Hentor the Barbarian I think most get your point, that by what Al Gore is going, mainly persuading others to cut carbon, Al Gore is a net negative in carbon emissions. We really understand this, we just disagree with it - people who reduce their carbon emissions are the ones who deserve the ‘credit’, if you can actually get credit for doing less ‘wrong’ then you were doing before.
You seem to think it’s OK to fly around in a private jet as a job to reduce greenhouse gases, many others think this job by its definition should never exist. You seem to believe that Gore will stop flying around once his mission is complete, but I don’t believe that for a second, he will continue to fly, and use the excuse that since we are now carbon neutral it is now OK for him to fly, but no one else.
You see Al Gore asking us to reduce our GHG’s, and stating that it is up to the individual to cut, while the individual names Al Gore looks like he creates enough GHG’s to power a small city - not that he creates this much, but come on 3 houses, one 10K sqft, private jets only when he doesn’t feel like flying commercial, I mean when there is no other option.
We are not buying it, nor do we want him as our environmental king.
I think the point that is trying to be made is that the only reasonable equation for carbon neutrality includes the total CO2 emissions required to support a particular lifestyle. There has been a further argument advanced that when the equation is set up that way, Mr Gore’s lifestyle is not “carbon neutral.” And finally, that his personal lifestyle is so far removed from actually being carbon neutral as to render him less persuasive in his message.
It’s absolutely true that if he were to trade his home(s) or lifestyle for less consumptive ones, it would not be a tipping point for global warming. It might even worsen GW if the new owner is more profligate in energy consumption. The question, though, is: would such a move make Mr Gore more persuasive in arguing that there is a crisis at hand, and that we can and should do something about it?
These points are basically what I have been trying to say. I think it makes me a little annoyed when I see a person like Al Gore, clearly passionate about this cause, not making the sacrifices that I see friends & neighbors making every day for the same cause. I know people who have put a lot of effort into living a green lifestyle, and a big part of it is living in a smaller house than they otherwise would, not using air conditioning even when it is sweltering, driving a Prius when they would rather drive an SUV, riding their bikes around town, etc. These are sacrifices that ordinary people make who care about the environment, and a big part of it is not just to reduce their own emissions, but to also set an example for others. Al Gore is capable of spreading his message in a much grander fashion, because he has the means to do so. But in my mind, flying in a private jet to make a presentation is no different than if I saw an activist giving a speech about preventing global warming at the local library, and seeing them drive away in a Hummer. It just doesn’t seem to support the message.
Going a bit further, I think if I had the means that Al Gore has, I wouldn’t live like he does and I would not want to. I don’t see a need for such a large house, or three of them in his case. I would tend to go for a more modest house, which is energy efficient, such as the one that Mr. Bush has. This is coming from one who does not believe in man made global warming.
Perhaps I would feel differently after being Vice-POTUS for 8 years, but it just seems like Al Gore is such a resource hog, and can’t possibly need or use all he has.
Hopefully we are beyond the point where we have kings, which Al Gore seems to be setting himself as. But as pointed out Bush seems to be leading a very modest environmental lifestyle on a personal level, Al Gore can learn a lot from him.
And that would be, it doesn’t make any difference what your environmental policies for the nation are, so long as you project a modest environmental lifestyle image, you can gain the support of voters like kanicbird.
The use of carbon credits is an effective way of determining the most valuable poluition producing activities. Personal energy consumption is a personal responsibility that cannot really be bought off by reducing the total pollution capacity of industry, you are effectively preventing productive (pollution causing) so that you can continue to pollute. So buying carbon credits as some sort of voucher for personal pollution doesn’t really work for me.
I don’t know if he is a hypocrite or not but it sure looks that way. His dedication to his cause should be reflected in his lifestyle, choices and the sacrifices he makes for the cause.
If he is a hypocrite, it may not undercut the science behind global warming but it sorta undercuts the urgency of doing anything about global warming. I don’t know many climatologists but I remember a time when the big climate issue was a new ice age (I think we all stopped using hairspray to stop the ice age), today we are being told that the computer models show that we might have a 2 or 3 degree increase in global temperatures in 50 years if we’re not careful. I am just having trouble telling myself that I need to start strapping three kids into the back seat of a Prius every morning instead of just loading them into the Honda Odyssey to “do my part” to prevent global warming if the unofficial spokesman against global warming doesn’t think its a big enough deal to make his own sacrifices.
See this piece on the Global Cooling myth. Basic story: A few scientists back in the 70s thought that cooling (due either to natural causes or particulate [aerosol] pollutants) might be a problem (and was touted particularly in one poorly-written Newsweek article) whereas others were already concerned about warming due to greenhouse gases. A National Academy of Sciences study in the mid-70s concluded, correctly, that not enough was understood yet about climate and more study was needed. Today, the NAS, along with the analogous bodies in 10 other major countries says [PDF]:
As for hairsprays, you stopped using that in order to prevent the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs until such time as they stopped using CFCs as the propellent in them. I am not sure how you came to believe it was to forestall another ice age, although the confusion might be due to the fact I noted above that “aerosol particles” have a cooling effect…Maybe, you thought this meant “aerosol sprays”. However, I believe the contribution to aerosols into the atmosphere from “aerosol spray” cans pales in comparison to the amount that is emitted through burning fossil fuels and such. And, in fact, I am not even sure that the ones in the spray can are of a type that would even theoretically produce a cooling effect.
Ahh, right because I was saying that buying carbon credits was all he was doing. I was saying that there is no moral equivalence between buying carbon credits and reducing energy consumption. I didn’t say he was a hypocrite, I said “If he is a hypocrite”
It just seems to me that he’ll have to hand deliver a card to each and every person like you and some of the others in this thread describing all that he is doing other than just paying for carbon offsets before you might understand. It must have been said already more than a dozen times in this thread alone.
Could someone explain exactly how Gore’s carbon credits will work? I mean in his case in particular, not the general theory of carbon credits. Because what it looks like to me is that Gore is the owner of a company that invests in ‘promising green companies’, and what he called buying ‘carbon credits’ is really giving operating capital to his own company. Is that’s what’s going on here? If so, then the whole thing is a sham. He’s not directly buying offsets, he’s simply investing his money in companies which happen to be green and which are also profitable. So it’s not actually costing him a penny.
In addition, it puts him in the uncomfortable position of having investments that go up when people become more scared of global warming. So he is now biased. If people stop worrying, he loses money.
But maybe I’m missing something here. Could anyone else enlighten me?
I think that he engages in a range of behaviors, one of which is buying carbon offsets. It starts with using 100% green energy to power his home.
This fact has been repeated, as I just said, dozens of times in this thread, but it seems like a novel thing to some of you each time it’s written. It’s kind of like 50 First Dates, only without Drew Barrymore.
From my side of things, it looks more like Groundhog’s Day.
I have a question about green energy. Is the basic deal that it’s OK to use an excess of energy as long as it’s green? If there is a finite amount of green energy available (true?) during the period we are increasing its availability, should the approach be to grab all you want and continue living large, or should the approach be to consume all energy minimally in the hope that the green energy will be available to a broader base, and that consuming less energy in general will be a model for those who have to use dirty energy?
You must already know this, since it’s already been said in this thread. Go back and re-read it to see what everyone else had to say.
If your primary concern is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, green energy achieves your goal fully in regards to your home energy use.
Gore already uses less kilowatt hours per square foot than the average for his region.
If there are restrictions in the amount of green energy available, it must only be because the power producers do not have enough consumers, right? We haven’t run out of wind or water yet, right? So having someone buying up your product is all you could hope for when you are starting out, right?
Look, criticize Gore all you want, but at least do so honestly. Quit pretending like all he is doing is purchasing carbon offsets.
And if you really want to argue about what Gore is doing, why don’t you get the data first, and then come back to argue, so that we all know we are arguing about the facts of the matter.
