An Inconvenient Power Bill

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 28 2007, 07:38 AM) [snapback]397726[/snapback]</div>

Maybe - but not well-informed people, not experts involved in studying these climate changes.

The fact that a lot of people, many of whom have failed to obtain or understand the facts, have doubts about something doesn't mean they are correct.

That's one of the defects of democracy. Many people vote with only a very superficial knowledge, if any, of the issues. I know, because I'm one of them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Feb 28 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]397819[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, I've always felt that you ought to pass an intelligence test before being allowed to vote. Ignorant voters who can be swayed by a hot button issue shouldn't be allowed to vote any more than someone who can't pass a driver's test being allowed to drive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Feb 28 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]397819[/snapback]</div>

cute - but not intelligent. a LOT of smart people disagree with human based GW - here just one article you should read from today:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/num...egrated_ci.html

Your problem with democracy is one of its strengths imho. you need to move the masses to hit critical mass. and i cant wait to see what you think of human based global warming when you educate yourself enough just a joke there bro.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Feb 28 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]397820[/snapback]</div>

does that apply to illegal immigrants?

who makes your IQ test? what is your cut-off value? do you make adjustments for nurture? Assuming it is only given in English :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 28 2007, 11:50 AM) [snapback]397822[/snapback]</div>

Stop using grey literature to make assertions about scientific observations. Use peer-reviewed journal articles only. The majority of climate scientists, except a few contrarians, agree that global warming is unequivocally real and almost certainly man-made.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 27 2007, 10:25 PM) [snapback]397615[/snapback]</div>

I think this is fueled by a misconception that in order to live a green life, one has to live the life of a pauper. Thats just not true. So what if he spent the night at the Four Seasons? Should he have pitched a tent in the yard? Yeah his home uses a lot of energy, as others have said he has extensive security, office space and equipment, metal detectors, perimieter alarm systems, etc. Actually, I think $2700 a month in energy bills is a deal! I pay $400 a month for my electricity in the summer and I live in a townhouse.

Now, I was a republican until a couple years ago and I switched parties SOLEY because the current batch of republicans are so evil. I'm not really an environmentalist and I'm no great Al Gore fan, but I think saying he's done nothing for the environment because his home uses a lot of power is extremely short sighted. What you fail to realize is that if everybody did what he did, if every wealthy person scaled back their usage and bought credits etc the way he does, and if every ordinary person did what they could do we'd all be better off. THATS his message.

Living a luxurious lifestyle is not anti-environmentalist.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Feb 28 2007, 11:36 AM) [snapback]397817[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the link Alric. That's great.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Feb 28 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]397832[/snapback]</div>

Cherry or Lemon?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 28 2007, 11:26 AM) [snapback]397842[/snapback]</div>

This is a good example, Alric, of why it's useless to argue with dr B. You might as well be arguing with rock for all the good it will do you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 28 2007, 08:38 AM) [snapback]397726[/snapback]</div>

I can't believe educated people think like this. Use common sense. It is a fact that we remove fossil fuel from the ground and put it mostly in the atmosphere in the form of CO2 about 10,000 times faster than it was put in the ground. Ice core samples from around the world show we have increased carbon in the atmosphere to more than 30% higher than it's been for 200,000 years or more. These samples also show carbon concentration in the atmosphere almost perfectly tracks average global temperature. We have changed carbon conctration by more than three times what is required to cause an ice age, in the opposite direction.

Does that mean we're positive it will ge warmer? No but that should not be the standard. That's like saying I'll only make my children wear seat belts if I'm 99% sure we'll have an accident. The responsible thing to do for our children is to err on the side of THEIR safety, even if we do have to sacrifice.

The logic that putting 10,000 times the natural rate of CO2 in the atmosphere won't warm the climate is like saying, if you throw 10 more blankets on the bed you won't get warmer. Maybe there is a chance 10 more blankets will make you colder. But the logical assumption is that you'll get warmer.

As toxins became sequestered in the Earth's crust and the Earth became purer (from a human perspective) humans evolved. The idea that we can massively alter the environment in which we evolved without major consequence is simply not logical. It is also massively irresponsible to our children.

The reserves you refer to are largely oil sands. You have to burn coal to extract the oil, providing a double CO2 hit. And who says we have the right to use up all the fossil fuels. We have already used thousands of times our share.

I hope you don't subscribe to the insanely stupid idea that technology will save us. That's like saying, hey kids, it's OK if we pollute the atmosphere, oceans, groundwater and soil as well as use up all the fossil fuels. Why? Because you're so smart. You'll figure out how to clean the land, air and water. In fact, we're doing you a favor because we stimulate your creativity. Maybe we should all ditch our Prius's and buy Hummers so we help our kids even more.

You asked what the stock market has to do with it. We send our smartest people to Wall Street. They focus on the only thing we effectively measure in society -- economic growth. We assume economic growth makes the world a better place. This is untrue in many ways. It ignores all the costs of growth. Using one number to measure our success is a massive and destructive simplification of reality. We are in effect buring the walls of our house to heat the house. We're damaging the environmental and social systems that support the economy. Of course it will fall, as communism did. No system out of balance with reality can endure.

So what does Wall Street have to do with it? We cannot continue to prop up the economy much longer. Soooner or later, probably sooner, it is bound to fail. I've attached a paper that provides more info on this. Further info is on www.GlobalSystemChange.com.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 28 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]397763[/snapback]</div>

There are far too many potential problems to be so assured that man will adapt to such severely altered climate changes. Most likely we'll encounter a redistribution of arable land which will likely cause food supply deficiencies in some areas while increasing food supply in others. We'll probably recognize water shortages in some areas while seeing increases in others as the altered climate disburses rain in altered patterns. The effects of this will be not only be the aforementioned food shortages but will probably also force population relocations as underground water sources dry up. Notwithstanding GW, we are already witnessing water shortages simply because we develop land in a very "stupid" (I can think of no better word) manner.

Many insects are slated to go extinct. Some of these insects are responsible for producing the food that we eat. In the Unites States, 60 million acres grow crops that are wind pollinated but receive some benefit from insect pollination, 40 million acres produce hay crops that are wind pollinated but require some form of insect pollination and 6 million acres that require insect pollination for the fruits, vegetables and nuts that we eat. Mason Bees are a good example of an insect that may become imperiled. Their larvae overwinter in cocoons and hatch in the Spring when the temps get warm enough. If our flowers don't adapt to the earlier warming temps as quickly (which is the likely scenario) as these insects, they'll have no food on which to feed and they'll perish.

You being a doctor, I'm surprised that you don't mention the affects that GW may have on disease distribution. We already have seen the spread of West Nile Virus due to warmer weather temperatures. There are numerous other disease that may spread their boundaries due to the warmer temps. Rift Valley, Malaria, Dengue Fever are just a few. Then there is the redistribution of diseases that will adversely affect our flora and fauna, for which some evidence already exists.

Not only are all of these "quality of life" matters, they also all have economic implications. I'm hoping that you can now see how oversimplified your "man can adapt" comment may appear to some.

As a side note, I don't believe "green" energy is our answer. I believe conservation is. The very production of "green" energy requires resources and probably requires conventional energy in the manufacturing process. I think Al has self imposed responsibility since he opted to become the poster boy for GW. And, I can see where some people believe him to be acting in a manner contrary to this responsibility.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 28 2007, 08:38 AM) [snapback]397726[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, I quoted the wrong statement from you. My reply relates to this.

 

I wanted to add two points to this thread.

First, I suppose I'm the only contributor here who did what Gore did: opt for green electricity. (Although I did not know Gore did that until this day-after-Oscars smear campaign got underway.)

I opted to purchase wind-powered electricity here in Virginia. This is a financial arrangement, but it functions exactly as if my house's electricity was provided entirely by (essentially) carbon-free wind power. That's due to the financial arrangements, not to the physicial delivery of power to my home, as discussed in a much earlier thread on green power options in the DC/MD/VA area.

The net effect is that if I choose to run an electric space heater and open the windows, all it does is raise my bill, not my carbon emissions. That would definitely be stupid and costly, but at least to a first approximation not environmentally damaging. My electricity is, roughly speaking, as clean as Darelldd's PV system. So, just as darelldd's miles on his RAV4 EV generate (essentially) no carbon emissions, even if he takes the car out for a joy ride, my electrical use generates no carbon emissions, even if I choose to use more than the minimum amount of electricity.

If you buy it green, it simply changes the entire ballgame. It takes a while for that to sink in. From an environmental standpoint, the choice to buy green power instantly obsoleted all my CF bulbs and my high-efficiency AC unit and so on. Those efficiency choices now only affect my pocketbook, they no longer affect my carbon emissions. At least up to the point where the clean power is fully utilized (as in Colorado) and they have to ration it. At which point, the old rules apply again.

Shoot, if you believe that investment follows profit opportunity, the more I use, the more I promote clean energy. So a big power bill directed to a green producer is ... both environmentally benign in the short run and possibly environmentally helpful in the long run. That definitely takes a while to sink in.

The second point I want to make is that no adult male should consume more than 400 calories per day, because that's what an infant requires. No private transportation should be built that carries more than four people, because that's what the average family needs. All clothing should be manufactured in size medium. Southerners waste electricity because they use far more air conditioning than Northerners. Northerers waste natural gas and heating oil because they burn far more to keep warm than Southerners.

The real point here is: what's the right comparison group for ex-VP's? How does Gore stack up relative to Quayle, Bush Sr., and Mondale? (OK, well, Mondale's out, but how about the others?) Has anbody snooped into Ex-VP-Bush's utility bills, to see how they compare? The only relevant fact I've seen here is the current VP's electrical bill, which appears to dwarf Gore's.

I'm just underlining the point that others have made. For all I know, Gore does better than the average VP. And for all you know, too. Those big numbers have eye appeal only if you simply accept the propaganda that energy use higher than that of the average American represents waste per se. Even if you want to ignore the fact that this appears to be green energy, then if you want me to say Gore wastes energy, I need to see the data on his peers. How much should I reasonably expect an ex-VP to use? If somebody will publish Bush Sr.s electric bill, and show that it's much lower than Gore's, OK, then I'll consider the argument. But until I know either the average for some reasonable peer group, or some reasoned estimate of how much more an ex VP ought to use copared to the US average, this is just an example of "the semi-attached figure", straight out of "How to Lie With Statisics". It's a big, eye-catching, totally meaningless difference.

 

Would someone explain to me how buying credits helps reduce pollution and/or CO2? Where does Al buy his credits from? I read a quote where he lives a carbon neutral lifestyle. How can that be true?

 

Funny thing is the gas guzzlers, and SUV'ers and RV'ers and Off roaders etc ... are the most likely to conveniently NOT believe in man made global warming ... and are NOT wanting us to get off the oil addiction (of course untill peak oil drives the cost up to maybe $150/barrel).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]397891[/snapback]</div>

Reread the post above you, it explains it.

 

What is perplexing to me is if someone disagrees so stubbornly with man-made global warming, why the heck would they buy a Prius?

 

Well, it's not like buying a Prius doesn't have benefits above and beyond any environmental effects. You're getting good gas milage when gas prices are high, you're getting to play with new geeky toys, you're protected by Toyota's awesome reputation, and you're getting a heck of a car for the pricetag.

Besides, clinging to the (still possible, though looking more improbable all the time) idea that climate change would be happening just the same with or without us doesn't mean that a person doesn't understand/accept that halving your emissions is a benefit in the end. Climate change is not the only reason to worry about environmental damage - and it's hardly the only 'good' justification for driving a prius

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]397891[/snapback]</div>

The type of power Gore uses in his home.
Making the Green Power Switch® is easy. This renewable energy initiative offers our customers a choice in the type of power they buy.
What is green power? Green power is electricity generated from clean, renewable resources such as solar, wind and methane gas.
http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx

An example of a carbon credit site (no info if used by Gore--just provided as an example) that explains the concept of buying carbon offsets.
http://carbonfund.org/site/pages/our_offset_projects/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]397891[/snapback]</div>

There was a long thread here, mostly by me, regarding Terrapass and "green tags" (renewable energy certificates) and other carbon-avoidance firms. Search for that for background on the general issue of tradable carbon offsets. My last post in that thread gave a fairly complete (but very long) summary of the issues.

Ah, here it is:

http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=2...mp;hl=terrapass

That last post reflects my understanding as of a couple of months ago when I wrote it. I have since learned more, and have found firms (other than Terrapass) that do a more convincing job of offering you a quantifiable reduction in C02 emissions.

So, first, you need to distinguish two things that Gore appears to be doing.

On the one hand, you can directly buy green electricity (ie., send your money directly to the producer of green electricity). On the other hand, you can buy "carbon offsets" in the econdary market for renewable energy credits. Looks like he does both.

I believe the "green electricity purchase" scenario pretty clearly eliminates your C02 release from electrical generation. If you buy carbon-free or nearly carbon-free electrical production, then your decision to do that in fact reduces the use of fossil fuel to generate electricity. It's based on the financial transaction -- you don't get the green electrons pumped to your home. But the net impact is a reduction in the amount of fossil fuel burned to generate electricity.

But the second item -- buying generic "carbon offsets", like Terrapass -- is a completely different ballgame, I think. In my opinion, whether or not your decision to buy offsets actually in fact reduces carbon emissions depends on the particular facts of the case. For Terrapass in particular, my opinion, after some study, is that purchasing from them should best be considered in the same class as making a charitable donation toward green energy. It's nice, but it does not result in a quantitative reduction in C02 emissions. For other firms, by contrast, they take your money and implement carbon reductions that would not otherwise have taken place. Those firms can, I think, legitimately claim to have reduced C02 emissions directly as a result of your purchase from them.

So, you can buy carbon credits anywhere. You can buy them over the internet from Terrapass. Whether or not they actually do what they claim to do -- that your purchase results in a quantitative reduction in C02 emissions -- depends on what the vendor does with your money. I don't think Terrapass is effective, but I've seen others that appear more convincing.

The carbon credit (green tag, renewable energy certificate) market is booming, as I explained in the thread cited above, based on state "green energy portfolio" mandates. That's the main driver - that states require electrical generators to have some fraction of their energy come from green sources. The electric utility ity "green tag" market grew to satisfy those requirements. But the retail "green tag" market -- that's an afterthought, kind of a byproduct of that state-mandated main line of business.

The economic argument behind trading of carbon offsets if fairly compelling, if you believe that the purchase of the offset actually results in a net reduction in C02 release. It's the same logic behind the very successful US cap-and-trade system for S02 and N0x emissions from power plants (the EPA website has an excellent explanation of that - a good place to get an overview).

Basically, it's the same argument as the "why grow bananas in North Dakota" argument. WHy grow bananas at great expense in ND when its much cheaper just to buy bananas grown in a more compatible climate. So, analogously, if you want to avoid C02 release, why put solar cells on your house in Maine (where solar insolation is low). Why not put the solar cells up in AZ, and figure out how to buy the carbon avoidance that those solar cells represent. It would be much more efficiently, and you can buy the same amount of carbon avoidance much more cheaply that way.

How effective any particular C02 avoidance strategy is can be debated. But the driver behind the market is that it might be much cheaper to avoid C02 release in some ways than in others. So, for example, it might be a huge hardship for me not to burn my 300 gallons of gasoline a year. Suppose I'd rather pay $10,000 than give up driving, per year. That amounts to about $5 per lb of carbon (not C02) avoided. But maybe my local utility could run a C02 scrubber that would only cost, say, $0.10 per lb of carbon avoided to run. If I were of a mind to do something, and if we could set up the financial arrangements, I'd much rather pay $200 to my utility to operate their scrubber on my behalf, and continue to drive my car. I'm $9800 ahead, so to speak, and the net effect of my actions (driving + paying my utility to scrub C02) is that I'm carbon neutral. I paid for a reduction to offset my driving. It was just a lot cheaper to have my utility produce that for me, than it would have been for me to go without a car.

EDIT: Or, if you want to get away from my preferences and make it purely an engineering problem, suppose that a gizmo to trap the carbon in my exhaust would cost $5 per pound of carbon trapped. The rest of the argument applies as written. I'd rather pay my utility than put the gizmo on my car. End of edit.

That's the theory of it. How well it works in practice, you'd have to research and judge yourself. Some firms buy land and plant trees, others implement other types of projects, still others merely retail the "green tags" purchased in the secondary market for green electricity. And so on. All kinds of different schemes that are supposed to boil down to "you pay me $, and I see that carbon release is reduced below what it otherwise would have been."

But that's the gist of it. You pay somebody to reduce their carbon output, because it's cheaper to do that than to reduce yours. Just like anything else you'd rather buy than manufacture yourself.

Me, I bought green electricity, but I'm still a skeptic on carbon offsets. I want to see that market mature a little bit, see some standards evolve, before I'll put my money there. Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just means I'm not yet convinced.