quote:

---

That is, he's perfectly okay with people (including himself) using a fair bit of energy, so long as they purchase credits to offset that usage.

There's nothing hypocritical about it, and anyone using it as a political talking point to suggest there is either misunderstands the issues or has decided smearing Gore is more important than truthfulness.

---

Granted. I do believe, though, that an actual example of a wealthy and powerful environmentalist practicing what they preach, instead of just buying some credits which is not an option for everyone, would be much more helpful.
 

---

Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
 
Get a grip fugu.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
C'mon Krankykat, be reasonable man. There's no need to be so rude to fugu, and it was an ad-hom criticism you made (although it could be construed more as a joke).

There's no need to be hostile about it.
 

---

Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
 
It was a joke and I'm gunna bail for now, because I don't want to offend anyone anymore by "silly ad hominem attacks".

No hostility was intended at least by me.


 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Rakeesh: carbon credits are very available for everyone; only someone with a high income is going to have a large amoung of carbon to offset. People with lower incomes produce less carbon, requiring fewer carbon credits.

The average american household, producing 59 tons of carbon per year, could offset all of it for US$1000 (here's a sample price in AUD: http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/carbon_credits_faq.php ) or less (that's a retail operation; offsetting an entire household's credits could likely be done for cheaper). The median household income is $45k, making that very attainable for someone willing to combine carbon reduction with carbon credits.
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
I'd be for that, too. (Speaking to the issue rather than insulting the messenger. But I see this is already handled.)

quote:

---

I'm also not sure how one could expect Gore -- who flies around the world giving speeches -- to consume the same amount of energy as the average American household.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will B:
The pledge spoke of residential use, not overall use. So that, at least, wouldn't be a problem.

---

quote:

---

(of course, there are implications of government force in any system of government guaranteed property rights, but that's another discussion)

---

I have to confess that I get a little hot and bothered whenever you start talking like that, even when I disagree.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
Carbon offsets may not be all they're cracked up to be... here's a snippet from wikipedia's article:

quote:

---

A study published in December 2005 combined all these effects and found that tropical forestation has a large net cooling effect, because of increased cloudiness and because of high tropical growth and sequestration rates.[5] Trees grow three times faster in the tropics than in temperate zones; each tree in the rainy tropics removes about 22 kilograms (50 pounds) of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.[6] However, this study found little to no net global cooling from tree planting in temperate climates, where warming due to sunlight absorption by trees counteracts the global cooling effect of carbon sequestration. Furthermore, this study confirmed earlier findings that reforestation of colder regions—where long periods of snow cover, evergreen trees, and slow seqestration rates prevail—results in global warming.
“ To plant forests outside of the tropics to mitigate climate change is a waste of time, ”

said Ken Caldeira[7], a study co-author from the Carnegie Institution. "To prevent climate change, we need to transform our energy system. It is only by transforming our energy system and preserving natural habitat, such as forests, that we can maintain a healthy environment. To prevent climate change, we must focus on effective strategies and not just ‘feel-good’ strategies." His study indicates that one effective strategy is well-planned and executed tree-planting in the tropics. Although trees planted adjacent to buildings and pavement were not addressed by this study, they will cool Earth to the extent that they shade dark pavement, shade windows and dark building surfaces in the summer, sequester carbon, and enhance cloud formation.

---

quote:

---

I said thread was over, k. Subject is closed. You don't have to go home but you

can't ♪

stay ♫

here ♪♪

---

quote:

---

I can say 'k thread over' because I am an immaculate paragon of objective forum merit, whose word is ironclad and insurmountably final, and any judgment rendered upon any thread by myself is merely a perfect transcription of fact as opposed to opinion. Yea, behold.

---

quote:

---

One time, I think about a year and a half ago, on some other board someplace, there was a guy who would actually say this all the time. he would always be all like 'Psh, guilty gear X is better than DOA2, thread over k.'

Unlike what I do, he was actually saying it seriously, not in sardonic jest. Thing is, he was always so hilariously, eye-rollingly stupid when he would arbitrarily and capriciously declare threads over, that within a month, people were always doing it as a joke. I kind of picked up the habit and I add it as a light hearted finale to posts. I guess it's something of an in-joke but in case it does actually need to be explained, then .. no, I don't actually seriously think I hold the authority to declare threads to be over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
However I don't think any amount of "carbon offsets" make up for the basic hypocrasy. "Oh, it's ok for me to waste vast amounts of energy because I'm rich and can throw money at it. But you poor people, you have to suffer."

If think if this issue were really that important to him, he wouldn't be wasting so much energy in his palace. But he would continue to buy extra extra offsets, since, after all, this IS the most important issue in the whole wide world.

Wasting energy is wasting energy no matter how many pounds you put in the poor box.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
However I don't think any amount of "carbon offsets" make up for the basic hypocrasy. "Oh, it's ok for me to waste vast amounts of energy because I'm rich and can throw money at it. But you poor people, you have to suffer."

---

Since Gore's point is that there is a lot that can be done to decrease CO2 emissions without having to "suffer" I don't see the hypocrasy.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Agreed, dkw.
 

---

Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
 
Samp:

Myself, as a perfect transcription of fact as opposed to opinion say "yea, behold, that was pretty funny."

Krank
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Note: I started writing this a while ago, before I had an impromptu meeting at work, so I bet the thread has advanced some.

That would be one blogger on the economists' blog; an economist employee, not someone speaking for the economist .

There's definitely some truth to some of those accusations. However, the blogger is also talking about his or her instinctual response rather than something he (or she) is certain of (though I suspect I know which blogger that is, in which case that person has a somewhat stronger position than that revealed here).

And I wish the blogger had gone into more detail on their thoughts, they switch to issues of power use reduction right before they get to meat of credits.

In particular, the principle-agent issues are worth pursuing. High information availability is necessary to prevent

In the long term, I suspect a combination of good rights structures and securitization of carbon credits will bring significant carbon reduction, but that's far from the current reality. I do think, though, that those offering carbon offsets through tree plantings and the like are good ways to approach this for individuals now; if they didn't pay, the trees wouldn't be planted, but they did pay, and the trees are planted. Carbon is removed from the atmosphere that would have been there instead, and less carbon is produced because they sued the money they would have spent on things linked to carbon production on carbon reduction, instead.
 

---

Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
 
An interesting point by a UK organization found in "Carbon Credit" Wikipedia.

Their claim:
"Rising Tide UK is a network of groups and individuals dedicated to taking local action and building a movement against climate change."

quote:

---

The case against carbon trading
CARBON TRADING IS CONTRARY TO SOCIAL JUSTICE
THE LARGEST RESOURCE GRAB IN HISTORY
You can't trade in something unless you own it. When governments and companies "trade" in carbon, they establish de facto property rights over the atmosphere; a commonly held global commons. At no point have these atmospheric property rights been discussed or negotiated - their ownership is established by stealth with every carbon trade.

THE CARBON TRADE WILL STRENGTHEN EXISTING INEQUALITIES
Market shares in the new carbon market will be allocated on the basis of who is already the largest polluter and who is fastest to exploit the market. The new "carbocrats" will therefore be the global oil, chemical, and car corporations, and the richest nations; the very groups that created the problem of climate change in the first place. What is more, with the current absence of "supplementarity", the richest nations and corporations will be able to further increase their global share of emissions by outbidding poorer interests for carbon credits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krankykat:


Fugu said that AlGore supports carbon credits as a solution global warming. It is interesting that Rising Tide, who seems to agree with Gore that global warming is a legitimate concern, opposses it.

---

quote:

---

THE CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM POSES A DIRECT THREAT TO VULNERABLE PEOPLES
Many of the projects proposed within the CDM, in particular tree planting and dams, are subject to the same criticisms as other large scale development projects- they assert foreign ownership of local resources, they consolidate the power of undemocratic elites, they oust people from their land, they undermine local self sufficient economies and low carbon cultures.

---

 

---

Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
 
I worry most about poor or middle-class people who can't afford the credits but have jobs or other situations that require them to burn more than their "fair share" of carbon.

My job, for example, requires me to travel about 50% of the time. The rest of the time, I work from home and have a relatively small carbon debt for those periods. But people who fly around the country on business and don't make much are going to have a hard time of it if they personally have to pay for the excess usage.

I've seen some plans where that kind of stuff might be "off the table" but that's not a very comprehensive plan either. I know a lot of people would get the employer to pay for their carbon usage. But for independent consultants, some types of sales people, and small businesses, this could be a real problem. It could, for example, adversely affect my company's bottom line or my paycheck if we had to pay for carbon credits for the travel that we do. We would have to raise our prices to, potentially, a level that makes us uncompetitive.

Would government clients, for example, refuse to pay for a firm's travel-based excess carbon usage? If so, we'd be hurting as a company. We would have to relocate to areas of the country where there's more traffic, where power plants are (typically) less efficient (older plants burn more carbon), and so on.

Ultimately, I see a LOT of complexities with a pay for play kind of plan, and a vastly inequitable distribution of the pain.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Another post started writing before an impromptu meeting . . .

If carbon offsets do result in reductions in carbon that would not happen otherwise, your argument doesn't hold any water, Pixiest. In that case, it doesn't matter if one directly reduces one's output or pays for others to reduce theirs -- or even, its better, because then that money also isn't being spent on things that increase carbon output.

Only to the extent that offsets fail to work is it a legitimate criticism that they're hypocritical, and its precisely that fact which is considerably in dispute (with the answer depending heavily on the particular offsets we're talking about). I also suspect a lot of the issues that do exist are due to it being a new market with little securitization and less information awareness than many.

As for the part about it not being affordable for people who aren't rich, that's incorrect, as noted above.

You might be interested in reading "Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case" by David Friedman. Specifically, it talks about how ancient Iceland's sytem where "killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim" resulted in an exemplary state of criminal justice and low crime -- and not one where the rich could get away with anything. A strong incentive structure resulted in a better society; carbon credits have a similar sort of potential.

And Gore has spent considerable amounts on reducing his energy output as well, so its not like this is an either/or situation.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
I think I'm going to start selling methane credits to really flatulent people... get in on the ground floor of the newest con!
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
fugu: Part of my point is that if he really cared, he'd not waste energy AND buy a lot of credits, no matter HOW inconvenient it is because it's such a huge huge problem.

I don't think he really believes because he doesn't ACT like he believes.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Pixiest: Since the offsets are traded on open markets, they'll cost whatever the market price is, which will likely involve somewhat lower prices for bulk purchases.

KrankyKat: given that I'm a strong proponent of markets, you'll hardly find me agreeing with those criticisms . And since Gore had absolutely nothing to do with the "Hot Air" mentioned by rising tide, if you're using their argument to substantiate your jab, you're calling yourself a liar .

Bob: the costs of reduction will always be born somewhere. There's no way to get rid of them. They don't magically disappear if people approach reduction solely by reducing their personal emissions. A market-based approach is far more likely to result in equitable outcomes than one based on direct regulation.

With a strong carbon market, there is an incentive to reduce emissions. To people whom the emissions are worth more than the incentive to reduce (which means they're worth more to the people purchasing from them, which means they're worth more to society, in the only reasonable measure of that which we have), they can pay for them instead of reducing . . . which results in the same reductions as if they had reduced them themselves, and enriches someone who has an easier time reducing energy.

In fact, I suspect many of the people you discuss would find considerable windfalls in a strong carbon market, because they'd adapt in ways that reduced carbon emissions. There would be significant industry devoted to businesses assisting other businesses in reducing carbon emissions.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
fugu: So you're saying the indulgences would be Regressive. (At least until they're government mandated.)

Busy work that produces nothing is not a windfall. It's not a bonus to the economy.

This was the bubble of the dot-com economy. Every website sold advertising to other websites that sold advertising to other websites. Nothing was produced. Venture Capital was shuffled from one start up to another. Stock prices soared, but in the end, no one was actually making any money and POP! The market crashed and tons of us were out of a job.

Phony work on environmental issues don't actually MAKE anything. They are a cost, not an asset. It's all overhead and no profit. There is no boon to come from it. Some people will get rich, of course, but at the expense of others who may, or may not be able to afford it. Their wealth will come from dragging the rest of the economy down.

Now, if you think something needs to be done, you can say you think it's worth it anyway. But don't try to sell us those of us who don't think anything needs to be done on the basis that "there's profit in it." We're not Ferringhi to matter what you might think about us.

Pix

(I'm agog my spell checker knew how to spell Ferringhi)
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
He's living exactly the lifestyle he advocates people lead; spending what is reasonable for them to reduce their emissions and then purchasing carbon credits to offset the rest. What he says he really cares about is not reducing every person's carbon production as much as possible, but people living carbon neutral lifestyles. That's what he certainly seems to try to practice, that's what he preaches, and that's something that would achieve the goals he sets out.

Even if he spent all the money he could on reducing his own carbon emissions, it would have little impact. A large number of people emulating a reasonable carbon neutral lifestyle combining reductions with offsets would have a far greater impact.

He says he thinks everyone should live a carbon neutral lifestyle, and he's trying to do so.

You sound like someone arguing that people who care about poverty but aren't spending their every dollar that goes to personal wants on helping the poor don't really care.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Fugu: Ok, let's go with the poverty analogy.

He is doing the equivalent of keeping HIMSELF out of poverty without giving a dime to anyone else.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
It should be noted that Gore's TN home is currently having solar panels installed on it.

His energy consumption won't be that high for long, or, of it is, it'll be clean, self produced energy.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Check your spellchecker; its Ferengi

You misunderstand production. Anything that's demanded, and when supplied makes a person better off (note: this can include feelings of well-being) is something being produced. Most of what we produce doesn't result in any physical product -- our GNP is heavily service driven. Most of the value created is created by services from massages to businesses that make people feel good to visit them because their employees smile to people coming up with words that other people like to read (though there's a physical production element to that, too).

I'm completely against phony work on environmental issues, too, so no worries . Actually, I'd prefer to tackle other pollutants before carbon, but I'll take what I can get. And even if you don't buy global warming, carbon is a significant part of other forms of pollution with indisputable major negative health effects, so no worries about it not helping.

And I don't mean that a carbon market would directly result in a healthier economy. I feel in the long term the market would be healthier because the monetary costs would more closely reflect the actual costs of production, but in the short term there would be costs to the economy.

However, the very existence of those costs would reward those who reduced their impact on the environment, meaning that it would also be redistributive to those able to come up with ways to reduce their impact disproportionately, which I suspect would include many of the entrepeneurs and consultants Bob is talking about.

And you misunderstand the dot-com boom as well. Excessive ad-trading did not cause it, ad-trading was a symptom of an imbalance that created incentives to invest in too-risky endeavors. There's no imbalance involved in someone paying someone else to plant some trees, provided they have a high degree of certainty that person does so (otherwise, there's an information imbalance).
 

---

Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
 
fugu:

To paraphrase Rakeesh:
C'mon fugu, be reasonable man. There's no need to be so rude to Krank. It was an ad hominem
attack you made by calling him a liar. (although it could be construed maybe as a joke).

Peace Dude
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Busy work that produces nothing is not a windfall. It's not a bonus to the economy.

---

But you have too restrictive a definition of 'nothing'. Can I assume for the sake of the argument that CO2 emissions are harmful? In that case, reducing them is valuable to me: It removes a source of harm. Or, to put it another way, work which produces no tangible goods, but results in less sewage being sprayed over my garden, is a bonus to the economy: It produces value - it makes me happier.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No, being carbon neutral reduces the total emissions for everyone. Being carbon neutral is a positive impact on the environment (which does well enough to improve itself, left alone) which is a good thing for other people besides himself, and enough of a good thing that if other people followed his lead the problem would be solved (assuming that solution works, which is hardly settled, but its his contention that it does, which is all that matters for determining hypocrisy). How does not giving anyone else a dime solve the problems of poverty if everyone does it? There isn't even remotely an analogy.

Not to mention that he gives lots of money to environmental efforts, and that isn't included in his carbon accounting (that's all reductions plus specific carbon credits), so you'd still be wrong even if being carbon neutral was like not doing anything good.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I didn't call you a liar, I said you'd be calling yourself a liar if you used that as justification for your bad joke. You're perfectly free to not use that as justification .
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
fugu: My spell checker is on the Google toolbar. I spelled it your way first and was corrected >_<

Services are great. But we still have to MAKE something. Adding a service that helps you Make is great. Even if that service is just something that helps you wind down after work. Adding a service that's phony doesn't help anyone.

Those risky investments wouldn't have been so risky if people were actually making something other than ads to people who made ads. I think all we disagree on is what caused what.

Anyway, my point was, don't try to sell us on how much money we can make on it. It's not going to work.

Though, it's a nice try, I mean, none of the other arguments have worked, not on all of us anyway, you gotta try something different now and then, right? And you might catch someone who doesn't agree with you but wants to run a quick scam.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
KoM: Then sell me on the CO2 is harmful (good luck) angle, not the profit angle. If I don't think it's harmful (which I don't) I'm not going to see cleaning it up as meaningful work.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You think the people buying carbon offsets don't feel good for having offset their carbon? Given that there's nothing requiring it for private citizens, and how spread out the impact is, I think that enjoyment is actually all the measurable direct benefit they enjoy. Which is exactly analogous to something that helps you wind down after work .

Making ads is a perfectly viable area of production. Its been big business for centuries, and is still big business today. It contributes significantly to the economy. The problem was never the ads, it was the perverse incentives to make too many ads that people (other producers, and consumers for the signalling value) didn't need.

I'm not trying to sell you on how much money its going to make some people, I'm underscoring that at least an approach like this will allow some people, people who are helping the environment, to make money, instead of just costing everybody.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Fugu: selling ads is fine and dandy. But when you're just selling ads to people who sell ads to people who sell ads, money is shuffling but nothing is happening. At no point does money come from the consumer. It just comes from other businesses spending their venture capital till the venture capital runs out and the bankrupsies chain down the line.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
There's no need to agree CO2 causes problems; lots of carbon is emitted in forms like CFCs and particle pollution, both of which cause measurable harm.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yes, which can only happen because there are perverse incentives to buy unnecessary ads. Again, my point isn't that the ad selling wasn't a bad thing, but that it was only a symptom, not a cause.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It should be noted that Gore's TN home is currently having solar panels installed on it.

His energy consumption won't be that high for long, or, of it is, it'll be clean, self produced energy.

---

Wait, has solar panel technology advanced to the stage where a home installation can power a house?

Or is Gore using solar panelling not generally affordable by the public, or does his property have a lot of land on which to install panels?

(I'm not trying to bait you or anything, I'm actually curious: my family at home has solar panelling, but only enough to inconsistently heat their water. )
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
(My point is also that it has nothing to do with them being ads; we've had economic recessions caused by the presence of perverse incentives related to physical goods, too. But that matters less).
 

---

Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
 
fugu:

Your posts are informative and I am learning from what you say, although I don't agree with your entire premise. Smiley faces aside, saying things like "I didn't call you a liar, I said you'd be calling yourself a liar..." is purely semantics. You are still calling me a liar. Although you seem to have been offended by my "hot air" joke, it was not an attack on you. It seemed like you took it personally. There is no reason for you to continue to patronize me.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Solar panel technology has been at the level available to power a house for some time now. It's not a continuous thing, in that, it isn't always producing power (especially at night obviously). It's ability to power an entire home continuously depends on the size of the house, number of panels, energy usage, but houses with modern panels can power themselves, and even turn a profit for themselves by selling excess energy back to the grid. It literally turns the dial back on your energy meter, reducing whatever supplemental energy you buy from the power company.

If for example you're at work during the day and your house isn't using much energy, it will send that energy back into the grid, turning your house into a mini power plant, and the dial on your meter will turn back. When you use energy at night, you buy energy from the power company, but in the end, depending in circumstances, it can even out, or leave you with a profit.

Combine that with efficient energy star products, CFLs, and solar heating, and your house could be virtually utility bill free.

And it is rather expensive, but like any other home improvement, it's an investment that pays for itself over time.

Generally the panels are mounted on the roof of the home, not out in large fields like you see the commercial power plants are, though for rural homes that works too. Are you sure your family is using photovoltaic cells and not solar heating tubes? Solar heating is used for hot water, and depending on how modern your home is, for home heating as well.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
What I took personally was your ignoring an attempt at reasonable discussion in favor of making bad jokes about someone who's already being smeared for being a hypocrite when he isn't in the link you first posted in the thread.

And no, I don't think you're a liar, I think you made a bad joke, and then made a flawed attempt at extending that bad joke. Only someone who seriously thought the link was substantiating your bad joke would think you a liar; I don't think it was, therefore I don't think you're a liar. I try to be precise in my language.
 

---

Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
 
fugu said:

quote:

---

Bob: the costs of reduction will always be born somewhere. There's no way to get rid of them. They don't magically disappear if people approach reduction solely by reducing their personal emissions. A market-based approach is far more likely to result in equitable outcomes than one based on direct regulation.

With a strong carbon market, there is an incentive to reduce emissions. To people whom the emissions are worth more than the incentive to reduce (which means they're worth more to the people purchasing from them, which means they're worth more to society, in the only reasonable measure of that which we have), they can pay for them instead of reducing . . . which results in the same reductions as if they had reduced them themselves, and enriches someone who has an easier time reducing energy.

In fact, I suspect many of the people you discuss would find considerable windfalls in a strong carbon market, because they'd adapt in ways that reduced carbon emissions. There would be significant industry devoted to businesses assisting other businesses in reducing carbon emissions.

---

I think it's stating the obvious that the costs will be borne somewhere/by some people. The question is not whether we can avoid the costs of reducing emissions, but how to most fairly distribute those costs.

I'm not a big believer in the innate efficiency of the marketplace. I think that's a good myth we tell each other, but by and large it almost never actually works out to be truly efficient or equitable.

There [i]might[i] be an argument in favor of a carbon trading market that says it's not the worst solution, but I think there are always going to be people who end up big losers whenever something like this is established.

For one thing, the little guy isn't going to be well-represented when the rules for the market are established. Secondly, small fries aren't likely to get the kind of expert advice needed to make this whole thing work well for them.

Call me pessimistic (I am, after all), but I have seen similar systems in operation. An example is the truck weight allowances market that was set up as states tried to limit over weight vehicles. Basically, companies with larger fleets could afford to do the things that would put them into a large positive balance and then they could just go on violating the rules that were supposedly intended for them. It gave them a huge competitive advantage because they could afford to shift this artificial resource around to where it gave them the best combination of sales of weight-rights and use of it themselves. Smaller operators didn't move immediately into vehicles that efficiently carried lower weights (so the cost per ton mile was about equal). They didn't have the flexibility to do it, nor did they have the ready cash to buy up the rights to haul more weight.

I haven't seen any detailed proposals about how to divide up the carbon pie, but I think that when all the dust settles, the smaller/poorer folks are going to be harmed.

Look at it this way. People who were likely to buy a new car anyway can afford to get the one that uses less fuel and puts out fewer emissions. They get a carbon credit and dump their older gas-guzzler on the used car market. The poor people in this country can't usually afford a new car. They buy what's available in their price range. So, suddenly the market is flooded with SUVs from the 1990s and 2000s. They might get a good price on those, but their carbon debt goes up a lot in the process.

Likewise, they aren't the ones getting new energy-efficient appliances for which the manufacturers charge a premium. They're either getting used stuff or the cheapest (less energy efficient) models offered.

I know it's possible not to burden the working class and poor with a bunch of new regulations, but I don't hold out much hope.

Another thing I suspect will happen is that while this is all being mulled over, people will actually get worse in their pollution habits. Why? Because they'll defer purchases of new, less-polluting items until they see what incentives are being offered, and/or which things get the most credit.

I've already replaced all the incandescent bulbs in my house. So...do I get credit for that later on or not? Time will tell. If I expected that the rules were coming out soon, I would defer the replacement of bulbs until I saw if there were incentives being offered as part of the new "program."
 

---

Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
 
I refuse to take the oath as well. If it's good enough for Al, it's good enough for me.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I can point you at recent studies showing that those places in Mexico which most opened themselves up to globalization (by several measures) had the highest increases in standards of living, if you like

Well-operating markets have a track record beyond any other mechanism we've tried for efficient allocation. For instance, guess which poor countries (starting out similarly) have had huge increases in general standard of living and health (including among the poor) -- those receiving large sums of aid, or those reducing regulations, tariffs, and taxes? The latter group, by far.

Of course, markets do not mean no regulation. Markets operate efficiently when there are rules that reduce information inequality issues, transaction costs, and the like. GIven those rules, markets operate efficiently.

Your SUV example is flawed, btw. The poor people already had an old, used car, which probably got middling to bad mileage, and the rich people had the SUVs. If suddenly the rich people have really efficient cars and the poor people have the SUVs, the situation is still improved -- the really efficient cars have replaced the middling to bad old used cars. Carbon usage goes down.

Also, that's only an issue in the short term. I'm interested in long term solutions, and in the long term yesterday's pretty efficient new cars are tomorrow's pretty efficient old cars. I could care less about a decade or so spike (which almost certainly doesn't happen, as noted previously; not to mention that SUVs, while popular, are still not that much of the car market, especially the used car market), provided the long term effect is highly positive.

Most of this is unpractical, of course. The most effective area for carbon credits as a reduction approach will be in applying them to production. I don't expect consumer carbon offsetting to be anything more than a boutique market for quite some time, and quite possibly permanently. Consumer carbon production that's independent of producer carbon production might as well be nonexistent.

And I said that someone will be bearing the costs for a reason. Your were talking about people who travel particularly far bearing the costs disproportionately. That's the point: the people who produce the most carbon bear the most costs.

I'd be interested in reading some of the literature on truck weight allowances; its hard to google for, for obvious reasons. Could you point me at some?

However, there're good examples of similar markets as well. For instance, the sulfur (edit: sulfur dioxide emissions, just to be clear) markets set up in the US became quite efficient in just a few years, and when assessed against likely outcomes of proposed direct regulations (partly by observing state level regulations) performed superiorly.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Solar panel technology has been at the level available to power a house for some time now. It's not a continuous thing, in that, it isn't always producing power (especially at night obviously). It's ability to power an entire home continuously depends on the size of the house, number of panels, energy usage, but houses with modern panels can power themselves, and even turn a profit for themselves by selling excess energy back to the grid. It literally turns the dial back on your energy meter, reducing whatever supplemental energy you buy from the power company.

If for example you're at work during the day and your house isn't using much energy, it will send that energy back into the grid, turning your house into a mini power plant, and the dial on your meter will turn back. When you use energy at night, you buy energy from the power company, but in the end, depending in circumstances, it can even out, or leave you with a profit.

Combine that with efficient energy star products, CFLs, and solar heating, and your house could be virtually utility bill free.

And it is rather expensive, but like any other home improvement, it's an investment that pays for itself over time.

Generally the panels are mounted on the roof of the home, not out in large fields like you see the commercial power plants are, though for rural homes that works too. Are you sure your family is using photovoltaic cells and not solar heating tubes? Solar heating is used for hot water, and depending on how modern your home is, for home heating as well.

---

Cool. Thanks for taking the time to explain that - I'd been in the dark! (BA-DUM, KSHH......guys? Hey, guys?)
 

---

Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
 
fugu:

Like I said your posts are interesting and informative.

For your own sake, I am glad you have, in terms of semantics and patronization, become a very clever writer during your six years and almost 12,000 posts on Hatrack. You are much better at it than when you first started in the forum. I hope you continue to be "precise" in your business and personal life's language. Surely, it will make you a success, especially if you consider politics. I have not entered a thread for about five years and have rarely entered posts during that time, but I do read the forum from time to time because I find Hatrack to be informative, interesting and fun.

I was never “ignoring an attempt at reasonable discussion,” I was just having fun. After many years, posting a thread on the forum today seemed like a reasonable and fun diversion to my busy life. In the future, if YOU want to continue to patronize me without “attempt at reasonable discussion,” there will no longer be a reason to continue a dialogue.

Krank

(BTW: Winkey Faces and Smiley Faces aside, I'm still having fun.)

[ March 22, 2007, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Krankykat ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
fugu: My spell checker is on the Google toolbar. I spelled it your way first and was corrected >_<

---

I think your spell check is hinting that it's time for a vacation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And it is rather expensive, but like any other home improvement, it's an investment that pays for itself over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by erosomniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Solar panel technology has been at the level available to power a house for some time now. It's not a continuous thing, in that, it isn't always producing power (especially at night obviously). It's ability to power an entire home continuously depends on the size of the house, number of panels, energy usage, but houses with modern panels can power themselves, and even turn a profit for themselves by selling excess energy back to the grid. It literally turns the dial back on your energy meter, reducing whatever supplemental energy you buy from the power company.

If for example you're at work during the day and your house isn't using much energy, it will send that energy back into the grid, turning your house into a mini power plant, and the dial on your meter will turn back. When you use energy at night, you buy energy from the power company, but in the end, depending in circumstances, it can even out, or leave you with a profit.

Combine that with efficient energy star products, CFLs, and solar heating, and your house could be virtually utility bill free.

And it is rather expensive, but like any other home improvement, it's an investment that pays for itself over time.

Generally the panels are mounted on the roof of the home, not out in large fields like you see the commercial power plants are, though for rural homes that works too. Are you sure your family is using photovoltaic cells and not solar heating tubes? Solar heating is used for hot water, and depending on how modern your home is, for home heating as well.

---

Cool. Thanks for taking the time to explain that - I'd been in the dark! (BA-DUM, KSHH......guys? Hey, guys?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
KoM: Then sell me on the CO2 is harmful (good luck) angle, not the profit angle. If I don't think it's harmful (which I don't) I'm not going to see cleaning it up as meaningful work.

---

quote:

---

It should be noted that Gore is in fact NOT the average American and may have legitimate energy needs that the average American would not. It is only hypocritical to refuse this pledge if he has no reason to need more energy than the average American, but I don't think it is fair to Gore to presume such a good reason doesn't exist in his rather unique case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
I can point you at recent studies showing that those places in Mexico which most opened themselves up to globalization (by several measures) had the highest increases in standards of living, if you like

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
It should be noted that Gore is in fact NOT the average American and may have legitimate energy needs that the average American would not. It is only hypocritical to refuse this pledge if he has no reason to need more energy than the average American, but I don't think it is fair to Gore to presume such a good reason doesn't exist in his rather unique case.

---

quote:

---

Dagonee: does entertaining large numbers of people in his home count as a need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krankykat:
Of course he needs to examine it and think about it, Rakeesh. A smaller energy effecient home would be inconvient.

-Al Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

-Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Is anyone aware if Al Gore has made statements detailing why he has a high environmental/resource footprint other than offsetting it with the carbon credits thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mig:
I'm starting to get the warm feeling inside that the tide is turning on this man-made global warming hyteria. Even sixth graders are starting to become skeptical: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357

---

quote:

---

'm starting to get the warm feeling inside that the tide is turning on this man-made global warming hyteria. Even sixth graders are starting to become skeptical:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mig:
I'm starting to get the warm feeling inside that the tide is turning on this man-made global warming hyteria. Even sixth graders are starting to become skeptical: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mig:
I'm starting to get the warm feeling inside that the tide is turning on this man-made global warming hyteria.

---

Glad that is all settled....

That wasn't a very intelligent argument, Mig.

[ March 25, 2007, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I agree though, the teacher had a great idea, and it got the kids thinking about BOTH sides of this argument.
 

---

Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301510.html

U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell 1.3% in 2006

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions dropped slightly last year even as the economy grew, according to an initial estimate released yesterday by the Energy Information Administration.
 

---