Al Gore's Electricity Plan 100% Renewable in 10 Yrs.

Source please.

Or are you talking about the English Court that said this in the opinion:

And this:

And this:

And this:

And the conclusion:

(All above quotes from: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...8.html&query=title+(+dimmock+)&method=boolean)

Notice, there is nothing in the opinion about "fraud and deliberate misrepresentation," but the Judge does refer to deniers by mentioning a moon made of green cheese.

As far as the 9 "errors" go, look here to start...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/

http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/pdf/Al Gore versus Mr Justice Barton1.pdf

 

Right. And it goes to those companies so they can invest more in a renewable energy infrastructure. The previously expressed opinion about Gore being able to do this only because he has the money while Joe Lunchbucket does not completely misses the point... Gore spends extra (and so do I) so that renewable energy becomes increasingly affordable to Joe Lunchbucket.

 

Did you get the first-generation iPhone, too?

Look I'm all for clean, renewable energy. I'm not convinced that we are humans are even a significant cause of global warming, but I think we should investigate and prepare to moderate the problems we face regardless of the cause.

That being said, there may likewise be a severe limit on how much positive impact we can have. I'm all for a reasonable effort. Anything that slows the pace of life down would be great!

My idea of a great vacation? Mackinaw Island.

... but this Al Gore idolatry just kind of gets to me and I don't even dislike the guy.

 

What would it take to convince you? What source would you trust? (And by the way, I assume that's a typo and you really are convinced that we are humans.)

In a situation like this, the smart move is to try. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

And there's no Al Gore idolatry. When stupid things are said by some, others are allowed to point out that those things are wrong. Gore just seems to be an object of fascination for people prone to spout stupid things.

 

I wonder how long after the first bronze weapon was invented that an army equipped with bronze beat an army equipped with stone weapons? Those stone guys probably pooh-poohed the bronze guys as being too fancy and elitist.

 

No no I understood what you said the first time, thanks for repeating it.

Maybe we're talking about two different things. Gore seems to have shifted from blaming us and our evil SUV's to blaming power companies which burn the Evil Coal or other Fossil Fuels (ie oil).

So in one respect, I do understand the concept of an 'offset' in that one regard only - in other words, the electricity which comes into my home for my own personal use could indeed be directed to be produced by companies which produce a fraction of their power in a 'green' manner (strangely though, the greenest of them all, Nuclear, seems to be anathema to the environmentalists). Anyway, since electricity has been deregulated, and we have our choice of companies, and plenty of them out there advertise how green they are already, then just buying my electricity from them would be sufficient, would it not?

Would then purchasing an 'offset' accomplish anything other than needlessly increasing the profits of a power company?

But this still leaves us Americans and our non-public-transport-using, SUV-driving, suburbs-living lives, killing the planet. Do we buy an 'offset' then as well? Do we have some kind of a chart which shows how many 'offsets' we can buy to negate the polluting we are doing?

Maybe we can combine it with church - 'Do 3 Hail Mary's and buy 2 Carbon Offets. Go in peace, my son, and sin no more.'

See the head-scratcher is, even if I buy an 'offset', the nasty pollution still goes up there unabated, still killing the planet. But my wallet would be lighter.

You asked 'What do overseas or third-world countries have to do with it?. Well, I remember reading (sorry, source-fetishists, I don't remember exactly where) that a large part of the plan for this cap-and-trade scheme would be to have third-world countries be doing a large percentage of the 'selling' of these 'offsets' (even though the third-world countries are among the worst polluters).

I try to look beyond the rhetoric, the words, and look at the actual results. And with all of this, the only real result is that, at the end of the day, there is less money in my pocket. I'm sorry, but when the only real result is the moving-around of money, and especially when money goes from the pockets of 'the wealthy' (Americans) and into the pockets of 'the poor' (third-world countries), that's a red flag to me, especially since nothing stops the pollution from going up into the air. If it's just about money changing hands, re-distributing wealth from the affluent to the poor, then what happened to 'saving the planet'?

Look, I have no problem with power companies wanting to green their product up. Fine. I will buy the cheapest electricity available. If the cheapest is also the greenest, great. If it's not, then I won't lose any sleep over it. But since His Holiness claims we can replace all of our power-production with 'green' facilities within ten years, then it must be viable and just as cheap as coal or oil or nuclear, right? So no worries.

One last question about 'offsets', because I want to make sure I understand the concept. An 'offset' does nothing to *remove* any 'greenhouse gases' from the atmosphere, correct? So let's say my house's power is from some fossil-burning plant, and my yearly use creates 100 pounds of pollution (just random numbers folks, don't get your panties in a wad), and I want to buy an 'offset' to compensate for the hundred pounds of 'carbon'. Ok, I buy the 'offset', but my carbon still goes into the air. I am $100 poorer, true, but my pollution still goes on up there. So I give my $100 to some 'greener' power company to buy one of their 'offsets'. Since that 'offset' does nothing to prevent my carbon from going on into the sky, what has my $100 bought to help 'save the planet' in any way whatsoever? What did I buy besides nothing?

I mean, I understand you say 'it goes to power companies who are green and have credits to sell', but I can't help looking up and over my shoulder and noticing that all of this money changing hands is not doing a thing to stop my carbon from going into the sky. Don't get me wrong - I understand the whole 'cap and trade' scheme, and it's freaking brilliant as a way to make money.

But where am I going wrong here, because the math doesn't add up:

Company A is a 'green' power company, which produces 50% less emissions. And they have generated 'offsets' to sell (somehow, I still don't know how though). But I still buy my electricity from Company B, who still has 100% emissions they always have. I therefore still contribute 100% of the carbon I always have. I feel guilty, and decide to buy an 'offset'. So I pay Company A $100 for their 'offset'. Ok, now I don't feel guilty any more, but what actually happened? Neither Company A nor Company B does anything differently than they did before I parted ways with my $100. So their actual contribution to the equation is Zero, in relation to before my 'offset' purchase, and after.

So what I see is: (My carbon) + (Zero) - ($100) = Me, contributing exactly the same emissions as before, but $100 poorer, a power company $100 richer, and the planet still headed towards boiling flaming doom. So what am I missing? How do 'offsets' actually do anything at all except assuage guilt and subsidize power companies?

 

I called CPS (San Antonio's power company) and asked to buy an energy credit. Apparently, I completely flustered the CSR who answered. She had never heard of anything like that. Maybe she was new. I'll try again later.

 

Nero,

First of all, you can't direct exactly where your electricity comes from. Some marketers do produce their own electricty, but none of the companies have their own separate grids. You can only put your electricity on a grid, especially just for a home no matter how much al gore is using.

an offset is created by an actual power company using actual renewable sources to create actual electricity. so when al gore purchases this offset, its as if in affect he purchased his electricity from the actual green producer.

when you buy electricity from Reliant or whomever, its more than likely Reliant purchased its energy from another actual producer and then sells you the power. centerpoint producers the majority of electricity in this area. but a green producer can put actual electricity on the grid, and obviously if some homeowners choose the green producer, some other producer will be producing less electricity.

the offsets are bought and sold in a market, texas companies are required to produce some of their energy using renewable energy. if they don't meet the requirements, they can buy credits from another producer, who has met their requirements and can sell their extra credits on the market.

 

from wiki


Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), also known as Green tags, Renewable Energy Credits, or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), are tradable environmental commodities in the United States which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource.

These certificates can be sold and traded and the owner of the REC can claim to have purchased renewable energy. While traditional carbon emissions trading programs promote low-carbon technologies by increasing the cost of emitting carbon, RECs can incentivize carbon-neutral renewable energy by providing a production subsidy to electricity generated from renewable sources.

In states which have a REC program, a green energy provider (such as a wind farm) is credited with one REC for every 1,000 kWh or 1 MWh of electricity it produces (for reference, an average residential customer consumes about 800 kWh in a month). A certifying agency gives each REC a unique identification number to make sure it doesn't get double-counted. The green energy is then fed into the electrical grid (by mandate), and the accompanying REC can then be sold on the open market.

 

I meant to say "we as humans..."

I don't think I would trust any single source. My good friends here who are big into the Green Movement tried convincing me that Global Warming NOT being caused by humans is a complete hoax, so I may be a bit overly skeptical.

I agree that the smart move is to "try"-- proceed cautiously, probably more cautiously than you would but that's the nature of politics... finding the workable compromise.

I've got four kids who I would like to live a livable (in every way) place for.

Gore's motives are honorable I would guess; just don't know how accurate his position is. Everyone is vying for their piece of the pie so who do you trust? The truth, if it is even knowable, is obscured by the frenzy of activity to win the argument.

 

With all respect, the argument's over. The question is what to do and how fast to do it.

 

One of my Green friends told me this over coffee Sunday. The weight of the water dammed up by humans over the last century has changed the angle of tilt of the Earth's axis...

You say the argument is over. So are you taking on the Humans or the Earth to solve the problem? Or both?

 

Ouch.


Uh huh.

Yep.


With all *due* respect, maybe it ain't.

 

Did you even read the disclaimers on the "articles" you listed?

"After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large. "

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

 

Interesting. I see you failed to read the disclaimer at the top of your second link, which reads:

You also failed to go the Home Page of the APS where the following is posted:

Here's the position adopted by the APS:

In short, the newsletter in which this was published is not a peer-reviewed APS journal and the article represents the opinions of the author, not the organization.

 

al gore to the rescue. I feel better about the future now.

 

in some states, even texas, producers are required to produce some energy using renewable sources, if you aren't producing, you can purchase the credit from another company who has extra, these are also traded on an exchange, their values go up and down.


here's a question i have, we tend to forget that hydro electricity is a renewable source, al gore lives in TN, TN valley authority, isn't that power produced by damed water?

 

Maybe. TVA has a mix of dams, coal, and nuclear.

Also, the environmental consequences of hydroelectric dams are tremendous and we're not likely to see much of an increase in the capacity of hydro power.