Green is as green does . . .

Who cares if Al Gore goes on a private jet, as long as he buys the appropriate carbon offset?

(A private jet, for those who may not realize it, is just about the single most carbon-wasteful thing in the world, except maybe burning high-sulfur coal for the sheer fun of it.)

There are two ways an economist could look at this.

One way of looking at it is that he doesn't add any more carbon to the world than he would taking a commercial flight, or walking, provided he buys the offset. This assumes, of course, that offsets work, a question in some doubt. But as long as you're efficiently pricing the environmental cost to be actually carbon neutral, it's none of our business what sort of transportation you use.

But another way of looking at it is that if Al Gore cares about the environment, and is willing to pay, say $500 to take the equivalent of a private-jet-trip's worth of carbon out of the air, then he ought to do so regardless of whether he has flown. He ought to buy all of the carbon offsets he feels necessary or affordable--and then reduce carbon still further by taking a commercial flight, or a train. Since Al Gore seems to feel that we should all do everything possible to reduce our carbon footprint, this is not unreasonable. Taxation is the solution to problems where you cannot secure the voluntary restraint of others; it is odd to try the same stunt on yourself.

I'm not sure which view I find more compelling. Does Al Gore have an obligation to not merely stay carbon neutral, but try to reduce the profligacy of his neighbors? Does it matter that he's made a tidy sum from those neighbors exhorting them to lower their carbon footprint? People seem to feel intuitively that it does, but the actual logical reasoning generally seems fuzzy.

Comments

One of my favorite comments on this sort of thing is that (quoted approximately) "I will take global warming advocates seriously when they start acting like it is serious."

Too many global warming alarmists continue to drive SUVs and fly around in private jets and live in huge houses to take them seriously.

I'm actually forced to be more environmentally friendly by pricing and by law while the "Gulfstream Liberals" burn hydrocarbons like crazy extreme hydrocarbon burning things...

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 7, 2007 6:09 PM

There are two Americas one for those who can afford to buy carbon offsets and one for those who can not.

When will people start talking about "carbon offset" inequality.

Shouldn't rich people pay a lot more for their carbon offsets than poor people.

What about targeted carbon offset tax deductions for the middle class?

What about carbon offset welfare for poor people?

I could go on and on :)

Posted by Dave | September 7, 2007 6:21 PM

Consistent behavior is always nice, but the argument. . . that if he REALLY cared about carbon emissions he would spend as much as he could on offsets, ,and still walk to work. . .seems designed to make altruism look ridiculous and extreme; after all if giving to charity is so good, then why not give ALL your money away. Since you don't, then obviously charity is no good.

I would have thought the carbon market was a nice balance of altruism and self interest.

Posted by phosphorious | September 7, 2007 6:24 PM

Phosporious has a point. I would rather restate it this way:

If he REALLY cared about carbon emissions, he would spend enough to actually take net carbon out of the air.

I don't really care how Gore travels, but if he wanted to set an example, he would not be caught on camera doing things like traveling on a private jet. That just seems stupid.

Posted by Yancey Ward | September 7, 2007 6:30 PM

Consistent behavior is always nice, but the argument. . . that if he REALLY cared about carbon emissions he would spend as much as he could on offsets, ,and still walk to work. . .seems designed to make altruism look ridiculous and extreme; after all if giving to charity is so good, then why not give ALL your money away.

No one’s suggesting that Mr. Gore walk to work*, merely that he might take a train or commercial flight rather than a private jet. Or live in a place that’s at least as environmentally friendly as the Crawford home of the “worst president for the environment in the entire history of the United States of America -- bar none.”

* Although IIRC one of the justifications for the rather high energy usage for his home was that he was going to be working out of it.

Posted by Thorley Winston | September 7, 2007 6:37 PM

No one’s suggesting that Mr. Gore walk to work*, merely that he might take a train or commercial flight rather than a private jet.

Unless he's producing exactly 0 carbon emissions, there is, by this argument room to complain. It's a case of making the best the enemy of the good.

As for Bush's eco-friendly house: why is it not the case that we criticize Bush for publically acting as if global warming is not a problem, while privately spending quite a bit to make his house friendly to the environment? Consistency cuts both ways.

Posted by phosphorious | September 7, 2007 6:46 PM

Hypocrisy is a powerful charge but it must be remembered that it is a charge leveled against the man and not against the argument that the man is making.

If Mr. Gore spent all of his free time burning mountains of coal to toast marshmallows, he would be a terrible hypocrite; however, his hypocrisy would say nothing at all about the practicality and desirability of carbon offsets (to say nothing of the larger debate with regards to global warming).

Too often, charges of hypocrisy become a sort of ad hominem used to defeat an argument by ignoring the argument in favor of attacking the arguer.

Whether or not "global warming alarmists continue to drive SUVs and fly around in private jets and live in huge houses" says absolutely nothing as to whether to not their position should or should not be taken seriously.

Posted by Andrew Lias | September 7, 2007 7:12 PM

To further Andrew's point above, wouldn't one economic argument for why this may not be hypocritical be to view it as a form of investment?

For example, suppose this trip on a private jet results in 500 pounds of CO2 emission. This wasteful behavior is inherently hyprocritical for an environmental advocate, no? But what if the point of his flight is to give a speech to 1,000 people who, upon being moved by his environmental pleas, each alter their lives to emit 1 less pound of CO2 each day. Therefore a one-time investment of 500 pounds of CO2 results in a decrease of 1,000 pounds every day in perpetuity (or at least until the post-Al afterglow fades). The environment is a clear net winner.

Should we evaluate the marginal emissions associated with the private flight vs. a regular ticket? Of course, and if Al's plane took off and landed right next to a United flight going the same route, this is a valid argument. And if, in fact, Al is jetting to Cabo for a weekend vacation, then, well, to put it bluntly the arguments about hypocrisy are a bit more valid. But to seize on Al taking a flight in isolation as evidence of hypocrisy is to ignore the potential positive impact on the environment resulting from his efforts, IMHO.

Posted by Tony | September 7, 2007 7:42 PM

Andrew and Tony beat me to the punch.

I find these criticisms really pointless. Not because Gore is immune from any accusation of hypocrisy. But because the accusation is invariably disingenuous and made, as Andrew says, as an ad hominem to discredit the issue of global warming.

Posted by space | September 7, 2007 8:13 PM

The problem with the way the global warming alarmist jet around is that they do not appear to be acting as if the situation were dire. They tell everyone that the situation is dire and they tell everyone to drastically cut their carbon emissions. They do not appear to be changing their lifestyle at all to minimize carbon production. If nothing else, they should at least try to set a good example.

You are correct, though, this behavior does not actually speak to the validity of their arguments. However, it does make them seem less serious than their words might indicate they would be.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 7, 2007 8:48 PM

"space",

Nobody needs to do an "ad hominem to discredit the issue of global warming". Al Gore, himself, is a walking, breathing, private jet-flying, mansion-collecting, talking, talking, talking, talking, real-life ad hominem in vivo.

Nobody had to invent Al Gore, or make up his behavior. Who'd dare?

I'm with Glenn Reynolds on this: when Gore et al. actually start behaving as if they really think Antarctica will melt if they don't themselves wear hairshirts, I'll start considering whether I should wear one myself. Until then: not so much.

Posted by Erich Schwarz | September 7, 2007 8:53 PM

Space et al.,

I don't think that an ad hominem in this case is disingenuous at all. Ad hominems can be excellent reasons for believing something to be true or false. They are just not good reasons for truth or falsity on their own.

See the distinction? It is about reasons for belief versus reasons for truth. McArdle and the other commentators on this issue are not physicists, or math whizzes (no disrespect intended.) Not to mention they probably lack the time or inclination to specialize in climatology or physics. Thus, they are not in the best position to directly have reasons for the truth about the severity of Global warming. But, by looking at what people like Gore, and other self-identified experts, actually do, these commentators can develop perfectly sensible reasons for believing Gore et al.

Posted by Dan in Euroland | September 7, 2007 8:57 PM

I suggest (halfway seriously) that Al Gore has enough money to buy carbon dioxide and sequester it forever. For example, I suspect that Vice President Gore could go down to his local bottler, buy a few canisters of CO2 and actually recapture some of the CO2 that he emitted.

Doubtless his Nashville home has enough room to store (indefinitely in compressed gas form) the CO2 that his lifestyle demands.

Posted by Klug | September 7, 2007 9:27 PM

Former US VP A. A. Gore, Jr. wishes to be taken seriously about global climate change. His congressional "testimony" in April, 2007 said we needed to reduce carbon emissions by 90% by 2050, not buy offsets equal to 90% of our emissions by 2050. Arguably, there are not sufficient real offsets available for sale to do so.

If AGW is a problem, it is a global problem; and, it requires a global solution. Anything less is doomed to failure. If AGW is an imminent threat of a catastrophe of monumental proportions; and, if AGW is being caused totally, or largely, by anthropogenic carbon emissions; and, if we are rapidly approaching a "tipping point" with regard to carbon concentrations in the atmosphere; then, anthropogenic carbon emissions must be eliminated as rapidly as possible.

However, if the effort to reduce carbon emissions does not include the globe's largest carbon emitter, China, it is doomed to failure, regardless of what the US, or Al Gore, does to reduce carbon emissions or buy carbon offsets.

Posted by Ed Reid | September 7, 2007 10:44 PM

This comment has been deleted for calling other commenters names.

Posted by space | September 7, 2007 11:09 PM

Dan in Euroland,

Are you kidding me? You are saying that the objective evidence of melting polar icecaps is beyond your (and Megan's) grasp but whether Al Gore takes the train is a viable proxy for evaluating the merits of climate change claims?

You really think that?

I was tempted to simply dismiss this as idiocy, but I actually want to break this down.

You seem to be suggesting that (a) Al Gore DOES have the expertise to evaluate the science, (b) he may secretly believe that global warming is a farce, and (c) analyzing whether Gore makes certain personal sacrifices is a good method of determining whether Gore is perpetrating a massive hoax.

Again, are you serious? The level of wingnuttery is truly staggering.

Posted by space | September 7, 2007 11:24 PM

If Al Gore believes that CO2 emissions is the most serious existing threat, why doesn't he publicly drop his opposition to nuclear power?

That could have a huge effect.

-dk

Posted by Dick King | September 8, 2007 12:35 AM

"space",

Oh. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that in criticizing Al Gore's ostentatiously unconcerned-with-disaster lifestyle, I was actually blaspheming your god.

Unfortunately, Goreus Divus is simply wrong, if he's claiming that offsets alone have a snowball-in-hell chance of counteracting rising CO^2 levels. And that's not my opinion; that's Prof. Nathan Lewis of Caltech's informed opinion:

http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXX2/lewis-web.pdf

The hard scientific reality, which Lewis makes achingly clear, is that the actual substantive actions which would give us some real chance of genuinely arresting the effects of CO^2 levels on global temperature aren't impossible, scientifically -- but they're likely to either be extremely unpopular politically (mass-production of breeder nuclear reactors), or are simply not economical yet (mass-migration to solar power plus development of much better battery technologies than we have now).

But don't take my word for it: read Lewis' lecture. Please. It's an example of how a grown-up can actually both care about climate change and yet not indulge in popular nostrums. I.e., it's got about the same relationship to Gore's bloviations as lightning does to the lightning-bug.

Posted by Erich Schwarz | September 8, 2007 3:22 AM

Space,

Huh? You made the claim “But because the accusation is invariably disingenuous and made, as Andrew says, as an ad hominem to discredit the issue of global warming.”

I expressed the fact that people can question the reasons to believe Gore without being disingenuous. I refuted this claim as idiocy, which anyone even remotely versed in logic would recognize. Ad hominems are tremendously valuable as reasons for BELIEF. The accusation was in no way disingenuous, the accusation accurately rebutted a reason for belief of imminent climate peril.

“The level of wingnuttery is truly staggering.”

At what point did I state my position on GW? How can you infer any wingnuttery from my post unless of course pointing out logical errors constitutes wingnuttery. In short you are LOGICALLY wrong to make the claim that ad hominems are irrevelant to assess the implications of an individual’s positions on global warming. They are entirely relevant.

Dude, you made the claim that McArdle should not be making ad hominems, I rightfully pointed out that ad hominems are perfectly acceptedly as reasons of BELIEF.

“You seem to be suggesting that (a) Al Gore DOES have the expertise to evaluate the science,”
He made the claim, not I. I am simply evaluating that claim.

“(b) he may secretly believe that global warming is a farce”
Based upon Gore’s actions, yes it is entire rational to believe that GW is a farce. Again, this is different than having reasons for the truth of global warming actually being a farce, but you seem to be missing this point.

“(c) analyzing whether Gore makes certain personal sacrifices is a good method of determining whether Gore is perpetrating a massive hoax.”
Huh, again. How are his actions not good representations of his opinions on the matters at hand? Is the principle of revealed preference so besmirched that we have lost all ability to evaluate people’s actions?

Look, despite the way my wording may sound I am not trying to attack you personally. I am simply evaluating your claim that ad hominems should not be considered when I think it is perfectly valid to do so.

"You are saying that the objective evidence of melting polar icecaps is beyond your (and Megan's) grasp"

To properly evaluate this evidence you must have a full understanding of the theory behind it. Perhaps it is not beyond McArdle's current information partition, but it is beyond most people's information partition. Thus, most people will be left with evaluating the claims of the person who made them, and whether or not to believe them. That strikes me as a rational course of action. If you disagree explain why.

Posted by Dan in Euroland | September 8, 2007 7:54 AM

Proving that global warming is happening and that humans have a significant affect on it are two different things, btw. Before we cripple our economy and throw out all of our hydrocarbon-based energy technology, we should have more solid proof that a) global warming is an impending disaster and b) doing so will reduce global warming significantly. Proving a) does not prove b).

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 8, 2007 8:16 AM

Forget all this. What about the more serious threat of Man-Bear-Pig, half man, half bear, half pig?

Posted by Ron J | September 8, 2007 10:02 AM

What is the difference between buying 'carbon offsets' now and the buying of indulgences hundreds of years ago, leading to the Protestant Reformation.

Posted by HLT | September 8, 2007 10:04 AM

Whether or not "global warming alarmists continue to drive SUVs and fly around in private jets and live in huge houses" says absolutely nothing as to whether to not their position should or should not be taken seriously.

True, but their actions undermine their positions while revealing them for the hypocrites they are.

Edwards said he will ask Americans to sacrifice their SUVs, yet he has no qualms about owning and driving SUVs. If he believes SUVs are part of the problem, then he should lead by example and get rid of his SUVs.

Gore says we must all change our lifestyles, yet he lives in a mansion that consumes several times more energy every year than the average American whom he is calling upon to make sacrifices, even though he's not willing to make those sacrifices himself.

If you expect people to take your positions seriously, then you must take your own positions seriously by walking your own talk. Neither Gore, Edwards, or many of the other AGW alarmists do so.

By saying we must sacrifice, while not willing to make the same sacrifices themselves, they are in fact undermining their credibility, while damaging the cause for which they fight.

As for Bush's eco-friendly house: why is it not the case that we criticize Bush for publically acting as if global warming is not a problem, while privately spending quite a bit to make his house friendly to the environment? Consistency cuts both ways.

If Bush built an ecofriendly house because of his concerns with AGW, then your argument would be valid. However, I seriously doubt AGW was the reason for building such a house.

Many of us on the right are conservationist who care a great deal about the environment, however, we act privately on our beliefs and we don't elevate our environmental concerns to the religious level often found on the left.

Posted by Dogwood | September 8, 2007 10:10 AM

Dubious science advanced by impassioned hucksterism does not a crisis make. In a short time, global warming will be a thing of the past, a relic of another failed crisis or "next great thing", much like Y2K and immunotherapy, the ultimate cancer cure that has gone almost nowhere.

Advice: Do not bet on politicians who promote public policy widely supported by the entertainment industry. That is a recipe for failure and embarassment.

Posted by TPrewitt | September 8, 2007 10:17 AM

...nor do we attempt to impose them on others.

Posted by Ed Reid | September 8, 2007 10:18 AM

What is the difference you say...

Well
Al Gore lives a high carbon lifestyle and buys offsets and encourages others to do so, even though they most of them will not make a difference. (Planting trees now will not affect the supposed tipping point due in the next few years)

Whereas
If the Pope opened a catholic brothel where the customers do not pay for sex, they pay an indulgence for committing adultery, and this allows the Catholic Church to get around prostitution laws, making the Pope the most successful pimp in the world.

The difference between these two scenarios, one real, one imagined, is that nobody here would have the audacity to defend the Pope.

Posted by Greg Yanik | September 8, 2007 10:31 AM

My God you guys.

It is not about the money. It is about saving the planet.

How much is a planet worth?

And you capitalist pigs think you can buy it for mere dollars?

Posted by M. Simon | September 8, 2007 10:34 AM

Dan,

You are so right about the melting polar ice caps.

They melt in local summer and grow back in local winter.

This year the grow back in the Arctic came about three weeks early leaving some sailor stuck in the ice and at the mercy of a Russian Nuclear Powered ice breaker.

Global Warming or Global Cooling it seems nuclear power is very handy.

I like IEC Fusion Technology. We could have it in ten years if this:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/11/easy-low-cost-no-radiation-fusion.html

works out.

Posted by M. Simon | September 8, 2007 10:47 AM

If Gore was serious about reducing CO2 emissions he would get behind banning beer, champaign, and soda pop.

Huge contributors to environmental CO2.

Posted by M. Simon | September 8, 2007 10:52 AM

"Carbon Offsets" .. the modern version of indulgences.

So who will be the modern version of Martin Luther ?

Posted by Neo | September 8, 2007 10:54 AM

"It is not about the money. It is about saving the planet."

The planet will go on despite global warming. It may be an inconvenience to us, and some species may be lost but nobody is claiming that life on earth will die off due to GW.

"And you capitalist pigs think you can buy it for mere dollars?"

Any attempt to buy the entire planet would result in a dramatic increase in property values, since the sellers would not have any place to go. Unless someone solves the habitable planet shortage, it is simply out of the question. Any true capitalist pig will understand this. You should try to pay better attention, you seem to be missing the gist of the conversation.

Posted by Greg Yanik | September 8, 2007 10:55 AM

"So who will be the modern version of Martin Luther ?"

Good question, who knows, but I think I know the crowd that will excommunicate him and try to burn him at the stake.

(I know Martin Luther was not burned at the stake, but only because he kept his head down)

Posted by Greg Yanik | September 8, 2007 10:59 AM

Ouch, Space - you got schooled!

Posted by Campesino | September 8, 2007 11:03 AM

With respect to carbon offsets, they are not one bloody bit different than the indulgences sold by the pre-Protestant Reformation Catholic Church - "sin all you want as long as you keep the money coming in."

That being said, I will be happy to plant some trees (on public land, no less) in your name for the entirely reasonable sum of $100 per sapling.

Honest.

I'll even send you a beautiful certificate (suitable for framing) attesting to your environmentally sound practices.

Posted by Letalis | September 8, 2007 11:14 AM

"Saving the Planet."

What nonsense. Nobody is going to "save the planet." The planet has been undergoing ice ages and warm periods since its inception. Long before primates had learned to walk upright, the planet had been through innumerable period of drastic climate change. The planet, you see, doesn't give a tinker's dam what we do.

Besides, in a few billion years (give or take an epoch or three), our star (the sun) will supernova and that will be the end of this little mudball. And, unless we have figured out a way to go elsewhere (and presuming the dead-ender Islamists haven't blown nuked the human race into extinction) the supernova will take care of us in short order.

Posted by Letalis | September 8, 2007 11:21 AM

So who will be the modern version of Martin Luther ?

Bjorn Lomborg.

Posted by K. | September 8, 2007 11:23 AM

"That being said, I will be happy to plant some trees (on public land, no less) in your name for the entirely reasonable sum of $100 per sapling."

Sounds like a business plan.

I happen to have 80 acres of land that is about 50% forested and 50% fallow farmland. I am thinking of planting indulgences (trees) on the open space, and if business goes well I will cut down the forested half so that I can plant there as well. Isn't that how this business works?

Posted by Greg Yanik | September 8, 2007 11:28 AM

This is not about indulgences. Medieval indugences were sold on the (probably specious) promise that they would balance one's sins on Judgement Day.

Carbon offsets allow folks to buy and retire carbon credits that could otherwise be used to offset real carbon emissions by coal burning utilities and other polluters. Offset purchases also help make new technologies (wind, solar, etc.) more economical for developers. New technologies always need to work down the learning/cost curve before they become truly economical on a stand alone basis. Cumulative volume production is the key factor in lowering costs. An example is the Apple II that I bought in 1980 for $2000 versus the hot HP I bought this spring for $700.

Offset purchases, therefore, make emissions more expensive and support new technologies. I submit that offsets are much more effective in meeting the goals of their purchasers than papal indulgences were.

One other point: many purchasers of offsets are ordinary people who are very concerned about their impact on the environment. Retail offset providers (Carbonfund, Terrapass, etc.) have developed an efficient mechanism for people to make a contribution after they have reduced their carbon usage through other means. The best ones are transparent, certified and inexpensive. This is not only about the rich.

Posted by Pilgrim | September 8, 2007 11:30 AM

"Too often, charges of hypocrisy become a sort of ad hominem used to defeat an argument by ignoring the argument in favor of attacking the arguer."

Unfortunately so much of Inconvenient Truth WAS about Al Gore almost as much as it was about Global Warming. The vignettes, his new purpose etc. It wasn't just political, it was personal. If he gets heat from it in this case, then I'm sorry but he deserves it.

Ed Beagly Jr, an amiable D lister at least makes a solid effort to live the lifestyle. But moral scourges like Gore, DiCapprio and the rest simply come off like Fakes cashing in on the new fad no matter how much they care-more-than-you.

Posted by Kevin | September 8, 2007 11:46 AM

There are two Americas one for those who can afford to buy carbon offsets and one for those who can not.

While Laurie David and Al Gore would hopscotch around the world on their Gulfstream Jets with a clear conscience because they could sell themselves carbon credits, the rest of us were racked with guilt for using air conditioning during scorching summer days or turning the thermostat above 62 F. in winter. Even Our children ashamed of us after watching Al Gore's Earth in the Balance in school.

But not anymore! You, too, can obtain all the carbon credits you need. And unlike those carbon credit scams sold elsewhere, not a penny of your money goes into someone else's pocket.

So, while you can't sell carbon credits to yourself, you can emit carbon conscience-free without making someone else rich.

Posted by Bruce Rheinstein | September 8, 2007 11:53 AM

Pilgrim has it exactly right.

The most popular form of carbon offsets is buying green power from your utility, offsetting the electricity you use in yo home (indulgence?) by buying green power elsewhere.

While only 2% of the new electricity generation since 1997 has been renewable (the rest coal and gas), and half of that from voluntary purchases, renewables have increased by 25% per year or more and the price has dropped. Wind is almost cost competitive with coal BECAUSE of the voluntary actions of a tiny fraction of people.

In other words, carbon offsets are about market transformation and environmental responsibility. Carbon offsets also work.

Nor are they about indulgences for most people. We all wear clothes, we all eat food and we all use energy for our daily lives. And many of us go to grandma's house for Thanksgiving.

If these are indulgences, let's get naked. Otherwise, we have two choices: offset our emissions and promote the market transformation to a clean energy future. Or not.

L

Posted by Leviticus | September 8, 2007 11:58 AM

You may remember: back in the Sixties and Seventies, the coming climate crisis was a new Ice Age. If I had to choose between global warming and an Ice Age, I would go for the global warming.

I'm glad the planet is warming a bit. We've finally climbed out of the Little Ice Age and are back to the temperature regime of AD 1000, when England was a wine-producing country.

What I'd like to see is a little questioning, not of global warming - that is a matter of record. Not of anthropogenic contributions to global warming - I'll grant that for the argument. But I want to see a more honest evaluation of what good might come from global warming; and of what we could do (besides wear a hair-shirt and flagellate ourselves) to improve the results.

Posted by Dr. Ellen | September 8, 2007 11:59 AM

My God you guys. It is not about the money. It is about saving the planet. How much is a planet worth?

This is exactly the type of hyperbole that undermines the environmental movement and turns away so many conservationists on the right.

As other posters have noted, the Earth has been around for a long time, it does not need saved. Polar ice has melted in the past, and it has grown in the past, and it will continue to do so in the future.

Only human arrogance allows us to believe that we are more powerful than the natural forces that shape our world. News flash, we're not.

What humans can do is make local environments extremely hazardous to human health through excessive pollution, and we need to make sure we don't do so, but the belief that humans are destroying or can destroy the Earth is simply ludicrous.

The Earth will keep on chugging along without us, our job is to make sure we don't do so much damage that Earth becomes uninhabitable for humans.

Posted by Dogwood | September 8, 2007 12:01 PM

"This is not about indulgences. Medieval indulgences were sold on the (probably specious) promise that they would balance one's sins on Judgement Day."

As mortals, we have little knowledge with which to judge the afterlife.

"Carbon offsets allow folks to buy and retire carbon credits that could otherwise be used to offset real carbon emissions by coal burning utilities and other polluters."

While there may be some forms of offsets that are useful, planting trees is not one of them.

1.If you take an area full of smaller plants and plant a tree instead, the smaller plants are shaded and their carbon absorption goes down. Unless you plant on otherwise bare soil it is a trade off, and bare fertile soil doesn't stay that way on its own.

2. When trees die most of their carbon is released. Much of as far worse methane thanks to termites. (Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2)

3. Old growth forests absorb less carbon than younger forests.

The best approach is to cut down old growth forests, plant young forests, and use the old growth to make cheap disposable flat pack furniture and cardboard that will be disposed of quickly and sent to a landfill where the carbon will be sequestered effectively. Find a global warming alarmist that will approve of this and I will show you an honest person. What they are talking about now is merely moral masturbation.

Posted by Greg Yanik | September 8, 2007 12:19 PM

Carbon offsets are very much like indulgences inasmuch as, and to the extent that, the Gulfstream/Big Mansion crowd trot them out in an attempt to avoid being criticized for their mega carbon producing lifestyles.

Mega carbon producing lifestyles that they enjoy while hectoring the rest of us to drive a Prius and live in a yurt. When Gore was criticized for having a house the size of a rural American town, the very first *thing* that Gore's "spokesman" said was that Gore purchased enough carbon offsets to justify using enough electricity to power an apartment complex.

Posted by Letalis | September 8, 2007 12:39 PM

"The Earth will keep on chugging along without us, our job is to make sure we don't do so much damage that Earth becomes uninhabitable for humans."

Good job, Dogwood, stumbling onto the actual issue at hand.

Posted by space | September 8, 2007 12:52 PM

On Reforestation

18% of our climate change problem is the direct result of de-forestation since the 1800's.

As such, re-forestation is absolutely an important part of solving climate change, though not, obviously, the only solution.

Further, re-forestation is the only carbon offset that actually reduces CO2 in the atmosphere TODAY and from the last 50-100 years. Renewables and efficiency reduce the need for future emissions (also important).

The point is to do it right. The UN has set guidelines on how to do this and allow and encourage reforestation as part of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International, among the most respected land-use organizations in the world, using the UN guidelines, have created a certification for reforestation offsets.

Environmental Resources Trust, in conjunction with Winrock International, two more great organizations, also verifies reforestation offsets.

You may like one offset over another, and the market transformation opportunities of energy efficiency and renewable energy are critical, but certified emissions reductions, including from re-forestation, are what show the quality of a carbon offset.

L

Posted by Leviticus | September 8, 2007 12:53 PM

A lot of you are missing the point. This isn't just like "giving to a charity"- Gore and his ilk claim that by not ending our current use of energy etc. we are risking the entire planet, and possibly the entire human race. If he really believes that, its NOT unreasonable that he divest himself of EVERYTHING that uses carbon, and then exhort others to do so, and contribute every cent he has to 'offsets' that really work.

The entire 'offset' market is a crock of shite. If, as they claim, the current level of emissions is really going to destroy the planet, no amount of 'offsets' is going to matter a whit.

Posted by docweasel | September 8, 2007 1:01 PM

I don't think the problem is that Al Gore doesn't take AGW seriously when he flies a Gulfstream and buys carbon offsets. I think that by talking about all of the sacrifice we are supposed to make, it is a case of carbon offsets for me but not for thee.

You know how the cable company says that you can get all of these features for a mere $100/month? While $100/month adds up to real money real fast, the pitch is that you could have all of this neat TV for a small slice of your paycheck.

The Let's Fix AGW pitch could be "We could fix Global Warming with a mere 2 cents a kilowatt hour levied on electricity and a mere 30 cents a gallon fee on gasoline. Those fees would pay for forest planting or powerplant efficiency or a program for alternate fuels or for wind power, or people could avoid the fees if they wish if they used fluorescent light bulbs or switched to hybrid cars. People would not even have to give up their SUV's if they would pay the fees on gasoline to support the carbon offsets. Why, look at me, I tool around the country in a Gulfstream, but I am carbon-neutral because out of the goodness of my heart I pay for these offsets even though I don't have to. The only reason these offsets are not mandatory is because Bush and Cheney are evil and in conspiracy with Big Oil and Big Power and blah, blah, blah."

But Al Gore and many others cannot help themselves. They do not think in terms of conducting a successful marketing campaign. Saving the Earth has to be bitter medicine that involves such hard sacrifice, and they can't help not restricting their scolding to President Bush, the Republicans, and Big Oil and Big Power, they have to scold every last one of us. Hence they paint themselves into a corner.

Instead of being like some dour preacher telling us we are all wretched sinners, they need to channel Reverend Ike -- believe in Jesus and the money will roll in, just like it does for me.

Posted by Paul Milenkovic | September 8, 2007 1:02 PM

The open questions regarding AGW are very significant. 1) What is the ultimate percentage reduction required to "solve the problem"? 2) What is the time frame over which these reductions must be achieved? 3) What is the plan to achieve these reductions within this time frame? 4) What is the expected cost of achieving these reductions within this time frame? 5) How will this cost impact the economies of the affected nations?

Leviticus,

Comparing the cost of reliable power produced by burning coal and "source of opportunity" power generated by wind turbines is interesting; but, the important comparison is the VALUE of the power. Current wind turbine capacity factors are in the 20-30% range; during the CA heat wave last summer, the capacity factor was closer to 4%. That power is fine, when it is available; however, its cost is infinite when it is calm.

Posted by Ed Reid | September 8, 2007 1:33 PM

Docweasel,
You are wrong.

If you switch from coal electricity to wind electricity, you are reducing CO2 and helping a whole lot of whits, even if you use the same amount of electricity.

And in doing so, you are increasing demand for and helping drive down the cost of wind below coal so someday you will get wind from your utility simply because it is the most cost effective energy source.

The issue is not that we use energy, it is the type of energy we use.

The Solutions Are right There in Front of Us

If all our cars ran on hydrogen we may still complain about traffic but we would not be complaining about the climate impact of cars. If our homes and businesses ran on wind and solar we could argue that saving energy saves money but we would not be arguing about whether our omes caused climate change.

Today we no longer complain about aerosols impact on the ozone. Why? Because we've removed the most dangerous CFCs. And guess what? The ozone is getting smaller.

When was the last time you read about acid rain, which was a huge story, an international issue between the US and Canada? Why no more stories? Because we put in a cap-and-trade and reduced SO2 emissions to sustainable levels.

So today, we may complain about coal plants or industrial emissions, but not because of the SO2 impact.

The solutions are here. Embrace them.

L

Posted by Leviticus | September 8, 2007 1:38 PM

In the end, I'll start taking global warming seriously when those who claim to know so much about it turn off their air conditioners and take public transportation to work. End of story.

And, I'm sick of idiots who don't understand the difference between pollution and global warming. Is it really so hard to understand that one can be against pollution and still grasp that global warming is simply an unproven farce designed to further control your lives and raise your taxes?

Posted by Becky | September 8, 2007 1:52 PM

Leviticus,

One 3 MW wind turbine will produce ~3 MW of power about 25% of the time. Producing ~3 MW of power about 90% of the time with wind turbines would require about eight 3 MW wind turbines in eight diverse and carefully selected locations. The cost of that 90% reliable power would be significantly higher than the cost of 90% reliable power from a coal-fired generator.

Posted by Ed Reid | September 8, 2007 1:53 PM

"The solutions are here. Embrace them."-Leviticus

Beware of people peddling simplistic solutions to complex problems. To the extent that global warming is a problem, it is one among many. And any proposed "solution" should be analysed carefully in terms of its costs and benefits.

A carbon tax might make sense, but mandates like CAFE standards and regulations concerning alternative fuels do not. It would be wonderful if, as Leviticus and others suggest, we could just wave a magic wand and switch to hydrogen or wind power, with no costs. But the truth is that any such change would be very expensive and resources are scarce.

Posted by Isocrates | September 8, 2007 2:01 PM

I get my electricity from a nuclear power plant in Florida and thus I have mucho moral energy credits in the bank. If any of you weepy greenies that are consuming electrical power from coal powered plants want to assuage your well deserved guilt lets make a deal. My "credits" are for sale.

Posted by Incredulous | September 8, 2007 2:03 PM

For all of the global warming acolites - how is your support of Al Gore any different than Christian support for Ted Haggart or Tammy Faye?

Just wondering.

Posted by Becky | September 8, 2007 2:08 PM

Unfortunately, there just isn't any power source that will significantly replace coal and/or gas. We can build some solar, wind, etc... to help supplement, but the bulk of our energy is going to come from coal and/or gas for a long time. Nuclear is the only thing that has a chance of replacing a significant amount of coal/gas power. Some environmentalists are finally realizing this.

I have to agree... the manbearpig alarmists are telling us that AGW is a dire threat to humanity. Given that, they should be doing something a little more extreme then buying carbon offsets from their own company to offset their profligate lifestyles.

And hydrogen IS NOT A POWER SOURCE. The hydrogen to fuel hydrogen cars must be made using another source of energy. To power all of the cars in the US with hydrogen, we would need a tremendous amount of power generation to make the hydrogen. We'd be burning coal and/or gas again... It might be more efficient, but modern gasoline car engines are pretty efficient.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 8, 2007 2:09 PM

"Further, re-forestation is the only carbon offset that actually reduces CO2 in the atmosphere TODAY and from the last 50-100 years."

Until the tree dies and rots releasing its carbon as CO2, Methane and other green house gasses. An existing pristine forest is pretty much carbon neutral. Cut the forest down and use it to make product packaging that ends up in landfills and you are actually sequestering carbon.

Posted by Greg Yanik | September 8, 2007 3:15 PM

Megan,

Why do you call yourself an economist when you only have an MBA? To my thinking, an economist has a Ph.D. in economics and works at the discipline, in academia, or in a bank or investment house, or other position that requires you to look at real data, analyze it, etc.

Precisely how many economics courses have you taken?

Posted by Charles Giacometti | September 8, 2007 4:08 PM

People who use someone else's behavior as a justification for their own are con men. Who cares what Gore does? Are you cutting back your carbon output?

Of course, the dreadful side of Global Warming is that there are over 6 billion of us. Moderation and abstemious behavior isn't going to cut it. The climate baseline was set when there were, for all practical purposes, no human additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Simple moderation isn't a solution. Say, for example, that we flatlined our carbon use at 1990's levels. We're still going to get quite a bit of the extra heating which could have genuinely terrible consequences. Just further down the road than we would if we continued our pedal-to-the-metal ways.
Another dreadful aspect is that we don't know the consequences and so have little leverage to induce change. The indeterminable nature of the downside, both in severity and in time, do nothing but make doing something seem comic, puritanical, and even destructive.

So it goes.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 8, 2007 4:12 PM

Gore's no better than a cult leader who demands you give up your worldly possessions so he can be chauffered around in a Rolls. He's selling these bogus offsets, that's the real inconvenient truth. Stole the idea from Enron and must be laughing himself silly watching half the world jump when he says how high, and getting richer in the process. If he were as interested in "saving the world" as he pretends to be, cutting back on his personal use would be a simple way to silence many skeptics. Why is that such a problem for him?

Gore is far more interested in his bank balance and his image as Gaia Messiah than whether or not humans are contributing to global warming this time.

Posted by Uncle Mikey | September 8, 2007 4:16 PM

I've been forecasting worldwide weather for 35 years. As of two days ago, we were completely uncertain regarding the development of what is now subtropical storm Gabrielle. Our best computer models made wind forecasts ranging from 30 knots to 85 knots in North Carolina on a time frame ranging from Friday to th following Wednesday.

The weather community currently has the ability to forecast El Nino with some accuracy for two-three weeks. It is probably the single best indicator for seasonal climatology.

We have very little skill in accurately forecasting solar activity for any length of time (days-weeks). We are still learning a lot about its affects on our solar system.

The oceans release much more CO2 than mankind.

The most common greenhouse gas is water vapor (often seen as clouds).

Why would we believe climatologist to be accurate decades from now when we can't get a 5 day forecast right? In fact, the average global temperature has already cooled over the past two years... Hmmm.

There is so much that most folks don't know about the physical sciences that cherry-picking facts to support one's position is easy for either side of this discussion.

What I'm sure of is that we do not understand the causes of planetary climate change well enough to enact legislation or agree to treaties prescribing artificial solutions

As for scientific consensus; Ask Galileo, Copernicus, and Magellan about that... Consensus is not proof.

In my opinion, Gore is doing this because it makes him feel important. If you can't be President of the US, why not be savior to the world!? The difference between knowing something and believing it is that believing leads to a change in behavior.

Posted by clews | September 8, 2007 4:26 PM

clews,

weather is not climate.

Your welcome.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 8, 2007 4:35 PM

You would think that the man who invented the Internet would just do video conferencing. You know, lead the way. Be a leader. Set an example. Walk the talk. Or is it talk the walk?

I know Al Gore was the only male during the Vietnam War era to flunk out of Divinity school, so when did he get his environmental degree from the Kim ll-song School of Leadership? Well, Gore is the expert and we must redouble our efforts and obey.

Posted by Paul from Florida | September 8, 2007 5:08 PM

Greg,
The critical part of re-forestation is the word "re-forestation". Trees may live and die (although they also pump CO2 into the soil). But if you take abandoned land and reforest it you reduce CO2. If the trees ultimately die and others fill in behind them, the reductions remain.

If you take abandoned pasture land that is, let's just say, reducing zero CO2, and reforest it, you will reduce, let's say, 1,000 tons of CO2. The trees in the forest may die after about 70 years releasing 800 tons of CO2 (these are all just illustrative figures). If the forest regenerates you reduce another 1,000 tons of CO2. In other words, with reforestation (just as the opposite with deforestation) you get a one-time net CO2 reduction that is measurable, quantifiable and certifiable.

Thus, the key to reforestation, and what the certification organizations look for, is not the planting of a tree but the reforesting of land.

Ed,
The issues you are raising will not become issues for at least a generation, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Wind makes up 1/2 of 1% of our electricity generation in the US. It has doubled in the last few years and the cost is approaching coal. If we double or even quadruple this resource the wind premium will likely disappear with us still only getting 2-4% from wind.

We do not need o worry about wind displacing baseload just yet, just making it the best investment for any new electricity. From there, Wall Street will turn to it for new energy and we'll create a ceiling on electricity emissions followed by a gradual decline.

Imagine the cost advantages and market changes (let alone climate change benefits) if we get 10% of our electricity from wind, a 20 fold increase over today. That would still be 10-15% below where you'd run into intermittency issues.

L

Posted by Leviticus | September 8, 2007 5:14 PM

Climate is the average of weather patterns for a long period of time. Traditionally at least a 30 year period is used to define a Period of Record (POR). So while you can have weather without climate,; you cannot have climate without weather.

Are you suggesting that we can somehow accurately forecast the sum of its parts (climate) without having reliable skill in forecasting those parts?

Can you give me an example of another scientific field where this has succeeded?

Thank you.

(BTW as long as we're on definitions, I'd like to point out that the last line should be "You're" as in "you are". We must not confuse our possessive pronouns with our contractions.)

You're welcome.

Posted by clews | September 8, 2007 5:16 PM

While I am far from the brightest bulb in Megans chandelier of readers this whole thread comes down to two old folk sayings in my opinion.

1: Actions speak louder than words.
2: Do as I say not as I do.

Mr Gore believes in #2.

Posted by J W Whitaker | September 8, 2007 5:26 PM

It is not about the money. It is about saving the planet.

Doing anything is "about the money", because doing one thing means not doing something else. Money is just a proxy, a metric. Not producing certain amounts of CO2 could mean a)not driving an SUV or b)not having modern agriculture. If you want to compare this sort of thing, you have to have some means of comparison.

Also, I think some people have not caught this point- criticism of Gore's actions are not about whether he is a climate expert, nor whether global warming is actually happening. The relevant question is "Does Al Gore believe what he says?"

He is clearly not qualified to speak about the science as a climate scientist would be. One would expect that he believes what he receives from the experts. So even if Gore drives a high-sulfur coal fired SUV, this fact is completely orthogonal to a)the quality of the science and b)whether the steps groups or individuals take can have an effect on climate.

It suggests that Gore is not serious, or that he claims an exemption from what he considers proper actions. In either case, the action raises questions about sincerity. It is not, clearly, model behavior. It is not 'leading' behavior.

If he wants to make a case to me about how I should travel in a prius and not fly in a private jet, then, he should be ready to explain this, and not dissemble about 'carbon offsets'. There actually could be reasonable arguments. Privates and Generals follow different rules, so perhaps he needs his huge house and SUV and private plane to save the Earth. But he needs to make the case if he doesn't want to appear to be a boob, I think.

Posted by Dave Eaton | September 8, 2007 5:36 PM

clews - don't bother. Jeffrey is a true believer. He's going take it on faith, no matter how obvious it is he's being conned. Praise the Democrats and pass the offering plate.

Posted by Becky | September 8, 2007 5:59 PM

"See the distinction? It is about reasons for belief versus reasons for truth. McArdle and the other commentators on this issue are not physicists, or math whizzes (no disrespect intended.) Not to mention they probably lack the time or inclination to specialize in climatology or physics."

How do you know that?

Posted by Ann NY | September 8, 2007 6:16 PM

Leviticus,

The threshold for intermittency is somewhat below the conventional capacity reserve margin. In CA, that is ~7%. In most of the rest of the US it is twice that or more. CA now has a very aggressive RPS, so it will likely be the full scale field test of the relationship between intermittent generation fraction and capacity reserve margin; and, nothing is more definitive and more convincing than a full scale field test. Fortunately, I will be watching from the other coast!

Posted by Ed Reid | September 8, 2007 6:39 PM

Ed,
It will be interesting to see. Of course even 7% is a 14 fold increase over today, easily 10-15 years. In addition we have solar and even some interesting tidal and biodigesters.

In any case, I read a lot people saying wind can not replace 100% of energy as a reason for nuclear or more coal and gas (and giving up on climate change).

We ought instead look at this one step at a time. You and I do not know whether it is 7% or 25%, but we would agree wind is at 1/2 of 1% and thus we are not even close. Let's increase wind by 14 fold or renewables by some combination and then see what happens. Maybe I am right, maybe technological solutions come between now and then, maybe managing wind, solar, biomass, tidal, industrial DSM and so forth can get us there.

But let's not the questions that are at least 10-15 years away get in the way.

I've enjoyed this exchange.

L

Posted by Leviticus | September 8, 2007 7:12 PM

Leviticus,

I have as well.

I will leave you with this, from my favorite American philosopher, Yogi Berra: "You've got to be careful, if you don't know where you're going, because you might end up somewhere else."

Ed

Posted by Ed Reid | September 8, 2007 8:10 PM

Space,

No stumbling required.

Increasing or decreasing global temperatures will not make the Earth uninhabitable, except when the sun goes supernova, of course.

Temperatures have always changed and they always will. Humans will survive quite well inspite of the hysterics coming from the left.

Being a resident of northern Indiana, I am very happy about global warming because my area was under a mile of ice during the last ice age, so global warming has been good to us.

The sad thing is, scarce financial resources are being squandered on a nonproblem when they could be used for something that would actually benefit mankind.

In the meantime, I'm seriously considering launching a carbon credit business to take advantage of the faithful AGW believers. Who knows, it could be fun and profitable!

Posted by Dogwood | September 8, 2007 8:40 PM

As for Bush's eco-friendly house: why is it not the case that we criticize Bush for publically acting as if global warming is not a problem, while privately spending quite a bit to make his house friendly to the environment?

For those of us who are capable of acting on our beliefs in our private lives without feeling the urge to force others to act on our beliefs in their private lives, this is not a problem at all.

Whereas Gore exhibits the opposite behavior - trying to force others to do what he is not willing to do himself. Taxing, buying carbon offsets, or otherwise raising the cost of the carbon-intensive behavior he decries is a way of forcing the poor to do what he wants, while the wealthy (such as himself) can simply carry on unaffected.

Posted by R C Dean | September 8, 2007 9:03 PM

Before we all sign on to the UN's recommendation remember who, if any, actually follow anything the UN dictates. Their track record is synonamous with "ignore it".

Papasnake37

Posted by Loren Jacobs | September 8, 2007 10:58 PM

This thread may be dumber than those on Althouse -- who knew it was possible?

Posted by Nathan | September 8, 2007 11:29 PM

Nathan, you are brilliant! Brilliant I tell ya. You drop in here, and announce that the comments are "dumb". No reason to explain, is there? You are simply so smart that we should all hang our heads and walk away in shame.

I'm just curious? What is your degree in?

Posted by Becky | September 9, 2007 6:58 AM

If you bake raisin bread, you know how many raisins you're going to get and you know that you're going to get a loaf of bread with a crust, etc., but you're not going to be able to predict where an individual raisin will wind up.

clews - don't bother. Jeffrey is a true believer. He's going take it on faith, no matter how obvious it is he's being conned. Praise the Democrats and pass the offering plate.

You don't counter science with snark. You counter it with science. Your science that there's no such thing as global warming is what exactly?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 9, 2007 8:20 AM

One thing always seems to be missing when discussing so-called Carbon Offsets.

Time.

If the Reverend Al (or anyone else) is going to buy Carbon Offsets they need to insure that the amount of carbon that is offset is done in the same amount of time as the carbon they use.

If they are buying offsets for (pulling a number out of my ass) 10 tons of carbon for an eight hour flight in a private jet. (I don't know what the actual amount would be) The "offset" should remove that amount of carbon over the same time period. And ideally it should do it as closely as possible to the actual time that the carbon was generated.

Paying someone to take 10 tons of carbon out over a ten year period to replace that generated over eight hours is a con pure and simple.

Posted by Just Some Poor Schmuck | September 9, 2007 8:44 AM

There are a couple of problems going on here when it comes to the offset issue and Gore's activities.

First, we must split message from messenger and ask ourselves if the message--global warming--is actually valid.

It seems society has a distinct messenger/message cognitive problem. Take parenting:

I am always perplexed when people say, "Well how can I tell my kids not to use drugs, or not do this or that, when they know I did ?"

I recall my father, black, conservative, religious, giving me and my sister our regular hours-long Saturday bible study (oh misery recalled), and telling us about his LSD usage during the late sixties/early seventies. He warned us against it, or any substance that altered our minds, the idea being that our minds in their natural state are our true link to God.

Never for a moment did I think, "Oh what a hypocrite. Right after this biblestudy I am going outside to play with my 9 year old friends and find someone to give us LSD so that we can see demons hovering near people's faces". (Which is what appeared to freak him out about his experience). I thought about the message and said, "Well maybe he knows what he is talking about. Sounds a bit scary. I wonder if this is almost over so I can go play kung foo theatre with my friends. Ewe, my eggs are runny."

Going back to the warming message preached by Gore,