Here's another perspective, but not that I am in agreement with it or in favor of Gore. His lifestyle is not the equivalent of the average American household.But the practice, or his, of buying carbon offsets may not be the doing much of anything.Also check ot Wikipedia excerpts here: Controversies:Not all environmentalists agree with carbon offsets. George Monbiot, an English environmentalist and progressive writer, has compared carbon offsets to the practice of purchasing Indulgences during the Middle Ages, whereby people with money could purchase forgiveness for their sins (instead of actually repenting and not sinning anymore). Monbiot also says that that the trade in carbon offsets is an excuse for business as usual with regards to pollution.In addition, some economists have questioned if carbon trading schemes are delivering the expected benefits. These questions result from a collapse in the price of carbon credits at two of the major carbon trading schemes. There are also concerns that using carbon offsets actually increases demand for polluting sources of power since overall power consumption isn't being reduced.Other controveries around carbon offsets revolve around the absence of market regulation or standards. This has resulted in a number of offset projects being questioned over their supposed benefits.check out this article in the Economist http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexchange/2007/02/the_oscar_win_for_al.cfm
Dan, I think a carbon tax would be much more effective and efficient than cabron trading. What do you think?I also think buying green power directly is the best solution (which Gore does in addition to buying offsets).
Nah, I'm not in favor of a carbon tax or increased taxes on energy. The federal gov't has enough money to send towards investments, and I believe science has enough money to work with at this time. That might change later. However, we can't buy our technology, creative minds have to develop it. Its going to take time and from the looks of it, we'll have affordable market ready solar pv panels for residential usage, industrial-sized electricity storage facilities, smaller but viable solar farms, near zero-emissions hydrogen-coal plants, and safe nuclear power plants. There's something about a vision of these windfarms spread out along ridgelines and along the coastline that I don't think will come to fruition. In the meantime, the gov't should mandate participation by all larger sized industrial, corporate and retail facilities in an energy efficiency program. The law can't make them conserve, but once they see how they can save money in the long run and reduce their energy footprint for the good of society, many will voluntarily implement those efficiency changes. 40% of all industrial electricity purchased, is wasted and never used in its intended process. Ban the production of CFL's w/i 3 years like Australia. There isn't a need for incandescent bulbs and the only entity which favors their existances are power companies. Discount incentives on programmible thermostat purchases, and mandate all new bldgs have them installed. No more of these plain old on-and-off thermostat devices any longer. Set benchmark standards on all energy distributors towards demand management and an incremental basis, forever. These companies are guaranteed a positive rate of return on all investments, not to mention the ability to raise rates of kwh, and most have a monopoly, so the gov't should make a law forcing that they reduce peak consumption. 3% reduction of peak load is comparable to 2-3 years load growth. Nationally, that's a few power plants and miles of new transmissions line avoided every year. If anything our gov't should plow more money into higher education and scholarships for our youths. Have an excellent weekend. The one good thing about "global warming" is, it provides a welcome relief from this crappy weather we have been having.
oops....Its going to take time and from the looks of it, by 2015-2025...
Post a Comment