Several stings below I possited a position that to decrease global warming, all one would have to do is decrease the number of homo sapiens on the planet.  That led to Z's increased requirement of serotonin reuptake inhibitors...!  lol!

While Al 'look at me, look at me, I'm such a stud scientist that I invented the internet and in my spare time proved that gloabal warming exists while running around in my jet' Gore, tells the REST of us that WE should sacrifice, and not do this or not do that!  YIKES... He goes about doing 5-10 times the environmental damage that any other of us "ordinary folk" even have the capability to do.  Quite frankly - he offers NOTHING even for causes which I seriously doubt even he believes.  Because if he did believe what he preaches, for the sake of his kids and grandkids, he would not use the amount of energy that this guy seems to require.

What I would offer - and the point that I have tried to make, AND that ZINAVAL and others on this board MISS - totally is that for anyone (politico or scientist, or beaurocrat) to possit a problem, they ought to be required to provide a solution.... simple ok?!

Those solutions need to address three issues.

1) is it Technically possible?  That is saying that we are gonna travel back in time to change the 2000 election - well - that ain't gonna happen (time travel is not a possibility - at least not in the same reality)....

2) It must be economically feasible.  That is, we could probably go on solar power NOW.  The cost is prohibitive using our current technology.  We could also provide many services in health care, but we just cannot pay for them...  

3) they must be politically/socially acceptable.  this one is the hardest.  There are many solutions to the issue of poverty.... we (human kind) have not found one that is politically / socially acceptable in over 5000 years.  go figure.

So while I offer that population control (to about 1/16 the earth's current population of roughly what, 6.5 Billion?)  is the most technically possible and economically feasible.  But it is truly politically and socially unacceptable.  

But let's use that SAME Frickin lens to look at Al 'mr pompuses' Gore's pronouncements!  He proposes to "sell" C-credits!  OK, so mr use it all up on ME (Al G for those without an imagination) sells his credits to me, a poor single working mom, who drives a fuel efficient car (no not a prius, but a 4 cylinder car that gets 25-35 miles per gallon).  She now goes out and with those C-credit dollars  from Gore and buys an SUV!  that gets - 10-15 MPG!  We are still chewing through the carbon - so the idiotic C-credits do NOTHING to solve the problem... so Technically - it is less feasible.  This concept applies to nations as well as countries... As lets say the US pays c-credits to oh, i don't know, China, then they up their industry - and voila - produce the same (or more since they are less constrained by envoronmental groups) C-emissions... and other "stuff" that expoentially makes the proposed "Greenhouse effect" worse....

Economically - it has problems as well, who will set the price for C-credits?  how will it be regualted?  and most importantly, how will it impact the economy?  all questions - AG ignores.

and now the biggie... will it be socially - politically acceptable.... sure, in theory, but in practice?  Bwahahahahaha!   right - as long as it is the wealthiest 0.01% who sell the credits - but for the rest of us schlubs... who make less than $100K a year, this is JUST ANOTHER TAX - to add to the 35-45% tax that you already pay to the Feds, state and local governments...

So, Z and all you other dudes who want to "save the planet" or whatever, We are the problem - the totality of the human species.... reduce OUR footprint on the planet.... and environmental stuff - well, it just goes away!  But  I will be the first to admit, we are the single most inhibiting issue to solving the problem.  



-- Modified on 3/23/2007 5:51:23 AM

-- Modified on 3/23/2007 7:26:17 AM

both HE and The Impeached/Disbarred One did LESS THAN NOTHING!!!

how many polarbears drown under his watch?

the dude is a dickhole



he wants grandma to wear a parka indoors while his rich ass jets around spew stupidity

hypocrite


-- Modified on 3/23/2007 3:33:14 PM

More more more!!!  More global warming more!  We need more global warming so we can grow crops further north.  We'll be able to grow corn and oranges and such up in Canada.

Who is going to pick those crops?

I can't imagine the Canucks being as nonchalant about the whole undocumented/unauthorized/illegal immigrat mess as we are.

Better swith to non-adult beverages.

PS.  Do you find that Guinness leaves an aftertaste?

For one thing, due to its emphasis on efficiency, capitalism creates a surplus of labor.  A space program is one way to sop up the labor surplus. It's a desperate plan for desperate problems. We ought to try to adapt to much harsher environments, grab new resources, and maybe tame planets.  

And we ought to accept a lot casualties with it.  Heroes, like tribal warriors.  This will reduce the population.  

Sometime in evolution, there was a fish who needed to move on land, and probably because their seas were getting pretty hostile.  

Your harsh on Al Gore.  Bizzaro, if he gave up what he had and lived the "simpler" life, the wealthy, the decision-makers, would never give him the time of day.  He would be considered-- well, a freak.  That's just the way class would work.  Any third world shanty dweller can boast of his small environmental footprint.  We have a lot of those, who listens to them?  

The object is not to reduce any one individual's carbon emissions, the object is to reduce collective emissions.  A flea could jump in the right direction, it doesn't mean any other flea is going to.

It does NOT reduce emissions... merely shifts who gets to make the emissions!  Actually, as I see it, it INCREASES emissions... cause not only can the seller go right on emitting, but he now pays someone else, and they can then increase their emissions, cause now they have the money...

With respect to "walking the walk" Two names come to mind.  Martin L. King, and Ghandi.  Both of these men lived simple lives, and lived their life to their ideals.  

Albert Gore's plan is just as impractical with respect to solving the problem as is mine.  Has the press really examined what the goofball has proposed?  No, and they are not going to either.  Please read my post again, I am well aware that it is collective emissions, and although I start with individuals, I extrapolate to countries, using China as an example.

WRT space, that is an excellent proposal IF and ONLY IF you are talking about the rescue of mankind and not the rescue of an individual man.

Harsh on GORE?  don't think so... He is incredibly manipulative, and when he gets caught trying to rewrite what he has truly contributed, WOW, he always says that he "misspoke" or was taken out of context.  So here is my bottom line on that dude... Either he is incredibly bright, but plans poorly and thinks that the total populace will fall for his rhetoric or he is incredibly stupid, and we should not trust him even to operate a spoon, let alone the country.

Just too many of those "data points" about his connection with the real world.

a good cigar and couple pints then went to orchestra hall and heard Julia Fischer nail Tchaikovsky's violin concerto.  She nailed it. and then had 4 more pints after that and got home safe (just drive the speed limit) and that's that. No aftertaste.

"Harsh on GORE?  don't think so... He is incredibly manipulative, and when he gets caught trying to rewrite what he has truly contributed, WOW, he always says that he "misspoke" or was taken out of context.  So here is my bottom line on that dude... Either he is incredibly bright, but plans poorly and thinks that the total populace will fall for his rhetoric or he is incredibly stupid, and we should not trust him even to operate a spoon, let alone the country."

Are you saying about the internet quote?  He was deliberately misquoted.  A year after the election, the real "inventor" of the internet gave him a reward for "taking the initiative" that set up the internet.

The link below makes clear what his contributions were, and that Vint Cerf, sometimes called the "father of the internet" acknowledge Gore's contributions.  

Also, if Eisenhower had said, "I took the initiative to create the highway system," would there be the uproar about that?

Also, the courageousness of Gandhi and King are above criticism, but in arriving at that point, they were both murdered before their work was near finished.  So how much did that do for their causes?  

How long do you think Gore would last following their path?  If he would make it through the first one hundred days, I would be so surprised.  

I think it's unfair to call Gore deceptive or manipulative.  He has a long background of concern for global warming and environmental issues.  Something he was ridiculed for since the 80s.  I could think of easier paths to wealth and prestige than that.

His proposal about CO2 trading is actually the least restrictive one I could see.  It should not increase emissions.  If you set the total emission allowance beneath the current output, then it should lower it: in theory.  There are precedents for using the free market in this way.  However, there is no such thing as a sure thing.  

Gore is not either of the alternative you give, I think.  He's not dumb, and not bright.  His intelligence is normal.  Not above.

why did'nt he do shit about it when he had the power of the Vice Presidency?

I'll tell ya why, beceause HE did'nt have HIS money positioned there yet like he does now...

the dude is a sweaty fraud

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2O_nMSMK0w

-- Modified on 3/23/2007 11:11:43 PM

-- Modified on 3/23/2007 11:36:47 PM

wrt Gore - even in Snopes...they acknowledge the direct quote:  "I took the initiative in creating the internet."  Further, even Snopes states "Although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self serving)"  So you see, I worry about someone who does not plan what he says... Cause on the international scene, it leads to a president using the word "Crusade" before he invades a Muslim country!  It demonstrates an ignorance of the power of words...  and that is unacceptable in our POTUS... and I have stated on multiple occasions, this POTUS seems to be incapable of speaking well enough to galvanize the support of other countries.

And Eisenhower never said the quote, unlike Gore who did.  Get over it, the guy is a dunderhead with words.  Gore is Manipulative - he has used data, which he manipulates rather than present the full story (he selects what he presents to support his view) to further his "footprint" in the public eye.... There are many scientists who doubt 1) Global warming and 2) man's contribution to it.

What did Ghandi and King do for their causes?  I cannot believe that you would ask that?! India is a free country, with a thriving economy and a democratic government - no thanks to the You're-a-peeings!  

King?! Civil rights!  really, this is beyond the pale.

Get the proposal straight... it is carbon emissions... which come in a variety of forms and flavors... and not just CO2... hydrocabons, carbon monoxide, creasote, chloro-flouro-cabons... all sorts of stuff.  Trading them... is a shift of wealth - from the wealthy... to the unwealthy.... and really Z.... look at which countries are the "up and cummers" wrt C-emissions.... China.... do you really honestly think that they are going to slow their industrialization just to cut C-emissions... ??? Acutally they are projected to overtake us in just a couple of years.... when you look at the numbers.... with the perspective of real human behavior.... then you will come to realize that this is a truly self-serving proposal... it benefits one person.... AL fricking Gore.  

And most countries that sign up for this junk - ignore the allowances in any event.  

Let me break it down for you this way... mankind need energy.  The carbon-carbon bond - found in hydrocarbons yields about 80 kcal/mole.  That is the limit.  there is no more.... ya can calculate - if you wish - a source is below - what it takes just to get yourself to work, and heat your house.  then you can go back and see how many little c-c bonds ya gots to break to get that amount of energy - and don't forget to account for inefficiency....

what I am trying to hammer home is this, unless you wish to sit in a cave, with only another human's body heat for warmth (I can think of a couple of providers who make that concept really tempting) and eat raw meat and berries... you're gonna produce C-emissions.  Tell folks that they can't have their gasoline... there will be riots.  That is currently our most common means of producing usable energy.  Do the math... Gore's position is untenable.  That is why, I put forth the criteria that proposed solutions have to satisfy in order to be put into practice.... this satisfies NONE of them.... it is not feasible, it has negative economic impact (another tax - and it is mostly I might add- a retro tax).   and finally, it will come to be socially and politically unacceptable... and contrary to your statement, it is NOT free market... it is a retro tax.

The only way to really reduce the c-emissions is to reduce human population... we are the culprits IF you believe the hype.

finally, your support of this dude in light of what LITTLE he offers is surprising.  It would be as if I were to say I support BUSH... with no ground to stand on... except the "war on Terror" which he has managed to turn into his own personal issue.  No one is with him...

On other issues, I disagree with him just as strongly... so just to support someone - who offers sooooo little, with no real examination of fact, surprises me... you're a bright guy... examine the facts for yourself.

Think about this... there has been a 6-7 year increase in surface temperature, and observations from space have confirmed the decrease in the area of the polar ice caps.... would you say that this confirms global warming?  I would.  Well that IS the date.  


Only problem?  the globe is MARS!  this seems to me to indicate that there may be something else going on?! could that be.... and to be honest, I've yet to see an explanation that I can totally buy (the same can be said for pluto also - by the way!).  

Go ahead - do not accept it all as truth... I don't accept what BUSH says about what is going on in Iraq... some of what he says is true... but then I talk with returning GIs!  Differences are there.... and the gap between what BUSH says, and what the GIs say is gettin bigger....

so Z. get out from under the deception and manipulation... much as with Michael Moore.... even the hollywood crowd is starting to realize that guy hurts their causes, because he alters the facts too much... and gets caught...

Gore!????   yea, either almost as dumb as Bush... or as smart as Bush....

Wrt... old dudes... well yea,  so we should oust Kennedy from the Senate... as he is too old to do the work   I agree.

"What did Ghandi and King do for their causes?  I cannot believe that you would ask that?!"

Despite your conviction that this is what I asked, it's not what I asked.  

Here's a direct quote of what I wrote:

"Also, the courageousness of Gandhi and King are above criticism, but in arriving at that point, they were both murdered before their work was near finished.  So how much did that do for their causes?"

Please note: the words "did that." The antecedent here is "getting murdered." So, the meaning would be "What did getting murdered do for their causes?"  

If you make this error from what I wrote, then I understand your distrust of Gore being based-- on error, pure and simple.

And then it's one that you compound.  "'Although Gore's phrasing was clumsy' ([ah!!] and perhaps self serving(!)"  

Bizzaro, that was nowhere near the complete quote Snopes gave.  They were referring to the whole passage quoted as being clumsy. They wouldn't have quoted it all otherwise.  

So, you use another error to justify the first error.  Sorry, Bizzaro, but I can't see that as being anything else but self-justifying errors, in reading, or in thinking. I can't tell which.

You cite the freedom of India, but I don't believe Gandhi saw that as the end of his cause.  He had something broader in mind.  It probably had something to do with preventing 4 wars with Pakistan.  

We'll see what Gore does from here.  You are judging Gandhi and King now that you know the end of their stories, and filtered through the respect that martyrdom brings, and Gore is just in the middle of his life.  How much could you have predicted about Gandhi in the middle of his life?

All I could tell you is if he tries to be Gandhi or King and people might respect him and hold him as a great man, but if he can't influence decision-makers from there, then nothing really changes, and Gore fails.  He'd be in the same class as Joe Hill, and other heroes of the workers movement.  (And you remember all those guys don't you?)

Perhaps he's not King and he's not Gandhi, but then again, we already had King and Gandhi.  

I couldn't get to the youtube you gave, but I take it you're referring to the recent scandal of Gore's investment portfolios.  

Actually, that's ambiguous evidence, Bill.    

Two possibilities are here: He could be putting his money where his mouth is, or he might be putting his mouth where his money is.  

So, which was there first?  His money or his mouth?

His mouth has been in the same place all the time when it comes to global warming and the environment.  You have to know that, Bill.

His money followed much later.  

As I remember, he did do something about global warming as Senator, or tried (remember that book; remember Rush Limbaugh's bit "Forest Gore?"  Have you forgotten slamming him about that already?  I know you did.)  

He was talking the same talk Bill in the 80s.  Later he was doing something about it as VP, which without a very cooperative POTUS, means he wasn't doing very much.  We're not talking about a Bush/Cheney VP/POTUS arrangement here. That's something new, remember?  

My Conclusion: he's putting his money where his mouth is.  

Now, I'd have to reach your conclusion if his money had been there first and his mouth arrived later.  But all this shows he's very certain where this economy has to go no matter what his influence.  For me, his convictions are confirmed by this, not disproved.  

-- Modified on 3/24/2007 1:29:58 AM

However, getting killed - as was how they lived their lives... was a part of them, and it did assist their cause.  

You wish to let GORE run around doing ALL of the things he would have us "do without"! to further his cause.... And what cause is that?!

that we all do without central air?  That we all do without central heat, that we all WALK whereever it is we wish to go?! Common dude,
GORE is using hysteria to further his Agenda, which as far as I can tell - is to promote himself.

Here's the difference: Gandhi's own daughter, Indira, was elected on her father's name, and was a terrible president.  She made India into a nuclear power-- very unlike her father.

I want you on my jury!!!

But the sad fact of the matter is is that when Goooore had the power to do something, he did;'nt do squat. Its certainly easy to understand why his running mate was AWOL on the subject too. Neither of them wanted to pissoff China and get cut off from the campaign $$$$$ that would have dried up if they had pushed Kyoto. So, lacking the courage of their convictions, they went deaf nand dumb. Like I said, we'll never know how many polar bears died as a consequence but I figured it in the hundreds!! lol

Also, why is it that we only hear about goooore's goldrush now???? Only "rightwing webblogs" braoke the news.

News that GOOOOORe wanted buried. Where has he EVER publically acknowleged that he stand to profit fromn this Offset bullshit???? At least with Exxon's CEO you know what youre getting....

No, Goooore is a snakeoil slaesman.

Pushing the hype for a profit...sort like the shills we get on other threads

I posted a picture of you here. I can see you are really thinking hard about VP Gore and impeached one when you wee playing Golf...

-- Modified on 3/24/2007 7:08:23 PM

that was rich in content

lol

i see you avoided the question BTW.....i understand why..

the answer is Zero, he did nothing....oh, he did trade issile technology to the Chi-coms, that was selfserving though....

what is it about goooore and selfserving crapola????

what a fraud

Extra water for Gore canoe on photo op upsets official
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The,  Jul 24, 1999  


Find More Results for: "al gore canoe "
Al Gore's Rough...
Ralph Nader: Fellow...
The Imperial (Vice)...
Summer vacation of...
Vice President Al Gore urged Americans to protect the nation's environment for future generations, but a state official who accompanied him complained about special treatment after 4 billion gallons of water was released into the Connecticut River to ensure that his canoe would not run aground during a photo opportunity.

Gore spoke about the environment after the presidential candidate went canoeing Thursday with a fellow Democrat, New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen.

Local utility officials said they were asked by the Secret Service and the Connecticut River Joint Commission to release water from a dam to raise the level of the river, according to a story in Friday's edition of The Washington Times.

"They won't release the water for the fish when we ask them to, but somehow they find themselves able to release it for a politician," complained John Kassel, director of the Vermont Department of Natural Resources, who accompanied Gore on the trip.

BWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Gore spokesman Chris Lehane said no one on the campaign staff asked for the water to be released.



-- Modified on 3/24/2007 7:46:17 PM

-- Modified on 3/24/2007 7:49:47 PM

the thing about al gore, the vote whore, is that he knows he cant outright declare he invented the I-net, he just uses words that "closely intimate to the casual listener"

it s a form of manipulation used on idiots who are fans of his......nonthinkers, who are easily fooled like Stupid1  (not zin)

it's how they got the whole Y2K charade up and running

-- Modified on 3/24/2007 7:37:34 PM

"Gore, tells the REST of us that WE should sacrifice"

Gore pays thousands of dollars extra on his power bill to support "green" power.  Is that not a sacrifice?  As for his travel arrangements, just what to you suggest to solve this "problem"?  He's going from point A to point B, across an ocean.  By doing so, let's posit that he's going to convince 1000 people to reduce their CO2 emissions for the rest of their life, so the trip is worthwhile in the long run.

How, exactly, should he get there?

"is that for anyone (politico or scientist, or beaurocrat) to possit a problem, they ought to be required to provide a solution"

That's a bad idea.  The people who can identify a problem are usually not the ones that come up with the solution for it.  Most solutions are creative accidents by people who were not studying the problem to begin with, they're people trying to make a buck by fixing it.

"OK, so mr use it all up on ME sells his credits to me, a poor single working mom, who drives a fuel efficient car [...] She now goes out and with those C-credit dollars  from Gore and buys an SUV"

And she promptly loses the extra income from the C-credit trading.  She now has to pay someone else in order to drive her SUV.  Since that's cost-prohibitive for your poor, single mother, she doesn't buy the SUV in the first place and reminds you that your example is quite dumb.

You are still stuck in the small-scale and in the single point in time.  In your example, time doesn't stop when she buys the SUV.  You need to expand your thinking to a larger scale if you're going to talk about a global problem.

"Economically - it has problems as well, who will set the price for C-credits?"

The free market.  If more people keep their SUVs, the credits will be more expensive.  If more people buy fuel-efficient cars, the credits will be less expensive.

"how will it be regualted?"

Aside from normal commodity-trading rules (think trading soybean futures), somebody's got to set the cap on emissions and periodically lower it.  That's going to be the big political battle, but Congress will work it out.  And if we don't like it, we'll elect a new Congress to work it out differently.

"as long as it is the wealthiest 0.01% who sell the credits"

Why would only the wealthy sell the credits?  I've already limited my CO2 emissions relative to the average citizen.  Thus I would be able to sell credits too.

For that matter, the wealthy are more likely to be buyers of credits.  They'd be more willing to spend extra money to maintain their lifestyle, since they are ALREADY spending extra money to maintain their lifestyle.

If you want to avoid paying this "tax", then get yourself right at the limit.  If you want to make extra cash, get yourself under.  If you REALLY want to drive that H1 around suburbia, that's fine.  Since when is giving people choices a bad thing?

And really, tax isn't so much the correct term since it's not money going to the government.  You are buying or selling a commodity.


-- Modified on 3/25/2007 2:28:23 AM

-- Modified on 3/25/2007 3:12:37 AM

That was a good rebutt man and I appreciate that you have some sense of humor and I can joke with you once in a while...

What I think and what I believe will not change your mind even if I post those beliefs here for you...

Simply because I ask that instead of crying wolf - as in Look at me, look at me - I've found a problem - I want our politicians to stand up - and say, Yea, there is the problem - and I would propose this as a solution...  Get the difference... Gore is only running around with problems... that he claims to have cornered the market on...

On to other issues though...

What you fail to get - is that if there are going to be carbon use credits - then someone is going to have to set limits and regulate the trade in those credits... who will do that?  the feds?  oK if they do, then how do they get paid to do that?  wow!  a fee tacked onto the c-credits.... and it would be enough to perform the regulatory function...  Ever deal with the FDA?  they charge a "user fee" and are still ineffiecient...

So the net result is a retro tax....

And you are correct, in that if your cabon use is low enough... you have to pay no tax... but I promise you - it will be a retro tax in that it will always be rigged to the middle and lower class..  I can already imagine the scenarios... IF you have a solar panel on your house, your c-tax will be reduced.... well  WHO can afford  solar panels?? so forth and so on!

Gimma a break, this is manipulative and does NOTHING to solve the real problems of over population.

-- Modified on 3/25/2007 3:01:17 PM

and has spent enormous time and effort since - trying to convince everyone that "oh, that is not what I meant!"  

Bold lies - told with confidence often win the day.  

Why people would defend a guy, who really has one claim to fame... and that is by being attached to another's success.... yes that is correct, his great claim to fame?  Being Tommy Lee Jones' roommate at Harvard....

Gore is smart, but not trustworthy as he plays fast and loose with words... and utters what he is confident will win him support.... really!

"Simply because I ask that instead of crying wolf [...] I want our politicians to stand up - and say, Yea, there is the problem - and I would propose this as a solution"

And my point is that the best solutions do not come from politicians.

Problems are identified by scientists and engineers.  Politicians can amplify the call for a solution.  Individuals and businesses will be able to come up with the best solution because they can make a buck off selling the best solution.

Your argument is that when there is a problem, we should chose between the worst solutions.  Your point, of course, is that you want to only have bad solutions to global warming so that you can dismiss them all.

"What you fail to get - is that if there are going to be carbon use credits - then someone is going to have to set limits and regulate the trade in those credits"

Re-read my post.  I explicitly addressed both issues.  

1.  Congress will have to set the limit, and there will be a pitched political battle every time they do so.  If we dislike how the limit is set, then we can elect a new Congress to change it.

2a.  There's going to be two aspects of regulation.  The first is usual commodity market regulation, as in the stock market.  It'll be handled just like the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc.

2b.  The second aspect is some method of determining how many credits you have to sell or must buy.  That can be determined by linking data the government already has on us.  For example, DMV records can be used to determine how much CO2 you release by driving and your power company can report how much electricity you use.

"oK if they do, then how do they get paid to do that?  wow!  a fee tacked onto the c-credits"

Since there's two sources of regulation then there's two revenue streams.  

The governmental bodies would get paid through existing taxes and fees.  However, since this is data that is ALREADY BEING COLLECTED, the cost increase is minor.  For all we know fines on illegal trading and the boost in personal income (that is then taxed) may pay for it.

The market regulation will probably be paid the same way they pay for the regulators on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc: fees to the brokers which will get passed on to the people actually trading.  Such fees haven't exactly made stock markets impractical, have they?

"but I promise you - it will be a retro tax in that it will always be rigged to the middle and lower class"

Since Congress will set the limit, then it will be set however they see fit.  If they're dumb enough to hurt the majority of Americans by "rigging" it against them, then that Congress won't be re-elected and the new Congress will fix it.  Much like economic populism helped fuel a lot of Democratic victories in 2006.

"IF you have a solar panel on your house, your c-tax will be reduced.... well  WHO can afford  solar panels?"

Solar panels become a lot more affordable when you can make money selling the credits once they're installed.  In fact, a good business model when carbon trading is implemented would be to offer to install solar panels on someone's house in return for their carbon credits.  

Let's say I run a solar panel installation company, and you're a home owner who can't afford to buy solar panels for your house.  We'll make up some numbers: Carbon credits are going for $20 each, and the solar panels on your house would give you 100 credits per month and the solar panels cost $20,000 to install, including my regular profit of $5,000.

I'll install solar panels on your house and you'll give me the carbon credits for 12 months.  I've made $4,000 in "interest" and $5,000 in regular profit.  You've paid $0, and after a year will have an extra $2,000 a month.

In addition, the greater demand will lead to improvements in manufacturing that will make panels more affordable.

Once again, think bigger.  Time doesn't stop.

"and does NOTHING to solve the real problems of over population."

It's designed to fight carbon emissions, not overpopulation.  Your shampoo also doesn't solve the problems of overpopulation, but you wouldn't expect it to.

Carbon trading is a way to harness the free market to reduce carbon emissions.  Why do you think the free market won't work?  If the free market won't work in this scenario, why does the free market work in any other area?


-- Modified on 3/25/2007 4:43:20 PM

-- Modified on 3/25/2007 4:45:00 PM

and then you throw out numbers of $2-5K.  

Do you have any concept of what those numbers represent to a single mother of three?  who makes $40K a year?  Get real

And yes, it is possible for politicians to raise issues of importance.  We have had such with Environmental issues.... public health issues, and even infrastructure issues... One problem now, is few politicians are speaking up with problems, working with a competent staff to provide suggested solutions which are technically feasible, economically viable and politico-sociologically acceptable.  

Regulation of the c-credits will not be handled like stock... why?  because stock values are market set... and even in my wildest dreams I cannot imagine the cost of c-credits being allowed to "float" like shares of Chrysler.  

Really!  I am thinking bigger.  Even with c-credits... c-emissions will continue to increase as the population of the earth increases... it all has to do with the energy in the c-c bond.  Get it!  that is rate limiting.

and with China coming up to us emissions in 3-5 years... well, what we do won't matter....  

Yikes.  population control?  while no one wishes this, it is the best solution.  bar none.... will we do it? no!  I know that - but to pretend that some "get me (Al G) rich" scheme is gonna "solve the problem" is really wishful thinking... the real solution is to reduce the number of c-c bonds broken... and to do that... well you need to reduce the number of units breaking them.

Retro taxes.... we don't need.

"Get real"

As I said in the example, I was making up numbers.  Get literate.

In addition, the very poor simply can't afford to buy a house, so solar panels won't be an issue for them.  OTOH, they will likely be able to buy a fuel-efficient car and restrict their electricity use, so they'd still be able to sell credits.  In fact they already are doing that sort of thing because it saves them money.  Now they'd get paid to do it.

"One problem now, is few politicians are speaking up with problems, working with a competent staff to provide suggested solutions which are technically feasible, economically viable and politico-sociologically acceptable."

Politicians NEVER have.  Ever.

Politicians are the worst possible people to 'solve' any problem.  Politicians can provide the incentive to solve a problem through legislation, but problem solving needs to be left to the free market whenever possible.  I thought you righties were all about free markets and businesses innovating their way into profits.

Heck, the free market is already working on global warming.  Many large companies have figured out that if they burn less fuel, they save money.  So they're already restricting their carbon emissions without government intervention.  Neat, huh?  Free market working on reducing carbon emissions...oh wait, that's impossible according to you.

Again, you're really claiming you want the politicians to solve the problem because they won't be able to come up with a workable solution.  That way you can claim the problem is unsolvable and ignore it.

"and even in my wildest dreams I cannot imagine the cost of c-credits being allowed to "float" like shares of Chrysler."

Why not?  That's what the plan is.  Create a commodity market for carbon emissions, and let market forces drive emission reductions.  Why can't the market determine the price of the credits?

"Really!  I am thinking bigger."

You continue to cite examples that require stopping time at the end of your example to cause problems.  That's small thinking.  You also continue to declare that politicians must solve all problems, and solutions must not come from outside government.  Again, small thinking.

"c-emissions will continue to increase as the population of the earth increases"

And that's a good thing for a carbon-trading market.  As the demand for the credits rises, there's more profit to be made by using 'greener' sources of energy.  That drives the free market to develop new and better technology, which will be able to actually freeze our level of emissions even with a growing population.

Again, time moves on.  Things change.  People adapt.  Big thoughts.

"population control?  while no one wishes this, it is the best solution.  bar none"

No, that's your red herring to claim you have a solution when you know you don't.  If you really believed that eliminating people was such a great plan to solve this looming crisis...well we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

"but to pretend that some "get me (Al G) rich" scheme is gonna "solve the problem" is really wishful thinking"

You have yet to provide any rational reason it won't work.  Your argument consists of lying about what the "carbon market plan" is, then dismantling your straw man.

"the real solution is to reduce the number of c-c bonds broken"

No, that's the solution using today's technology and today's deployment of 'green' sources of energy.  But once again, time and technology do not stand still.


-- Modified on 3/25/2007 10:18:56 PM

Clearly I have stated that he would invest in start-ups having a go at alternative energy souces and energy efficiency.  I don't ignore that, but I also know that in the end, we will have to control population.  

You ignore the limits of energy production and conversion.  Oh, and as you say, companies are reducing energy use through better efficiency because it is economically feasible... then I guess we don't need the c-credits anyway... so why have them?

Because it is a way for Al "look at me, look at me, I've solved the problem" Gore to claim again, that he did something when in fact he did not.

Really - If you think that I don;t know that things change... you should spend a year in one of my days.  ALL I do is look at change... and project how much technological change will occur - in a given period of time... how?  by looking at patent landscapes, reviewing publications in journals, and reviewing stuff such as venture wire to see what investments are being made in what technologies... oh, and before I go to bed at night, I also review the regulatory climate for up and coming technologies...

yea, realistically, let's recount what you would create...
1) an unnecessary (even by your own writing above) tax on fuel use.
2) a new tax on energy which will be a retro tax on the poor..
3) a new bureaucracy to regulate and govern c-credit trading.
4) less incentive to develop alternative energy sources... and
5) another scheme for a few to get wealthy at the expense of those less able to afford it.

WOW!  that really is HOT!  

Why not just go for broke and ban all energy use by those making less than $250K a year?

"I don't ignore that, but I also know that in the end, we will have to control population."

Population controls itself.  As societies get more wealthy, more free and more technologically advanced, they have fewer children.  Except for immigration, much of Europe has had little population growth for years.  Similarly, non-immigration population growth has been slowing for years in the US.

"You ignore the limits of energy production and conversion."

What limits?  We have not reached the barriers created by the laws of physics.  We're nowhere close.  Thus, there's lots of room to advance.

"then I guess we don't need the c-credits anyway... so why have them?"

Because the current financial incentives are not enough to slow climate change at the pace we need to.  Carbon trading increases the incentives to fix that.

"Because it is a way for Al "look at me, look at me, I've solved the problem" Gore to claim again, that he did something when in fact he did not."

He has not claimed that the carbon market is his idea.  The first I heard of it was from an economist on TV in the 1990's.  Yes, he's promoting the idea as one of the best ones he's heard.  And indeed, it is a very good idea.

"Really - If you think that I don;t know that things change... you should spend a year in one of my days.  ALL I do is look at change"

Then why do you constantly ignore that technology will change our world, and what we are capable of doing?  Yes, we rely massively on fossil fuels today, but there's little reason technology can't fix that when there's enough economic incentive.

Besides, the technologies I'm talking about are nowhere near the patent stage.  Nobody's thought of them yet, much less developed them enough for a patent.

"1) an unnecessary (even by your own writing above) tax on fuel use."

See my response above.  It's necessary because the incentive is not great enough.

"2) a new tax on energy which will be a retro tax on the poor.."

I've dealt with this in the previous 3 posts.  You continue to claim it's a tax on the poor, yet don't provide any reason that stands up to even the most causal scrutiny.  Such as providing any reason why the poor would have to pay anything.

"3) a new bureaucracy to regulate and govern c-credit trading."

Yes, because stock markets have never, ever worked with regulation.  Somebody better call up the NYSE.

"4) less incentive to develop alternative energy sources."

Where the hell did you come up with that?  Developing alternative energy sources will be the primary method of gaining carbon credits to trade.  It's the HUGE money maker in this system, so there's massive incentive to do so.

How on earth does carbon trading provide less incentive?

"5) another scheme for a few to get wealthy at the expense of those less able to afford it."

Go back about 3 posts and read what I already said about this.  Just like everything else, wealth can provide some advantage, in that you can actually buy property that you then run in a 'green' manner.  However, wealth also means you can afford to buy carbon credits to maintain your current lifestyle.  Given that the wealthy usually eschew hardship, they're unlikely to cut their emissions in order to make money.

Also, the extremely poor are already living in a 'green' manner because that's all they can afford.  For example, they can't afford to heat the house to 72 every day, so they heat it to 60 to save money on their fuel bill.  In a carbon trading system, they'd also get PAID to do so.  Net positive, isn't it?

-- Modified on 3/26/2007 1:55:57 AM

All energy use will be taxed... with little in the way of c-credits going to the poor.  

As far as the extremely poor living in a "green manner" - they oft live in poorly insulated houses, drive cars that are for the most part not tuned to be efficient.... and consume goods and services that are likewise energy inefficient.  

sorry, but work with the poor - and that is what you see.

and sorry, but you must think that technology that is practical grows on trees!  (actually some 60% of pharmaceuticals on the market today, did at one time or another literally "grow on trees"!).  You must also think that this will go forward without major shifts in our economy... and will go forward without some less scrupulous folk taking advantage of it to line their own pockets...

and I stated, that I look at patents, but also at research directions and intiatives... to go further would in part, reveal more of me than I am comfortable with.

With respect to barriers... what?  the physical chemistry of the c-c bond is what it is... it will not change.

with respect to immigration.... what happens there, especially with Mexican immigration into the US, they are less educated, and more important unlike waves of immigrants before, less inclined to assimilate and become educated, leading to lives of poverty, which - is less energy efficient.  Same with poor countries... that cut trees down for firewood... and last I saw - that is also breaking c-c bonds... you yield those same 80 Kcal/mole - that ain't changing - even with an environmentalist in office... as was once said.... 186 thousand miles persecond... its not just a good idea... its the law! Bwahahahahaha!

We must learn, as a species, to control our population.  As I have repeatedly stated, our c-sacrifice is meaningless unless the rest of the world buys in.

Finally, yes, I have read what you wrote.  I just don't buy it because it goes against several behavior patterns of humans.  they are not altruistic.... if they were, they Would use the simplest solution, limiting the who, and under what conditions they have children...

some just should not have kids.... period.  

I guess we will just have to disagree - as gentlemen.

Even if all food currently on the planet were equally distributed, we would be undernourished.  and certainly undernourished by "Western" standards.  

Even a limited amount of travel exposes on to the extremes of the human condition.  For the US, or for that matter for a well to do, siver spoon in my mouth, ex politician to dictate that the poor do not have a right to energy consumption, and why that falsehood is accpeted as truth is beyond me.  

We need real solutions.  DO I personally think that technology will save us?  maybe.  but I would rather count on limited population growth.  Although I know, that is probably not gonna happen.

we're all on the same team

"All energy use will be taxed... with little in the way of c-credits going to the poor."

And your evidence is......?

Or if it's just your pessimism, that's not a good reason not to try.

"hey oft live in poorly insulated houses, drive cars that are for the most part not tuned to be efficient.... and consume goods and services that are likewise energy inefficient."

But they're burning less carbon.  Hence, carbon trading helps them fix those other problems.

As for working with the poor, I've been volunteering with Habitat for Humanity since high school.  I'm well aware of their living conditions.

"and sorry, but you must think that technology that is practical grows on trees!"

Compare the efficiency of internal combustion engines from the 1960s until today.  They require FAR less gasoline to produce the same horsepower.  The improvement in diesels is pretty awe inspiring too.  And that's just ICEs.  Your claim appears to be that such improvements can't happen.

"You must also think that this will go forward without major shifts in our economy"

You mean technology changes like the Internet?  Just one example.  Technology will always cause major changes in our economy.  Some, like the Internet, have been pretty good.  Others, like outsourcing, haven't been so good.

What exactly are you trying to say?  That new technologies shouldn't effect the economy?

"With respect to barriers... what?  the physical chemistry of the c-c bond is what it is... it will not change."

The total energy in that bond does not change.  However, we are fairly inefficient at capturing that energy.  The best internal combustion engines lose about 75% of that energy.  Technology improvements have brought that up from about 85% loss when I was a kid.  If we were even close to 50% efficiency, then I'd be concerned about our ability to further improve efficiency.  But we've got so much headroom that improvements should still be relatively easy, once there's sufficient financial incentive.  Such as a carbon market.

"what happens there, especially with Mexican immigration into the US, they are less educated"

Around 1900, an enormous proportion of the European immigrants to the US were illiterate.  I don't have the stat handy, but I remember it as something like 20%.  They ended up being pretty darn productive in our society.

"less inclined to assimilate and become educated"

Reference?  Do places like "Little Tokyo", "Chinatown", and "Little Italy" not exist?  Immigrants have ALWAYS remained somewhat separate from the rest of our society.  However, often 2nd and always the 3rd generations have been completely assimilated.

"As I have repeatedly stated, our c-sacrifice is meaningless unless the rest of the world buys in."

Somebody has to be the leader.  The leader will end up with a huge economic and technological advantage over the rest of the world.  I'd rather have that be the US than China or Europe.

In addition, we only have control over what the US does.  Alone we can't fix a global problem, but we also can not force every other nation to change first.

"they are not altruistic"

Some are.  Your personal pessimism is no reason to assume the worst in everyone.

"if they were, they Would use the simplest solution, limiting the who, and under what conditions they have children"

You mean like the majority of Americans, who now have 1 or 2 children?  (Average is currently 2.3, but the 14-child households really drag that up.  The mode is 2).

"some just should not have kids.... period."

Do you really want to open that can of worms?  Deciding who can and who can't have kids?

"I guess we will just have to disagree"

I have no problem with disagreeing, as long as your argument makes sense.

The points I'm trying to make are not to "win", it's to understand.  Both for myself, in that I'm trying to figure out what you're saying, but also for you to understand the holes in what you're saying.  By understanding them, you'll become better at arguing them, and I'll have a lot more fun arguing the other side.