Al Gore's Electric Bill, Carbon Credits, and A Lesson In Economics

Your link does it too. Odd...

Hit refresh. It may be stale cache data.

As I posted in the other thread:

arbon credits are like the indulgences the church used to sell. Sure you are a sinner, but if you pay us enough we'll still let you into heaven.

So rich citizens are free to remain careless about their energy consumption and carbon emissions because they can just buy their way into heaven?

Please. "I buy carbon credits" is a sorry excuse, especially from someone who is trying to prevent global warming from destroying the planet.

He still is using excessive energy and putting carbon into the air. The very same carbon that he believes is causing global warming. He must not really believe what he preaches....

So what if he pays for it?

Please. "I buy carbon credits" is a sorry excuse, especially from someone who is trying to prevent global warming from destroying the planet.

You fail to grasp the entire point of the discussion on free market economics. Do you understand that such a policy would be cap and trade, allowing the free market to determine what costs to place on the emission credits? Right now, such systems as the Gores take advantage of are voluntary and the price is somewhat arbitrary (although tied to the cost of generating clean electricity). The point is, on a per Watt basis, the Gore's energy needs do not produce a net pound of carbon, thus a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. I'm really shocked at the seemingly willful ignorance of the basic economic principals here, particularly from those who would appear to bill themselves as fiscal conservatives. It is not at all like your comparison to the indulgences analogy, but rather like how you budget your home. You simply adjust your lifestyle around the amount you need and can afford, just as you do with your energy bill today.

He still is using excessive energy and putting carbon into the air.

Not when the bottom of the balance sheet reads zero, he's not. That's called practicing what you preach. Ignoring half the story doesn't change the facts.

I don't care about the economics, which is why I am ignoring them. I understand how this system works. What I am saying is that buying these credits doesn't make anyone a better friend to the environment if they are not doing something to curb their own emissions.

Maybe Al Gore is, personally, I don't care. I just think that anyone who thinks that they can just buy 'permission' to create more pollution is just like the person who would just buy their way into heaven while still continuing their sinful ways.

I don't care about the economics, which is why I am ignoring them. …if they are not doing something to curb their own emissions.

I'm sure we're all impressed by you're willingness to completely ignore facts laid in front of you. However, the fact is that the Gore's have also reduced their carbon footprint by adding solar panels to their home, using more efficient lighting, and signing up for 100% green power (you know, the kind that doesn't generate carbon?). There is no buying "permission," in your words but rather taking responsibility for the carbon generated to live and do his job.

Killfile, your analogy's are so well written that a fifth grader could understand them. It doesn't really require any deep thinking to grasp the concept, even if you are a conservative. I think those who fail to understand, do so intentionally....

If he were compelled by Kyoto the water conservation treaty to operate under the cap his purchase would have no impact on the net usage on the well.

Unfortunately, no one creating any emissions on this planet can exist outside our collective "well", we all draw from the same environment well, whether or not we are buying carbon credits.

I don't care about the economics, which is why I am ignoring them. I understand how this system works. What I am saying is that buying these credits doesn't make anyone a better friend to the environment if they are not doing something to curb their own emissions.

Maybe Al Gore is, personally, I don't care. I just think that anyone who thinks that they can just buy 'permission' to create more pollution is just like the person who would just buy their way into heaven while still continuing their sinful ways.

Gore is paying other people to limit their emissions to offset his emissions. Is that any clearer? It isn't a "permission" it is actually limiting emissions. He's just paying someone else to take the hit. If I lived in a Kyoto regulated community I would gladly turn off the tube and miss Gilligan's Island a time or two, car pool, or whatever, to line my pocket with a little of Gore's greenbacks.

Let me see if I got this straight:

Al and I are both allotted 1000 gallons of water per month. I only use 800 gallons, while he uses his entire allotment. Between the two of us, we use 1800 gallons.

Al wants to use 1200 gallons per month, so he buys the 200 gallons per month that I'm not using. He gets his water, I get paid for water I'm not using anyway, everybody wins.

Of course, we're using 2000 gallons per month instead of 1800 gallons, but hey, at least we're happy. Who cares that our grandkids won't have any water?

Going by this analogy, the "allotment" of water is set at a level by which the water remains sustainable. Thus, ensuring water for generations to come.

I'm really shocked at the seemingly willful ignorance of the basic economic principals here, particularly from those who would appear to bill themselves as fiscal conservatives.

It bore repeating.

Rigbee said:

Al and I are both allotted 1000 gallons of water per month. I only use 800 gallons, while he uses his entire allotment. Between the two of us, we use 1800 gallons...

...Of course, we're using 2000 gallons per month instead of 1800 gallons, but hey, at least we're happy. Who cares that our grandkids won't have any water?

The cap part of cap and trade has to aim for a level that is sustainable and achievable. Whoever came up with that 1000 gallon per month cap would likely have either chosen it as a starting point to be reduced over time as technology allows better efficiency, or because that is already a sustainable level. If the 1000 gallon per month cap means that your grandchildren won't have any water, then the cap amount is incorrect and must be adjusted to accurately reflect the short timeframe of the crisis.

Let me see if I got this straight:

Al and I are both allotted 1000 gallons of water per month. I only use 800 gallons, while he uses his entire allotment. Between the two of us, we use 1800 gallons.

Al wants to use 1200 gallons per month, so he buys the 200 gallons per month that I'm not using. He gets his water, I get paid for water I'm not using anyway, everybody wins.

Of course, we're using 2000 gallons per month instead of 1800 gallons, but hey, at least we're happy. Who cares that our grandkids won't have any water?

by Rigbee

This is my personal favorite here so far.
Welcome to the Putting-as-much-ignorance-as-possible-into-one-little-posting-Awards.

So is there, like, a medal, or a statuette, or something. Am I invited to the awards show?

carbon credit market mechanisms aside, consuming LESS is still the crux of what we need to do to really make a difference in environmental health.

carbon credits work best for industry & agriculture, but even in those cases reducing usage or finding means to recycle energy (i.e. thermal cogeneration), waste and water is STILL the first line of action. i see carbon credits as a market-solution to jump start action. kind of like the atkins diet for the body. but by itself, it is not a sustainable solution.

The catch 22 with Gore is the same catch 22 our founding fathers had as slave-owners as they wrote in the Decl of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [read people] are created equal,. . . "

Because you believe in a better future and preach, legislate, or regulate for a better future, does this mean that the hypocrisy that you live in a carbon consuming (or slave-owning) society should stop you from trying to make changes to better our future?

Cleaning up our planet for the sake of environmental health and well-being is not an anathema b/c Gore's electricity bill is a carbon-consuming disappointment.

As individuals we do have choices about how we consume energy. what is sustainable is how we consume energy on the day to day~recycling, waste management, less water & energy consumption. but our transportation & electricity choices are limited. not everyone can afford a hybrid car. and those who can, cannot afford to not take the plane trip to Tokyo for business. that is the reality.

Gore could make changes to his personal energy consumption, even with the constraints of a carbon economy. Just as the founding fathers could have stopped personal slave ownership. We all make our own choices. But that does not mean that the message he sends is any less important.

Yes - Gore still uses the carbon credits he buys. That's how the system works.

Could be, but not necessarily. This is only true if he has to spend his Kyoto credits to emit carbon. As no government entity has capped his carbon emissions or given him an allotment which he can only exceed by using credits, the credits he purchased remain in his possession. To complete the process of "using" his credits, he actually has to use them. But who is he using them with?

The charge that he's hypocritical is probably a bit harsh, but anyone should be able to see the "irony". If the average Kyoto allotment is 1000 units. say, per capita, and he needs to buy 199,000 credits to fill his 200,000 need to jet around and burn lightbulbs, well, let's say for a guy pushing the green, he's an ironicist (that's right, you heard it here first)

If the average Kyoto allotment is 1000 units. say, per capita, and he needs to buy 199,000 credits to fill his 200,000 need to jet around and burn lightbulbs, well, let's say for a guy pushing the green, he's an ironicist (that's right, you heard it here first)

That's also the first time anyone has proposed that the Gore family uses 200 times some arbitrary allotment (that you apparently just made up because no such thing exists. And no, not just the number value). In reality, the Gores use about three times the average household energy needs for the climate region in which they live, the Southeast US. Further, his per square foot average is inline with that area. Of course, those aren't just made up numbers so you might not care if the ultimate goal is just to swiftboat someone.

It's obvious that The Incredulous One is only repeating talking points from the Right-wing's character assassins, because if he had actually read anything but the biased, slanted, partisan report that started all this crap, he wouldn't still be bringing up jetting around and burning lightbulbs. The lights in Gore's house are compact fluorescents to reduce energy consumption, he has solar panels on his roof, and his sustainability-focused investment company has a stated policy of avoiding travel to meetings whenever possible. It's not worth debating with these partisans whose heads are like sewage-treatment plants: they let all the pure water flow out their ears while letting the @!$%# fill up their skulls and overflow out their mouths.

evano, you are a poet.

Man, are you guys touchy. The knee jerk reactions (knees optional) were to be expected, I suppose from "progressives", but your evasion of the point is a little discouraging.
1. KF said

Yes - Gore still uses the carbon credits he buys. That's how the system works.

I said in #3.21, nope, not necessarily. Actually, I'm leaning toward nope, not even, unless someone can explain to me how Gore's purchase of carbon credits is SPENT i.e used. How is it that Gore is using the carbon credits he buys, as was confidently asserted in #3.2? This is pretty simple, isn't it? Imagine you live Somewhere and you want to burn a log in your fireplace. Now, fortunately or unfortunately, Somewhere is not party to any caps, allotments, whatever you want to call them. Still, being the good global citizen that you are, you look to Elsewhere (a party to the Elsewhere Low Carb Treaty) and pay someone in Elsewhere who is willing not to burn his permitted, capped, allowed, allocated, whatever word you like Jason Coleman, log in his fireplace. He wants money not to burn a log, and you agree. He also gives you an LBC (log burning credit) stamped with the official seal of the LBAE (log burning authority of Elsewhere) which granted it to him. It's a handsome engraved certificate. You go home, throw a log on the fire, and do what with the LBC? NOTHING. There's no relationship between the LBC and the log you are burning. You are not using it at all, which makes the assertion in #3.2 incorrect. In fact, when you do decide to use it, you are enabling the formerly reduced log burning activity to resume at its original magnitude i.e. you sell the credit to someone who wants to burn a long.

2.

That's also the first time anyone has proposed that the Gore family uses 200 times some arbitrary allotment (that you apparently just made up because no such thing exists.

what a silly comment Jason Coleman #3.22. There are caps, so there are allotments. You can look to Killfile's own examples for the terminology. Of course, my numbers are arbitrary as are the number of credits allotted per capita. In fact, I'm illustrating the point that Big Al uses three times the average household energy needs "for the climate region in which they live", and some would find irony in that, even if you have absolutely no idea why anyone would think it.

3.

It's obvious that The Incredulous One is only repeating talking points

sure, evano, you got a case. Stop the name calling and say something of substance.

he wouldn't still be bringing up jetting around and burning lightbulbs.

sorry, I should have said "fuel efficient" jetting around in low carbon emitting jets, and burning low energy useage lightbulbs. Feel better now?

Touchy, touchy, touchy. I'm not even criticizing St. Algore. (see point 1) I'm pointing out how people could see irony in St. Algore's activities (see point 2). Personally, I think that everyone should burn only one log on average. That's why I burn twenty, but that's okay because I've bought lcredits from nineteen other guys who are now not allowed to burn any, so it's ok. (I really hope I'm not being too subtle.)

In other words - its as if Gore completely ceased to consume water rather than just reduced his consumption.

KF #3.9, to continue to connect St. Algore's name with your analogy is somewhat optimistic, unless you happen to know what he does with the 20,000 water credits he bought just for the hell of it in your example. (what a guy) Actually, as soon as he uses them, he increases the water consumption by 20,000 units.

Sure - it would be even better if he purchased the Carbon Credits and then didn't use them -- but you can't seriously pretend to be a free market advocate and argue for that can you?

But he's NOT USING THEM in your example of a magnanimous Mr. Gore. It's only the fact that he buys them and does not use them that brings the net water usage down. If he were to use them as you insist, then he would bring the water usage back up. (see #3.25 for a different example)

This only works because he's outside of the system. If he were compelled by Kyoto the water conservation treaty to operate under the cap his purchase would have no impact on the net usage on the well

Then you must be ecstatic that the Bush did not sign Kyoto. If he had, Gore would not be able (according to you) to reduce carbon emissions. The best he could do would be to keep them at the cap. In reality, Gore has the carbon credits and if he sells them (at a loss...unlikely if the object is to lower caps...or a profit (nice score, Al) the carbon emissions will increase again back toward the caps. (thanks a lot Al, I so wanted you to be an altruist as in KF's example)

@Incredulous

Since I've only got about 5 minutes available, I'm going to try to give a quick answer, but it may need further explanation.

Cap and trade moves credits around between those who can consume less right away and those who take longer to adjust due to technological change, etc. It does nothing in and of itself to reduce emissions, just creates incentives for those who can save. It's primary purpose is to create a market in which the cost of emissions can be reflected, where now it is just imposed intrinsically with no one having to pay the bill for their own usage.

BUT: Over time the cap -- total amount available in the market -- is gradually reduced, driving up the price of each unit, increasing the incentives to reduce emissions and increasing the cost of continuing to emit.

In this segment of the market, credits bought and not used (the ones Gore is "tabling") are simply "lost" after the end of a given year; they don't carry over (like your cell phone minutes, unless you have Cingular). This means that the total of actual emissions WILL be less, and the cost of each credit used will be incrementally higher because the supply has been reduced.

I'm not sure what question you've answered but thanks anyway. Yes, and entirely consistent with my examples and understanding.

BUT: Over time the cap -- total amount available in the market -- is gradually reduced,...

Correct, and this has nothing to do with a market; this has only to do with a government or authority either removing the amount of credits available, or reducing the cap (arbitrarily, but based on studies and goals, etc). The market only facilitates trading under the established cap limits. This is somewhat like OPEC. The price of oil fluctuates according to oil futures trading, but OPEC can step in a decide to increase or decrease the supply of oil, if only the members could agree. Because they can't always agree, there is some feedback between the price of oil in the futures markets and the price that OPEC is willing to set i.e. OPEC can be cognizant of the market.

If the carbon credits market is governed by an authority all of whose members agree on the how many credits should exist or what the emissions caps should be, they do not have to care what the trading market is doing (they might but they don't have to), so the precise way these credits are traded and regulated is important to controlling price instability and fluctuations. If the credits can expire worthless over time, then this is essentially an options market, and I don't think you have to be an altruist, as Al Gore has been portrayed in this thread, to see that it is possible to make or lose lots of money in that market. Whatever the time period, I do not expect people to sit on their credits to allow them to expire. If Al Gore is such a person, then he does not have to participate in this carbon trading at all. All he has to do is offer money to people not to emit carbon. The credits would have nothing to do with anything. Yes? Yes.

I have nothing against trading carbon credits or carbon offsets in principle, but no one knows how this will pan out. There is no doubt they will have an effect on production and productivity, on world economies, technology, employment, etc. We have to all hope that slowing global warming won't screw up too many other things. Maybe it won't; maybe it will. It is not a forgone conclusion that the net effect will be beneficial. We just hope it will be.

Incredulous: First of all, let me apologize for my intemperate comments above. I don't believe I had encountered you before now and it is obvious from your well-reasoned arguments following the one I objected to that, although we have different viewpoints, you are not a mouthpiece for the right wing as I claimed. I'm sorry for making that assumption.

As to your comments above about the risks of a carbon market and possibilities of capital gains and losses -- I believe that is the entire point of carbon trading. We are monetizing something that had no value and no risk before creating a market. There was no risk in polluting and no gain in not polluting, so there was no economic incentive for a business to factor those actions into its financial calculations. As much as we might hope that public corporations would act ethically, they can only act that way when those kinds of actions happen to coincide with profit-enhancing actions; otherwise, they are failing their stockholders and negligent in their obligations.

The Kyoto treaty established a series of caps based on reducing each signatory nation's greenhouse gas emissions to a percentage of a baseline year. There was no mandate as to how it would be achieved, but there was a target date for the first round of reductions, with the expectation of future rounds of further goal-setting. Because each nation had a baseline and a target, calculating the total number of credits available in the market -- making the value finite -- should be calculable. Unfortunately, Kyoto was poorly designed and fatally flawed by totally exempting developing nations from the caps, thereby dismantling the finite nature of the market. A better solution than exempting developing nations might have been to calculate a target per dollar of GDP based on current Western levels and apply that to all nations. Because the US -- the largest emitter of greenhouse gases -- refused to accept Kyoto's rules because of this developed world/developing world division of responsibilities, the treaty was pretty much DOA. The OPEC cartel would be similarly toothless if (as it has done a number of times) Saudi Arabia, as the largest producer of oil, ignored the caps placed on its production by the group.

Once there is a market, then the company will begin to recognize that the smoke pouring out of the smokestack represents a new kind of asset -- one which is literally vanishing into thin air. The company can now calculate how much it would cost to contain that asset versus the value of that asset on the market. At some point -- whether because of new technologies driving the cost of containment down or because trading drives up the prices on the market -- there will be someone willing to pay more for that asset than it costs to bottle it up, and then it becomes a fiduciary responsibility to maximize that profit. In the process, those companies with increased income streams from capturing the value of this new asset will spend money with companies developing technologies to harvest even more of that asset, fueling a cycle which will have an enormously positive effect on "production and productivity, on world economies, technology, employment, etc." How could it not?

The alternative to a market-driven effort is a government mandate requiring companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or face penalties. In that case, government has suddenly created a new liability for the company related to coping with this new uncompensated expense. This is the scenario which you accurately predict will have a detrimental effect "on production and productivity, on world economies, technology, employment, etc." That effect will be negative, because it involves only expenses.

I'm definitely not some ideological purist about the inherent superiority of The Free Market (cue angels singing hosannas). If we agree that inactivity is not an option, then in this situation, the market approach is the tasty, crunchy carrot and the alternative -- government mandates -- is the splintery, nail-studded stick.

...fueling a cycle which will have an enormously positive effect on "production and productivity, on world economies, technology, employment, etc." How could it not?

Remains to be seen. The short answer is that the relationship between those things is in rough dynamic equilibrium at the present time. When there are new external forces imposed by governments, there is an approach to the new equilibrium that takes time to achieve. Until it is achieved, there is disruption. This is unavoidable, but the disruption can be fast or slow. Some employer will decide it is more profitable to sell a credit, burn one less log, reduce production of widgets,and fire an employee he no longer needs. If the employee can find another job, fine. If the company or town can sustain the loss of employment, terrific...or the loss of employment is too severe, the company goes belly up, and the town starts boarding up. Obviously, some companies will go out of business and perhaps deserve to because they are no longer competitive. They are today, but tomorrow may not be BECAUSE of caps. Any system like Kyoto constrains the economy from the outside, and the inside has to adjust via the marketplace. If the snapping and popping sounds from the internal adjustments are minor, things might be ok, but economies, production, employment will all be affected. There will also be a transfer of capital from more developed (needs credits) to less developed countries (has credits). This has effects that may be good (somewhere) or bad (elsewhere) or may benefit all or may not. This remains to be seen. All scenarios are possible, imo. We just don't know.

Equilibrium? That's crazy talk. The world is in constant flux, and there is no equilibrium anywhere. The only question is whether we will turn our efforts to push change in the direction we want, or if we will be its victims.

Equilibrium? That's crazy talk.

well, I know crazy talk when I see it.

...and there is no equilibrium anywhere

I'm sure the academics, scholars, and Nobel Prize winners who waste their lives working on the many aspects of economic equilibrium will be gratified by your astute observation. Are you sure you're not a genius or something?

That's the funny thing about modern economics, they've run so far down the rabbit hole that many of their ideas have no relationship whatsoever with the real world. Economic equilibrium is a perfect example.

I think that it's clear at this point that they just make the @!$%# up.

I am pretty sure that everyone understands the analogy. This may seem like an ignorant statement, however, if Mr. G has a landscaping business that uses 20k/gal a month, and he buys credits or offsets, to make it look as if he is really only using 15k/gal a month, that is great, I understand that. However, if in his business journey he realizes that he really only needs 15k/gal a month to do the same work that he used to do with 20k/gal a month, then would it not seem the right thing to continue to buy credits, to make it look as if he only uses 10k/gal a month. Why is that hard to understand? And, why would that not be more admirable?

In Tennessee, it seems, utility records are public information.

1 ... All state, county and municipal records shall at all times, during business hours, be open for public inspection by any citizen of Tennessee, and those in charge of such records shall not refuse such right of inspection to any citizen, unless otherwise provided by state law. [TCA 10-7-503]

2... Public records mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, electronic data, sound recordings or other material regardless of physical form or characteristics made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency.

[TCA 10-7-301(6)]

3 ... In accordance with state law, the following is an example of utility records subject to public inspection:

CUSTOMER RECORDS:

a) Customer bills and usage records;

b) Customer mailing lists;

c) Customer payment delinquencies, cut-offs and payment histories.

I guess that's why none of Gore's responses denied the accuracy of the bill amount. I'm not sure of the purpose of having utility bills available for public inspection, but it seems like that kind of info should be private.

I wasn't specifically talking about Kyoto.

Fine we don't have to call it the breathing tax, what would you call the tax?

First of all, ajs, thanks for at least engaging in a discussion on policy and not someone's supposed energy bill. I think it is unfortunate that you were one who seeded the TCPR's suspect press release. However, I very much appreciate the discussion regarding what to do about climate change, regardless of how it comes about.

It has been established that there is a cost associated with putting carbon into the atmosphere. The free market decides what that cost is based on the allowable amount that the atmosphere can sustain without permanent damage to the human species' way of life. That cost is not a tax. It is the cost of "doing business," much as the base cost of groceries of gasoline is.

However, chances are that the regulations will be put into place at the producer level rather than at the consumer level, much as was done with SO2 (did you ever pay an "acid rain tax?" No.) Will the cost of such regulations be passed on to consumers? No, because they will go with cheaper alternative methods of energy production. This is why many members of the corporate and business communities are actively pushing for such regulations to be put into place.

You both agree, that government regulation would be key in implementing this correct?

Fine we don't have to call it the breathing tax, what would you call the tax?

How about a destruction of the Earth fine?

Yes. I think that it takes a law to provide a limit to one's ability to harm the environment as the status quo is clearly doing. I'm sure that riles some of the libertarians amongst us, but that's okay. Frankly, it's a perfect "pay-as-you-go" system. The fact that a government agency (the EPA, in all likelihood) would enforce such limits is irrelevant, provided those limits are based on the science we know. I think Prophet's description of a "fine" is much more accurate than tax, and also demonstrates why regulation and enforcement is required. Knowing what we now do, we simply cannot continue to produce greenhouse gas emissions unabated. That some level of acceptable emissions can be maintained and then enforced is an entirely reasonable charge for the federal government.

Perfectly acceptable response(s) in my view, however if we can all agree that government regulation will be needed we should also be able to agree that any references to a "free market" are incorrect, agreed?

It's not strict laissez faire in the classical sense, but it's still very much a capitalist free market that decides the value of a carbon credit. Today's "free market" has rules associated with it which, as Killfile points out, go far beyond setting cap limits on market volume and then letting the players engage in transactions and their own discretion.

The fact that a government agency (the EPA, in all likelihood) would enforce such limits is irrelevant, ..

I think you'd would want as apolitical and independent a Board as practical, like a Fed, to do this rather than a government agency like EPA.

ajs

What you have ignored is the point in Economics 202 above. You're carbon output is a COST to the rest of the planet for which you (and all the rest of us) are not currently paying, and in consequence we have not used the resources efficiently -- which is why we have pollution and global warming: there has been no market corrective at work.

The cap and trade system is not a tax, it is a market structure designed to correctly allocate these costs appropriate to their generation on an individual basis so as to ensure that the resources are used efficiently.

That is not a tax, it is paying your (and our) share of a real cost.

Incredulous,

EPA administered the cap and trade system for SO2 (acid rain) emissions very successfully. I helped design the computer systems that administer the trading. SO2 has been brought substantially under control in a little over t 10 years. They know how to do this.

That said, the CO2 system has to be an international trading system, so EPA may be involved but not the administrative agent of record.

Give me some time, I can get back to you on that;)

I am just curious how his usage compares to your average 20 room mansion. Wouldn't that be an intelligent and factual comparison..?

Actually I think the question is irrelevant. Mr. Gore, if he wanted could choose to live in a much smaller and efficient domicile. He is getting out there saying we must change our lifestyle in order to save the planet. He is preaching we must use less energy and live more efficiently. Yet he owns a 20 room mansion that uses more energy than me and 19 of my friends?

He is supposedly carbon neutral now. Good for him. However, why does he stop there? Why not become carbon positive? If this is about doing what you can to save the planet - then why doesn't he? Why not tear down that mansion, plant some trees in its place, build/buy a smaller more reasonable sized home, and continue to purchase the same amount of carbon credits. Then he would look less like a hypocrite and I (at least) would have more respect for his position.

Personally, I don't care if Mr. Gore lives in 200 room mansion or not. What Mr. Gore does or does not do with his money matters very little to me. It is his to do with as he pleases. However, in my opinion, if he is looking to be a leader on this issue then I expect him to do more than what he wants me to do - particularly if wants to use the force of government to do it.

He wants to curtail global warming - good for him. He is buying carbon credits so he is carbon neutral - well if you believe that works, great. He is living in a 20 mansion house when he could be living in something more environmentally friendly (and I'll point out I'm not asking for a hovel, just something relatively reasonable) well then then the phrase "do as I say, not as I do comes to mind". Are we really about changing the way we live or is there some other motive behind this?

I won't go so far as to say that this is the only acceptable way he should live. Its not my place to do so. He should live the way he thinks is best for him. Living in a 20 room mansion though does nothing for his creditability in my eyes. More accurately I would have more respect for him on this issue if he came out tomorrow and said I'm tearing the mansion down, planting some trees and moving into a more eco-friendly domicile.

He is living in a 20 mansion house when he could be living in something more environmentally friendly

The twenty room mansion that he occupies could be more environmentally friendly for his circumstances than any drafty hovel. Does he work at home or also heat and light an office building that he commutes to? Does he have staff and security that live at his residence? Don't judge unless you have all of the details.

How about "do as I do?" Are you carbon neutral? Even if I live in a house 1/20th the size of Gore's and drive a Volvo instead of a Gulfstream the carbon offsets and credits he's using make my carbon consumption literally infinitely larger than his.

How is that an example of him not being a leader?

No - I doubt I am carbon neutral, but then again I am not advocating anyone change their lifestyle for environmental reasons either.

Is he doing more for his cause than you and me combined - sure. However, the message to me is that everybody must live a more moderate life in order to save the planet. If this is about saving the planet then wouldn't the planet be better off if he was living in a smaller home and still buying the offsets?

Ultimately, this all comes down to perception. Yes, you can tell me your buying carbon offsets and green energy but you know what I can't see that. I can see a 20 room mansion consuming 20 times the energy of my home. What example do you see here? On the other hand isn't a better example to see him living the moderate lifestyle he advocates particularly when people know he is still buying the carbon offsets and know he could be living much more extravagantly.

He is getting out there saying we must change our lifestyle

Actually, he's saying that we don't have to radically change our lifestyles, all we have to do is live more sensibly and make some prudent changes, like using carbon offsets for our consumption.

The people who are saying that we would have to radically change our lifestyles in order to prevent global warming are the global warming advocates, not its opponents.

@FDBryant3

What Mr. Gore does or does not do with his money matters very little to me. It is his to do with as he pleases. However, in my opinion, if he is looking to be a leader on this issue then I expect him to do more than what he wants me to do - particularly if wants to use the force of government to do it.

Applying this logic, President Bush should be knocking on doors in Sadr City with a riot gun in hand looking to clean out the bad guys and restore security as part of his surge.

I heard President Bush volunteered to participate in the surge efforts in Baghdad, but changed his mind when he found out that regulation Army issue gear doesn't include a codpiece.

Or the DOW failing 400 points,

Yea, I saw the DOW. Thank dubya for our booming economy.

Oh didn't you here is was the Drudge Reports fault.

I wonder if Zuckerman is regretting his position in 2000 that Bush and Gore would be equally good Presidents. He's been gradually drifting left over the years. I remember when we used to refer to his magazine as the US Abuse and World Distort, but now he'll slip in things like a report on war profiteering.

Inherit big bucks from who? Al Gore, Sr.?

Now he can be portrayed as a hero and Oscar winner

I'm a big fan of Al Gore and I really enjoyed An Inconvenient Truth, but, god, this is going to drive me nuts for the rest of time, and it's already begun: Al Gore is not an Oscar winner.

Okay, just had to get that off my chest.

This is probably the most comprehensive listing of places and groups to purchase carbon-offsets from.

The Chicago Climate Exchange is the only North American carbon trading market, and offers verification services to most of the carbon-offset providers.

Green Tags are another way of offsetting your carbon footprint by purchasing certificates representing the output of renewable and non-polluting energy producers. Bonneville Environmental Foundation was one of the first sellers of Green Tags.

Hope this helps!

Evano: Yes, that is a very helpful comment. Thank you. We personally use TerraPass to offset our automobiles, which is included in the listing you mentioned.

Killfile: Would you consider putting a link down to Evano's comment at the end of your article as "further information?" I think it might be helpful for people looking to understand more about the current offsets market as well as take advantage of it themselves.

The whole idea of carbon neutrality is that by bringing emissions into the market economy at all, it creates an economic incentive for someone to invent those carbon scrubbers and for companies and governments to fund research into improving and creating new sources of renewable energy. That's a good thing, right?

BTW - Good point on the philosophical bankruptcy of the American Right. Keep pointing out the differences between the American Right and true free-marketers/libertarians, and people might eventually stop lumping you in with them. :)

If we decided to do no conservation, and instead purchase carbon credits for the volumes of emissions we are over the limit set by Kyoto - how much would that cost?

Are even enough credits even available?

If so, wouldn't that simply cause a redistribution of money instead of doing anything positive to curtail global warming?

I don't think your grasping the concept.... A cap is set that allows a reduction in greenhouse gases. Everything else is based off of that. Every entity that stays below that cap is allowed to sell their credits to those that exceed the limits. As long as the trading (selling) stays below the "cap" Greenhouse gases are reduced. As companies become better at reducing emissions, the cap is lowered and hopefully the planet saved..... Make sense now?

That answers the third question [albeit a bit rudely]. Care to shoot for the first two?

So....it's a bit like this right?

http://www.cheatneutral.com

I think Al Gore's done a lot of good, and I'm not here to criticize him, but the credits seem a scam to me....

@kwilbur: Check out the Chicago Climate Exchange which is the major North American trading market for carbon credits. They verify many of the carbon-offset traders as do a couple of environmental certification groups, like green-e. The opportunity for a scam is there, but it's like any other investment in that you need to be an educated consumer.

The cheatneutral site is pretty funny, though. :) Thanks for the laugh.

http://www.cheatneutral.com

That's hilarious!

That answers the third question [albeit a bit rudely]. Care to shoot for the first two?

Care to point out where I was rude? I thought it was a short, simple answer. There was never any intention of being rude....

I don't speak for Pharaoh but I thought your comment was rude Mr. Dent.

I don't think your grasping the concept......... Make sense now?

Combined with bolded/shouted text after saying he doesn't understand. Like when you slow down and overemphasize every word to a child.

So would your comment have conveyed the same information without the predicate, bold, or final swipe parts? Yes, and without being rude.

I probably have done likewise though I honestly try not to, and welcome anybody letting me know so I can work on it. I debated if this comment itself was rude since it was not addressed to me and am split 50/50 :)

If you debated and came up with 50/50 then you admit that theres an even chance it wasn't rude:-) It honestly wasn't intended to be rude. The bold wasn't a shout, it was emphasizing the cap point since that was the key part he wasn't understanding. And saying "I don't think your grasping the concept" was also innocent enough since it was pretty obvious from his question that he didn't.... and I might add that when I was a teacher, I used that phrase a lot (and the "make sense now" question to get a yes or no acknowledgment of understanding). I don't recall any of my students ever getting upset over it. As I said before, it was intended to be short and direct.

Read whatever you want into it, but I can assure you that when I'm intentionally rude you wont have to debate whether or not I was, it will be absolutely obvious. Like you, I appreciate when people tell me I've crossed the line (I have more than I would like to admit :-), but I honestly don't see where I did in this case. Cheers.

KyleN got it exactly. Still, this was most likely a case of intent being lost when shifting from thoughts or spoken word to the written word of the internet.

Pharaoh,

You mentioned a redistribution of resources...you're onto something there.

Kyoto doesn't set carbon emissions limits on non-Annex 1 countries (which are mostly countries in the developing world). Firms in these countries, however, can EARN carbon credits by implementing "green" technologies and then sell those credits in open international markets. This opens up an entire new sector for firms in developing countries to access resources that can then foster economic growth.

I'm not saying that there aren't some problems with this system but it's an interesting new approach to economic development.

Jimmy: As someone who generally prefers train travel over air travel myself, I would agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, and speaking from experience as a former Tennessean, there's a good reason why Al Gore doesn't take the train: the national lines don't go through Nashville [.pdf].

I used public transportation exclusively in Europe. It was great, I never needed a car. I could just walk to the corner and take a subway to the train station and from there take a train to anywhere in Europe including Britain and that was before the chunnel. I loved taking the train. Unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity to take it in the U.S.

One other issue to consider about trains: as mass transportation their efficiency is greater on a per passenger-mile basis than air travel or automobile travel. But those estimates of efficiency are usually based on the train's capacity being filled. Unfortunately, most train travel in the US is on trains that are not even close to capacity. If, to take it to the extreme, Mr. Gore was the only passenger on a multi-car, long-haul passenger train, the consumption of fuel per passenger-mile would be enormous. I'm not sure of the break-even point where a train's actual complement of passengers makes the train more efficient than other modes of travel. If, like Prophet, you've taken European or British trains, you know that operating at below capacity is usually not a problem for those rail systems!

European train systems offer near seamless integration of the inter-city rail lines with subways and other mass transit options. In three trains you've crossed two national borders gone through untold cities, and it's virtually door to door service.

That's exactly what I was talking about. It's a beautiful thing.

It would be great if we could put the same kind of resources behind a public transportation/rail system that we did our national highway system.

Unfortunately, I've heard that most of our public transportation systems were dismantled by industries with a vested interest in private transportation, like gas & oil and automotive.

America is far too sparsely populated compared to Europe to make this a reasonable undertaking. For that reason, people should live in cities if they want to use public transportation. Still, it would be wise to add a NY to LA direct maglev train. Unfortunately, it may not be economically viable for a company or the government to do so.

I know how screwed up the train system is, I enjoy trains over planes myself, and have had to deal with the system's problems often. I'd like to see the train system beefed up, and I believe if it was, more people would ride it for short hops.

I tried to put together a tour of British Columbia, taking the ferry up to Prince Rupert, then the train back to Vancouver, but the schedules were so screwed up that it seemed like they wanted to discourage train travel, rather than encourage it.

The ideal would be a seamless connection between airlines and rail, so you could check your luggage, get on a train, transfer to a plane, transfer back to a train, and pick up your luggage. Trains would be used for short hops, say 200 miles or so, and planes would be used for longer trips.

I'd like to see the older routes reused here in the US too. The Kansas City/St. Louis route would be great. There is a train now but it does not run very often and it costs too much.

The most common way to commute is by plane and that is a pain. It takes longer to clear security then then the whole flight. Anymore, if I need to go to STL I just drive. It takes about the same amount of time and you don't have to deal with the TSA stealing your stuff.

I don't know about that "anything is faster than rail" statement, KF. Pharaoh is right that the US is sparsely populated, but in the Northeast Corridor, there's enough density for trains to be a reasonable and reasonably fast mode of transportation. It takes me about 6-7 hours by train to Boston from here in Baltimore, plus about 15 minutes driving time from home to the Baltimore Penn station with a parking garage underneath. Amtrak lets me out in downtown Boston, 2 "T" stops away from the Boston Common. By airplane, the flight is only 1hr 20 min on the shortest flight or 2hr 42 minutes including a 40 min layover to change planes in Philly on the cheapest flight. You're supposed to check in at the airport at least an hour early, so add in the time drive to the airport and time to park the car in the daily lot, then catch the shuttle bus to the terminal and it's probably another hour. Once I get in to Logan International in Boston, I've either got to rent a car and navigate the eternal Big Dig construction mess and traffic or else go through what I remember as an ordeal getting to the Logan Airport "T" station for a loooong ride into the city. All in all, the trip by air might save me an hour or two in time at the expense of an awful lot of hassle, while on the train I can plug in and open my laptop, use my cellphone, walk around, get lunch in the dining car... Much more civilized and well worth a little extra time! It's a shame that the options aren't the same in the rest of the country.

people should live in cities if they want to use public transportation

I live in Detroit. Our public transportation sucks ass at best. There's no subway and the people mugger is a @!$%#in joke. You can walk to anywhere along it's route and probably get there quicker. We have a bus system but to be honest, I've never used it.

The most common way to commute is by plane and that is a pain. It takes longer to clear security then then the whole flight. Anymore, if I need to go to STL I just drive. It takes about the same amount of time and you don't have to deal with the TSA stealing your stuff.

I would rather drive than fly anywhere within 600 miles. I can get there nearly as fast and then I have my own vehicle.

I don't know about that "anything is faster than rail" statement

What is the cruising speed of a commercial air liner? I think it's in the 300mph range. How fast are the super trains these days? I hear that they're pushin 300.

Planes cruise around 450 kts or 518 mph.

Yea, I just looked it up. Mach 0.77-0.79 is around 570-590 mph.

I live in Detroit. Our public transportation sucks ass at best.

Might I suggest moving? New York and Chicago have fine public transportation systems.

I would rather drive than fly anywhere within 600 miles.

I hate driving. We should've built one giant subway system rather than the Interstates. I guess that's just me, though.

Prophet: When I disputed Killfile's statement about anything is faster than rail, I wasn't claiming that trains achieve a traveling speed faster than an airplane. Give me a little credit! :)

I was instead referring to the total traveling time of a rail trip versus many other modes of transportation, especially in densely populated areas like Western Europe or the Boston-Washington DC megalopolis. Most airports are not in the center of the city, so trips by air have to include the ground transportation time as well as weather conditions. Trips by car have to include traffic and weather conditions. Rail is only affected by the most severe weather, rarely by weather, and in Europe and the Northeastern US, train stations are usually right in the center of the city, connected to other forms of public transportation.

evano

Absolutely true. DC to Philly long ago became more efficient by train. DC-New York has become so since 911 security measures have slowed airport access.

Biggest problem with trains is we eliminated most of the infrastructure 50 years ago. Much of the interstate highway system built in the 50s-70's used railroad rights-of-way.

Possible solution: large-scale mass transit over the interstate system. Maybe long-haul flat-bed vehicles that piggy-back lots of cars point-to-point in dedicated high-speed lanes. Or an effective and attractive inter-city bus system that is integrated with urban mass transit.

Might I suggest moving? New York and Chicago have fine public transportation systems.

I've never been to New Uork but I do like Chicago's system. I might move after I retire but right now it's not an option.

Prophet: When I disputed Killfile's statement about anything is faster than rail, I wasn't claiming that trains achieve a traveling speed faster than an airplane. Give me a little credit! :)

Sorry man, I didn't mean to pick on ya. I just wanted to use your comment as a lead in to a discussion about developing a high speed rail system.

Prophet: No problem. My hurt feelings will get better. :)

As far as high-speed rail goes, there's been talk for a number of years about installing high-speed maglev trains in the Northeast Corridor. One project was to link Baltimore with DC. It's about a 45 mile distance with no major geographical features like mountains or major rivers intervening, so it would be a good location for a large-scale test. When the route was originally studied in 2001, housing prices hadn't started their ascent into the stratosphere, so there were a lot of questions about what kind of ridership could be expected. In the meanwhile, people working in Washington started buying up homes in Baltimore, which was much more affordable than in the Capital. Those people might provide the volume of passengers needed for something like that to become feasible. The study site for the Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project is here, and it's pretty interesting.

I really like the car-carrier idea. Amtrack could have a real winner if they combined car-carriers with passenger trains, so you could ride the train to your destination, then get in your own car and drive away.

I checked into the possibility of doing that with a motorcycle a few years ago, but they didn't even offer that.

They actually do have one route that carries passengers and cars. It travels between Lorton, VA (not far from DC) and Sanford, FL (not far from Orlando). It's called -- get ready for a big surprise -- the Auto Train. :) Info is here. I don't know how successful it is, but it's just been going between these two stations for at least 20 years, so I'm guessing there isn't really much demand for it elsewhere.

George: Then how did we reduce SO2 emissions and help curb the acid rain problem in this country? The fact is, cap and trade (which is the broader picture of carbon offsetting) does reduce the overall emissions level to one that is acceptable by creating market based incentives. Further, it allows us environmentalists to put our money where our mouths are by buying up extra credits and tabling them, thus reducing the effective cap (which is essentially what Gore is doing, even though few here seem to get this). Cap-and-trade markets aren't a new idea and they have a proven track record.

Some environmental organizations are also purchasing surplus carbon allowances and "banking" them, removing them from the trading marketpermanently. By not trading them, they create a permanent reduction. Much of this kind of work is funded by the donations and commissions generated in the cap-and-trade market.

George, Jason is absolutely right about this. SO2 (acid-rain) has been brough substantially under control in a little over a decade through the use of this system. I know -- I helped design the computer systems that administer the trading for EPA. Cap and trade works because it rewards the "early adopters" that can change quickly, and places progressively higher penalties on those that lag, but still gives them time to adjust, all through an open market with a predictable cost-curve, so businesses can plan the optimal timing for implementing technolgies.

Further point.

Businesses are already making adjustments. A commercial realtor I'm friends with has worked with an engineering firm to produce a model for assessing the carbon footprint for commercial offices. This is now being used as a baseline in lease negotiations, so that the landlords build in carbon-neutrality in the leases. Within maybe 10 years, almost every commercial building in the US will be carbon neutral.

There's little chance that we will stop global warming for the next one hundred years given the information in the recent IPCC report, let alone reverse it. We must take action to reduce the future carbon emissions to limit warming to a minimal level. The carbon in the atmosphere currently will continue to warm the planet. Cap and trade is a proven system which can also spur better efficiency through economic incentives, both at producer and consumer levels.

The "rallying here to Gore's defense" isn't so much that but rather demanding that his critics allow for a look at the entire picture of what he is doing. He is standing up to the scrutiny, when done honestly. He's just not living in a small shack wearing hemp pants.

jayburkelac

You're correct about this, as well. With the rapidly rising demand in the developing world -- China and India especially -- there is no way to impact the problem without substantial investment in alternative fuels and in achieving much higher efficiencies in crucial areas like transportation and electricity generation.

This is what I call the e-cubed problem set: energy-environment-economy. It requires a comprehensive strategy bridging all three areas.

You're missing the point. Carbon credits are for off-setting the amount of energy you have to use from carbon-based sources. I drive a hybrid vehicle, but it still uses gasoline which produce CO2 emissions. Therefore, I put money (in the form of a credit) to invest into alternative energy sources which get used in lieu of CO2 emitting energy sources elsewhere. It doesn't give me free reign to burn as much gasoline as I like (which would be none, in truth, but work and life require otherwise). It simply offsets the amount I need to use so that someone else won't. Eventually, I'll have better options of cleaner fuels but until then, I have to choose the best option and then deal with the costs associated with it.

No I understand the point and mine still stands. You are justifying the fact that you are using gasoline by investing in alt-fuel research. It's a comfort thing. Even though the point of it is for research, there is a deeper feeling of "I am helping the environment so therefore I can not feel bad about my gas consumption".

At least that is the feeling I get from others who do carbon credits. This may not be true for you, and from talking with you before, I doubt it is, but that is the feeling others give me.

It's not a matter of "feeling bad." It's a matter of doing what it takes to make sure my actions do not increase the future problem of climate change. You are correct in assuming that guilt is not what gives me reason to do offset my greenhouse gas creating energy needs. Knowing what I know now, it is simply the cost of living. Understanding that cost requires understanding the economic principles that Killfile has discussed here (which very few seem to wish to acknowledge his excellent work here) as well as reading Coase's work. We can play all the analogy games we want, but they pale in comparison to actually learning about the issue at hand.

This is a matter of realizing that my actions today have future consequences and taking responsible steps to mitigating them. As for the motives of others, I cannot say. However, it really doesn't much matter to me why someone chooses to solve this problem. As a matter of fact, I encourage people to do it for all the selfish reasons they can think of; as that tends to be a great motivator (hence, cap-and-trade markets). However, I'm not guilting anyone into doing anything and for that matter, neither is Al Gore. Those who claim otherwise should consider actually watching the documentary, reading his book, or simply visiting the web site. As for me, I've written quite a lot here on Newsvine regarding the personal economic reasons for reducing energy needs (which, by the way, the Gore's appear to have done in addition to purchasing carbon offsets). It would seem that you (Stephen) already are well aware of this in your decision to use solar power for your home. I commend you for doing so, regardless of the reasons. However, not all of us can do that for our homes and we must then make the best choices that are available to us and then deal with the balance.

First of all, the credits aren't paper, their electronic.

Second, no Gpre is not getting -- he is buying credits from somebody that is foregoing their own carbon emissions to sell the credits. It doesn't matter to the participants in the market if someone else is not participating; the overall emissions of market participants will still go down.

I certainly have questions about the viability of the carbon credit system. This is an interesting read

he is buying credits from somebody that is foregoing their own carbon emissions to sell the credits.

Who? Where? What country are these carbon credits coming from? Is there any evidence that the other end of the deal is being honored?

@Novanglus,

The article you linked has to do with industrialized tree farms, one form of sink that introduces a new supply line into the credit pool. The primary critique is on the unsustainable methods of some of these (use of pesticides, for example) and their impact on indigenous cultures. This is an implementation issue which, in principle, can be addressed by better management. It does not invalidate the idea of sinks or of a carbon credit market -- it's ultimate recommendation is not to buy credits from these flawed (possibly fraudulently implemented) sinks. It does not even address the cap and trade aspect, which is the part that addresses reduction of existing emissions.

@Bodhi,

enforcement mechanisms are still being implemented, but in principle shouldn't be that difficult. It's just a matter of measuring either energy inputs or chemical outputs. We've been doing this with SO2 emissions (acid rain) in a cap and trade system here in the US for over a decade with great success.

We've been doing this with SO2 emissions (acid rain) in a cap and trade system here in the US for over a decade with great success.

Isn't that the key though. We can decide that we will do this and then do it, but what about all the countries who flat out refuse to do the same?

enforcement mechanisms are still being implemented, but in principle shouldn't be that difficult.

It seems to me that they are that difficult. Many of the countries have increased emissions, some as much as 72%.

Agreed, Bodhi. As with any multi-national undertaking, finding ways to make them enforceable is always the challenge. It's the most cumbersome part of every treaty. Obviously, nations can and do cheat on all kinds of treaties, and a big part of any successful one are the mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement.

That said, it is possible to make them work, and we ultimately have no real choice but to find a way.

@Moon

You are totally correct about that article being specifically about tree farms. But there are other points in there as well. My point in posting that is that this carbon credit systems seems flawed. The tree farms are one point. Something in the system enabled that problem. And sure, perhaps there are ways to plug that particular hole. But overall, it seems an easy system to fraud regardless of hole-plugging.

Here is a great quote:

But what has also become clear is that it is a scheme with
almost unlimited potential for fraud, and that does little or
nothing about global warming. Most of the deception arises
around who sets the 'caps' and who does the trading.
The public is deceived because GHG producers are able to
say that they met limits placed upon them by government (the
caps) by purchasing these credits (the trade), usually from
unrelated and less profitable industries. Government is
deceived because industry claims to have met stringent limits
while in fact their actual GHG production is not reduced. The
world is deceived.

There is, first of all, a significant temptation and opportunity
for fraud in the creation and certification of these credits.
Buyers are in no position to confirm the actual existence of the
claimed GHG reductions on which the credits are based, even
should they wish to. Governments are in no position to certify
them, and are under political pressure to be generous with the
caps. To create an international market in commodities which
cannot be seen, cannot be physically delivered, whose receipt
cannot be confirmed, and whose quality the buyer cannot
confirm, is to invite corruption on a huge scale.

Taken from this.

These are similar to objections that were raised w/regard to the SO2 trading system. At the end of the day, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms have to be implemented to validate the sourcing of credits. From an engineering standpoint, it's not that difficult to establish the carbon footprint of a facility, be it a home, an office building, or factory and the carbon reduction values for both credit streams (like trees) and for reduction technologies (like flourescent lights). So it is possible to determine whether credits are being legitimately created and sold -- in principle.

The politics of the problem at the international level are, of course, much more problematic.

Is it a perfect system, or could it ever be? No, but it can be a very effective system. It is not the silver bullet that solves the GHG problem, either, but it can make a big dent in it.

Good post Moon. Well stated points.

On a more personal level.... the idea of buying carbon credits to me is akin to "buying" my way into heaven by paying the church to absolve my sins. Hey I can do whatever I want as long as I buy enough carbon credits to cover my sin.

If I'm really that concerned, I'll actually take action - not write a check.

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition, Novanglus. Most of the people who are buying carbon credits are also the people who are recycling, driving hybrids, riding bicycles, purchasing energy-efficient appliances, replacing lighting with compact fluorescents, and finding other ways to reduce their environmental footprint.

Indulgences were a matter of vanity and selfishness, focusing on saving your ass in the hereafter despite all the sins you committed -- or had yet to commit -- in a hedonistic life. Being carbon-neutral isn't about selfishness, since there's a good chance that none of the people alive today are going to live long enough to see the potential horrors of runaway global warming. It's the opposite: trying to do something that will have a positive effect on the world while reaping no personal benefit.

@Novanglus

On a more personal level.... the idea of buying carbon credits to me is akin to "buying" my way into heaven by paying the church to absolve my sins. Hey I can do whatever I want as long as I buy enough carbon credits to cover my sin.

If I'm really that concerned, I'll actually take action - not write a check.

You're to be encouraged to do other things, no question. But it is not just "buying an indulgence" as it once was known. Money is how we move the energy of society into productive channels. Cap and trade attaches an economic cost to an activity that up until now has gone unpaid for, and by gradually reducing the cap over time, we reduce emissions. Participating in the system means you begin to pay the cost of your own emissions, and that will change your behavior if you want to reduce your costs.

Maybe more directly, consider this. You could reduce GHG by planting a tree -- or lots of them -- and nurturing it to maturity. My sister, who has lots of land and is a wonderful gardener actually does this. Me, I live in a condo in the city and have a brown thumb, so I'm better off paying someone else to take care of the trees.

Well I try to be responsible with my resources. I drive small cars with good gas mileage, I have used fluorescent light bulbs for a couple of years now, I look for energy efficient appliances, etc. My electric bill averages ~$45/month. I recycle and so on. But it really has nothing to do with global warming. For me personally the jury is still out on that one. I just like to be responsible with my resources - responsible in environmental impact and responsible with my financial resources. It makes sense to me to buy fluorescent light bulbs if it means significant long-term savings - and the "green" benefits of those bulbs are just a side benefit. Eventually I'd like to be free of the electric co. altogether and generate my own power - but in due time I suppose.

I'm not sure what right-wing rag you picked up this latest batch of lies and misinformation from, but, considering how there's three comments in a row saying the same thing, I'm sure you're all just following orders to spread the lies quickly and widely.

Now listen carefully, because these are facts I'm about to lay out for you and you probably don't have much experience dealing with such things:

• Gore purchases carbon credits from the Chicago Climate Exchange, a non-profit organization which is the only market for carbon financial instrument trading in North America.

• Gore's company, Generation Investment Management is an Associate Member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and has no involvement with its ownership or finances.

• Al Gore is not a member of the Board of Directors of the Exchange, nor is he on the External Advisory Board, nor the Exchange's management.

• He purchases his home green power credits from the Tennessee Valley Authority's Green Power Switch program. The TVA is a US government entity and no one -- not even Al Gore -- gets any profit from government entities.

• Gore's company is an investment company, dedicated to making long-term investments in businesses and industries profitably involved in sustainability of society and the environment.

• Even the most ridiculous estimates of Gore's carbon usage say that his home consumes 20 times the average home's electricity use. But that number isn't dramatic enough for your lies, so you inflate it to "more carbon than most of will in a lifetime in a few short weeks." When you do your homework tonight, please make sure you ask your Mommy to explain to you about how numbers are not all the same.

• Finally, Gore drives a hybrid vehicle

Please come on back and talk with the grownups when you have something to say that comes out of your own mouth and not out of Rush Limbaugh's ass.

evano, you make me wish I could clip comments.

Nice one.

The TVA is a US government entity and no one -- not even Al Gore -- gets any profit from government entities.

What about Haliburton and all of the other war profiteers?

What about Haliburton and all of the other war profiteers?

They're gonna start a few more wars, buy some booze and party down this weekend, wanna come?

Thanks but I'm gettin too old for weekend long drunken booze fests.

Let me see if I have this straight...

Umm, yeah, well… Nope, it doesn't seem like you do. Quite. Exactly. Close, though. Inasmuch as 'close' and 'diametrically opposed' mean the same thing, anyway.

I would suggest that you read Evano's comment above. Enjoy.