Al Gore: Your carbon credit plan is a pyramid scheme.

The BBQ Pit
81

Yup.

With time, as people compare Al Gore to The Diseased Chimp, more are coming to regret they didn’t take to the streets to stop The Installation of 2001.

The house at the pigfarm in Crawford was probably built “green” for resale value. The minute he vacates the White House, Bush Jr is moving to a gated community in the Metroplex. If he’s such an environmentalist, he’s never proven it by any official actions.

Campaigning around the country on Air Force One burns quite a bit of fuel. On the bright side: Fewer Republican candidates want his “blessing.”

Just how “green” is the White House?

82

You know, I really don’t care how much energy Gore consumes, as long as he is making progress to reduce his own footprint…and I wouldn’t care about that, if he weren’t preaching it to all and sundry. But purchasing carbon-credits? Oh, please…people, this is simply a setup for a carbon-footprint tax. It IS coming, and you WILL be taxed based on the choices you make in your daily life. Here’s where I have a problem with the idea of a carbon-footprint tax: only the rich will be able to afford to pay the tax. The low-income and middle-income wage-earners in this country will all be easily-identifiable by the econo-box green-mobiles they drive, and the cookie-cutter enviro-friendly, sub-1500-square-foot houses they live in.
So…“let’s stick it to the rich guys!” Right?
Wrong.
I deserve the right to be able to purchase whatever vehicle I can afford, just like the “rich” folks can, and always will be able to do. By imposing a carbon-footprint tax, it will quite effectively reduce my purchasing power at the dealership. This also translates to housing. Yes, the rich will pay more, but it certainly won’t affect their lifestyle, whereas it will certainly affect mine and millions of others like me.
Now, if your ultimate goal is “save the planet!” at all costs, well, I guess this tax will be okay with you, because you’ve managed to get a large percentage of the population to “think green.” Me, I’d rather personally see INCENTIVES rather than PUNISHMENTS in place to “think green,” probably in the form of tax credits, on top of any incidental cash savings I might obtain from making the “green” choice.
Point is - unless we’re careful, a tax IS coming…we need to be thinking of ways to incentivize green choices, or we’ll all be punished…all of us except those for whom it won’t make a lifestyle impact, ie, the “rich.”

83

I actually have been given two funded assignments to do cost-benefit of 90% or greater CO2 capture in coal power plants, and was talking to a major Texas utility this week about this as part of a third project. And it’s really fascinating - this Texas utility is big in natural gas future and predictions, and according to their figures (backed up by ones from another client in the UK), under the current technology it’s possible to capture 90% or more of the CO2 in a coal plant and still have the total busbar cost be less than a natural gas turbine plant. This is mainly because coal is just so darn cheap per MBtu relative to natural gas, many portions of the US cannot support more natural gas use without major infrastructure improvements, and natural gas use by power plants has to compete from a regulatory standpoint with home use.

The figures I have from EPRI, the IPCC, and my UK client show that the coal plant loses about 1/3 (roughly) of its entire energy from the CO2 capture. But that still leaves 2/3 of the power. And many studies I’ve read and compiled recently, but not verified fully, claim there is this huge market for tertiary oil recovery if huge amounts of captured CO2 are available. That is, the coal plant captures 90% or more of its CO2, this is sold to a petroleum company, who use it to rejuvenate oil reserves. Now, of course, using more petroleum means more CO2 emissions…

There are some big unknowns in my study. The first is that no large coal plant has ever been built with a CO2 capture device of this type. So the uncertainty on capital and O&M costs is huge - somewhere more than +/-50%. That level of uncertainty would require a client and their banks to float a huge amount of risk, which would have additional costs and risks. There are other potential safety and emissions issues resulting from the CO2 capture process itself. There’s also risks involving how permanent the sequestration is in the oil reservoir. Or whatever reservoir you dump all those millions of tons per year of CO2 into.

And, when you think about it, there are hundreds of coal plants that would need to be retrofitted with these plants - or hundreds of new plants that would have to be built. A new coal plant can easily top $1B per 500MW with current best control technology. Add in CO2 capture, and it could be $1.5B per 500MW. Now replace a few hundred GW of power at 2/3 efficiency, and you’re into the range of several trillion dollars capital cost.

But it can be done. And costs will drop as technology advances. A combined approach would likely be best - use biofuels as much as possible, expand wind and solar as much as is feasible, and start requiring new coal plants to have some level of CO2 capture. The problem is, the estimates I’m seeing for the net impact on electric bills is a bit steep. In today’s dollars, we’re talking 200-400% increases - there’s a lot of uncertainty over the exact figure, as it is very highly dependent upon what happens with natural gas. I’ve seen one very well-thought out study by several disinterested parties that claim 90% CO2 reduction would have an increase in electric rates of 400-600%, and require and end to new natural gas supply to homes (and possibly “retirement” of natural gas supply to several cities - meaning, of course, that everyone suddenly needs to buy a new furnace and water heater). As I said, there’s a lot of uncertainty. But I’ve not seen any study I believe has backing to it which does not at a minimum predict a doubling of electric rates.

84

Three solar energy systems have been installed at the White House.

In addition, lots of federal buildings are being converted to green power, where it is available.

And I’d like to hear some commentary about the agreement reached with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia in 2005 to reduce emissions. Sounds like a positive step, and a lot more than the administration doing nothing.

85

Could this be mitigated? I’m looking at the Bush ranch, which runs on just 25% of the electrical load of a comparable home.

I realize those techniques can’t be used everywhere, but some of them can.

86

An Inconvenient Truth, pgs 306-321

  1. Buy energy efficient lights (i.e. compact fluorscents).
  2. Buy energy efficient appliances.
  3. Maintain your appliances (i.e. clean off your refrigerator’s condenser coils).
  4. Buy a programmable thermostat (to lower your home heating).
  5. Insulate your house.
  6. Get a home energy audit.
  7. Conserve hot water (i.e. use less hot water in your dishwasher).
  8. Reduce standby power usage (i.e. completely turn off your computer).
  9. Switch to green power (see if your utility adds an option where you can pay for electricity generated by alternative energy).
  10. Buy fuel efficient cars.
  11. Reduce the mileage that you drive (i.e. use mass transit, bike or walk).
  12. Drive smarter (i.e. don’t drive 100 mph).
  13. Hybrid cars .
  14. Buy ethanol.
  15. Tele-commute.
  16. Fly less.
  17. Consume less.
  18. Recycle/reuse. Less energy is used on things such as the trucks that deliver the new products and dispose of the old products.
  19. Don’t waste paper (as this is a very energy-intensive industry).
  20. Compost.
  21. Refill your own water bottles.
  22. Eat less meat.
  23. Buy local. I guess this helps to lower the fuel used by long distancing trucking.
  24. Offset your carbon emissions (carbon credits).
  25. Educate others & write your local politicians. Visit our “Email the President” page if you want to email the President, your Senators, etc.
  26. Support environmental groups.
  27. Invest in energy friendly companies.

2/3. They can be energy efficient, but having multiples appliances, in multiple houses, is going to use more energy.

  1. He does have a heated pool, at least one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml

  1. I need to fly less, but then again I am just a lowly peon. He can fly as much as he wants to because, well, just because.

  2. Consume less-- my point, well made. A 10,000 sq ft home, a 4,000, and one other are not “less.”

In his speech “Buildings - both commercial and residential - represent a larger source of global warming pollution than cars and trucks. But new architecture and design techniques are creating dramatic new opportunities for huge savings in energy use and global warming pollution. As an example of their potential, the American Institute of Architecture and the National Conference of Mayors have endorsed the “2030 Challenge,” asking the global architecture and building community to immediately transform building design to require that all new buildings and developments be designed to use one half the fossil fuel energy they would typically consume for each building type, and that all new buildings be carbon neutral by 2030, using zero fossil fuels to operate.” New York University School of Law, Monday 18 September 2006

I am not saying GW isn’t happening. I’m not saying he isn’t an effective tool for the cause. I haven’t even called him a hypocrite. But he is asking me to do things he is unwilling to do himself.

Just because he is able to buy plenary indulgences through green energy credits, *does not make his house green. *

My point of the French travertine tile, as an example of what goes into these houses when they are built, Miller, is that everyone is ballyhooing these green energy credits that cost Gore approx $5000. $5000 has much less of an impact on him, than the impact to an average American buying a energy efficient dishwasher.

87

Sure, there’s always room for savings. However, some of the savings, if you crunch the numbers, may not be as large as people think when they do the math. For instance - lighting can reduce some impacts, but lighting overall is a small part of the load. I did a rough analysis on my Board which I’ll copy here.

Bigger ticket items include better insulation, heating and cooling system improvements, etc. If you scan the EIA site to see the energy breakdown, there’s still a huge amount used by refrigerators. I also noted this:

Checking out the EIA’s analysis of where the residential electric use goes to, the top items are:

  • Air conditioners
  • Heaters
  • Refrigerators

If insulation, intelligent thermostats, and higher-efficiency heat pumps - combined with changing settings in your house to not have it be freezing in the Summer and baking in the Winter - are all used, I’m sure a substantial reduction in electric use is available. But again, you have to run the numbers. Even a total elimination of all energy for all residential HVAC - no aircon, no heat, and no fans - barely reduces electric use by 32% (355.7 / 1139.9 billion kWh).

88

That may be, but he isn’t saying, “Get rid of your appliances,” he’s saying, “Get more efficient appliances and keep them in good working condition.” So this does not, in fact, answer my question.

I’m feeling charitable, so I’ll give you this one.

No, he flies as much as he does because it’s a requirement of his job. Which happens to be convincing people around the world that they need to take global warming seriously. And he has to go to a lot of different places to do it. So, lots of international travel, plus a tight schedule, means that the only reasonable travel option for him is the airplane. Has Gore demanded that anyone else give up their job if it requires them to spend a lot of time on an airplane? No? Then once again, you’ve got nothing on him here.

Since when are houses consumer items? Houses aren’t “consumed.” You don’t move into one for a week, then throw it away and move into another. What does “consume less” even mean? Less than what? It seems clear that Gore consumes less than most other people with his amount of wealth and property, which I suspect is what he means when he says people should “consume less.” So far as I know, Gore isn’t telling anyone else to sell their home, or not to buy real estate. Why should Gore be taken to task as a hypocrite for owning more than one house, if he’s never required that anyone else do the same?

You’ve managed to come up with a list of twenty-six things Gore has said people should do for the enviroment, and out of that list, you’ve managed to tag Gore for… owning a heated pool. Wow. I’m real impressed.

89

Oh, but thanks for calling me sugartits, Miller. Laughed pretty hard. If you look like Mel, we could have a serious discussion on this issue, any ole time you like.

90

How are houses not consumer items???

91

Thanks for giving me the pool, that was mighty white of ya.

Actually him making a movie was a better way to get his message out than flying all over. So, I guess now I am feeling charitable. Must be contagious, honeybuns.

Find one cite for me that shows Gore “Consumes less than most people with his amount of wealth and property.” Even though this is a strawman, I’ll bite.

I’ve never called him a hypocrite. I just said his house wasn’t green, and $5000 doesn’t mean shit to him.
Houses are definitely consumer items, why do you think that housing starts are such a good indicator of the economy?

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jul2006/pi20060707_976536.htm

92

Consumer item

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm

Mmm, honeybuns. Always liked those better than sticky buns.

93

Well, for starters, you don’t consume them.

94

I’m sorry, I don’t see how a house is a consumer item. And housing starts being good, bad, or indifferent to the economy doesn’t really prove or disprove that. I also think it’s not really germane to the point you’re making. I think what you’re saying is that Gore should be more like an Ed Begley Jr., a person who works a lot harder to reduce their energy footprint while being a champion of improved efficiency.

I admit, even as a Gore disliker, I don’t find a disconnect between what he champions and his personal house. I don’t have a problem with it for reasons previously stated. I also admit, however, it’s really bad PR, and serves to water down his message by the distraction of it. I think even Gore supporters have to agree with the bad PR aspect - if you’re trying to sell the message of “consume less” to the average person, you have to make a serious effort above and beyond the call to look like you’re on board with that.

And the average American wouldn’t know what a “green power credit” really was if it was covered in mayo and served on an onion roll. It’s a nebulous concept. They do however see a house that is 8 times the size of theirs, a heated swimming pool, first-class world travel, five-star cuisine at conferences, recent snafus like his being allowed to skirt airport security as a sign of privilege (not his fault, but his problem) and scads of other amenities and perks they can only dream of having.

95

I submit that this is a problem that would be faced by anyone who becomes a public advocate of global warming awareness, regardless of what he does in his personal life to reduce his enviromental impact. If they don’t do every possible thing to reduce their enviromental impact, they’ll be called hypocrites. And if they do everything possible, they’ll get held up as an example of how enviromentalists are trying to destroy our way of life. Gore’s message has always been that one can be enviromentally conscious without drastically altering one’s way of life, and he’s a pretty good example of this principle in action. And for this, he’s called a hypocrite. I don’t see any reason to expect a different messenger to fare any better.

96

When the government says that houses are consumer items, what more do you want?

From my link post #92

"The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:

* FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, service meals and snacks)
* HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
* APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
* TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
* MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
* RECREATION (televisions, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
* EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
* OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).

If you disagree with the government for classifying houses as consumer items, could you please tell me how they do not fall into the category of consumer items, and what part of that criteria they are missing? Living in them is not a good answer.

**Miller, ** you still haven’t found a cite that Gore is a prince among princes when it comes to his peers and their rate of consumption.

My point still is, and you have yet to refute it, Miller is that $5000 doesn’t mean shit to Gore, and a 10,000 sq ft house is not green. Show me one cite where it will claim that a 10,000 sq ft house has the same ecological and energy consuming footprint of an average new American house, which is 2400 sq feet. Not just the energy bills, but the cost of all the components, the manufacturing to make them, the cost of transporting the components to the jobsite, the cost of all the workers driving to install them, the furnishings, and the ongoing maintenance to keep that house going.

I have refuted your point that houses are consumer items.

I have refuted your point that Al isn’t doing anything he hasn’t asked of me. Even just on the one point of the heated pool. He is. It hurts his message.

And with that, I am gone for a bit.

And I have never called him a hypocrite.

97

One reason is that Gore is multidimensional. He also carries over the “stigma” of the Clinton era and a contentious Presidential race in the minds of many. He would have to put out a much greater effort than a relative nobody like, say, Begley.

Someone could always call Gore a hypocrite, but I submit that he could have done a much better job and taken some of the legs from this story. Especially, he should have known people would make comparisons with the Bush ranch. It’s not an admission of defeat for the cause to admit that some of the things in the news don’t look so good to the average person out there. Ever been in a 10,000 square foot house? I have, and that’s not the way normal people live.

He could have done better. I don’t hold it against him, but I’m just saying.

98

Houses are certainly a consumer item. The point dahfisheroo is making is valid. When you build a house, you consume resources. You need wood, concrete, granite, steel, gold, whatever. A big house consumes more resources than a small house. Two houses consume more resources than one.

This is one of my serious beefs with Gore. Reducing carbon output means reducing consumption. If everyone one the planet consumed a tenth of what Gore does, we’d be fucked. I’m not a big fan of the term “sustainable development” because it has a lot of definitions. But I know what sustainable development ain’t, and that’s living in a 10,000 square foot house. Gore can install all that solar panels and efficient appliances he wants and he is still going to be responsible for more carbon emissions than the vast majority of the world’s population. That’s why I said in the OP that Gore’s wish for fewer emissions is a wish for a vast majority of the population to never attain a level of prosperity even near his own.

To make a ridiculously extreme example about carbon credits: Carbon consumption is directly linked to growth in the developing world. What if some rich guy had a structure built the size of 50 Astrodomes, and kept the building at subzero temperatures by burning piles of dirty coal with no scrubbers. He just does this to impress some chick. Now he pays the nation of Honduras to not build any new power plants. So, do we have less aggregate carbon emissions? Yes. Is the world better off? No.

And to all the people trying to make political hay over this, please go fuck yourselves without proper lubrication. I wish it wasn’t Al Gore doing this, I wish it was someone non-political so I could make a point without someone bringing up Iraq. (I realize mentioning Bush’s house as an example of green architecture is valid)

Out of curiosity, are you in energy consulting Una?

99

I think that the fact that those are even issues just proves my point. It’s not about what Gore actually does, it’s about how the perception of what he does can be spun to discredit his message. This same spin would be applied no matter who was carrying Gore’s message, or no matter what Gore’s message actually was.

I really don’t think that he could have, because the story as it is doesn’t have any legs under it to begin with. He’s not doing anything remotely hypocritical. People are just making shit up about him. How do you prempt something like that?

Several, actually. My uncle builds them for a living, and has lived in three of them at different times in his life. It’s pretty swank, but I think that’s an important part of Gore’s actual message, which is that enviromentalism isn’t at odds with wealth or success. If he stays on this message, his lifestyle becomes an asset, not a drawback. He can point to his 10,000 square foot house and say, “You can live in a place like this, and still be green.”

100

Alright, I’ll cede the consumer goods issue. However, I still don’t think it’s a particularly telling blow. Not without more information about Gore’s houses. For example, when were they built? How long has he owned them? How much time does he spend in each of them, and what does he do with them when he’s not living in them? Simply owning a patch of property doesn’t mean you’re contributing more to global warming than someone who doens’t own any land.