Originally posted by Q5echo
sorry, i've been trying to convey the impression of Existo's vomitting on this thread ad nauseum
You are 12.
ResonantDrag
RIP, Goracle thread
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by ResonantDrag
RIP, Goracle thread
Which is sad because there's a very good discussion going on without the rotten tomatoes being thrown. Hopefully Lira isn't needed, but I'll be the first to call him down if they continue to get thrown.
Shakka
god damn I'm tired of this thread and I think this thread is equally tired. The only things I will say in response to Occrider (as I think we've both established our positions quite clearly) is:
1) The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is, and certainly derives no benefit from it.
2) With respect to Gore having a more expensive power bill simply because he is buying "more expensive" alternative power: 191,000 KwH is still 10x the Nashville average, so regardless of the source of his power, he is still a prodigious user of power and the resources required to produce such power.
Magnetonium
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
god damn I'm tired of this thread and I think this thread is equally tired. The only things I will say in response to Occrider (as I think we've both established our positions quite clearly) is:
1) The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is, and certainly derives no benefit from it.
2) With respect to Gore having a more expensive power bill simply because he is buying "more expensive" alternative power: 191,000 KwH is still 10x the Nashville average, so regardless of the source of his power, he is still a prodigious user of power and the resources required to produce such power.
Agreed. :crazy:
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
god damn I'm tired of this thread and I think this thread is equally tired. The only things I will say in response to Occrider (as I think we've both established our positions quite clearly) is:
1) The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is, and certainly derives no benefit from it.
2) With respect to Gore having a more expensive power bill simply because he is buying "more expensive" alternative power: 191,000 KwH is still 10x the Nashville average, so regardless of the source of his power, he is still a prodigious user of power and the resources required to produce such power.
Ditto on that!
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
god damn I'm tired of this thread and I think this thread is equally tired. The only things I will say in response to Occrider (as I think we've both established our positions quite clearly) is:
1) The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is, and certainly derives no benefit from it.
2) With respect to Gore having a more expensive power bill simply because he is buying "more expensive" alternative power: 191,000 KwH is still 10x the Nashville average, so regardless of the source of his power, he is still a prodigious user of power and the resources required to produce such power.
Heh agreed with the tired part. Allow me to just add:
1) One person offsetting carbon consumption does the environment no good. A lot of people engaging in a market of carbon credits has a tangible and noticeable effect on the environment.
2) Yes the man uses more electricity than the average person. However, the guy is conscientious of that fact and takes far more actionable steps than the average american to minimize his impact on the environment
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
2) Yes the man uses more electricity than the average person. However, the guy is conscientious of that fact and takes far more actionable steps than the average american to minimize his impact on the environment
Did you miss, "The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is..." part? :conf:
'Offsetting', while a nice gesture, doesn't excuse him in my books.
It's just not relatable to the average joe who doesn't have the cash this man can obviously throw around; it's a rich man's solution to buying his way out and circumnavigating his own carbon footprint.
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Did you miss, "The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is..." part? :conf:
'Offsetting', while a nice gesture, doesn't excuse him in my books.
It's just not relatable to the average joe who doesn't have the cash this man can obviously throw around; it's a rich man's solution to buying his way out and circumnavigating his own carbon footprint.
Do you not understand the concept of a carbon offset? Did you miss the net effect of purchasing carbon offsets?
If you have a problem with emissions trading than you have a very big problem with this administration's environmental policy ... probably all of it.
Hmmm perhaps you would prefer a carbon tax?
Shakka
Here's a question (seriously, I thought we were done!)
Does a carbon credit minimize impact on the environment or simply minimize the guilt associated with impacting the environment? If you burn down a forest but purchase "carbon offsets" have you lessened the impact of the burning forest on the greater environment? Methinks not.
I was reading an article about the theory behind carbon offsets, carbon trading, etc. It seems to me that, if anything, they are more of a way to buy the right to pollute more and don't really offset much because the person/company/entity that you purchase them from is a willing seller that wouldn't otherwise need them (i.e. wouldn't be creating the extra pollution anyway). You could essentially argue that the concept allows for maximum possible pollution based on the total size of the carbon credit market. People who sell them generally don't need them anyway, hence they sell the pollution they otherwise wouldn't create to the highest bidder. It's a flawed system, IMO.
Just because Gore is "conscientious" doesn't mean he is doing less harm. That's tantamount to a criminal going to confessional before he goes and commits another crime. Hell, that's chutzpah!
P.S. I am not in favor of a carbon tax either!
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Here's a question (seriously, I thought we were done!)
Does a carbon credit minimize impact on the environment or simply minimize the guilt associated with impacting the environment? If you burn down a forest but purchase "carbon offsets" have you lessened the impact of the burning forest on the greater environment? Methinks not.
I was reading an article about the theory behind carbon offsets, carbon trading, etc. It seems to me that, if anything, they are more of a way to buy the right to pollute more and don't really offset much because the person/company/entity that you purchase them from is a willing seller that wouldn't otherwise need them (i.e. wouldn't be creating the extra pollution anyway). You could essentially argue that the concept allows for maximum possible pollution based on the total size of the carbon credit market. People who sell them generally don't need them anyway, hence they sell the pollution they otherwise wouldn't create to the highest bidder. It's a flawed system, IMO.
Just because Gore is "conscientious" doesn't mean he is doing less harm. That's tantamount to a criminal going to confessional before he goes and commits another crime. Hell, that's chutzpah!
P.S. I am not in favor of a carbon tax either!
Truth be told it depends on how the carbon offset is spent. If it's spent by paying someone else to not pollute, who wasn't planning on polluting anyway, than yea the overall impact on the environment is absolutely nothing. However, if you're subsidizing the cost of more expensive green electricity so that people use that instead of traditional dirty electricity than that does have a net impact on the environment. The economist had a decent article on it a few months ago:
quote:
Carbon offsets
Sins of emission
Aug 3rd 2006
From The Economist print edition
The idea of offsetting carbon emissions is sound in theory, if not yet in practice
THE sale of indulgences by the Catholic church in the early 16th century, whereby people could, in effect, purchase forgiveness of past sins by handing over enough money, was condemned by Martin Luther and other reformers. Today, some environmentalists are denouncing the “offsetting” of carbon emissions in similar terms. A company that wants to declare itself “carbon neutral” calculates how many tonnes of carbon it emits, and then offsets the emissions by paying someone else not to emit that amount of carbon on its behalf. Just as Luther criticised indulgences, critics of offsetting argue that the ability to buy retrospective forgiveness for sins of emission is no substitute for not sinning in the first place.
Carbon offsets have two main purposes. One, as with indulgences, is to assuage guilt. Carbon offsetting allows consumers to quell their eco-guilt even as they jet off to distant climes on holiday, and drivers of sports-utility vehicles to argue that they have atoned for the emissions produced by their gas-guzzling cars. A second purpose is image-polishing: companies that declare themselves carbon neutral may well have public-relations as well as environmental benefits in mind.
To fulfil those purposes, carbon offsets do need to reduce carbon emissions. Existing schemes are far from perfect. One popular sort involves planting trees, which remove carbon from the atmosphere as they grow; but this approach is now somewhat discredited, since the carbon may be released again when the trees are cut down. Another problem with offset schemes is the lack of standards: can you really trust those who promise to eliminate emissions elsewhere on your behalf? Then there is the problem of “additionality”: would the emissions in question have been eliminated anyway, or is the reduction additional? Since offsetting is done on a voluntary basis, unlike the mandatory carbon-trading systems that have been imposed on some industries in some countries, such doubts may put people off doing it altogether. After all, only wide-ranging, compulsory schemes will make a real difference in reducing emissions and minimising climate change; the odd bit of offsetting here and there will not.
Despite such flaws, however, the idea of carbon offsets is a good one. Establishing markets in which carbon emissions can be traded and offset is a good idea, since market forces then provide financial incentives for people to find the cheapest ways to reduce or eliminate emissions. The lack of standards is also being addressed. Various bodies are creating standards and inspection regimes that will allow buyers of carbon offsets to feel confident that they really are getting what they pay for (see article). And many firms are embracing voluntary offsetting now in the expectation that compulsory carbon trading will soon be imposed upon them anyway.
The right way to not do something
Yet as the nascent carbon-offsetting industry starts to take shape, a new problem is emerging. Some of the non-governmental organisations that are drawing up carbon-offset standards require emissions to be cut in particular ways: after due consultation with local people, for example, or using particular favoured technologies. Such considerations are irrelevant: the only thing that should matter in offset schemes is that emissions should be cut. Politicising offsets risks discrediting an approach that deserves to be taken seriously. And that really would be a sin. http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...y_id=E1_SNVNRJS
In Al Gore's case I don't know what carbon offset projects he specifically spends money on, but from my understanding one of the major companies GMI purchases credits from is NativeEnergy. Going to their website they make a compelling case that their projects do in fact lower emissions by building wind farms.
quote:
Your projects reduce global warming pollution on your behalf by reducing the amount of power generated by burning fossil fuels.
Under federal law, renewable generators can force utilities to buy their power.
For efficient grid operation, if the utility has to buy the project’s power, it is going to use it.
As a matter of physics, if the utility uses the renewable project’s power, it must, for any given level of demand, use less from other sources.
For efficient grid operation, they use less from those generators that have the highest fuel costs – fossil fuel plants.
The result is that for every kWh generated by a renewable generator, one kWh less is generated by fossil fuel plants. Learn more.
Some renewable energy projects, like our family farm methane projects, reduce global warming pollution by reducing the amount of fossil fuels the farms themselves use for heat and cooling, or by preventing emissions of methane gas from manure stored in lagoons.
By helping build new clean and renewable energy projects with NativeEnergy, you’ll reduce CO2 pollution by helping change how our power is made.
