The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early Liberal Edition
|Subject: Re: OT: Gore do as I say, not as I do||Date: 3/3/2007 9:05 PM|
|Author: SeattlePioneer||Number: 3072 of 95422|
<<The Green Power Switch program isn't all that Gore and his wife, Tipper, are doing, Krider said.
They use compact fluorescent light bulbs and are in the midst of a renovation project that includes having solar panels installed on their home to reduce fossil fuel consumption, she said.
Their car? A Lexis hybrid SUV.
"They, of course, also do the carbon emissions offset," she said.
That means figuring out how much carbon is emitted from home power use, and vehicle and plane travel, then paying for projects that will offset that with use of renewable energy, such as solar power.
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said.
So...other than flapping your lip, what do YOU do to help the environment?
What have YOU done lately?
Inquiring minds and all...
Well, AlGore certainly has a wide variety of excuses for his vast energy consumption. It's like hiding the pea under the walnut shell and getting the rubes to guess which one it's under. You seem to be highly confident you can guess where the pea is, Michael.
But it's all excuse making. I'm surprised you are so willing to let your hero wriggle off the hook of his massive energy consumption, but there you are.
That reminds me of the initiative environmnetalists got passed in Washington State last fall, which mandated that utilities greatly increase the amount of "green" power they use. Sounds admirable, I suppose?
But it specifically excluded Washington State's huge hydroelectric production from being counted, or power from several nuclear power plants. Only politically correct green power was to be counted.
Today a Wall Street Journal editorial took a look at the pea of carbon trading and exposed a little of what is actually happening, rather than what the rubes imagine is happening:
"By far the biggest question is where the cap is set. The trading of emissions credits does nothing to lower the quantity of emissions ---it merely shifts around the right to emit. It's the cap that sets the amount of CO2 put into the air. And as Europe has learned, that figure is a political football unto itself. When the EU started emissions trading in 2005, the price of a ton of CO2 quickly tripled before cratering when participants realized that the cap hadn't been set low enough to create a genuine shortage. "
The editorial goes on to describe how corporations are lining up to maximize the amount of carbon credits they will get if regulations are adopted, and illustrates how such a process is highly arbitrary. The great game is all about who is going to get the arbitrary and artificial carbon credits and how much they are going to be able to charge the rest of us for what we get for nothing right now.
Al is doing the equivalent of championing the sale of watered railroad stocks in the 19th century, or chapioning the purchase of Enron stock a few years ago.
But no doubt many on this board are perfectly confident that they can pick which walnut the pea is under.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|