dorbie 0
Recommended Posts
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Was that money well spent?
For me it was, although I probably would have gotten a better return in a small-cap mutual fund.
>Does that actually make a difference versus spending money in a
>company that claims to provide a carbon offset? It doesn't change the
>behavior, and therefore, it doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Again, I don't get that. I use more power than I used to, since my electric bill is always the same (about $5 a month.) But since I'm using power that I'm generating, I don't feel bad about that. I'm doing whatever I want and not using anyone else's power/resources/money to do that.
Now, I can do that because I have a house in Socal, and I'm an engineer. An apartment dweller in, say, Seattle can't install solar as easily. But he/she can essentially pay someone like me to do it for them. Consider how this would work on this small scale:
I'd put a lot of money into a solar array. I don't have any more room on my roof, so say I buy a few acres somewhere and put up a 100kW array. Costs me $400K, which I get a loan for. I sell the power to the power company. Since they have a vested interest in _not_ helping other people make money this way, I'd see breakeven in about 40 years. (The net-metering laws help homeowners with balky power companies, but not 100kW generation facilities.)
To help with this, I could sell carbon credits. This would help me pay for the array, and indeed may make it possible to build it at all. A homeowner in Seattle might buy enough credits to completely offset his power bill; indeed, in a way I'd be sending him all the power he uses via the grid. Consider it solar at a distance.
It's a pretty good model. It gets alternative energy plants built and it lets apartment-dwellers make a difference. It may not change their behavior, but so what? The goal is reduction of CO2 emissions and oil dependence, not behavior modification.
For me it was, although I probably would have gotten a better return in a small-cap mutual fund.
>Does that actually make a difference versus spending money in a
>company that claims to provide a carbon offset? It doesn't change the
>behavior, and therefore, it doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Again, I don't get that. I use more power than I used to, since my electric bill is always the same (about $5 a month.) But since I'm using power that I'm generating, I don't feel bad about that. I'm doing whatever I want and not using anyone else's power/resources/money to do that.
Now, I can do that because I have a house in Socal, and I'm an engineer. An apartment dweller in, say, Seattle can't install solar as easily. But he/she can essentially pay someone like me to do it for them. Consider how this would work on this small scale:
I'd put a lot of money into a solar array. I don't have any more room on my roof, so say I buy a few acres somewhere and put up a 100kW array. Costs me $400K, which I get a loan for. I sell the power to the power company. Since they have a vested interest in _not_ helping other people make money this way, I'd see breakeven in about 40 years. (The net-metering laws help homeowners with balky power companies, but not 100kW generation facilities.)
To help with this, I could sell carbon credits. This would help me pay for the array, and indeed may make it possible to build it at all. A homeowner in Seattle might buy enough credits to completely offset his power bill; indeed, in a way I'd be sending him all the power he uses via the grid. Consider it solar at a distance.
It's a pretty good model. It gets alternative energy plants built and it lets apartment-dwellers make a difference. It may not change their behavior, but so what? The goal is reduction of CO2 emissions and oil dependence, not behavior modification.
billvon 3,132
>And by the same token, a rich murderer found guilty at trial should
>be able to buy a life saved off a surgeon or a fireman and use that as an
>offset for his crime and walk free.
Uh, no. Spend a moment thinking about the difference about what you decide to purchase and murder. You may reconsider, and decide they are actually different.
>be able to buy a life saved off a surgeon or a fireman and use that as an
>offset for his crime and walk free.
Uh, no. Spend a moment thinking about the difference about what you decide to purchase and murder. You may reconsider, and decide they are actually different.
dorbie 0
Quote>And by the same token, a rich murderer found guilty at trial should
>be able to buy a life saved off a surgeon or a fireman and use that as an
>offset for his crime and walk free.
Uh, no. Spend a moment thinking about the difference about what you decide to purchase and murder. You may reconsider, and decide they are actually different.
They are different, carbon production would seem to have a higher rate of recidivism, and if Al Gore is right would lead to far more deaths, therefore offsets are clearly obscene.
Michele 1
QuoteHomeostasis is generally a sign of a system in balance.
Isn't homeostatis a range? With a bit of varience and still ability to maintain the system? It's not a precise point, a set single measurement. Rather, it's a balance struck, with extremes instigating feedback measures and the range reentered. At least, that's my understanding of it.
If that's correct, how do we know we're out of homeostasis? Do we have enough data points over a long enough period of time to determine that the earth is out of homeostasis? I'm not sure we do, and I think that's the point Gawain is making.
I'd also suggest that the shrill rhetoric from both sides is just that - and while steps can and should be taken to mitigate our impact on the earth and it's systems, knee-jerk reactions are not the answer. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that kneejerk reactions generally create harm rather than good overall.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
billvon 3,132
>They are different, carbon production would seem to have a higher rate
>of recidivism, and if Al Gore is right would lead to far more deaths,
>therefore offsets are clearly obscene.
You OK there?
>of recidivism, and if Al Gore is right would lead to far more deaths,
>therefore offsets are clearly obscene.
You OK there?
billvon 3,132
>Isn't homeostatis a range?
Literally, homeostasis is a characteristic of an open dynamic system that makes it self-regulating. The range of values it sees depends primarily upon outside forcing events and the strength of the internal feedback mechanism(s.) Our own body temperature is a pretty good example. You can force a pretty wide range (people have lived with core temperatures from about 80F to about 108F) but your body tries mightily to maintain a tighter range.
>If that's correct, how do we know we're out of homeostasis?
We're not, nor will we likely ever be. In the body-temperature example, when we are hypothermic (80F, which is very, very hypothermic) we're not "out of homeostasis" since your body is still trying to compensate and preserve your critical parts (body core and brain.) But such low core temps can also be very bad for you.
Same with the planet. Let's say that tomorrow we burn every bit of coal we can find, and up the CO2 concentration to 1000 ppm. We'll warm up faster. Eventually we will balance when the earth's blackbody radiation becomes strong enough to offset the additional heat we're absorbing. That balance will likely happen at a significantly higher global temperature, estimated at around six degrees higher globally.
It should be emphasized that the planet will _still_ be attempting to correct the temperature, but its new balance point is higher since we're forcing an unusually large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
There are two other sorts of effects we may see. One is a positive feedback effect; melting the tundras may release enough methane and CO2 to speed up that warming trend. Another is a negative feedback; for example, clouds may form more easily, reflect more light and therefore cool the planet. These will cause faster or slower warming - and these are the effects that are the hardest to model.
Now, let's say we stop tomorrow. We'll keep warming for a short while due to thermal inertia and because all that CO2 is in the atmosphere. But eventually, all that CO2 will diffuse into the sea and plankton will convert it back to oxygen and carbonates. The CO2 levels will drop and for a short time we will be radiating _more_ heat into space than we are absorbing. That will cool the planet and we will be headed back towards cooler average temps. Homeostasis on a planetary scale.
>Do we have enough data points over a long enough period of time to
>determine that the earth is out of homeostasis?
Again, it never _has_ been. If it had been, the earth would now be either a baking desert or a frozen iceball. Even when other things (like volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes) have severely perturbed our heat balance, the planet has eventually corrected itself. It's just sometimes that that correction takes millions of years and is a miserable place to live in the meantime.
Literally, homeostasis is a characteristic of an open dynamic system that makes it self-regulating. The range of values it sees depends primarily upon outside forcing events and the strength of the internal feedback mechanism(s.) Our own body temperature is a pretty good example. You can force a pretty wide range (people have lived with core temperatures from about 80F to about 108F) but your body tries mightily to maintain a tighter range.
>If that's correct, how do we know we're out of homeostasis?
We're not, nor will we likely ever be. In the body-temperature example, when we are hypothermic (80F, which is very, very hypothermic) we're not "out of homeostasis" since your body is still trying to compensate and preserve your critical parts (body core and brain.) But such low core temps can also be very bad for you.
Same with the planet. Let's say that tomorrow we burn every bit of coal we can find, and up the CO2 concentration to 1000 ppm. We'll warm up faster. Eventually we will balance when the earth's blackbody radiation becomes strong enough to offset the additional heat we're absorbing. That balance will likely happen at a significantly higher global temperature, estimated at around six degrees higher globally.
It should be emphasized that the planet will _still_ be attempting to correct the temperature, but its new balance point is higher since we're forcing an unusually large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
There are two other sorts of effects we may see. One is a positive feedback effect; melting the tundras may release enough methane and CO2 to speed up that warming trend. Another is a negative feedback; for example, clouds may form more easily, reflect more light and therefore cool the planet. These will cause faster or slower warming - and these are the effects that are the hardest to model.
Now, let's say we stop tomorrow. We'll keep warming for a short while due to thermal inertia and because all that CO2 is in the atmosphere. But eventually, all that CO2 will diffuse into the sea and plankton will convert it back to oxygen and carbonates. The CO2 levels will drop and for a short time we will be radiating _more_ heat into space than we are absorbing. That will cool the planet and we will be headed back towards cooler average temps. Homeostasis on a planetary scale.
>Do we have enough data points over a long enough period of time to
>determine that the earth is out of homeostasis?
Again, it never _has_ been. If it had been, the earth would now be either a baking desert or a frozen iceball. Even when other things (like volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes) have severely perturbed our heat balance, the planet has eventually corrected itself. It's just sometimes that that correction takes millions of years and is a miserable place to live in the meantime.
dorbie 0
Quote>They are different, carbon production would seem to have a higher rate
>of recidivism, and if Al Gore is right would lead to far more deaths,
>therefore offsets are clearly obscene.
You OK there?
Come on Bill, these kinds of analogies are your bread & butter
.
rehmwa 2
QuoteCome on Bill, these kinds of analogies are your bread & butter
what the hell? now we're talking about sandwiches? cripes, this is getting complicated.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
dorbie 0
QuoteQuoteCome on Bill, these kinds of analogies are your bread & butter
what the hell? now we're talking about sandwiches? cripes, this is getting complicated.
Of course you shouldn't be able to eat a bread and butter sandwitch without buying a methane offset.
Can I breathe without buying a carbon offset though, that's a freebie right?
billvon 3,132
>Can I breathe without buying a carbon offset though, that's a freebie right?
Only if you have a fern in your SUV. On the plus side, if you name your fern, you can drive in the HOV lane.
Only if you have a fern in your SUV. On the plus side, if you name your fern, you can drive in the HOV lane.
And by the same token, a rich murderer found guilty at trial should be able to buy a life saved off a surgeon or a fireman and use that as an offset for his crime and walk free.
Not all offsets make sense.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites