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.
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
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
This comment has been deleted for calling other commenters names.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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
Forget all this. What about the more serious threat of Man-Bear-Pig, half man, half bear, half pig?
What is the difference between buying 'carbon offsets' now and the buying of indulgences hundreds of years ago, leading to the Protestant Reformation.
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.
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.
...nor do we attempt to impose them on others.
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.
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?
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.
If Gore was serious about reducing CO2 emissions he would get behind banning beer, champaign, and soda pop.
Huge contributors to environmental CO2.
"Carbon Offsets" .. the modern version of indulgences.
So who will be the modern version of Martin Luther ?
"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.
"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)
Ouch, Space - you got schooled!
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.
"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.
So who will be the modern version of Martin Luther ?
Bjorn Lomborg.
"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?
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
clews,
weather is not climate.
Your welcome.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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!
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
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
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!
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.
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
This thread may be dumber than those on Althouse -- who knew it was possible?
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?
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?
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.
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, the fact that he may or may not be a hypocrite does not affect the theoretical validity of his message, and in some ways if global warming is a threat, we have to overlook the messengers.
On the other hand, it is up to the enthusiastic messengers to evaluate their own behavior as well. It is virtually impossible to ask others to inconvenience themselves toward a goal when you have bought your way out of the heavy lifting.
It's like having a war and urging your fellow man to go, but paying the salaries of 1000 men to go in your stead. Surely those 1000 men will produce greater result, but the problem is that you are asking others to sacrifice while you do what is most convenient. What is that Dylan song where he says, "People do what's most convenient, and then repent." Or pay for offsets.
And ultimately, for most problems, it is a thing of behavior. The economics or outcome of offsets might be entirely valid, but long term change involves behavior changes, and shared behavior changes.
Don't get me wrong though. I voted for Bush twice (and regret not a moment, counting North Korea and a conservative court as achievements), and further do not entirely believe the planet is so moldable to our fears. I am not a big fan of Gore.
But I do believe we have to consider the message apart from the messenger, and at the same time it is important that the messengers try to make reasonable adjustments to align their own lives with the set of tough choices they are asking others to make.
Jeffrey - if your idea of science is your raisin bread example, can you blame me for the snark?
The sea surface temperatures have been rising. No one disputes that. What that means or what is causing that is highly disputed, by real scientists who actually understand the connection between weather and climate.
The question is not if the temps are rising - we are in a warming cycle that has been trending for thousands of years. The question is: What impact does our energy consumption have, if any, on that trend.
Using your raisin bread example, which I think you may be able to understand, it would be more similar to the question of: how will the bread turn out if you modify the different ingredients contained in it or the heat? Global Warming fanatics have pronounced, having never baked a loaf of bread, exactly what the impact will be if one ingredient is modified. They say (so to speak): if you add a little extra baking powder it will rise a quarter of an inch. Thus, if you add lots of extra baking powder, we can predict - having never baked before - exactly how high the bread will rise. Um, no. You can't.
While I don't believe in catastrophic climate change, I'll believe in some anthropocentric climate change. What disturbs me is that these changes are, inevitably, presented in a sinister light. Benefits are entirely ignored. That smacks of a political agenda.
About a decade ago, I saw a news report about how plants grown in a high (~60%) CO2 atmosphere were less healthy. Technically true. However atmospheric CO2 is measured in parts per million. And one of the most inefficient steps in photosynthesis is due to oxygen reacting with RUBISCO instead of CO2. Higher CO2 will make photosynthesis more efficient. RUBISCO is the most plentiful enzyme on the planet, and higher CO2 should boost crop yields worldwide. But I've yet to hear the nightly news discussing these benefits.
I'll admit that, even though I expect it to be mild, the uncertainty caused by climate change will have it's own costs. Knowing when the last frost of the season is likely to hit is worth money to farmers, who want to maximize growing seasons and minimize frost damage.
And for the previous poster who claimed that melting and regrowth of polar ice caps is normal; I had a college professor who worked at McMurdo station in Antarctica for a time who told me that ice which had previously been present year-round was melting. However the climate changes have been less than a tenth of what was predicted by even some of the most moderate of models in the early 90s.
Finn,
"Don't get me wrong though. I voted for Bush twice (and regret not a moment, counting North Korea and a conservative court as achievements), and further do not entirely believe the planet is so moldable to our fears. I am not a big fan of Gore."
I WAS a big fan of Gore (voting for him, not Bush) until I saw his vanity flick. The message was indistinguishable from the messenger, and honestly, it creeped the hell out of me. It wasn't about Global Warming, it was about Al Gore. He cares more than you because he lost the election (or was denied his first destiny), let his kids get hit by cars and knowingly grew tobacco years after people started calling them coffin nails. I disagreed with a whole lot of "Great Climate Swindle" (and was floored at laying the "global warming hysteria" at Thatcher's feet!) but found it.... less personalized and more able to convince people who are not still replaying the 2000 election over and over in their heads.
I still believe that we need to work hard to improve the environment but Gore is the worst spokesman for it. My dad would rather watch every Jane Fonda movie every made (and to really feel the burn toss out Barbarella) than watch a second of Gore. Someone more calm and technical could convince him, but for Gore it was about Gore and those who love him. He preaches to a convinced choir and then proceeds to slime scientists who disagree with him while he himself lives a high-on-carbon lifestyle. Ted Nugett comes off so much better in contrast.
Though I am still a "proponent" of carbon offsets for industry while they develop increased efficiency, McArdle is dead on how the beautiful people are undermining careful use of offsets as nothing more than a license to preach with all the honesty of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. How CAN we take them seriously until they make the huge sacrifice of flying with the people (even if it means flying in first class so they don't have to mix that much with the riff-raff)!. It's like carpooling - only with more people.
Jeffrey - if your idea of science is your raisin bread example, can you blame me for the snark?
Sorry, I'd assumed you understood analogies.
The question is not if the temps are rising - we are in a warming cycle that has been trending for thousands of years.
Well, no. It got real warm following the Ice Age and then leveled off. The idea that we've been "trending" warmer from the Ice Age melting is bogus.
The question is: What impact does our energy consumption have, if any, on that trend.
Energy consumption? No. CO2 and CH4 production. It may surprise you to find out that that's been measured. Climate sensitivity (95% confidence) of between 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2. Science. Neither con nor snark.
Energy consumption? No. CO2 and CH4 production. It may surprise you to find out that that's been measured. Climate sensitivity (95% confidence) of between 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2. Science. Neither con nor snark.
Do you have a citation, possibly?
Becky says, "The sea surface temperatures have been rising. No one disputes that. What that means or what is causing that is highly disputed, by real scientists who actually understand the connection between weather and climate."
Becky, can you cite a single peer-reviewed article that "disputes" that anthropogenic global warming is the cause of the rise in temperatures?
Finn
You make some good points...
I have criticized Al Gore often in the past of being a hypocrite.
I agree with your great conclusion that we cannot blame the messenger for his own consumption habits. I prefer a smoker who warns children of the dangers to a non-smoker who tells children that smoking is harmless.
But we CAN blame the messenger for being a "bad/poor" messenger? What if lung cancer were NEVER mentioned in conjunction with smoking? Instead, all that people talked about was that we could get stained teeth?
THAT is what has led me to criticize Al Gore on ONLY one topic - the "message" (regarding eg livestock). He DOES mention that driving and flying is bad and I do not expect him to quit this. But he has so far NEVER publicly mentioned the worst polluter on the planet and that - given his awareness work - is VERY questionable?
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
(again - I do NOT expect him to change his own consumption habits over night - but tell the truth!)
Al Gore is not to be blamed for using cars himself - nor is he to be blamed for not having the perfect emission trading solution in place! But NEVER mentioning what has caused most damage on earth so far is.....?
But NEVER mentioning what has caused most damage on earth so far is.....?
1st cousin to concern troll.
CH4 is a relative transient in the atmosphere. CO2 has a "long tail".
And people have to eat. They don't have to drive cars.
But it's all plucking bubbles from the air. There's too many obstructionists (like some I could name). We're going to catch the full effect of global warming. Whatever it is.
With cigarettes and cancer -- the obstruction campaign the one against GW is based on; the same people are even working it! -- the damage was primarily limited to the individuals with some second hand effects. With GW, the effect is global. [insert "Man for All Seasons" quote about Wales].
THE END IS NEAR!! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!
I must get a cardboard sign and stand on the street corner to let everyone know!
You've misconstrued what I've said. ("Whatever it is.") On purpose. Apt considering the thread up ahead.
Jeffrey
CH4 is a relative transient in the atmosphere. CO2 has a "long tail".
that is why it makes even MORE sense to get rid of CH4 and not CO2 directly. CH4 is even more dangerous than CO2 but easier to get rid of through reduced livestock agriculture. It is ironic that we are subsidizing all this (with ca $20 billion per annum) and are already discussing how we can tax it back? Relocating spending is NOT A CRIME!
And people have to eat. They don't have to drive cars.
It is easier and cheaper and healthier for people and the environment to reduce dairy and meat products than to switch to a Toyota Prius. I rather switch to a soy latte than give up my flying or driving! We know how to produce clean energy and electric cars but we do not know how to produce a cow who does not eat, drink, shit and fart 24 hours per day.
So I ask Becky to cite a single refereed article that "disputes" that anthropogenic global warming is the cause of the rise in sea surface temperatures, and she responds with, "THE END IS NEAR!! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!"
Sounds like a person who doesn't know science and doesn't have an argument.
Once again I have to say that I am stunned the Atlantic Monthly would host this kind of discussion. How the mighty have fallen.
Charles - boy ya got me there. You are right. There is no dispute on this issue. All scientists agree that running our air conditioners and driving our cars is going to cause the polar ice caps to melt. As I said. We are all going to die.
I'm just curious. What is your degree in?
My degree is irrelevant Becky. Please cite for me a single refereed article that backs your position, though. Because, here's the thing, when you say something like "What that means or what is causing that is highly disputed, by real scientists who actually understand the connection between weather and climate," you are falling prey to a classic fallacy, an appeal to authority. Then when you refuse a very reasonable request like mine and instead respond by saying silly, outlandish things, you are showing that you have no argument and really have no understanding of the science involved. In fact, I doubt you even know what I mean by a refereed article and why I would even be requesting such a citation from you.
So don't waste my time with your inane responses. Either cite some real science, or try fooling someone who doesn't realize you are full of it. I am not biting.
Oh, and when you ask me what my degree is in, you are falling into another logical fallacy, an ad hominem attack.
Perhaps your degree is irrelevant. I know from my own personal experience, since I have sat around the table with many friends who are geophysicists, that there is no consensus among them on this issue. They have all been gainfully employed in the field for 20 years.
As for me, I do have a degree in Science and Administration. And I have survived, in my lifetime, the hysteria global cooling as well as the belief that we would be seeing mass starvation due to population growth by this time.
There was a good article, I'm not going to waste my time finding it or linking it, that was about the linear thinking that leads to these future doom and gloom scenarios.
I can only wonder why your hysteria movement, which is exactly what it is, can only find Al Gore and Hollywood airheads to lead the public charge - as they ride on their private jets, purchase ocean front property and throw lavish non-energy efficient rock concerts.
As for me, I believe in the saying that the greatest lie contains a truth. And for me, that is what this is all about. Do we need to find better, cleaner energy sources? Yes. Are we all about to die from global warming? No. Not even close.
So in other words, Becky, you do not know what I mean by a refereed article. So all you can do is revert, once again, to a fallacy of appeal to authority ("since I have sat around the table with many friends who are geophysicists, that there is no consensus among them on this issue").
Don't bother to reply. I am done with you.
The original founding editors of The Atlantic Monthly have to be spinning in their graves.
It is easier and cheaper and healthier for people and the environment to reduce dairy and meat products than to switch to a Toyota Prius.
Cheaper and healthier, sure. Easier? By doing what exactly? Waving a magic wand? People change when they have to. That's the danger with GW. Who knows if we "have to"? The worst upshot could be merely hotter, sweatier summers and a crap deal for low-lying countries like Bangladesh. Are people in the US going to give up beef for a remote place like Bangladesh? Or the upshot could be a couple hundred million deaths due to malnutrition, wars due to water scarcity, magnified civil unrest in the poorest places on the globe, the spread of tropical diseases and pests, and the general persistent degradation of our standard of living. Or worse. At this remove, nobody knows. And by the time we know, we'll be up to our eyeballs in it with 20-30 years of more warming already in the pipeline due to the lag in oceans giving up their accumulated heat. It's a great, terrible, glacially slow crisis of uncertain dimensions. As the poet said, "with a whimper".
If people can't come to an agreement on how to deal with global warming, can they at least come to an agreement that anybody who tries to use the "global cooling" argument, like Becky, should simply be ignored?
It would immesureably improve the debate, far more than any of this foolishness about how the consistently selfish are somehow more moral than the inconsistently altruistic. Not to quickly resort to slippery slopes, but the logical end point of such is to accord enormous moral credit to serial killers that follow through on their passionate belief that, say, economists "deserve killin'".
That would be stupid.
Just like these attacks on Gore.
It's not that Gore's behavior proves he doesn't believe in global warming.
What Gore's behavior proves to me is that he considers himself to be part of the nomenklatura who has good, sound reasons for his high-carbon lifestyle, and thus he is entitled to continue it. Meanwhile, the rest of us only drive or fly out of greed and laziness, and so we should be restricted from doing so, for our own good.
Gordon Brown's carbon offsets were coming from a company that pays Third Worlders to pump water by treadmill, rather than using gas or electricity. Gordon Brown gets to tool around in jets while poor people pump water with their own muscles, to maintain his carbon neutrality. Because he too is part of the nomenklatura.
Similary John Edwards, with his SUVs and his huge house.
Charles,
Without deliberately looking for it, I've found articles on the controversy over the magnitude of global warming, the controversy over the magnitude of the anthropogenic effect, and the controversy of the costs and benefits of global warming.
If you were interested in learning about the controversy and not just in "winning" the argument, you'd be able to readily find articles on the various controversies. Simply googling "global warming controversy" would probably be a good start. I'm sure you'd find cooks on both sides but you'll also find serious and credible critiques of the thesis that AWG is a serious problem.
I suspect, though, that you are not interested in learning but are interested in winning and will not consider anything that deviates form the Gorean Prophecies.
EI
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.
A couple of things that need consideration:
1. Gore has said the situtation is dire but he hasn't said everyone needs to drastically cut their emissions. If many people had the incentives to make modest cuts emissions could be dramatically checked with minimal cost in terms of lifestyle.
2. Stories like this tend to smack me as the immature "why does the vice president of sales get the big office while I get this little cubical!" type of whining. Gore is a major public figure and former VP. That has consquences.
a. Transportation is going to be much more complicated. Taking a bus or train may sound good but it would likely turn into a major fiasco. How much carbon will really be saved when cities or highways are backed up as the Secret Service shuts down streets or screens boarding train passengers?
b. The elitist argument may not sound good but it is valid. The boss in your office may be a jerk but the fact is he needs an office while you probably don't. Likewise a major public speaker needs to get to places quickly and that means private planes. If Gore imposes a 'voluntary carbon tax' on himself by buying offsets then that's all well and good. Presumably if Gore got his way there would be a carbon tax or some type of tradeable emissions program going on. In that case Gore would still take the private plane and pay extra.
c. It's a really bad idea to make the perfect the enmey of the good. Two can play this game. So you think private charity is good? Why do you only give 5% of your income to it? Why not 15%? 25%? 99? Pretty soon you've stumbled into an argument that is essentially "if you're not going to live like Mother Teresa I see no reason to even part with a milk dud's worth of my money to help anyone but wonderful me!"
Klug
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.
Cute but that would probably be counter-productive. The CO2 emitted by the bottling operation probably exceeds the CO2 captured making it impossible to zero out your emissions this way. An easier strategy, though, might be to simply buy some massive amount of dried lumber and bury it deep or sink it in the ocean.
On the other hand, paying someone to set up solar panels or set up a windmill seems to be a better thing to do.
HLT
What is the difference between buying 'carbon offsets' now and the buying of indulgences hundreds of years ago, leading to the Protestant Reformation.
Is this an honest question? If so the difference is pretty obvious. Buying offsets is basically paying for someone else who has an easier time lowering emissions to do so. To use an extreme example, if you're in an artic shack on assignment to photograph polar bears you are probably going to need to burn diesal or kerosine to keep warm. Yes you could try to build a nuclear power plant or cover half the north pole with solar panels but it would be easier if you just paid someone down south to put up solar panels on their house or even paid someone a little bit north to upgrade the insulation in their home. You are participating in a market transaction which should serve in the long run to find the most cost effective way to lower emissions. Now Megan is right there's lots of problems with the 'offset market'. There's plenty of room for bad accounting and even plain fraud. Then again the first internet businesses faced the same problem yet those willing to try it first helped iron out the kinks so that today no one thinks twice about putting their credit card into Amazon or writing checks off their bank's web site.
Indulgences, on the other hand, were simply pieces of paper if even that. Does this help you understand the difference?
Dogwood
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.
Really? Where and when did he say that? I don't recall Edwards saying he would outlaw SUVs. Are you sure he said that? I'm kind of surprised a major figure running for president could say such a thing without raising a lot of attention. Did he really, really say it or do you just imagine that it's the type of thing he might say therefre he must be a hypocrite for having an SUV of his own.
Dr Ellen
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.
No I don't remember that. Are you referring to the single article in Newsweek in the 1970's that even then was countered by scientists who argued that the greenhouse effect could overwhelm the screening effect of particulates? The whole "in the 70's they thought it was global cooling so it's all just a big fad" meme has worn really, really thin.
Paul Milenkovic
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....
Yea so far so good but then you slip into the deep end:
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.
But does he? I bet if you actually read or listened to what Gore said you wouldn't find "we must revert to caveman living" but stuff that sounds exactly what you just imagined the ideal Al Gore saying. Perhaps a tax here or tradeable credit there but in the end it would amount to basically what you just said Gore should be saying.
Just Some Poor Schmuck
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.
This makes no sense to me and seems like a receipe for just doing nothing. First of all, I doubt a private jet burns 10 tons of fuel in a single eight hour flight. Second it is probably impossible to take out 8 hours worth of jet fuel without generating a lot of CO2.
Most importantly, if it does take 10 years to counter the 8 hours so what? That is nothing more than a supply constraint. If Gore took lots of private flights he would have to buy lots of offsets that take 10 years. As he buys more offsets the fewer there are available which causes the price to go up which means Gore must reduce his flights OR the incentive for someone to find a new way to offset increases. No con here, just your old friend supply & demand.
Earnest
Without deliberately looking for it, I've found articles on the controversy over the magnitude of global warming, the controversy over the magnitude of the anthropogenic effect, and the controversy of the costs and benefits of global warming.
Indeed that is true but in the long run we are all dead no matter what. There was 'controversy' over whether the Titanic could really sink up until the last inch of it went down. Any decision we make carries with it some risk. If we do nothing it may turn out good or horrible. If we do a lot it may turn out we wasted our time and money. I think the prudent thing to do would be to do something now. Get some 'low hanging fruit' plucked and then as knowledge increases we could do more if needed. Hopefully by doing the cheap stuff now we may buy just that bit of time needed for new technologies to be just a bit cheaper than if we had to do a crash program 15-20 years from now. Call it an insurance payment if you will.
Boontoon, I agree with you 100% about making reasonable changes and going for the "low hanging fruit". The problem is that many of the AGW alarmists are recommending much more drastic changes that would negatively impact the quality of life for many people without really knowing how important it is. There are many things that we can spend our resources on. Before we dedicate a large chunk to reducing our carbon footprints or reducing AGW, we need to know it's actually a serious problem. We can't just assume it is . . . or we start having to assume other things will be serious problems and accomodating them, too.
It's silly to build solar and wind power to supplement coal and gas power when we won't build nuclear power plants that would make a much bigger difference and could actually replace a significant chunk of the coal and gas power.
Rather than trying to curtail the sales of SUVs, the AGW alarmists should be proposing tax credits and other incentives to get the old clunkers off the road. A single old clunker produces more emissions than many brand new SUVs. I'd much rather substitute a brand new SUV for a smoking 20-year old car than the purchase of a new economy car for a new SUV.
The AGW alarmists are proposing silly solutions to a problem that we don't even understand. They should be proposiing sensible and moderate solutions AND further study to understand the problem better.
And then there are people like Charles who don't seem to care about actually solving the problem, just winning arguments on the Internet...
EI
It's silly to build solar and wind power to supplement coal and gas power when we won't build nuclear power plants that would make a much bigger difference and could actually replace a significant chunk of the coal and gas power.
But we are building nuclear plants, at least there is pretty serious talk about giving subsidies to companies to do so and some companies have started the process of applying to build new plants. Granted a lot of building needs to happen just to replace old plants that are ending their useful lives.
Rather than trying to curtail the sales of SUVs, the AGW alarmists should be proposing tax credits and other incentives to get the old clunkers off the road.
Agreed but who is doing this? I don't recall any law banning SUV's even being voted on in Congress. Yea there's the CAFE standards increase but that is hardly a law banning SUV's and granted it isn't as efficient as simple gas or carbon tax but it is something.
And do you note how the criticism of Gore here is actually playing against your position? So we put a tax on gas. That means Gore can drive an SUV but he will pay more to fill it than someone who drives a more reasonable car. That's essentially the same as the 'carbon offset' . You can still make CO2 if you want or must but you pay a little bit more to do it. The 'hairshirt' crowd here is basically making it impossible for anyone to advocate anything to slow global warming unless they are willing to live a life of perfect asceticism. If not then they must be a hypocrite and we can ignore them.
The AGW alarmists are proposing silly solutions to a problem that we don't even understand. They should be proposiing sensible and moderate solutions AND further study to understand the problem better.
Perhaps but the skeptics here are just as bad if not worse. What standard of scientific evidence is the proper test for whether or not we should be concerned about global warming? Listen to some here it sounds like as long as there's one person with a Phd who is willing to say he isn't convinced that's proof there's 'contraversy'. Or, of course, if everyone agrees....well everyone once thought Galleio was wrong right?
I don't disagree that sane people need to be the balance here but there's two extremes here. The "AGW alarmists" are one side but so are the hyper-skeptics and the fact is the hyper-skeptics have been getting their way with this for 20 plus years now as the evidence against their side has grown. There's very little danger, IMO, that even after the next election the Fed. gov't is anywhere near passing a law banning all cars, nixing 50% of our GDP, or requiring everyone lacking solar panels or a windmil to de-electrify their homes. I see no reason to get all worried about the alarmists while ignoring the real damage the head-in-sanders do.
So maybe you're being just a bit of an AGW alarmist alarmist?
I was not looking for "articles," Earnest. I challenged Becky to find refereed journal articles that back up her claims. She doens't know what a refereed journal article is, and apparently, neither do you. Since I never said once what my own thoughts are on global warming, your references to Al Gore are completely nonsensical. I am sure they make you feel better, though.
Really, don't bother to respond. I am done with you, and you should be done with me.
Boonton, if everyone were like you, then the debate would probably be a lot more civil and productive. Unfortunately, everyone is not like you and the alarmists are loud and obnoxious. It makes it hard to have a reasonable debate about what one should actually be doing when there's a guy off to the side shrieking that the end of the world is coming and we should torch the Hummer dealership. I know those guys are nuts and should probably be ignored... but it can be hard to, sometimes. Unfortunately, they also drive moderate skeptics towards a more extreme view.
It seems like everything is polarized... it's hard to be a moderate anything anymore.
As far as nuclear power goes, I'd love to see some more plants built, but there are still a lot of road blocks in the way.
Yet Al Gore hasn't been shreaking that the Hummer dealership should be torched BUT 'reasonable' people here think it's even an issue that every now and then he takes a private jet. Even then his attempt to purchase offsets is not good enough for the "my hands are over my ears and I'm singing lalalala" crowd.
Take it a step back, who here on this list has even come close to advocating torching Hummer dealerships? Or for that matter even outlawing Hummers or SUV's?
Charles asked for a simple reference from a rather arrogant person spouting lots of scientific assertions off the top of her head but clearly had little idea what she was talking about.
Charles asked for a citation and when none was forthcoming assumed that they didn't exist. He could find his own quite easily.
The algore says things like this:
And this:
He is clearly stating that AWG is an imminent and catastrophic threat. He has no doubt and is preaching that we must do something RIGHT NOW!
And just so you don't think that the problem of AGW is a practical or technical problem, he reminds us that it is a moral issue...
Here are some of his suggestions from his website...
•Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible
•Unplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them
•Be sure you’re recycling at home
•Buy locally grown and produced foods
•Seek out and support local farmers markets
•Buy organic foods as much as possible
•Eat less meat
•Fly less
Use a clothesline?!? Unplug electronics?!? So we should hang our clothes out to dry in the backyard and go around unplugging the TV whenever we turn it off? We should return to shopping at local farmer's markets? How much driving am I going to have to do go find all these locally grown food and farmers markets? The grocery store is a couple of blocks away.
Organic? Organic food only costs several times what "inorganic" food costs.
Recycling? Um... exactly what are they recommending we recycle? Some recycling is environmentally friendly while some is actually worse than using new.
I threw "fly less" in there because I doubt the algore does this one...
Anyway, the algore is one of the alarmists and is preaching a religious movement, not a scientific issue. His movie isn't helping things... it gathers converts who then go around telling everyone to inflate their tires and push for local wind farms.
I did a google site search on http://www.climatecrisis.net/ and found that the algore doesn't mention nuclear power and certainly isn't promoting it. The commentors are a mixed bag on nuclear.
Basically, the algore is an AWG alarmist and hypocrite and is doing more harm than good to real solutions to our environmental problems, whatever they really are. He is turning it into a moral issue where one can't question the party line so actual useful discussion is impossible unless you already agree with him.
EI
He is clearly stating that AWG is an imminent and catastrophic threat. He has no doubt and is preaching that we must do something RIGHT NOW!
Indeed. And where does that say outlaw Hummers, SUVs or even private jets? The fact is while these things do put out a lot of CO2 compared to their more efficient counterparts they make up only a small portion of all emissions.
Use a clothesline?!? Unplug electronics?!? So we should hang our clothes out to dry in the backyard and go around unplugging the TV whenever we turn it off? We should return to shopping at local farmer's markets? How much driving am I going to have to do go find all these locally grown food and farmers markets? The grocery store is a couple of blocks away.
I seem to recall your endorsement of picking low hanging fruit. Essentially that's what you're listing here. So now the low hanging fruit can't be picked?
I did a google site search on http://www.climatecrisis.net/ and found that the algore doesn't mention nuclear power and certainly isn't promoting it. The commentors are a mixed bag on nuclear.
True Gore has not been big on nuclear power but other environmentalists have 'converted'.
Basically, the algore is an AWG alarmist and hypocrite and is doing more harm than good to real solutions to our environmental problems, whatever they really are. He is turning it into a moral issue where one can't question the party line so actual useful discussion is impossible unless you already agree with him.
First of all it is a moral issue. Doing nothing is a gamble that
a. Everything will turn out all right.
b. If it doesn't, trying to catch up really fast in the future won't be much more costly thatn it needs to be.
It is a perfectly acceptable position to take that this type of gamble is not moral to take.
Second of all when does turning something into a moral issue make it impossible to question the party line? Abortion, same sex marriage, anti-discrimination laws are all moral issues yet that hardly makes it impossible for mainstream politicians to have different opinions on them.
Third, what party line? What policies can't be questioned? You seem to just be upset about 'urgent rhetoric' but all these supposedly radical policies seem to be figments of your imagination. In fact, the only policy disagreement you've articulated is your feeling that Gore should be more pro-nuclear. Notice that he isn't even anti-nuclear. So why again are we talking about lynch mobs torching Hummer dealerships?
You're right. According to http://www.climatecrisis.net, I produce 12.6 tons/year of CO2, which is higher than average. If I implement just some of the recommendations on the web site, I can reduce my CO2 emissions to -2 tons/year.
Um. I call shenanigans.
I'd rather look for more reasonable changes, like building nuclear power plants and reducing the number of forests chopped down to grow corn for making ethanol to burn in cars, than return to a 1900 lifestyle by hanging my clothes out to dry and driving to the local farmers' market to buy produce.
I suspect that the religious ferver that the algore whips up contributes to nut cases torching Hummer dealerships. That and other sorts of vandalism do happen.
I'm not making up the more radical policies: http://www.bansuvs.com/. Just googling "ban suv" generates a lot of links where folks are discussing the issue. There are plenty of people out there who hate SUVs. It's not that they think SUVs are inefficient or maybe shouldn't be used as often as they are, they literally hate them and occasionally vandalize them.
Environmentalism is not a moral issue in the same way as abortion. There is no scientific way to prove whether or not abortion is good or bad. The ultimate decision is based on personal beliefs. AGW is a scientific issue in that it is either happening or it isn't, regardless of one's personal beliefs. Fixing it will require technical solutions that will be effective or not, regardless of one's personal beliefs. Those methods of fixing it can be evaluated technically.
I suppose it would be a moral issue if the argument was over whether or not we should destroy the environment for personal comfort. Most people, even the AGW skeptics, don't think it's okay to destroy the environment. So the real questions are the scientific ones: How is the climate changing? How much of that change is anthropogenic? How can we change our contribution? What will the consequence be of climate change? We can't even intelligently discuss the gamble because we don't know enough to really know what the odds are.
Al Gore wants us to reduce CO2 emissions by 90% in the next 40 years. 90%? Wow. How did he come up with that number? Given that man-made CO2 contributes only a small fraction of a percent to total global warming, I'm not sure what the point of making such huge sacrifices is. Natural sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses dwarf our contribution. The more I look into it, the more things like "use a clothesline" just seem silly.
Why don't we all just go to chiropractors and take homeopathic medicines for our colds. Oh, and go to the phrenologist to find out what job we should take. It's all equally effective.
EI
Offsets concentrate the ability to do the offsetted thing in the hands of the wealthy. Yes, economists will say "in the hands of those who want them the most," but since the want is measured by willingness to pay, it's really by money. That's OK for things that are frivolities, but in a carbon-energy world I don't think carbon use qualifies. If we're serious about carbon, then it should be controlled through the restriction or prohibition of things that use it wastefully, rather than by giving some people the right to keep wasting it by depressing its use by people who aren't wasting it.
Rich,
If Gore spents $500 on an offset then by definition that's $500 less to spend on anything else. Since most consumption involves some type of direct or indirect carbon emission it's a cutback...that's not even considering the fact that the $500 offset probably is going, even in a half-assed way, towards some type of reduction in CO2.
People who aren't being wasteful, likewise, have little or no need to buy offsets so Gore isn't doing anything to harm them.
The fact is the "wasteful" things do not make up much in terms of the overall problem. Imagine you could only have one; ban all private jet flights or find some way to make everyone twice as good about turning off unneeded lights, appliances etc.? The fact is the second thing would probably get a lot more accomplished than the first thing.
The other fact is that waste is a relative term. Fed Ex costs something like $8-$15, maybe $6 if you're using a big corporate account. It seems insane anyone uses it when you consider a $0.41 stamp will send a letter to any state in the US.
But it isn't waste. The measurement isn't between $0.41 for 3 day arrivial but the $8 cost against the cost of waiting more than 24 hours for it to be delievered. Likewise a private jet is very expensive but only in the same sense.
It may sound elitist but for VIP's the hours lost trying to clear through crowded airports costs more than the private jet. This cost, though, is paid not by the celebrity but by you. If the cost of a book tour goes up the publisher is going to make you pay for it. Even if you don't buy the book whose waiting in line at the airport while security closes down sections to usher celebrities through?
In reality take the private jet is no more elitist than using Fed Ex. If it is important then you pay the cost, if it isn't then you take the cheaper option. Sure maybe someone like Paris Hilton will send her Christmas cards out Fed Ex. If so the waste is on her bank account not yours. If you really pushed the issue any plane could be considered too wasteful since bus or train travel costs a lot less CO2.
This is why this is a silly argument. It's a no win for Gore or any global warming advocate no matter what they do short of living like a hermit. If Gore flew coach don't you think the same people would be crying why can't he take a train? Or video conference? Or just write his speech on some recycled paper and use a $0.41 cent stamp to mail it? Needless to say a speaker whose a global warming skeptic could use private helicopters and jets to make 50 speeches accross the country in a week and never be criticized by these same people.
Long story short, even if tomorrow we started to act like Global Warming was a real problem and implemented intelligent policies like a carbon tax, cap & trade or what not you're still going to see 'luxury' uses of things like private jets, limos, SUV's, etc.
Oh Jeffrey..... read it and weep
This is a good lesson for you in life. When someone makes a claim, that you yourself can not verify and it flies in the face of all common sense and logic, you may not want to hang your sense of superiority upon it.
I'll let Jeff comment for himself but I'll say I glanced over it and to me it looks like too little to late. I'm somewhat unimpressed with the article which quotes "news analysis" of a review of literature. Certain elements stand out to me as suspect, such as:
"At least one element" and, of course, no list of what those elements are. It sounds to me like a scientist who wrote that the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was unrealistic might be counted as one of these 500.
I did enjoy the picture of Gore breathing computer generated fire out of his mouth, though. Good photoshop skills! Or at least good Googling of anti-Gore clip art!
Boonton: 1. Gore has said the situtation is dire but he hasn't said everyone needs to drastically cut their emissions. If many people had the incentives to make modest cuts emissions could be dramatically checked with minimal cost in terms of lifestyle.
Ed Reid: 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...
Ed, I'm inclined to believe you, but can you find a URL for that?
Boonton, I assume you understand that there isn't going to be a 90% emissions cut by people making modest changes that don't severely impact their life styles? Does Gore? Or is he just plain lying half the time?
" I submit that offsets are much more effective in meeting the goals of their purchasers than papal indulgences were." No, they were exactly as effective at meeting the real goals of their purchasers - to feel better about themselves without giving up "sin".
I've seen so many examples of liberal/leftist programs that backfire and hurt whatever they were supposed to help that I find it hard to view such results as mistakes. Not that limousine liberals actually intend to (for instance) reduce the supply of housing and make more of the poor homeless by rent control, but that they don't give a damn what the real world consequences are if they can feel that they were trying to help.
Finn, I appreciated the story about your grandfather, but it's a different fact pattern than Gore's alleged hypocrisy. Your grandfather did something bad, figured out that it was wrong, and quit. It certainly isn't hypocrisy for him to warn others about his experience. For that matter, it isn't hypocrisy if a wino puts down his brown paper sack for a moment and says, "Hey kid, don't ever let this stuff get it's grips on you. It's killing me, and I can't stop." (For a real-life story: in his last years, author Jack London was an alcoholic who was drinking himself to death and had to know it - so he wrote a few tracts for Prohibition.)
But mansions and private jets aren't addictive substances. Gore can stop. He chooses not to, while he asks the rest of us to stop, and advocates laws to force people of ordinary means to stop. That's hypocrisy.
That isn't the main reason why, if I believed that global warming was both human-caused and the biggest problem we face, that I'd want Gore and his ilk to just shut up. It's that, as I pointed out a couple posts above, they keep contradicting themselves or getting their numbers off by a factor of ten, and making the whole cause look ridiculous.
buy cheap generic viagra