Carbon Guilt

[FishForLunch]

"The Goracle" buys 'indulgences'. He purchases carbon credits from those places which use little energy. What does this actually mean?

It means that in the world run by the Kyoto Religion, only the rich can have sufficient energy. The rich can use as much energy as they need for their mansions, their limousines, their private jets, their entertainments and so on - without any sacrifices whatsoever. All it takes is money to flip to the poor-in-energy-use.

The Kyoto Religion of the socialist leftists is heavily class-based. There are the rich, who use all the energy they want - and pay 'sin-money' to the poor, who cannot afford to pay for energy. The poor, of course, have to sacrifice; they can't afford the high cost of green energy, they can't afford the expensive 'energy-saving' new technological equipment; they can't afford the extra taxes on energy systems; and they certainly can't afford to pay sin-money.

But- that's what the Kyoto Religious cultists have set up; a class-based society. The rich and the poor. The rich get all the energy they need, and assuage their guilt with sin-money. The poor are deprived of energy - and watch while the Kyoto cultists insist that their taxes be spent, not on our own country's needs, but are sent to 'other countries' - as sin-money.

[FishForLunch]

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

-----------------------------------Versus-------------------------------------------

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

[dude1394]

I guess it's correct to comment that he probably doesn't hang his clothes out to dry like Barbra Streisand does.

Can you spell hypocrite?

[purplefrog]

Gore has always been a hypocrite. I remember reading one of his early books, Earth in the Balance, or something like that. As I was reading I thought this guy has some pretty far out ideas. One of them was that because there is overpopulation in the world everyone should voluntarily restrict themselves to only TWO children. Then you turn to the back of cover and you see Al Gore with this family... wife and FOUR children. He lost all credibility with me back in the mid 1990s.

[Mavdog]

hmm, a bit of class warfare here?

the size of gore's electricity bill (those typically are not public info btw) shouldn't make any difference to the issue at hand.....reducing our emissions.

listen to the message and stop beating up the messenger.

[dude1394]

Come on mavie...I really don't give a flip how big AlGores house is as I think much of this is bunk still.

But you don't think someone preaching to you should practice it? At the end of the day he's still polluting a lot more than most folks and he's telling the world that armaggeddon is upon us.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

hmm, a bit of class warfare here?

the size of gore's electricity bill (those typically are not public info btw) shouldn't make any difference to the issue at hand.....reducing our emissions.

listen to the message and stop beating up the messenger.

The problem is that sometimes the message and the messenger can't be disentangled in the public's eye. Interstingly enough, according to one report Gore's utility company uses renewable energy and he is in the process of installing solar panels into his mansion. Nonetheless, his past history makes him a messenger without much credibility even if he happens to have much of the story right this time. I am not convinced global warming is armageddon, but I do think that carbon emissions should be addressed. Unfortunately in order to get people's attention you have to speak in a shrill voice and speak in catastrophic terms. Otherwise no one is going to move on this issue. In the end I will not be surprised if Gore has a negative effect on all of this... Why? Because he is Al Gore.

[FishForLunch]

If we reduce carbon emissions then what, what is the alarmists plan to reduce the other major component of greenhouse effect water vapor. How about livestock will they next ask us to stop eating meat.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Come on mavie...I really don't give a flip how big AlGores house is as I think much of this is bunk still.

the size of his house is relevant to this criticism.

But you don't think someone preaching to you should practice it?

in respect to how I look at the messenger, absolutely. as for the message their preaching, not necessarily.

At the end of the day he's still polluting a lot more than most folks and he's telling the world that armaggeddon is upon us.

first, we are told (try calling txu and getting someone else's billing info) he consumes 20x the national average. what size of home is in the natl avg? how big is gore's?

I don't know. do you? does the author?

I'll bet you this.....soon we'll read of gore's getting some of what is mentioned about crawford into that belle mead home of his. there is of course a big difference with gore's neighborhood and rural crawford, so no cisterns and such. but soon that house will be as green as green can get.

[WurzburgBorn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

listen to the message and stop beating up the messenger.

logic? Is that all you have to offer?
Get on board and let's all destroy the environment just because Al Gore is a hypocrit.

[FishForLunch]

Only fools will listen to a political hack like Al Gore. I am waiting for labels next like Homophobe, Islamophobe. I wonder what the people who don't believe that "man is the real cause of global warming" will be called -----phobe. I wonder if the there is a Democrat President the global warming alarmists will crawl back under a rock, like the homeless advocates do when there is a Democrat President.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

If we reduce carbon emissions then what, what is the alarmists plan to reduce the other major component of greenhouse effect water vapor. How about livestock will they next ask us to stop eating meat.

Keep in mind that you can accept the premise of carbon emission contributing to climate change without accepting the cataclysmic vision or the radical solutions offered by some extremists. That should be possible. It is unfortunate that the Democrats are such an easy target because sometimes there really is a wolf when the boy starts to cry. I can understand that sometimes it is difficult to discern, but the effort is worth it in this case. I am confident that if you engage in some serious research and keep an open mind you will find that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. I have argued this in another thread and the discussions on this board have helped me to dig deeper. I can't evaluate the science, but I have no doubt that the relevant scientific organizations and journals have in fact accepted this. I am also aware that more and more scientists are coming out now saying they don't agree. If the consensus changes, then we should change our thinking but right now the predominant view is that carbon emissions should be regulated at some level. Not sure what that level is, but to just ignore the consensus seems irresponsible.

[big_pth]

Ah, the politics of personal destruction...

[FishForLunch]

So when will the High Priest Global Warming predict we stop eating meat or the world will end.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Most ‘Inconvenient Truth’: According to U.N., Animals Raised for Food Generate More Greenhouse Gases Than All Cars and Trucks Combined

Norfolk, Va. — This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux “fried chicken” as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth—which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for “Best Documentary”—has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In the letter, PETA points out the following:

· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options,” the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.

“The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.”

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Initially, the emission-trade is there to rewarding the ones that save CO2. The quantity of the saved CO2 can be sold to companies (or private persons like Al Gore) which produce more CO2. So it´s quite possible to make money if you use CO2 saving technology, although this is of course not in the sense of the environmentalism and because of that in my opinion it´s the biggest idiocy that the Kyoto protocol allows it.

Furthermore it´s clear that a politician like Gore (which belongs to the group of the rich people) has a bigger house with employees and in addition more guests than an average household (about 2,57 residents per household). So you can´t compare it just as little as you can compare the consumption of a de luxe car with the consumption of an average car. It´s in nature of things that he produces more CO2 because of his job-related above average travel activity.

To get a feeling how important it is to save electricity, here some facts: To produce 1kWh of electricity you have to spent 3kWh of energy! If you produce the electricity in a Cole-fired power station, about 0,44 kg CO2 per kWh will be emitted (provided that you don´t use CO2 saving technology). Meaning that at an average of 10.656 kWh, you have to spent 31.968 kWh energy to produce, which connotes that about 14,1 tons of CO2 will be emitted per year and household if you produce the electricity with coal!

The idea of PETA to transform everyone in a vegetarian is of course nonsense as you can´t dictate the people what to eat. And it would be very hard to equip the cattle with a methane reducing technology! I wonder how this would look!

All in all such a discussion will lead to nothing and only draws off the attention of the real problem, the to high emission of CO2.

[purplefrog]

My advice is to ignore the extemist views and look at the data.

PETA has been trying to get everyone to go to a vegan diet for 20+ years. While their argument is ridciulous it has no bearing on the link between C02 and climate change. You can bring in all the peripheral arguments you like and point to goobers like Al Gore and PETA, but it will still not change the basic premise. Guilt by association is a pretty flimsy argument.

[FishForLunch]

So raising livestock has no effect on greenhouse effect?

Why is it that CO2 levels are the only thing that concerns you regarding green house gases and its link to Climate change.

How about Methane, Water Vapor is that not a concern to you, or doesn't fit your agenda?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Neither I said that to raise livestock doesn´t have a greenhouse effect nor that water vapor is negligible. You can´t do much about water vapor and although it´s evident that methane has also a big influence, would anyone stop to eat meat because of that. I don´t think so. But to do somthing to limit the CO2 emission is easy to do as we already have the technology. And to save electricity is also possible for everyone.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

So raising livestock has no effect on greenhouse effect?

Why is it that CO2 levels are the only thing that concerns you regarding green house gases and its link to Climate change.

How about Methane, Water Vapor is that not a concern to you, or doesn't fit your agenda?

We are rapidly getting into areas of climatology and environmental science that likely require some formal training, but I will give it a go. While methane is a problem, it's toxic effects are mostly due to the ozone created by CO2. It is my understanding that under more normal environmental conditions methane (not sure about water vapor) gas will move out of the atmosphere relatively quickly and have no adverse effect. With the atmosphere created by CO2 accumulation, methane becomes stuck close to the earth and creates a secondary toxic event. In other words, limit C02 emissions and the potential adverse effects of methane are greatly reduced or maybe even eliminated. CO2 is the lynchpin.

I am detecting a suspicion on your part that this is like a domino effect scenario where you target one thing (CO2) and then after you acheive your goal, you start working on something else (methane). If this is the agenda of environmentalists they will not win that battle imo. Like Zoidberg said, there is available technology out there to capture CO2, so it is within our reach if we decide to take to on the challenge. Also, the scientific consensus is that CO2 is the major contributor.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

A little addition: Water vapor is depending on the temperature of the air ( as we know a higher temperature is leading to rising water vapor), so rising water vapor is an effect of the global warming. And as I mentioned in a post in the other thread, a risen water vapor will enhance the greenhouse effect.

Also you have to know that plants are accountable for about 30% of the entire methane emission. And if CO2 rises, the growth of plants will rise and because of that the methane emission. Anyhow is methane, as scientificially proven, accountable for about 13% of the greenhouse effect (CO2 for 50%). The durability of methane is only 8 years as compared with 100 years of CO2!

Although it is possible to collect the emitted methane of raising livestock and use it as an alternate energy source! In Germany we do this already efficient.

[purplefrog]

Really. I had no idea that methane techonlogy was available.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

The spell is a biogas plant! You can collect all, in the course of rising livestock, incidental liquid manure and encamp them together with biological and plant waste in an airtight tank. The incidental methane will be washed and used to produce electricity and heat. Although it would be thinkable to collect the direct emitted methane in the barnstable of the rising livestock and pump it in the same tank I mentioned above, but I don´t know if this is profitable (as a cattle produces only about 114 kg methane per year).

[FishForLunch]

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_...ane_nepal.html

Here is a description

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Nice find fishforlunch!

Here a short article about biogas: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...how/998297.cms