Is "Carbon Neutral" a viable defense for using alot of energy?

[shield20]

This carbon neutral lifestyle idea leaves me a bit...uncomfortable. Should it be so easy to just buy your way to a neutral footprint? Seems to give another huge advantage to the rich. They could live any way they wanted, burn as much oil as they wanted, as long as they donate enough money to some other (or their own) investment company.

This makes sense to those here?

[NYCGirl]

1. Absolutely, until other choices are available. Carbon offsets are not that expensive.

And if you can't do that, just change your lightbulbs, make sure your water heater is insulated; there are a lot of smaller steps that will help.

[Dr Fate]

2. better than the cynical Rush Limbaugh types- who damage the Earth for fun.

Have you ever noticed that Republicans often refuse to do ANYTHING that helps the Earth, just because they think it's funny to "piss off a Liberal"

If some rich folks are being carbon neutral, it's better than the rich folks who are not.

[shield20]

7. I see that point - it is indeed a start as othe rchanges are made! nt

[Canuckistanian]

29. Limbaugh has apparently started a carbon credit fund

So he can rip off the environmentlists, he says.

It's called the "World Bank/EIB Fund".

I just heard this today on his show.

On edit: the EIB stands for European Investment Bank
His idea of a joke.

[Dr Fate]

36. Exactly my point. The Conservatives who rip Al think destroying the Earth is "ha ha" funny. n/t

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

3. No.

You're still contributing to Middle East strife, causing pollution, and adding pressure to build more power plants.

Cooling a 20,000+ square foot home requires a LOT of energy - which creates a lot more pollution, etc.

[joshcryer]

4. Yes. Being an environmentalist doesn't mean living in a straw hut.

It doesn't mean being a "conservationist." It means "not polluting." Pollution is defined by an excess of a given material in a locality. If you are carbon neutral you are effectively not polluting carbon. Period. It doesn't matter how much energy you use.

[hughee99]

11. If you define pollution

as "an excess of a given material in a locality" (which certainly sounds logical to me), then someone polluting in Alabama for example, while their carbon offset money goes to California is still polluting, aren't they? (Unless you consider Alabama and California in the same locality)

[cali]

21. You know there is something between living in a hut

and living in a 12,0000 sq ft or 20,0000 sq ft mansion with 2 acres of fucking lawn. Cut out a few thousand square feet and some of that lawn. Use solar panels and other technology. Sorry, it's crap that if you're "carbon neutral" you're not polluting. Utter crap. It may be better than nothing, but cutting down on consumption is a much better way to go.

[Bridget Burke]

5. And what prompts this particular question at this particular time?

(That's a rhetorical question.)

[shield20]

10. Watching Gore on CSpan., and that * Inholfe brought it up,

and Gore answered with that "neutral" point.

[jayfish]

15. Sounds Like Natural Curiosity To Me.

Like this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=456574

Lots of curious folks out there.:eyes:

Jay

[Horse with no Name]

20. I'm concerned I am running out of popcorn

:popcorn:

[whistle]

6. Sounds good to me, what is your point?

....It says that his 10,000 KWH produces no more carbon into the atmosphere that someone using 1,000 KWH

[shield20]

19. I thought it says that his 10,000 KWH is still 10,000 kwh,

but he gives money for the privilege to produce the extra 9,000 kwh to some investment company.

[gravity]

23. I disagree

It denies someone else the opportunity to use the renewable energy, so the co2 is still being produced.

[AndyA]

8. I think it's one of the best things a person can do right now.

Others are turn off some lights.

Turn up the thermostat in Summer, turn it down in Winter.

Buy energy efficient light bulbs.

Car pool.

Combine all of your errands into one trip, instead of multiple trips.

Make sure your tires are inflated properly, and your front end is aligned.

Clean out your trunk! You'd be surprised how much all that junk weighs, and it takes extra fuel to lug it around!!

Recycle. Almost every community offers some type of recycling program, even if it's the dumpsters sitting around for plastic, old phone books, etc.

DO SOMETHING! And look for ways to do more. You will be easing the burden on the environment, and as such helping to solve the problem.

[NastyDiaper]

9. Yes. And it's cheap now. But it won't be for long.

That's where the carbon-currency plays in. And you are right about the wealth. People can still own yahts, but that person will also need to fund some switchgrass as he burns his boat's fuel.

[Vincardog]

12. It depends on how much energy you waste. President Gore pays MORE for Green Energy

you know he conserves as much as possible.
And he cares enough to buy his way to carbon neutrality.
How much energy do you think jr wastes jetting around in AF1?

[endarkenment]

13. Well of course it cannot be a flat tax.

There ought to be a base allotment that every human on the planet uses without paying a carbon tax, and that usage would then be offset by charging more for higher levels of usage. The unfair nature of a flat tax on consumption is a fairly standard problem that other nations have been able to accomodate, I'm sure if we want to we can find a progressive solution that does not leave the poor shivering in the cold.

[Vincardog]

16. I believe President Gore's plan is to tax the producers of goods on their

Carbon use. Those are Corporations not individuals.
If you propose extending it to people maybe you have a good idea with the alloted minimum.

[endarkenment]

18. Yes sure but the model is similar to VAT.

And once again this can readily be made progressive if we really have a mind to do something about carbon usage.

If on the other hand we want to find excuses to do nothing, those are cheap and easy.

[Imperialism Inc.]

14. I think the point is that it is neccessary at the moment

due to lack of choices in personal energy sources.

[Ron Green]

17. Yes - it's based on true-cost accounting, thereby acknowledging and reinforcing

the relationship between what we use and what pay.

[gravity]

22. It just shifts the burden onto someone else

There is a limited number of carbon offsets available, and unless everyone uses them, it is not going to do anything much to help. There is a finite supply of land to grow trees on to absorb co2.

The problem is with society's energy use of the whole. If you become carbon neutral, it will just make someone have a bigger carbon footprint.

[cali]

24. I'm actually not comfortable with the carbon trading

thing used in someone's personal life. And I don't give a shit anymore if I get called a troll. Unless a wealthy person who's cognizant of the dangers of climate change combines carbon offsets with conservation, use of technology and yes gasp, some sacrifice, I don't think they deserve credit for being environmentally conscious.

[gollygee]

25. If this is about Gore

I think it's important to realize that he and his wife run businesses and other organizations out of there home, plus he's an ex-veep and they have security staff. Their house is large, but their energy usage isn't nearly as high as right-wingers have been claiming, and their needs are above average.

Here's a good reference about this: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/28/155124/075

[cali]

30. I've read that, and I appreciate your point

but even with live in security and business concerns (are you saying neither of the Gore's have an office anywhere else?) 10,000 square feet for 2 people is a huge honking house. And the house isn't even a little bit cutting edge. It doesn't use alternative technology. The thing is, it would have been a great opportunity for Gore to build a really cutting edge house that utilized energy saving technology. It also would be a good thing to see people of great privilege make some modest sacrifices- like a couple of thousand sq. feet or something. Leading by example is a good thing.

[gollygee]

34. I agree and I appreciate that too

but it isn't as bad as people are making it sound. And I have no idea where all they have other offices, I just know they work out of their homes largely.

[Zenlitened]

26. Yes, for now. It's part of the transition. - n/t

[Atman]

27. No. It's a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Isn't this whole scheme a republican idea in the first place, devised as a means to avoid actually having to DO ANYTHING about emissions? Instead of doing anything, you buy a "get out of jail free" card. It's bullshit. You don't become "green" just by buying your green-ness and shifting your responsibility to someone else.

Gore and Edwards should both be ashamed. While I applaud them for their efforts, imho there is simply no rationale for two people living in a 10,000 square foot house. Period. Great, you're rich, you can afford it. But the planet cannot. I'm sick of hearing about how we all must do our part, spouted by people living in what are essentially malls...ridiculously huge structures that impress the friends and provide hefty tax write-offs, while wasting untold natural resources. Resources that cannot be "traded" via a few "carbon credits."

.

[cali]

32. Preach it brother Atman.

I think you're absolutely right. And you said it well. Amen.

[Balbus]

28. Absolutely not.... unless you can make a bit of a profit off of it.

Then it's a great idea!!!

[shield20]

31. I would have find it a bigger problem if he did purchase his credits from his own company. nt

[etherealtruth]

33. Its a good start ...

... and a whole lot better than those with great wealth simply squandering the worlds resources, not attempting to give anything back.

[Bake]

35. I have some reservations about the whole process

I think there's a lot of potential for fraud in carbon offset trading. And while I don't begrudge Gore or Edwards their homes, I think sooner or later EVERYONE on Planet Earth is going to have to actually CONSERVE. I've switched out incandescent lightbulbs for CFBs. I try to drive only when necessary. I try to keep the house at a reasonable temperature, not too hot and not too cold. But hell, I've just scratched the surface and there's so much more that I need to be doing.

And there's TONS more that industries need to be doing. Caps on emissions are ultimately the only way I see at this point to slow that down.

Bake