Althouse: Carbon neutral...

April 29, 2007

Carbon neutral...

... nonsense.

32 comments:

PeterP said...: Quite. Utter. Political. Nonsense.

New House Pledge: "I promise, swear and undertake never to vote for anyone who claims to be carbon neutral."; 4/29/07, 8:31 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: And the story backs up a point I've made:
"But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?

On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree."

Carbon-trading comes from the effort to find a free market solution for environmental problems.

There may yet be a market solution, but unregulated, unverified carbon trading is not it.; 4/29/07, 8:42 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: I should get into the Carbon trading business. It has to be one of the biggest scams of all time. My strategy:

1. Make people feel guilty about their own behavior. By providing false information about global warming and carbon emissions.

2. Inform them that through my system they can alleviate their guilt (in a discreet way), without harming their lifestyles.

3. Sit back, get rich, and indulge.

Does this sound like a familiar scheme?; 4/29/07, 9:07 AM
Zeb Quinn said...: Check it out, free carbon offsets .; 4/29/07, 9:12 AM
AllenS said...: What does a pound of carbon look like? I know what a pound of corn, a pound of feathers looks like, but carbon mystifies me.; 4/29/07, 9:53 AM
Unknown said...: I'm actually finding myself getting rather excited about geothermal energy to heat and cool my home and assist my hot water heating. I've been doing some reading and, in my area at least (central Texas) it might very well be cost-effective in the long run as well as more efficient and carbon-friendly. Heck, I just read one study that suggests that in some southern climates, a pool can actually reduce capacity requirements (PDF file) by allowing it act as a heat sink during swimming season.

Thank goodness we have a president who leads by example .; 4/29/07, 10:30 AM
Beth said...: “There isn’t a single American household above the poverty line that couldn’t cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures,” he said.

Is that the buried lede? I'd hope to see more articles take that as their starting place and tell us about those measures.; 4/29/07, 11:16 AM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: It's very annoying to read an article like this in which the author seemingly doesn't understand the difference between being "carbon neutral" and "carbon trading." Here's just one example:

[T]he carbon-neutral campaign is a sign of the times — easy on the sacrifice and big on the consumerism.

It's a shame that the author can't understand fairly simple concepts. Being carbon neutral does not require the purchase of carbon offsets (i.e., consumerism). For instance, consider the example of Ashton Hayes, a village in Cheshire. This is a good example of how people can move toward "carbon neutrality" without purchasing carbon offsets.

There is one quote near the end of the article worth noting. Charles Komanoff claims:

There isn’t a single American household above the poverty line that couldn’t cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures.

As a generalization, this is accurate. Which leads me to ask, why aren't Americans making these changes?; 4/29/07, 11:23 AM
Methadras said...: AlphaLiberal said...

And the story backs up a point I've made:
"But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?

On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree."

Carbon-trading comes from the effort to find a free market solution for environmental problems.

There may yet be a market solution, but unregulated, unverified carbon trading is not it.

And yet it is the ideology that you believe in that dovetails your environmentalism to it that has foisted this scam on the American public. You can denounce it all you want, but the fact still remains that the language that is used, the intent and idea that have sprung forth from this utter nonsense lay solely at the feet of the bankrupt beliefs that you ascribe to.

If it bothers you so much, why don't you and your ilk make a true and public denunciation about it? Why not compose a sloganeering brigade that is made up of the rabble you call environmentalists and leftists that have signed onto your enfeebling religion to say no to anything related to being 'carbon neutral' or 'offsetting carbon usage'?

Put your words and your money where your mouth is. God only knows the level to which the rest of the American public has had to endure the calamitous ideas your insipid beliefs of guilt through killing mommy earth shame has cost us. Frankly, what are you really defending I have to ask? The fact that a group of nutters like your don't like this nutty idea created by other nutters or is it the fact that the nutters who created this nutty idea are using the corporate vehicle to promote this nutty idea? Tell us. Inquiring minds want to know what nutty minds they are dealing with.; 4/29/07, 11:28 AM
dix said...: The whole 'carbon neutral' concept reminds me of all the fad diets we hear about. Anything to achieve your goal without any, you know, personal sacrifice.; 4/29/07, 11:42 AM
Paco Wové said...: "There isn’t a single American household above the poverty line that couldn’t cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures."

As a generalization, this is accurate. Which leads me to ask, why aren't Americans making these changes?

Maybe because they don't know what they are?; 4/29/07, 11:49 AM
Zach said...: I would expect that in any market where verification is difficult, you'll see large amounts of counterfeiting.

“There isn’t a single American household above the poverty line that couldn’t cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures,”

I'll believe it when I hear it. Like a single square of toilet paper, many strategies can seem simple and cost-effective until you actually try implementing them.; 4/29/07, 11:50 AM
PeterP said...: I guess if all the candidates wanted to cut their gas emissions they could all agree to keep silent.

"Whereof one does not have to speak, thereof one shall remain silent."

...and save the planet too! But save it for what or for whom? Only the entire destruction of the human species would 'save' the planet.

But then ET wouldn't be able to phone home 'cos there would be no phones.

Dilemmas, dilemmas.; 4/29/07, 12:18 PM
VietPundit said...: Quote: " “The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation ..."

Reading the first part of the sentence lead me to think it's the "Bullshit Foundation". Wouldn't be it great if it was actually the Bullshit Foundation, and it was quoted by the Times?; 4/29/07, 12:24 PM
Cedarford said...: My latest pet peeve in this "carbon neutral" business is power companies offering "carbon-free" green power from 120-40 year old hydro dams. For a slight premium. The dams were already in the mix. Already built by taxpayer dollars, many federal, and paid for by all electricity users.
Reallocting, as Noble Algore did, is just making HIS electricity 100% pure - while neighbors that once had a 80% fossil 20% hydro generation mix for their electricity - "worse" - because the callous proles now have a higher portion of their electricity made from CO2 generating sources..
Meanwhile, not a Kw of actual production has changed from what it was 10 years ago. Folks like Algore get moral superiority from using only old hydro power, the electric companies get extra money from wealthy environmentalists seeking moral superiority.

(Yes, the same environmentalists that 10 years ago were demanding knocking down most dams as "environmental disasters that stopped rivers from running free for the enjoyment of LLBean kayakers....)
*******************
Ethanol is being debunked pretty well as an Agribiz scam that may actually generate more CO2 than using oil or natural gas.
************************
My other pet peeve is the discussion of the 3rd world population explosion, impact of Open Borders and unchecked mass immigration is ignored by all the writers that talk about conservation.
Any savings as the NYTimes writer mentions - a 25% reduction in 6 months - not only rests on idiotic things the public will resist - but if the people ever did reduce by 25%, any savings are cancelled out as global population grows from 6 billion to 12.6 billion by 2080, and US population goes from 300 million to 363 million in 2050 to 650 million in 2100 if we keep the "global welcome mat" out.

300 million X 20 tons CO2 per person = 6 billion tons CO2.

If we "conserve", make sacrifices, achieve a 25% reduction and do nothing else

363 million X 15 tons CO2/pp = 5.445 billion tons CO2 released by Americans in 42 years.

650 million X 15 tons CO2/pp = 9.75 billion tons released by Americans in 2100.

Simple math. And as there is only one atmosphere, the reduction in individual use means nothing with 3rd Worlders pouring into the US and making new Juans and Mohammeds at a blistering pace, means nothing globally if we go to 12.6 billion people in under 100 years. Bottom line is more CO2 spewed into the atmosphere until:

1. Nuclear power using that bad, bad bred plutonium takes over from coal and natural gas. (Other "exciting alternate energy sources" are piddling in ability to replace fossil fuels in any major quantity. Yes, it's nice that 10,000 out of 210 million Americans might one day drive on biodiesel...but...)

2A. Global population stabilizes by strict government child per family limits with no mass immigration "safety valve countries" left to take in surplus population from nations that refuse to control their numbers.
OR
2B. Environmental collapse happens, billions die.; 4/29/07, 12:53 PM
Tim said...: When the high-profile, celebrity global warming scaremongers start living the way they think the rest of us should live, I'll pay attention. Until then, they're just preening poseurs.; 4/29/07, 1:22 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Tim,

Be honest... You know you'll never pay attention.; 4/29/07, 1:25 PM
Tim said...: I am, and I would.; 4/29/07, 1:30 PM
Paco Wové said...: Cy P. -

I'm still wondering; what are the "straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures" for cutting household CO2?

Inquiring minds etc.; 4/29/07, 1:49 PM
Tim said...: In the Democratic presidential candidates' debate, Sen. Barack Obama was asked what he personally was doing to save the environment, and replied that his family was "working on" changing their light bulbs.

Daaamn! The world is coming to an end because of anthropogenic Global Warming and Senator Obama can't even get around to changing out his light bulbs. Poseur.

Good to know that in times of crisis, our moral exemplars are leading the way!; 4/29/07, 1:56 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Methadras wrote:

Why not compose a sloganeering brigade that is made up of the rabble you call environmentalists and leftists that have signed onto your enfeebling religion to say no to anything related to being 'carbon neutral'...?

I can't speak for environmentalists, but I doubt that anyone who understands what "carbon neutral" actually means opposes the idea. Where the debate lies is in how to fairly and effectively move toward "carbon neutrality." Many environmentalists believe that carbon-trading is not a fair and effective mechanism in progressing toward carbon neutrality. This isn't a secret, either. I suppose you can check for yourself if you're so inclined.; 4/29/07, 2:04 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Cyrus Pinkerton, you make some god points, including on the differences between being carbon neutral and carbon trading.

Methadras said...
If it bothers you so much, why don't you and your ilk make a true and public denunciation about it?
I don't think you understand what I wrote. i said:
a) Enviros don't universally agree about carbon trading.
b) I don't like *unregulated* and *unverified* carbon trading.

I'm in no hurry to throw the baby out with the bathwater.; 4/29/07, 2:16 PM
Synova said...: Hate to bring PETA into it, but isn't the same sort of unsupportable emotional manipulation going on? Lying for a good cause and all of that, what really matters is that people are motivated and feel properly about things and not that they have accurate information?

And then when called on the utter political nonsense the charge is that the criticizers hate the Earth?

And the carbon neutral shell game... what is that about? If people don't understand how things really work, could it be because of the misinformation pumped out by the cause?

And I don't think it's because people can't understand the concept of carbon trading and whatever, it's that quite obviously one party's reduced carbon is used to justify the other party's increased carbon use. A lot of people are going to call foul on that and for the same reasons that a lot of people rolled their eyes at Drew Barrymore getting poetic about taking a crap in the woods.

Most people aren't privileged, beautiful people. If we crap in the woods it's not poetic, it's practical and rather inconvenient. If someone is having to reduce their *real* carbon foot print, it's going to be us. And it's not hard to understand which class of people in other countries are the ones who will be reducing carbon so that the privileged few don't have to.; 4/29/07, 4:09 PM
Synova said...: Here's an example... from a can of nuts to the effect of... "We're carbon neutral. We buy rain forest in Costa Rica to offset our US facilities and delivery trucks."

Firstly, Costa Rica is beautiful. I went on an eco-canopy gondola ride while I was there. During the dry winter season the guy said they have to ride the gondola with a machete and hack back the canopy growth every two weeks. During the summer, every week. During the rainy summer at the facility on the wetter east coast they have to hack the canopy back every day.

How does this compare to a packing facility in Texas? It's nice to save rain forest but for the purpose of carbon neutrality it matters that trying to do anything in Costa Rica or any tropical climate is a never ending process of hacking growth back. All one needs to do is leave it be and the growth will take over.

(Biodiversity and animal habitat are separate issues and important. Pulling down carbon doesn't require old growth, it simply requires growth.)

Forests in temperate climates are slower growing. I'd be more impressed if the nut can explained that they planted every available spot around their US processing facility with trees and bought enough extra land to plant trees *here*. But that's not as sexy as Costa Rica.

As silly as it sometimes sounds, real carbon saving would be to not buy imported nuts... or coffee or...

I respect people who actually change their life-styles, even if sometimes they do silly stuff that doesn't actually help like burning candles. You can tell that they are serious about it because they chose the extra effort and often drastically reduced life-style that goes with their beliefs.

They existed *before* global warming, too. They'll still exist when it's over and we're on to the next thing.; 4/29/07, 4:28 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Synova wrote:

And I don't think it's because people can't understand the concept of carbon trading and whatever, it's that quite obviously one party's reduced carbon is used to justify the other party's increased carbon use.

What I was referring to was the confusion between "carbon neutral" and "carbon trading," two distinct concepts that are conflated by the author of the article. Moving towards a carbon neutral position does not require carbon trading.

And then when called on the utter political nonsense the charge is that the criticizers hate the Earth?

Yeah, I hate this too. It reminds me of how those of us who oppose the war in Iraq have been called unpatriotic and told we don't support the troops. It's shameful behavior, isn't it?; 4/29/07, 4:35 PM
Fen said...: It is possible to oppose the war without hating the nation or hating the troops. But the anti-war movement can't help themselves, they so love their We support the troops when they shoot their officers banner. Doesn't help when Durbin, Reid, Murtha, etc routinely give propaganda victories to the enemy, or are caught admitting that their bills are deliberately designed to hamstring the troops. Same with liberal media - fake Koran flushing, lies about Haditha, outing of legal intel programs, hyperventilation of Abu Ghraib, etc.; 4/29/07, 5:39 PM
Tim said...: But the anti-war movement can't help themselves, they so love their We support the troops when they shoot their officers banner. "Doesn't help when Durbin, Reid, Murtha, etc routinely give propaganda victories to the enemy, or are caught admitting that their bills are deliberately designed to hamstring the troops. Same with liberal media - fake Koran flushing, lies about Haditha, outing of legal intel programs, hyperventilation of Abu Ghraib, etc."

Fen, I'm pretty sure those hateful things never happened. After all, the Left and their defeated by al Qaeda representatives in the Senate and the Congress keep telling us they support the troops AND are patriotic too - because, don'tcha know, pulling the plug on the troops and actively working for your nation's defeat in war is the New Patriotism.

Orwell warned us of this. Too bad literacy is a diminishing virtue.

Anyway, the same with global warming - the world is coming to an end, so we all need to adopt impoverishing policies to stop it, so the Global Warming scaremongers tell us as they flit about the country in their private jets.

The irony just so f*cking crazy delicious. At least the Scots can use peat for its highest purpose now, so you'll excuse me as a pour myself a single malt and salute our ever-so-honest global warming warriors.; 4/29/07, 8:14 PM
Synova said...: "Afghan Infant Deaths Fall 40,000 Per Year After Eviction of Taliban"

Ace of Spades asks if this means that America has now got 40,000 collateral death off-sets.; 4/29/07, 9:39 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: It is possible to oppose the war without hating the nation or hating the troops.

Fen, I couldn't agree with you more about this. And to support your point, here
is an article that describes how veterans and some soldiers still on active duty are becoming active in the antiwar movement.; 4/30/07, 3:54 AM
Fen said...: here is an article that describes how veterans and some soldiers still on active duty are becoming active in the antiwar movement

Sorry, I don't believe that - too many "anti-war vets" have been outed as frauds. Its astro-turfing.; 4/30/07, 5:19 AM
Fen said...: "The fact that Lansdale has been cut from the ad speaks volumes about the VoteVets' belated assessment of his credibility. They obviously think he's a fraud now, too, or they wouldn't have dropped him."

http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/006272.htm

"Remember Jesse MacBeth, the fake Army Ranger propped up by anti-war moonbats and exposed by sharp-eyed bloggers as a lying liar?"

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006627.htm

/astro-turfing:

a company that does public relations for the liberal activist political action committee MoveOn.org, Fenton Communications, organized a conference call for reporters and three active-duty soldiers to unveil the soldiers' anti-war group Appeal for Redress.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/007574.html; 4/30/07, 5:45 AM
Anonymous said...: I want to share you something about mensusa(d0t)com you know that they give discounts in dress boot and Free shipping in all $99 above.; 8/2/11, 12:47 AM