|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/31/2008 : 16:40:22 [Permalink]
|
It was a blanket statement, Bill. It covers everyone here including myself. I might be narrow-mined and profane about it when I am, but never let it be said that I don't tell it as best I know it.
Now let's look at it from another angle, k. Gore is traveling the world preaching his sermon and not on the taxpayer's dime. Do you expect him to do it on a bicycle? And what if he did indeed sell his house and move into a Motel 6? Do you think that it'll just sit there rotting on it's foundation, never to use electricity again?
Yeah, and speaking of blanket statements, "Climate Change" is something of a catch-all term, isn't it? But then, so are such titles as: "Caucasian, "Cataclysm" and "Christian." Why is this a big deal and what does a Louisiana hooker-fancier have to do with anything? Or Clinton's loose zipper, comes to that? Have I failed to catch some subtle nuance, here?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2008 : 17:01:49 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert or Dave (either will do).....
| You don't have the first clue how carbon offsetting works, do you, bill? |
Humbert, I read the various wiki articles on carbon credits and carbon trading, the Kyoto Protocols (which doesn't seem to apply to the Al Gore situation) and the various markets involved.
However, despite some effort in attempting to understand the exact methodology of personal carbon offsetting, I have to state unashamedly, that I don't completely understand it.
Would you mind posting a simple-as-possible (Carbon Offsetting 101 for Dummies) explanation of how Al Gore, (or anyone who elects to purchase carbon credits) exactly goes about initiating and continuing such a help-the-environment program?
Also, what is involved in carbon-credit trading on the open market? Are carbon credits investment instruments?
I am here mostly to learn and I appreciate any help you can give on this subject!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2008 : 19:02:13 [Permalink]
|
| bngbuck, there are lots of options, but in general you'll go someplace like CarbonFund.org, use their calculator(s) to figure out your personal carbon footprint, and then hand over money that the group will use to offset your carbon use (for example, by planting trees or investing in renewable energy sources). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 04/01/2008 : 05:46:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
bngbuck, there are lots of options, but in general you'll go someplace like CarbonFund.org, use their calculator(s) to figure out your personal carbon footprint, and then hand over money that the group will use to offset your carbon use (for example, by planting trees or investing in renewable energy sources).
|
But of course if someone really bought into the doomsday prophesy they would be doing all they could to remove any carbon footprint, rather then just offset it. Rather then maintain a giant mansion and then buy carbon credits to offset the massive footprint why not maintain modest living quarters and buy carbon credits? This should be the desire of every soul who has faith in the doomsday picture that has been painted before us, to remove, and not just offset, any footprint. It's only the future of our planet at stake, we are told.
So once again the rich somehow become except from the actual sacrifice by simply cutting a check and the poor are left to be counted upon for the actual sacrifice that has been called for. (sigh)
Notice how Al Gore and Jimmy Swaggart parallel each other. Both have called on their flocks to abstain and both have used their own deep pockets to avoid having to actually abstain themselves, but rather completely enjoyed that which they preached for their flock to abstain from. Hmm...
Maybe I'm just being old fashioned here but what happened to leading by example when one truly believed in and wanted to advance a cause?
Have we really become a society that accepts "do as I say and not as I do" out of our champions and representatives? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/01/2008 05:48:59 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 06:49:54 [Permalink]
|
| Have we really become a society that accepts "do as I say and not as I do" out of our champions and representatives? |
When have we ever been anything else, Bill? That goes clear back beyond pre-history and will continue on as long as H. sapiens or something similiar exists. And I agree that the little guy will bear the brunt of it, and that is an ancient tradition as well.
We are not capable of destroying nor saving the planet. We're good, but not that good. We can destroy or save only ourselves. We relish doing the former, but we don't seem to have the will to do much about the latter. It's a lot of work & involves not a little sacrifice. It's much easier to just bitch about it from one angle or another.
I seem to recall reading, correct me if I'm wrong, that you are a general contractor. That would mean that you do a fair amount of running the roads on business. Surely you've noticed that no matter where you go, there's trash on the shoulders, is this not so? We're all a bunch of hogs Bill, and that's one symptom of the disease -- as long as we're comfortable, fuckitall! Let somebody else worry about it.
And what happens when that someone else starts worrying and works toward trying to clean up the mess? Well, this thread is a pretty good symptom of that situation.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 07:35:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
|
When have we ever been anything else, Bill? That goes clear back beyond pre-history and will continue on as long as H. sapiens or something similiar exists. And I agree that the little guy will bear the brunt of it, and that is an ancient tradition as well.
We are not capable of destroying nor saving the planet. We're good, but not that good. We can destroy or save only ourselves. We relish doing the former, but we don't seem to have the will to do much about the latter. It's a lot of work & involves not a little sacrifice. It's much easier to just bitch about it from one angle or another.
I seem to recall reading, correct me if I'm wrong, that you are a general contractor. That would mean that you do a fair amount of running the roads on business. |
Actually I work in the Engineering Dept. for an auto & industrial rubber manufacturing supplier.
| Surely you've noticed that no matter where you go, there's trash on the shoulders, is this not so? We're all a bunch of hogs Bill, and that's one symptom of the disease -- as long as we're comfortable, fuckitall! Let somebody else worry about it. |
I understand your point.
| And what happens when that someone else starts worrying and works toward trying to clean up the mess? Well, this thread is a pretty good symptom of that situation. |
But that is my point. Should not the one who has declared himself champion of the clean up start with his own closet first? My mind can't help but to keep going back to the Swaggart/Gore comparison. Here I am skeptical of Al's doomsday prophecy to begin with, so when Al burns through 1000's of gallons of aviation fuel a year and maintains a 10,0000 sq/ft climate controlled mansion and simple cuts a check when someone cries foul what am I left to believe? Does this messenger even believe his own message? My point remains how does Al Gore become champion of this cause when he has a bigger footprint then 99% of all other Americans? And then when he is called on his transgressions he simply believes cutting a check will wipe his hands clean of any innocent blood that he has spilled. The classic privileged philosophy: Just keep throwing money at it and the problem will eventually take care of itself.
Carbon Credits, oh brother.... Basically a "get out of jail card" for those with enough wealth to afford one. All others... go to jail. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 07:51:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But of course if someone really bought into the doomsday prophesy they would be doing all they could to remove any carbon footprint, rather then just offset it. |
Why, when the net difference to global climate change is zero? I'll tell you why: because switching to devices and activities which result in a lower emission of carbon is cheaper in the long run, especially since one would also have to pay less to offset unavoidable emissions.
The poor should be all over that, but the truly poor can't afford the large up-front investment in efficient technologies. But they are also not spending money that they don't have on carbon offsets. Your argument, Bill, is simply bizarre in that respect.
The poor are buying cheap, inefficient equipment (like incandescent bulbs and junker cars), not buying offsets, and are paying out the wazoo for electricity and gas. The rich are buying efficient equipment and offsets on top of it, and are paying the same rates as the poor for much more total electricity and gas than the poor.
If one aims for zero personal carbon using offsets, one can expect to pay 0.83 cents more per kilowatt-hour; an extra 8.1 cents per therm of natural gas; an additional 13.8 cents per gallon of heating oil; half a cent more per automobile mile, and about 0.26 cents more per air mile. For the average person, this would be about $222 per year for gas heat (or $236 for oil heat) on top of the regular energy costs.
Long term, it is cheaper to reduce one's carbon footprint - both in terms of energy costs and offsets (and especially combined) - whether one is rich or poor.
If a person (rich or poor) chooses to offset carbon emissions down to zero instead of reduce them, it is fiscally unwise, but it would have the same net effect on the global climate as if they shot themselves in the head: either way, their net carbon emissions are reduced to zero.
Overall, it is cheaper for the "flock" to move to energy-efficient bulbs, appliances and cars than it is for them to buy offsets, but either way they reduce total carbon emissions. That is practicing what Gore "preaches," Bill. The hypocrisy of Swaggart is nowhere in sight, because Gore's goal isn't for everyone to spend less money (that's just a side benefit). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 08:52:47 [Permalink]
|
Mention Al Gore and Bill Scott appears, like out of the blue. He has an internal radar that picks up on the Gore vibe I guess.
I think it's nice that Bill is doing what he can to save energy, even if he doubts that MMGW is a threat to us all. But I can't help wondering how he would react if Newt Gingrich started traveling the globe to warn about the dangers of global warming. Would he ask Newt to give up the jet and ride a bike to spread the news?
Anyhow, this shoot the messenger stuff is not new. Especially if the messenger is not who you would normally align yourself with politicly.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 08:56:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Originally posted by chaloobi
Also: You shouldn't think of climate warming in such negative terms. This is really all about ending this blasted Ice Age the Earth's been stuck in for the last few million years or so. Roll with it man, the light at the end of the tunnel is golden and warm.
|
Don't forget starving and thirsty.
|
Heh heh, only for the mud people. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 09:27:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
...so when Al burns through 1000's of gallons of aviation fuel a year and maintains a 10,0000 sq/ft climate controlled mansion and simple cuts a check when someone cries foul what am I left to believe? |
Good question, Bill: why is it that you believe that Gore only buys carbon offsets "when someone cries foul?" Do you have any evidence that supports such a belief?| My point remains how does Al Gore become champion of this cause when he has a bigger footprint then 99% of all other Americans? |
You only have a point if Gore's offsets don't actually offset his use. The difference between the two is what counts, not how large either one is alone.| And then when he is called on his transgressions he simply believes cutting a check will wipe his hands clean of any innocent blood that he has spilled. |
Again: where is the evidence that supports your accusation, Bill?| The classic privileged philosophy: Just keep throwing money at it and the problem will eventually take care of itself. |
In this case, the problem will go away with enough investment. Go figure!| Carbon Credits, oh brother.... Basically a "get out of jail card" for those with enough wealth to afford one. All others... go to jail. |
The only people being demonized (besides Al Gore), Bill, are rich people and companies who show no interest in offsetting or reducing their carbon emissions.
If you can show any evidence for anyone without wealth suffering any sort of injustice at the hands of global warming activists, I'd be mighty interested in it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 11:57:37 [Permalink]
|
| Mention Al Gore and Bill Scott appears, like out of the blue. He has an internal radar that picks up on the Gore vibe I guess. |
He has made himself the poster child for advancing the doomsday prophecy .
| I think it's nice that Bill is doing what he can to save energy, even if he doubts that MMGW is a threat to us all. |
I like the fact that the CFL's use less energy and I love the fact that I will only be changing bulbs 1/10th of the time I used to. Some of them require a ladder and it is just a pain to change them every other month.
| But I can't help wondering how he would react if Newt Gingrich started traveling the globe to warn about the dangers of global warming. Would he ask Newt to give up the jet and ride a bike to spread the news? |
I certainly would question whether Newt buys into his own message if he continues to maintain a mansion in the face of doomsday.
| Anyhow, this shoot the messenger stuff is not new. |
I have never asked for the messengers head, only that he buy into his own solution. In the face of doomsday negating a footprint is just the beginning. A negative footprint would go along way in giving your message legs. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 12:08:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I have never asked for the messengers head, only that he buy into his own solution. In the face of doomsday negating a footprint is just the beginning. A negative footprint would go along way in giving your message legs. |
Except, of course, that a negative carbon footprint is not Gore's message, so you're villifying him for not buying into a solution that he doesn't advocate. Way to go, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 12:17:28 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Why, when the net difference to global climate change is zero? |
Because a negative factor for a footprint would be much better then an offset factor of zero and in a doomsday situation such as ours one must look at what all they can do and just not what can be done to slide by. Does Al really need his mansion when he can maintain a more modest living quarters and buy carbon offsets giving him a negative factor, which might be the tipping point in avoiding doomsday? This would be a no brainier, if Al really believes his own message that is.
| I'll tell you why: because switching to devices and activities which result in a lower emission of carbon is cheaper in the long run, especially since one would also have to pay less to offset unavoidable emissions. |
So just imagine how far we could move forward if this, on top of limiting personal housing space to a modest figure, would be accomplished by all parties. Yet when facing doomsday this messenger decides to not do all that he can, even in the face of such a dire outcome.
| The poor are buying cheap, inefficient equipment (like incandescent bulbs and junker cars), not buying offsets, and are paying out the wazoo for electricity and gas. |
And they are being scolded for using the energy and gas that they do use by those who consume many times more then them. I am sure they are all impressed when Al explains how he has fitted his 10,000 sq/ft mansion with CFL's.
| The rich are buying efficient equipment and offsets on top of it, |
To help ease their mind for scolding the common man for using gas and energy and then flying home in their private jet to an enormous mansion.
"Sure I may pay out $1000's in utilities bills every month and burn through 1000's of gallons of aviation fuel a year but look at my Prius I park in the garage. Oh, and I payed some guy to plant a tree. I am doing my part to avoid doomsday. What a great person I am."
| and are paying the same rates as the poor for much more total electricity and gas than the poor. |
But they just pay some guy to plant a tree and all is cool with them consuming so much more energy then everyone else.
| If one aims for zero personal carbon using offsets, |
If one aims for zero, but can hit a negative factor with ease if he really wanted to (it might take a sacrifice of some kind), all while preaching doomsday to everyone else then one doubts whether the messenger believes his own message.
| That is practicing what Gore "preaches," Bill. The hypocrisy of Swaggart is nowhere in sight, because Gore's goal isn't for everyone to spend less money (that's just a side benefit). |
Semantics. I am not asking everyone else to do as Al Gore says. I am asking AL to do as Al says. Al won't give up certain luxuries in the face of doomsday, he would rather just cut a check then do both.
| My point remains how does Al Gore become champion of this cause when he has a bigger footprint then 99% of all other Americans? |
You only have a point if Gore's offsets don't actually offset his use. The difference between the two is what counts, not how large either one is alone. |
Your mistaken. Al has made himself the champion of saving the planet from certain doomsday so nothing less then a 100% effort is expected. Even negating his own footprint is far less then Al could do. With just a little effort he could even carry a negative footprint. A no brainier in the face of doomsday wouldn't you say? Again, here is a place where Al, as the self-titled champion of the cause, can lead by example and trim down his footprint, in light of his carbon credits.
| And then when he is called on his transgressions he simply believes cutting a check will wipe his hands clean of any innocent blood that he has spilled. |
Again: where is the evidence that supports your accusation, Bill? |
10,000 sq/ft of evidence is sitting down in Tennessee as we speak.
| The classic privileged philosophy: Just keep throwing money at it and the problem will eventually take care of itself. |
In this case, the problem will go away with enough investment. Go figure! |
Really, then what is the hold up?
| Carbon Credits, oh brother.... Basically a "get out of jail card" for those with enough wealth to afford one. All others... go to jail. |
The only people being demonized (besides Al Gore), Bill, are rich people and companies who show no interest in offsetting or reducing their carbon emissions. |
But why wouldn't Al want to do both in the face of doomsday? Reduce and offset that is. The whole lead by example thing again
| If you can show any evidence for anyone without wealth suffering any sort of injustice at the hands of global warming activists, I'd be mighty interested in it. |
Sure, mostly because of environmental pressures no new oil refinery has been built in the US since 1976. As the demand for gasoline goes up and the ability to refine it does not we get a bottleneck in the supply and demand which causes gas and other comedies produced from oil to rise in price. This rise does little to effect the private travel of the wealthy, as demonstrated by Al Gore, but this hits the average man on the street hard when his budget was already strained to begin with.
Again, mostly because of environmental pressures we are not taping many of own crude oil reservoirs but rather are depending on foreign oil to fill in the this gap. With the demand for crude oil growing around the word and OPEC only willing to pump out so much prices sky rocket under the ol supply and demand concept. Factor this in with the bottle neck at the refinery and sky high fuel prices are a result. Again, not enough to effect the lifestyles of the wealthy but devastating to those who were at the max of their budget when gas was at $1.50.
With the new sky high gas prices and environmental pressures to get rid of gasoline bio fuels are the new rage. This new demand for corn and other homegrown crops has caused the prices of these products to double and triple over the last few years. Add this with the high cost to move freight now with the high fuel cost and we see grocery prices going through the roof.
So all in their attempt to rid the US of the internal combustion engine the environmentalist have caused the price of fuel to double and triple in the last few years and for grocery prices to jump 20-30% in the last two years.
Again, to the rich, such as Al Gore, not even a dent in the armor. Still flying private and living on lobster we see. But to the average Joe on the street raking in a modest wage this is a back breaker.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 12:26:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
I have never asked for the messengers head, only that he buy into his own solution. In the face of doomsday negating a footprint is just the beginning. A negative footprint would go along way in giving your message legs. |
Except, of course, that a negative carbon footprint is not Gore's message, so you're villifying him for not buying into a solution that he doesn't advocate. Way to go, Bill.
|
Why just an offset and not a negative? The status quo is resulting in doomsday. An offset only leaves us with the status quo. A negative footprint is the only way to actually start reversing the doomsday effect of MMGW in the light of the increased CO2 by india and China. And Al could get a personal negative so easy. Yes, it might take a little, just a little, sacrifice, but then in the light of doomsday well worth the price. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/01/2008 12:39:59 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 12:38:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Why just an offset and not a negative? The status quo is resulting in doomsday. An offset only leaves us with the status quo. |
No, the status quo is continued increasing carbon emissions. Carbon at its current atmospheric levels doesn't result in doomsday, so if everyone were simply carbon-neutral, the catastrophy will be averted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Al tells it like it is.
