Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Wheatus
Social climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 22, 2007 - 02:09pm PT
|
I was so inspired by Al Gore's testimony to Congress about how he is "Carbon Neutral". In honor of Al Gore's testimony I am going to save the planet and stop the "fever" by the follow:
I pledge to:
1) Only inhale and never exhale
2) Never again eat foods that cause flatulence
3) Live in a cave
4) Walk everywhere
5) Never use electricity and fuel of any type
Or I can use the wealthy person’s alternative:
Pay for "carbon" credits so I can drive my Hummer to my private jet after leaving my 28 bedroom home containing enough material possessions to feed half of Africa's starving children. This way I can declare I am a true environmentalist and have the delusion of "making a difference".
Seriously the environmental problems as I see them are: population growth, economic policies of perpetual continued growth, emerging industrialism and excessive waste (USA in particular) are the real causes of environmental degradation.
So what is the solution? I don't doubt there are real environmental problems that, if not acted on, could cause our own extinction. I don't have the answer but either does Al Gore.
The only general solution I feel is plausible is to look at nature. Nature is a closed system of cycles that were in balance prior to over-population and industrialism. What we need is a new global paradigm that mimics nature. It would be a difficult task but not impossible. However, the current political ramblings are just a lot of hot air.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 02:19pm PT
|
"CARBON CREDITS"
Although the Catholic Church today swathes the purpose of "indulgences" in thick and murky legalese, to the layperson of the late Middle Ages, purchasing an indulgence simply meant: donating large amounts of money to the Church so that one would not be punished (by God) for one's sins -- past or future. Such a policy especially benefited wealthy sexual sinners who could find pardon for their fornication and adultery without having to actually give it up. Just as happily, their dead relatives, stuck in purgatory for any sins committed in life, could even be hastened on to heaven simply by greasing the holy palms of Roman Catholic officials.
The only difference for the "pope of warming" is that at least the purchasers of indulgences didn't own the company that was selling them.
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Trad climber
the blighted lands of hatu
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 02:21pm PT
|
"The only general solution I feel is plausible is to look at nature."
Most of nature eats its dinner under protest, as in the dinner is not all that happy to be eaten.
Most populations have natural checks that counter rampant growth.
Humans are by nature competitive and perhaps greedy, with a limited scope of compassion. Communism is a good theory, as is capitalism, but both overlook some fundamental components of humans' true nature as animals with shoes.
ymmv...I still think we have more than enough to go around, it just doesn't go around...
|
|
phoolish
Boulder climber
Athens, Ga.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 02:22pm PT
|
Much-maligned as they've been lately, carbon credits actually do some good. It's not the same at all as indulgences, and that particularly stupid analogy ought to die a well-deserved death.
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 02:38pm PT
|
you and your "logic" and "facts" can't beat the true american way, you know. Gore said he invented the internet. realyl, he did he did say it. I heard it on TV.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 03:50pm PT
|
No answers here, I'm not that smart.
But nice post, Pagan.
GO
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 03:50pm PT
|
It is easy to scoff at paying money to be carbon nuetral, but unlike indulgences there is an actual physical result from paying. Ideally, yes our lifestyles themselves would be carbon nuetral, but conservatives get all hot in the britches and declare it anti-american and anti-economy when environmentalists suggest such things.
Carbon nuetrality in the form the Gore presents is a win-win. Instead of forcing industry to become carbon nuetral, or move towards it, it outsources the added cost to a 3rd part that handles it in another manner. The result is that people can, by their own choice, live a consumptive lifestyle but actually begin to pay the true cost of their lifestyle.
The conservative response appears to be to tear the idea apart, and then go on doing nothing at all. Very forward-thinking of you. You guys should be all over this in a positive way seeing as the alternative is more gorvernment regulation.
The leaders of some pretty sizable multinationals are clamoring for a carbon "cap-and-trade" system including General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar. I'm sure they like the idea a lot better than an outright carbon tax, but at least they are doing SOMEthing.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 04:31pm PT
|
How do we know that things are not already working in a very natural way? Soon, there will be true overpopulation of mankind and nature will work against us and start shrinking the population.
It will be just like when there are too many rabbits and too few carrots to eat. At that point, the rabbits are all hungry and the coyotes eat them all.
Just like the rabbits, we won't see it coming. It may already be here.
Dave
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 04:38pm PT
|
"I would also like to know why Gore states that oceans will rise "20 feet" when other very knowledgeable sources (many with with terminal degrees in climatology and and published research in the field) hold that oceans would rise 8 inches. Let's split the difference, even. Let's say oceans will rise several feet. Twenty feet? A little exaggerated, perhaps?
Why is Gore at such odds with many experts who have formal training and expertise in climatology. You know what? I have heard that practicing law can be quite lucrative. Perhaps some of these climatologist ought go out and sell legal advise. Makes sense to me. "
LEB the answers to all of your questions are pretty easy to find out if you drop the "Al Gore must be evil" pretense and find them out.
There is no doubt he is hyping things...crisis is the only way things get done in Washington. He also isn't trying to be an expert in anything...he's doing what all activists do, taking knowledge and bringing it to people in an understandable form. Should all elementary school math teachers be PHD's in mathematics? Last time I checked there were no educational requirements at all to be President, and yet they make important decisions on everything.
Anyone can make a slide show and try to get people to listen. Why you have your panties all in a bundle because people are actually listening to him I'm not sure.
Carbon credits are not the best case scenario, but its a palatible idea to our hideously consumer driven culture. If you don't like it then suggest a better idea, LEB. Remember all that "shrieking" you were claiming that Gore was doin? Well maybe you need to listen a little bit to your own rants.
|
|
Moof
Trad climber
A cube at my soul sucking job in Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 05:32pm PT
|
IMO, most of all of this boils down to over population. If there are half the people, being 50% more wasteful per person is better overall. I look at Europe's rack and stack crowding, and fear that's where the rest of the world is headed. Not my idea of a good time in the slightest.
Carbon credits are a contrivance, it's paying someone else to bail water on a sinking ship.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 06:03pm PT
|
LEB- Yes...you are ranting. And I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about as far as Al Gore goes. I've listened to, seen and read much of his material and he barely even raises his voice. He's a pretty subdued character. That's why the media labeled him "boring" in 2000.
To reiterate my point above, you can criticize the idea but all it comes down to is trying to destroy an idea instead of trying to solve the problem. Carbon credits are one idea to help move us towards solving the problem. If I make 1,000 tons of CO2 and pay someone to remove 1,000 tons of CO2, what is the problem there? Creating CO2 is just a little bit different than taking a dump on Yosemite, isn't it? In fact...I've taken dumps on Yosemite. Many of them. I've also cleaned up a lot of them. Living = impact.
Carbon credits are a way of reducing impact that fits in to our consumer culture. It is a small step on the road to a greener planet. It doesn't "remove guilt" it makes a physical difference in the defined problem.
Of course instead we can just assasinate Gore and keep on doing what were doing, which I'm taking from your posts is somehow better?
|
|
phoolish
Boulder climber
Athens, Ga.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 08:03pm PT
|
LEB:
Your partisanship and bizarre anti-Gore stance is leading you to be disingenuous about your thoughts on the Carbon credit idea.
Here's how it works:
There is some specific amount of of Carbon credits purchasable by companies, which allows that company to release a given quantity of pollutants. It's a reasonable way of dealing with the pollution problem: companies that have processes that require release of pollutants pay more than companies who have clean processes, etc, so long as these credits are a finite resource. Purchasing the credits and then not using them results in some company not acquiring the credit, and thus not adding pollutants to the atmosphere.
Pretend I, as a private citizen living in a studio apartment and only driving my 4-cylinder Honda Civic occasionally, purchased 1 ton worth of Carbon credits. My additional pollution per annum is some amount n in tons of carbon, and my purchase and lack of use of the 1 ton of carbon credits means that some company that would otherwise have been able to purchase this credit and pump 1 ton of pollutants into the air does not. Ergo, my total contribution to pollutants for the is n-1 tons of carbon. If my n is approximately 1, then I've contributed a net amount of carbon close to zero. If I purchased more credits, some amount m such that m > n, then my net effect on pollutants for the year is negative. It's the same as if I've not only not produced any carbon myself, but I've actually gone out and scrubbed some air free of pollutants.
Indulgences, on the other hand, were nothing like this, not going to anything other than gold crosses for churches. Let the analogy die. It's both incorrent and disingenuous in a partisan fashion.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 09:30pm PT
|
LEB you can make a very good argument against overconsumption, and that things like carbon credits make overconsumption permissive without being so wound up about Al Gore. I'd readily agree with you. The thing is that overconsumption IS already permissive. In fact from a global standpoint the "average middle-class American" is way overconsuming, much less a millionaire like Al Gore.
What I find interesting is that you have to be successful to be listened to in our society, and that means being wealthy. But if you are wealthy and consume at a standard that americans expect of wealthy people, and then argue that we should be doing something to offset our consumptive lifestyles, people tear you right apart. I think its a symptom of the American Dream personally. "How dare you tell me I should never be able to consume as much as you do!"
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 09:50pm PT
|
Lois,
First you bash Al Gore for being too boring. Where is the passion you say. You said it about Kerry also. Now you bash Gore for being too Passionate. Too funny or too sad.
Whats up with that?
Moosie
|
|
Kevster
Trad climber
Evergreen, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 10:38pm PT
|
Go figure that the negatives around here would rip on Al Gore. I mean we want to see the world end dammit and this guy is trying to get people to wake up.
Loosers.
|
|
phoolish
Boulder climber
Athens, Ga.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 10:51pm PT
|
LEB:
I think you're still confused about how the carbon credit thing works.
The system works thusly:
Any polluting company is granted a finite quantity of legally allowed pollutants introduced into the environment per year. Factories, power plants, etc, all have their allowances. Companies that use less than their annual allowance can sell the excess to companies that are over-running their pollutant cap, keeping the the amount of pollution issued per year about constant. This is a free market solution to encouraging companies that can use cleaner production methods to do so, since they can then sell their rights to pollute, offsetting some of the cost of running cleaner processes. Dirtier companies buy these allowances, keeping their factories running, etc. while not introducing more pollutants than were originally planned for the year.
However, it's also possible for a private individual to purchase these and not use them. If these credits are bought by someone who does not issue that amount of carbon pollution allowed by the credit, the net amount of pollution for the year is decreased.
These offsets aren't accounts, or bonds, or anything of the sort. They're certificates for the right to pollute. Environmentalists purchasing them merely removes the possibility that some other factory or mine will purchase them and put them to their intended use.
p.s. The first instance I can find of these being traded between companies was around 2003, and I recall seeing some clever environmentalists thinking about purchasing these to reduce pollution as early as 2005. This is not a new phenomenon, and it did not begin with Al Gore.
|
|
Brian
climber
Cali
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 10:53pm PT
|
LEB,
Your analyses here are painful to read. I’ll leave it to others to educate you about the relative merits of carbon credits. However,
(1) Carbon credits are not touted as a final solution to the problem by anyone worth their salt. As several people have noted above, they are an initial step that helps to mitigate the problem (reread the post by phoolish above). Cars that get 40mpg are also not a final solution. Wheatus’ OP, although off-base in certain respects, does hit the nail on the head: the only way to live sustainably is to insure that what we take/use up is balanced with what we restore/give back (by the way Wheatus, this is exactly what environmentalists are talking about, so your critique is misdirected). CAFE improvement, carbon trading, recycling, etc. are only stopgap measures. The problem is a combination of (a) overpopulation and (b) over consumption; both need to be addressed. However, in the meantime, things like carbon trading, recycling are indeed good stopgap measures, provided they are combined with a sincere attempt to shift to a model with long-term sustainability.
(2) I’ve already said this, but for the sake of clarity, sustainability does not mean no impact. Again, living = impact.
(3) Please indicate exactly where, exactly, Gore has ever said he is “sinless” or “blameless” with respect to global warming. If you can identify this for me, I will agree with you that he is a moron for claiming this (which doesn’t change the error of your intransigence on the topic of global warming).
The ridiculous caricature of environmentalism is the product of narrow minds (as is, by way of fairness, the liberal rant that social conservatives are “evil”).
I teach environmental philosophy among other things and, I have to say, when it comes to sustainability the laziness and selfishness of the average American leaves me in a somewhat despondent mood. Couple those common character traits with the atrocious reasoning and dogmatic inflexibility with respect to evidence that is evident in many anti-environmental posts here (and in rhetoric across the country) and I need a drink.
Brian
PS—No, I am no saint of sustainability. However, I do take it seriously and try to alter my lifestyle in ways I can—not the meaningless “paper or plastic” bullsh#t, but in real core modifications of my way of living. And, when I can’t (or don’t) do the “perfect” thing, I try to do the “better” thing (so when I fly for work, which is sometimes necessary, you bet your ass I buy out carbon credits through Terrapass or someone else. This does not make me blameless, but it does make me better, and you should do it too).
Focus a bit less on being “perfect” (although there are worse things to focus on) and just try to be “better.” Balance that with real, deep self-critique—so “better” does not degrade into “satisfactory” or “common”—and you’ll help improve the situation.
|
|
Brian
climber
Cali
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 11:32pm PT
|
LEB,
Great question.
Obviously, atomic energy is a good answer for certain aspects of global warming. It could power lots of domestic energy use, lots of commercial energy use, etc. Right now, it is hard to see it make much of a dent in vehicle emissions. However, theoretically, atomic energy could be used to power up hydrogen cells (right now, hydrogen cells are a joke as they use more power to fill than they generate for the vehicle. Someone tell Arnold). So, theoretically, there is some good stuff to say about nuclear.
However, there are downsides and they are IMO significant: (1) waste and (2) proliferation.
Nuclear waste is a real danger, both for the environment and for it possible use by nasty people (terrorists, etc.). I for one do not want a waste storage facility anywhere near the groundwater, watershed, air, etc. that my family and I breathe. I have no faith that a “failsafe” storage facility is really fail-safe, even if it does last long enough to keep me and mine safe.
Proliferation is also an issue. We will never, as far as I can see, put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. However, the more we use nuclear energy, the more common and normal it becomes, the more others will use nuclear energy. Nuclear energy, as we are seeing with Iran, is only a very, very short step from material for a nuclear weapon. Look at the track record. South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan are the only nations to my knowledge that have ever given up actual nuclear weapons (Argentina and Brazil backed off weapons programs but I don’t think they ever had the bomb). However, weapons have proliferated to Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and may soon proliferate to Iran. With the current US administration flaunting the NPT, I think we are on a dangerous path.
So, LEB, I’m sort of running off now (I hope not ranting!). The short answer to your good question is… its complicated.
From my perspective, however, I think big investment in nuclear is not worth the risks. I would rather see a real push to shift lifestyles to a more sustainable model (as idealistic and naïve as that may be). This is in part because I believe that simplicity has many personal benefits, in addition to the social and environmental benefits.
That being said, there is interesting research being done into nuclear fuel cycles that (1) generate much, much less waste, and (2) produce nothing that can be used for true nuclear weapons (the waste could always be used in a dirty bomb).
My money and energy is going toward lifestyle changes, solar, wind, biomass, etc. but I’m willing to listen to other potential responses to the problems that confront us.
Brian
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 11:34pm PT
|
*Carbon Credits* are nothing but a scam.
They enable Fat-Cats, like Gore, to avoid taking responsibility for his incredibly wasteful and harmful habbits.
*Carbon Credits* keep Energy Hogs, like Gore, from either using less (like the rest of us manage to do without any trouble), or feeling guilty for the king-hell mess he insists on making.
|
|
Brian
climber
Cali
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007 - 11:41pm PT
|
Chaz,
I'm not defending Gore's consumption. He should simplify.
However, it is very easy to critique the consumption habits of billionaires or millionaires with the implicit presumption that the consumption of middle class, or even working class, Americans is "normal." It is not.
Go ahead and take a poke at Gore. Fair enough.
Just be sure you are looking in the mirror..., as I am when I critique you. As I noted above, I'm no saint, just another fella trying to make his way as best he can.
If you live in SoCal and really have "no trouble" living sustainably, you have to let the rest of us in on your secret!
Brian
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!