is the very consequential feedback effects (positive or negative) which dwarf any CO2 effects. As such modeling is all over the map. As such predictive claims of magnitudes of warming trends are specious at best. As such predictive claims of flooding and polar melt are equally specious.

We now resume laughing at Oerdin's expense.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
... As such predictive claims of flooding and polar melt are equally specious.

Me thinks that Ogie has not looked at any satillite photos of Greenland and/or Antactica lately.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Me thinks that Ogie has not looked at any satillite photos of Greenland and/or Antactica lately.

If by sattilite (sic) photos you mean to imply that Greenland is melting at hitherto fore rates unprecedented then yup I have. Melt proceeds in 2006 at rates comparable rates since the retreat of the Little Ice Age ending circa 1700 or so. Course we are so hung up on the latest 2-10 year period it is MEANINGLESS to draw conclusions.

If by Antarctic you mean the sat photos showing glacial movement, perhaps you might be happy to note ice thickness on the continent has actually been increasing. Of course we just yesterday have the puff WaPo piece making claims based upon a whole 3 years worth of data to the contrary. The most telling was a quote from a fellow Allum

Richard Alley, a Pennsylvania State University glaciologist who has studied the Antarctic ice sheet but was not involved in the new research, said more research is needed to determine if the shrinkage is a long-term trend, because the new report is based on just three years of data. "One person's trend is another person's fluctuation," he said.