FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Pledge (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Pledge
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
Too much of an inconvience truth for the AlGore Family?

GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE

"WASHINGTON, DC – Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.

Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

The pledge:

As a believer:
· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

The link & the Gore's home energy consumption chart

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca

Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting. On the face of it, it would appear Gore is looking pretty hypocritical. But then, this is only one report so far, and I would probably delay taking a pledge from a hostile person as well until I examined it carefully and thought about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

In 2006, Gore used nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

-Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

-Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Gore's never been for that, he's in favor of a combination of efficiency improvements with market-based approaches such as carbon credits.

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.

It appears from the press release that misunderstanding is the case. It attacks carbon credits for several misguided reasons (not to say that carbon credit program implementations haven't had their flaws, just that they fail to point the large ones out), and decides ad hominem attacks about Gore being rich constitute reasons for not using carbon credits.

Of course, the person trying to get Gore to sign the pledge has compared environmentalists to Nazis and the EPA to the Gestapo, so I hardly think he's arguing his position for the sake of the environment.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
Fugu's got the right of it. 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.

The real questions would be (1) how much of his energy comes from renewable sources, and (2) whether he's carbon-neutral overall.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't knoow how Gore could be "carbon-neutral" with all of the hot air he blows.
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Could you please discuss the topic you brought up instead of engaging in silly ad hominem attacks?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
Get a grip fugu.
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

[Smile]

Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
The pledge spoke of residential use, not overall use. So that, at least, wouldn't be a problem.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Fugu, what's the supply of carbon credits look like. Are there enough available for every American to buy them at that price (i.e., $1000 per 59 tons)?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Can you still buy indulgences for other sins too?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Will B:
The pledge spoke of residential use, not overall use. So that, at least, wouldn't be a problem.

Oops, good point.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The supply of carbon credits is high; probably too high, in fact, so I encourage lots of people to demand them and bring that into balance. I doubt the current available supply is quite that high, but then, neither is demand. Given higher demand, carbon credit production will increase. That's one of the good things about market approaches, they adapt to meet changing situations.

Actually, I might start buying carbon offsets. I like trees.

Pixiest: there's no monopoly on carbon offsets, unlike there was for indulgences. In fact, since the private citizens who are buying the offsets are only entering into purely voluntary exchange agreements, I'd think you'd like that. They don't even have any aspects of government force to them that regulatory offsets arguably do (of course, there are implications of government force in any system of government guaranteed property rights, but that's another discussion).

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
So, uh, I'm not entirely averse to the notion that there may be some hypocrisy in Gore's message, but I think it primarily relies upon the notion that his plan is at odds with the way he lives his life.

I'm going to bring up a comparison that may be unfair to Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma. It is a comparison to Dr. Kent Hovind.

Hovind is a creation science minister. For years, he presented a 'challenge' to scientists who supported 'Darwinism.' He said he would give a quarter of a million dollars to anyone that could prove evolution to him beyond a shadow of a doubt. When the challenge was not met by scientists, he said that it was proof of science's hypocrisies in labeling evolution a 'proven' entity.

Here, we have a republican senator posing a 'challenge' to Al Gore and asking that he accept it. He could easily reject it for a number of reasons. He could not be willing to agree with any one of a number of wording issues. For instance, does Gore consider himself willing to state that he is a believer in the notion that global warming is partially and specifically a 'spiritual issue?' Probably not. Has he ever asserted that there should be categorical sacrifice to reduce personal output to averages? Nope. Has it ever been integral to his message that rich people should give up the perks of being rich in order to conform to a level of 'eco-conscious' output whose strict maximum is defined by American household averages? No.

If I were Gore, I would probably not bother to accept the pledge as stated, even if I was fully aware what the strategy behind its presentation was: to try to act as a demonstration of 'hypocrisy' involving my message. That's because it's not a fair representation of what I actually stand for; it's just a trap that's baiting a story for people who want to discredit Gore. Such as a one Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) who happens to be no less than the eighth most conservative Senator in Congress, a fundamentalist Evangelical who is so extreme as to have caused other members of his party to distance themselves well away from his positions, which include the notion that America's international policy regarding Israel should be determined from text in the Bible, and that torture should absolutely be allowed against Muslims, and that the 9/11 attacks were specifically an act of retribution against America by God due to things like (1) our increasing tolerance of things like gay marriage and (2) limitations on our willingness to support Israel to a much greater degree than we do now.

More related to the climate change issue, he's a person who denounces anthropogenic global warming as a complete hoax; he continually backs his position up by relying on data and sources which have been fully discredited literally for years (see: Oregon Petition) and who compares environmentalists to Nazis (and the EPA to the Gestapo).

If you dig even further into this man's record, you discover that he receives more campaign donations from oil and gas industries than any other congressperson in the United States' 2002 electees short of a lone Texas senator.

The man's Wikipedia article is a treasure trove of reasons why Al Gore would probably want to categorically refuse participation in any stunts that he pulls. I, for one, would refuse to play along with any of his proposals or bait challenges, especially those that are obviously intended as stunts.

While I'm sure there is an intelligent discussion to be had about Gore's position and possible hypocrisies, I really really

really

really

really

really

really

have absolutely no reason to feel that Gore's refusal to play along with Inhofe is anything other than what the layperson would call "an obviously appropriate choice." So this whole stunt is rendered a non-issue, and it took maybe two minutes of independent study to figure out what the game was.

k thread over.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Wink]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post 
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.


Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
Samp:
You could have just said Inhofe is messing with Gore, and then said lets now have an "intelligent discussion... about Gore's position and [his] possible hypocrisies."

But announce "k thread over"? Usually threads just die on their own, or Papa J kills them if they get really ugly.

Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Fugu: my problem with offsets is not a libertarian problem. People can spend their money on whatever they want and I like trees too. Green is my favorite colour, after all.

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.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's three different possible replies that communally make up my answer.

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.


Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maui babe
Member
Member # 1894

 - posted      Profile for maui babe   Email maui babe         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

This is how I feel about it too. I don't really know much about carbon credits or how they work, but if Gore truly believes things are as dire as he claims (I'm not trying to imply they're not BTW), then I'd think he'd be doing everything he could to make as much difference as possible - in addition to the carbon credits.

It's difficult to give him any credibility now.

Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
I'd vote for option A, except Semisonic's lead is a phony.


...k, I'm voting for option A anyway.

Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
Also, can someone who knows more about it than me please clean up the Wikipedia page on carbon credits? It's distractingly poorly written.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Agreed, dkw.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
Samp:

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

Krank [Wink]

Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Wink] .

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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Read on
http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets/carbontrading

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.


BTW, fugu, according to Rising Tide "HOT AIR" TRADING IS AN ACCOUNTING FRAUD", not just a silly ad hominem attack.

Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
If the goal is for everyone to be carbon neutral, will the indulgences vary depending on how rich you are? I mean, beyond the "the rich use more energy." Will The Rich pay more on a per-indulgence basis than the poor pay? Will this be Progressive or Regressive?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
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.


Evidence that everyone who believes Global Warming is a legitimate concern isn't just spouting a "party line."

People who agree there's a problem don't necessarily agree on the solutions. Why would this be a surprise?

Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
Pix:
The "Rising Tide" link addresses & somewhat answers your question.

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.


Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post 
I think I'm going to start selling methane credits to really flatulent people... get in on the ground floor of the newest con!
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Smile] . 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 [Smile] .

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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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)

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Check your spellchecker; its Ferengi [Smile]

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 [Smile] . 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).

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Krankykat
Member
Member # 2410

 - posted      Profile for Krankykat           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Smile] .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2