OT: Carbon credits

I know that you cannot always wait until you have 100% information before acting, so ... yes ... absolutely.

If you stop to think about it, you'd understand how far we have come, as a civilization, by having a certain willingness to make peace with uncertainty, and to act, nonetheless.

... It's still far cheaper at present than most any alternative--that's why the alternatives are only present when there are artificial price supports or regulatory limitations.

If would simply let market forces work, alternatives will appear as they become economically viable automagically.

--

As I said, you talk a good game, but until YOU actually stop talking and start doing you are still nothing but a "hypocrite".

See above ...

But it makes no sense to act impulsively in a contrarian mode to simply respond to questionable hypotheses; particularly when the action proposed is one-sided and doesn't address the contributors to present problems that have no intention whatsoever of reigning in their development and expansion and are doing so w/ technology that is, for the most part, 30 years or so behind that of the more developed nations wrt abatement.

--

Oh, yes, it is -- because Bill Gates is doing that voluntarily, and not attempting to force anyone else to do the same.

Pot, kettle,...

I don't believe we have "let market forces work" since the days of Adam Smith.

Thankfully.

I'll try your method, too:

Thanks. I presume you insist that Bill Gates live in his car before he tries to address the poverty issue?

Your turn.

No. The answer is simpler than that.

One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner renewables.

Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion. I, too, buy my electricity from a wind farm.

That does NOT make me, or Gore, hypocrites -- repitition notwithstanding.

The notion of reduced greenhouse gasses doesn't depend on cave-dwellers. It depends on cleaner, renewable sources of energy.

I missed my black/white argument. I'd be ever so grateful if you'd point it out to me.

Have you given up your car yet?

Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude more resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us to reduce *our* consumption.

What, they've hooked up a turbine to Gore's mouth?

No, it's Gore's enormous use of energy, while telling everyone else to reduce theirs, that makes him a hypocrite.

And it's you telling other people to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, while you still drive a car, that makes you a hypocrite.

Get back to me after you've switched to a bicycle for transportation.

I was referring to looking silly.

Mostly, but ... that's just all/nothing logic again.

Thanks for ignoring the IMPORTANT point: clean renewables: use all you want.

You folks really should get out more. Google "confirmation bias." This ng tends to be a re-run of Limbaugh's radio shows.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

You're being ridiculous. You're using a straw man argument -- arguing against an argument of your OWN creation.

That's very silly.

When available.

I know someone who works for Ontario Hydro, or whatever it's called these days. He laughs at wind and solar. It's far too unreliable to be anything but peripheral.

He's explained to me how the grid actually works. There are times when the utility has to fire up ginormous electric motors to use the EXCESS power flowing into the grid to keep things balanced.

I don't claim to understand enough to make pronouncements on electric utility policy, but I understand enough to know that 99.9% of people making pronouncements don't have a friggin' clue about the subject.

You included.

Actually, I got the important point, which you missed: the hypocrisy of someone who uses an order of magnitude more energy than the average person, telling the average people they need to reduce *their* consumption while doing nothing to reduce his own.

Sorry that was so hard for you that I had to explain it twice.

Remainder snipped, as I have no desire to explain *all* of it twice.

I'm sorry, but ... can somebody tell me when we finished building the infrastructure for a diversified renewable power supply?

I don't recall us really even starting.....

Please tell me where my facts are in error. It's childish and wrong to say that ... I ... like 99.9% of people ... don't have a friggin' clue about the subject.

I'll wait.

Ability, actually. Desire is a secondary impediment.

You cannot understand -- or you could readily explain -- the difference between fossil fuels and renewables.

Your argument is similar to calling me a hypocrite for the 5,500 miles I make each year.

Except that ... I make them on my bicycle.

The fact that you don't *understand* the difference .... means only that: you don't understand it.

But the difference is enormous.

"Revivul" wrote

You should be congratulated. This kind of arrogance and hostility rarely makes me respond so quickly. You have just cycled your way into my killfile.

How many carbon credits do I get for killfiling a greenie?

Think of all the bandwidth and bits I am saving!

And you persist in missing the point.

After three times around, I can only assume it's intentional.

Considering the sheer amount of non-renewable resources used in manufacturing all those millions of Lance Armstrong wannabe outfits ...

Let me guess, your bicycle is a wooden Flintstone model, with stone wheels. :)

Just kidding you ... you seem like a nice enough guy and your heart is obviously in the right place, if a bit idealistic.

That will improve with age ... good luck to you. :)

I take it you have seen one of Gore's electricity bills.

Are you sworn to secrecy or could you share the info with us?

Lew

They're no state secret.

Try Google. $30K/yr in electricity AND another $30K/yr in natural gas is accounts for a tad more CO2 than I use.