The Shock Doctrine...The rise of disaster capitalism

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What is Gore's carbon footprint? He reportedly pays a large premium on his utility bills to get carbon-neutral energy.

Well, there is some data available from last year. In August, 2006, Gore's Nashville, Tennessee home used 22,619 kWh - which is more than twice what the average American household uses in an entire year (10,656 kWh per year, per DOE). In 2006, he used 221,000 kWh.

So Gore put out press about increasing the energy efficiency of his home. And his consumption is now at only about 213,000 kWh for 2007. This is AFTER he finally decided to go energy efficient. (Wouldn't one think he'd have done that ten years ago?) This is AFTER he installed solar panels.

And, tell me, sir, about this carbon neutral energy? He averages more than $1k per month in natural gas bills. Carbon neutral? And the investment in the solar put only the slightest dent in his voracious consumption of power (like washing down a large pizza with a Diet Coke because you're trying to lose weight).


The "carbon neutral" factor is, to me, disingenuous. Unless he uses carbon sequestration, which was never alleged, then "carbon neutral" means unringing the bell. He purchases an offset (and I haven't seen proof that HE does it - maybe his publisher does) for some notional reduction of carbon from someone else. I compare it to eating the whole pizza for himself and then paying for the thing himself - his buddies can then simply not eat.

And another point about his carbon offsets - he calls himself "carbon neutral" by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere" for all his activities. He purchases them from Generation Investment Management. Here's its home page. http://www.generationim.com/

Oh, he kinda acts as chairman of the company.

So, here's what he is saying: He uses a lot of energy. He purchases carbon offsets from a company he chairs. This money goes into the company coffers to invest in other matters. He draws a salary from this company.

On its face he is buying carbon offsets. In reality, he is investing in his for-profit company.

Al Gore recently joined a venture capital firm. Here's the press release http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-generation-kpcb-12-11-07.pdf

Quote

"KPCB celebrates 35 years of fueling innovation this year," said Mr. Doerr. "But today marks a turning point for climate entrepreneurs around the world. Generation and our new Partner Al Gore will help innovators and entrepreneurs accelerate their business, technology and policy solutions for the most critical problem of our time."

Also,

Quote

Mr. Gore also announced that as part of the agreement between the two firms, 100 percent of his salary as a Partner at KPCB will be donated directly to the Alliance for Climate Protection -- the non-partisan foundation he chairs that focuses on accelerating policy solutions to the climate crisis.

So he directs money to his firm. He joins the board of another firm focused on "climate entrepeneurs." Then directs his salary from THAT firm to HIS organization. Thus, getting a tax break, right?

When Gore mentions these things, he is searching for business.

And here's another question for you: you mentioned his home utilities. How often is he home?

That is where it becomes pretty difficult to tally, right? Assuming he is not at his Tennessee home for 90 days out of the year, that's 90 days for which we cannot account for his carbon footprint, right?

Or, maybe not. Let's take a look at his appearance rider from a year ago, courtesy of the Smoking Gun.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html

Note the 1st paragraph: "If Vice President Gore provides his own round trip private air transportation to the engagement (aka, private jet) the sponsor is responsible to reimburse [the costs of 1st class commerical air.]"

How do the hotels, etc., use power? The only thing that he bans is SUV transportation - that would look bad. But how does he maintain this carbon neutrality?

Professor - how does one do an investigation? Follow the money. Look at how he made his name. He is EASILY the most identifiable environmentalist int he world. He called his film "An Inconvenient Truth." He argues that we all must reduce our energy demands. We must be carbon neutral. Etc.

He uses large amounts of energy. He purchases carbon offsets - essentially from himself.

See, Gore is a masterful entrepeneur. When Gore installed the solar panels, did he remove his home from the power grid? WHY NO, HE DID NOT! Did ANY of the existing power grid go offline or become disassembled? WHY NO, IT DID NOT!

Instead, it legitimizes his power use. How many people defend him?

What needs to happen is that there must be a massive effort for everyone to drive less, fly less, eat less, live in smaller houses, use more insulation, watch less television, etc. Instead of flying in with your posse to vote so it can be covered, send an absentee ballot.

It is NOT hypocritical of Al Gore to make loads of money off of this. I salute him for it. It wasn't hypocritical for Jim Baker to make loads of money off of prasising the Lord. What made Bakker a hypocrite was banging a chick outside of marriage, contrary to his on-air persona and public statements.

Then again, perhaps there should be a company that sells special dispensations for it. Maybe he shoul dhave started it. Then he could pay himself, and get paid by others, secure with the knowledge that he is doing what he can to make the world sin-neutral.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What is Gore's net carbon footprint?

It's difficult to say because he isn't home very often. I can pretty easily calculate mine. I don't fly. I drive my vehicle probably 80 miles per week, on average. I've got my power bill and natural gas bill and I jeep track of my office utilities, as well.

I can't figure out what it is when I'm at another office or at court. Or at another person's home. That's where it becomes iffy. I can't say whether or not Mr. Gore buys carbon credits for the power usage of every auditorium he uses. Nor do I know whether he does the same for every non-SUV sedan he rides.

But, again, I find the logic behind carbon footprints to be ridiculous. I don't see how paying Starvin' Marvin not to eat makes my consumption of food any less. Instead, I find it to be a way to make myself look good by saying, "He's hungry and broke. I'm fat and rich. I gave him some money, on the condition that he doesn't get food with it. That way I spread my wealth and fight obesity at the same time."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What is Gore's carbon footprint? He reportedly pays a large premium on his utility bills to get carbon-neutral energy.

While carbon neutral is a neat way for the rich to buy their energy indulgences (much like the Catholics a long long time ago), it would be much better for the planet to consume less energy. Carbon credits in no way make up for the opportunity cost of the non renewable energy consumed.

I'm asking for some facts, not speculation or opinion. What is Gore's net carbon footprint? Lawrocket made a claim about carbon footprint, not about energy use, so I'd like to know the details.

Why does his carbon footprint matter, when he's using 20 times the electricity of a normal American household while he's telling everyone else to reduce THEIR consumption?

Carbon credits and Al Gore's carbon footprint be damned - he wants to talk the talk, let's see him walk the walk.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

let's see him walk the walk.

Walking the walk would leave footprints, Mike. We can't have that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

let's see him walk the walk.

Walking the walk would leave footprints, Mike. We can't have that.

Yeah, but the Goreacle® is special...the normal rules don't apply to him, so I bet he doesn't leave footprints...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm asking for some facts, not speculation or opinion. What is Gore's net carbon footprint? Lawrocket made a claim about carbon footprint, not about energy use, so I'd like to know the details.

Carbon output is based on energy use. IMO, spending money to purchase offsets does not subtract. Actual actions (planting trees) do.

The whole notion of treating carbon as a market has issues. The initial granting of a set level of permittable carbon emission rewards those who are least efficient, and definitely discourages improvement in the years just prior to the creation. (this is also seen with water rationing that uses people's prior usage levels to set the new limits). On the offset side, if the supply of offsets is too small, the price goes up, but the actual reduction in carbon doesn't necessarily. If you pay someone for offsets to do something they were going to do anyway, is that an actual improvement?

No - consumption is still the key - Americans should be reducing their use as the first priority.

[AWL71 0]

You are not required by the left to walk the walk when you have drank every last drop of the "enviromental" kool-aid. Do as I say, not as I do because I know better than you. The Goreacle gets a pass because he is allowed to use massive amounts of energy to save us from ourselves.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

consumption is still the key

Indeed! And no matter how much you tell others do consume less, it makes little difference on your individual footprint. Actually, it seems that it would do nothing more than make the individual footprint more glaring.

Kallend seems to agree with many that you can actually unring a bell so long as you pay someone else not to ring one, thus making it so that his bell never actually rang.

I could light up a cigarette . Assuming that I banned others from smoking in my house, I could say that I am "smoke neutral" because those others were instructed not to smoke. Thus, because of my efforts, I am an example of a smoke-neutral person.

Of course, the individual "smoke footprint" that I would leave would be fairly obvious. Only by pettifoggery can one suggest that a "carbon footprint" is canceled out because youve paid someone else to cancel it.

I'll put it this way - why don't I take those carbon credits that Gore bought and devote them to myself? Why is it that just because he is buying them, that his should be canceled? He would be responsible for collectively canceling everybody's footprint, right?

Oh, no. It's just HIS footprint. Which is bullshit.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>why don't I take those carbon credits that Gore bought and devote them
>to myself? Why is it that just because he is buying them, that his should
>be canceled?

You could. It would be like taking the credit for someone else donating money to charity. You could claim that just because someone else is giving the money to a local charity, there's no reason they should get the credit for feeding the poor (or whatever they do) since they themselves are not actually feeding the poor.

But it would be just as dumb.

>Only by pettifoggery can one suggest that a "carbon footprint" is canceled
>out because youve paid someone else to cancel it.

So if you pay someone else to mow your lawn, your lawn has not really been mowed?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You could claim that just because someone else is giving the money to a local charity, there's no reason they should get the credit for feeding the poor (or whatever they do) since they themselves are not actually feeding the poor.

That's a different thing, bill. If I donated to the charity, then I would expect that I receive the credit for it. But if I donated to the local soup kitchen so as to prove to weight watchers that I am calorie-neutral, that would make zero sense, wouldn't it?

Counselor: "But you had that Western Bacon Double Cheeseburger. You cannot lose weight like that."

Me: "Hey. I bought a Western Bacon Double Cheeseburger AND a medium chocolate shake for a homeless guy. That means that my calorie footprint is negative for the shake. So I AM losing weight. I am your spokesperson, after all. I'm Kirstie Alley."

It's even better if I can point to the receipts of the soup kitchen and say that they've canceled out my calories. Either way, I win. "They cannot afford to feed as many people, thus, I can eat more and stay calorie neutral." Or, "I'm feeding more people with my money. Thus, I can stay calorie-neutral."

Quote

So if you pay someone else to mow your lawn, your lawn has not really been mowed

No. It's been mowed. No matter WHAT I say, it's been mowed. If I pay my neighbor NOT to mow his lawn, my lawn has still been mowed. My "mowing footprint" has not been canceled by my neighbor not mowing his.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>If I donated to the charity, then I would expect that I receive the credit for it.

Why? You didn't feed anyone; you just gave someone else money to make yourself feel better. Sure, THEY might feed someone with the money, just as the people who get the money for carbon credits might well install a few solar power plants. But you didn't do anything in either case, other than give someone a check.

>But if I donated to the local soup kitchen so as to prove to weight
>watchers that I am calorie-neutral, that would make zero sense, wouldn't
>it?

Why would you want to make yourself calorie neutral? Who cares how much you eat - as long as people have enough food?

>No. It's been mowed.

Correct. And if you pay for carbon credits through a reputable exchange, the CO2 has not been emitted.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Correct. And if you pay for carbon credits through a reputable exchange, the CO2 has not been emitted.

This argument hinges on 'reputable.' Not to mention 'effective.'

As I wrote, it's really not a solution for Americans to consume just as much, but pay a small amount for offsets. That's exactly how we got 10mpg SUVs - people were perfectly willing to pay the price for gas since it was just a small piece of the $40k pricetag.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Why would you want to make yourself calorie neutral? Who cares how much you eat - as long as people have enough food?

That's adding a subjective element. I'd prefer that you responde to what I suggested.

Can a person become "calorie-neutral" by the actions of another person? Apparently, plenty of people want to be "carbon neutral."

Does the amount of carbon I am responsible for emitting have any relation to the amount of carbon you do NOT produce? Or that ANYONE does not produce? It doesn't mean a THING. I am NOT carbon neutral. I am carbon positive.

The "footprint" analogy is ingenius. Imagine a muddy yard. I am walking all over it, leaving footprints. I tell my wife, "I'll let you watch Asskiss Hollywood tonight if you don't walk in the mud." Do my footprints disappear? Have they been neutralized? The answer is, "No."

You are changing things by asking, "Why would?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Can a person become "calorie-neutral" by the actions of another person?

Yes. You can ensure that you contribute enough food (or money) to enable someone else to eat what you do.

>Does the amount of carbon I am responsible for emitting have any
>relation to the amount of carbon you do NOT produce?

Yes. Let's take an example.

A few years back I installed a solar power system at Otay. It saves about 8 gallons of propane a week, or about 5300 pounds of CO2 a year.

Now, I donated some of the parts for the project; Buzz paid for most of the costlier parts (inverters, panels etc.) Had we not been able to pay for it in that way, it would not have been built, and there would be 5300 extra pounds of CO2 in the air every year.

Let's say you're a skydiver that jumped there, and you were concerned over CO2 emissions as well. You might consider contributing to our efforts, thus making it possible in this scenario for us to complete the project.

If you had done that, Buzz would be generating 5300 pounds less CO2 every year because you helped him put in that system. That would offset (there's that word again) the amount of CO2 you generated by jumping there.

Let's say you make 100 jumps a year there. That's about 3000 pounds of CO2 put into the atmosphere from your actions. Had your money helped that solar system get installed, then due to your actions at the drop zone, your NET CO2 emissions would have been -2300 pounds.

In other words, your actions at that drop zone resulted in 2300 less pounds of CO2 being emitted than if you never went to that DZ - even though you yourself did not burn the JP4 and even though you yourself did not install the solar power system.

And that's how offsets work.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you had done that, Buzz would be generating 5300 pounds less CO2 every year because you helped him put in that system. That would offset (there's that word again) the amount of CO2 you generated by jumping there.

...

Let's say you make 100 jumps a year there. That's about 3000 pounds of CO2 put into the atmosphere from your actions. Had your money helped that solar system get installed, then due to your actions at the drop zone, your NET CO2 emissions would have been -2300 pounds.

In other words, your actions at that drop zone resulted in 2300 less pounds of CO2 being emitted than if you never went to that DZ - even though you yourself did not burn the JP4 and even though you yourself did not install the solar power system.

And that's how offsets work.

Yes, but if done honestly, you don't get the full credit of 5300 if you only 'helped' the project. And should all the credit be given to the funders, or should everyone's consumption at the DZ be reduced by the fractional amount - from 3000 to 2950?

Nevertheless, local projects with direct impact on your consumption are much more tangible, verifiable, than paying $9 on your Orbitz ticket which claims to make your flight carbon neutral.

[billvon 3,132]

>Yes, but if done honestly, you don't get the full credit of 5300 if you only
>'helped' the project.

If he provided all the money, he gets all the credit. I donated my time.

>And should all the credit be given to the funders, or should
>everyone's consumption at the DZ be reduced by the fractional amount -
>from 3000 to 2950?

I'd do it by strict percentage of who contributed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Yes, but if done honestly, you don't get the full credit of 5300 if you only
>'helped' the project.

If he provided all the money, he gets all the credit. I donated my time.

Your time has some value, as does your operational experience. Discount it if most of the your time was spent between jumps and was 'free,' but capital alone doesn't get these projects completed.

[kallend 2,184]

You are so anxious to badmouth Gore that you have lost track of basic economics. Pay more careful attention to what Bill wrote.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Correct. And if you pay for carbon credits through a reputable exchange, the CO2 has not been emitted.

This argument hinges on 'reputable.' Not to mention 'effective.'

.

Indeed. The issue is to make sure they are effective, not whether or not they exist.


I find it funny that Reagan's SO2 credits were hailed as wonderful by the right, but CO2 credits (which first were supported by the right) became just plain evil according to the same folk when Al Gore embraced them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you had done that, Buzz would be generating 5300 pounds less CO2 every year because you helped him put in that system. That would offset (there's that word again) the amount of CO2 you generated by jumping there.

Indeed. In fact, that offset proiveds the opportunity to in excess of 150 guilt-free jumps per year. It's a good thing, and a noble thing that was done.

But, then again, the offsets are done for something that is, again, an activity of little social utility. Think about it - the system that was put up was for a commercial activity (trust me - I think that's a good thing). But, the commercial activity is of little social utility (trust me, I don't care, but I'm going with the the collectivist model here). Thus, I view the "offset" somewhat differently and in its own non-arbitrary universe.

Here's how. Previously, 8 gallons of propane per week were necessitated. This is wholly independent of jumping. There is an independent system set up to support jumping activities that is putting out pollution SEPARATE FROM the jumping activity itself.

So instead of offsetting the jumping, what has happened was that the harm caused by the propane has been eliminated.

In other words:

Situation 1 - 5,300 pounds per year of CO2 caused by propane. Offset by solar power. 3,000 pounds per year caused by 100 jumps per year not offset. Net - 3,000 pounds of CO2 per year.

Situation 2 - 5,300 pounds per year of CO2 caused by propane. Not offset by solar. 3,000 pounds per year caused by 100 jumps per year offset by solar power. Net - 3,000 pounds of CO2 per year.

Funny - it's exactly the amount that jumping puts into the air. The footprint is exactly the same. How did that happen? Take jumping out of the equation and there is no footprint at all.

The footprint of the propane generator is gone. It defies logic to suggest that the footprint from jumping is gone but the footprint of the generator is still there.

The footprint of the jumping remains and is unchanged. Only the footprint from the generator is gone. So, all those jumpers at Otay can feel good that their footprint is being reduced at all times by the generator, but they are kidding themselves.

Quote

Had your money helped that solar system get installed, then due to your actions at the drop zone, your NET CO2 emissions would have been -2300 pounds.

It's nice to have a net reduction. That's a good thing. But - as I have repeatedly stated, the footprint of the activity is unchanged just because another activity is no longer making a footprint.

That is because you are comparing footprints. The jumping footprint is unchanged. The only change is the generator.

Quote

In other words, your actions at that drop zone resulted in 2300 less pounds of CO2 being emitted than if you never went to that DZ

Yes. That's a good thing. Of course, it could result in 5,300 pounds less CO2 had there been no engagement in a wasteful activity. And my point is that offsets have been truned into a sort of moral license to waste energy.

If the environment was more important that personal comfort and enjoyment, then we'd see some different things. Wouldn't it be better to offset a first-class seat in a commercial airliner than offset a private jet?

It is the "can't someone else do it?" Turn off lightbulbs in your home instead of paying others to do it. Put up solar in your home - don't pay others to turn off the juice. Plant trees in your home instead of clearing them and paying others to plant them in theirs.

Take steps to eliminate YOUR footprint instead of taking steps so that others eliminate theirs.

p.s. - bill - you walk the walk. It is why I have ZERO issue with you. You do it and you have always been honest. But any time you speak about a "net" footprint there is an inherent admission of a positive footprint being made. In the case of the place at Otay, the footprint is made by every jump. The only footprint gone is the propane.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You are so anxious to badmouth Gore that you have lost track of basic economics.

No. I have paid attention to basic logic. I absorbed everything bill wrote. And, when you asked me about Gore's footprint I answered the fucking question to the best of my ability.

You have made zero substantive response to my proposition that his individual footprint is mammoth. Because it cannot be legitimately denied that it is. He likely has some responsibility for the footprints of others being radically lowered.

However, I find it difficult to comprehend that his footprint is in the negative. Indeed, I'd imagine Gore's footprint to be hundreds of times that of bill - even with net considerations.

The only economics to view are the economics of disaster capitalism. I have stated that the greatest bit of disaster capitalism is the environmental movement, and that Gore is as smart as the left claims he is - which is why he increased his net worth by $100 million since leaving the Vice Presidency.

Kallend - you cannot in good faith say that Gore does not leave an unnecessarily prodigious carbon footprint. That he pays others to lessen their own is significant, but, as I demonstrated, seems to be motivated more by his desire for personal wealth.

Again - I've got ZERO problem with making an honest buck. It's whether the buck is really "honest" that leaves me concerned.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>But, then again, the offsets are done for something that is, again,
>an activity of little social utility.

Agreed - as are most recreational activities. They have some economic benefits (i.e. employment, stimulation of local economies) but do not _directly_ affect the economy or society at large.

>The footprint of the propane generator is gone. It defies logic to suggest
>that the footprint from jumping is gone but the footprint of the generator
>is still there.

?? It's basic math. It has nothing to do with "where did this particular molecule of CO2 come from?" It has to do with less molecules of CO2 being in the air. It is a NET benefit.

>But - as I have repeatedly stated, the footprint of the activity is unchanged
>just because another activity is no longer making a footprint.

That is correct. It has, however, been offset (there's that word again.)

It's as if a farmer who used to use a lot of water to irrigate his field who discovers that he can use wastewater to irrigate part of it, thus saving water during a drought. Does his farm use less total water? No. Does he supply water back to the public utility? No.

But has he made a difference? Yes. He has offset his use of water by using an alternative otherwise-wasted supply, and helped with the drought.

You could claim "that's absurd, the water footprint of the farm hasn't changed one bit; I could take credit for that wastewater instead of the farmer!" That's right; you could. But at the end of the day, there is more water available for drinking during a drought - and that's a win even if you surround it with a lot of semantic arguments.

Likewise, when you reduce the amount of CO2 being generated, that's a win - even if you generate CO2 other places.

>If the environment was more important that personal comfort and
>enjoyment, then we'd see some different things. Wouldn't it be better
>to offset a first-class seat in a commercial airliner than offset a private
>jet?

Absolutely. And it would be far better to walk than to take a commercial airliner. That would literally be "walking the walk."

But not everyone can do that. Some need (or even really want) to fly. Some want to take a private jet. And there's nothing wrong with that - provided you account for the impact you make.

Let's take an extreme example. Every single person in the US wants their own personal Cirrus. They all want to offset the CO2 they generate, so they all buy carbon credits.

Some organization is going to end up with trillions of dollars in offsets that they will have to use to reduce CO2 emissions. How to do that? Perhaps they will use a scheme recently proposed in Popular Science, where nuclear reactors gather water and CO2 from the air and then process it into methane and heavier fuels. (High tech version of a field of biofuels.) They not only get credit for reducing CO2 emissions, they effectively get paid double by actually taking CO2 out of the air. If enough people want their own jets and are willing to pay for offsets, there is plenty of money to accomplish this.

Net result - even though every one has their own jet, there is NO net increase in CO2 emissions! A win/win.

We're a long way from anything that drastic, of course. But the basic premise works on any scale.

>It is the "can't someone else do it?" Turn off lightbulbs in your home
>instead of paying others to do it.

That's a great idea.

>Put up solar in your home - don't pay others to turn off the juice.

Now wait a minute here. That doesn't reduce the energy you use! It just offsets it!

But seriously, I agree. And to me it doesn't really matter if you live in the dark, or use fluorescents and have a small solar system, or use incandescents and have a large solar system, or pay your neighbor to put up a solar system because you don't have a roof, or get your power from a utility that generates it from solar. End result is the same.

>Take steps to eliminate YOUR footprint instead of taking steps so that
>others eliminate theirs.

Both are critical. You can never, for example, do anything directly about CO2 emissions from cement production, and that's a huge source of CO2. However, your money could be used as an incentive for cement producers to reduce their emissions.

>But any time you speak about a "net" footprint there is an inherent
>admission of a positive footprint being made.

Absolutely - and there always will be. We breathe, after all. The goal is not to reduce our footprint to zero. It's to reduce our footprint to the point that the natural systems that have been in place for billions of years can handle our excess CO2 emissions.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It has nothing to do with "where did this particular molecule of CO2 come from?"

When speaking of an individual's carbon footprint, where the CO2 comes from has EVERYTHING to do with it. Otherwise, there would not be the subject of carbon footprint.

Individuals buy these offsets because where the CO2 comes from is important. If it wasn't, there'd be no market for them.

There are less CO2 particles in the air due to offsets. Then again, there would be less need to offset if the wasteful activity was stopped altogether.

That's why I am saying that it creates a sort of moral license to pollute. It's like partying by breaking a window, and then paying for it to be replaced. One should simply leave the window alone.

I think we're pretty close in this and I always apprecite your input, bill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>When speaking of an individual's carbon footprint, where the CO2
>comes from has EVERYTHING to do with it.

The term "carbon footprint" refers to how much carbon dioxide you cause to be generated or not generated.

If you want your house made of cement, you are increasing your CO2 footprint because cement creation releases a lot of CO2. If you buy your power from a solar/wind energy corporation, you are reducing your CO2 footprint because you are not causing coal to be burned for your electricity. In both cases you are paying other people to either emit more or less CO2.

>There are less CO2 particles in the air due to offsets. Then again, there
>would be less need to offset if the wasteful activity was stopped altogether.

Definitely. But there are other benefits to some of our wasteful activities, like transportation. So the key is to, through reduction of wasteful activities AND activities that reduce overall CO2 emissions, reduce our CO2 emissions to sustainable levels.

>It's like partying by breaking a window, and then paying for it to be
>replaced. One should simply leave the window alone.

If someone owned the atmosphere, that analogy would be valid.

However, no one does, so it's not like breaking a window someone owns. It's more like cutting down trees on BLM land and then paying to reforest the area when you are done. Sure, it's better to leave the forest alone. But if you really need the wood, sometimes it's better to make use of it, then offset the damage you've done.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

It has nothing to do with "where did this particular molecule of CO2 come from?"

When speaking of an individual's carbon footprint, where the CO2 comes from has EVERYTHING to do with it. Otherwise, there would not be the subject of carbon footprint.

.

That's as silly as claiming that you need to know which mint produced the money in your pocket before you can act to reduce the US trade deficit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.