Global Warming is one of the big issues of our time. "Big Al" Gore won an Oscar for his so-called documentary and I applaud him. The fundamental issue of Global warming is CO2 emissions. In his Oscar acceptance speech he said, "We all need to reduce our CO2 emissions by reducing our energy usage, and in the process, save the world".
It turns out that Al Gore, just in his primary residence (one of four homes) is using 22,000 kilowatt hours of energy each month. As a comparison, here on our 20 acre ranch we use about 2000 kwh per month, which includes our 3000 sq ft house, 600 sq ft guest cottage, and small winery...and I would think our living space is much larger than the average. This says that Al Gore's energy usage is more than ten times the average American ...in just one of his four houses. But in a recent interview he said that even though their energy usage is high, he buys "Carbon Credits" in the amount that makes his usage "Carbon Neutral".
It was later revealed that he owns part of the company that sells him the Carbon Credits!
I did not understand the Carbon Credit thing, but being conscientious, and not wanting to be called a "polluter', I Googled it. One of the first websites that came up was from the "Clean Air Conservancy", and they sold Carbon Credits. Their website says that they have an Emissions Bank where they keep "retired pollution". I am not kidding folks...
They have forms on the web site that you can fill out to see if your car (or home) is "carbon neutral". So I filled out the form for one of our cars: 2007 Toyota Avalon with estimated annual mileage of 20,000 miles. After filling out the form and clicking 'submit', I received a message that the car was not "carbon neutral", but it could be for $37.80 per year (6.3 carbon credit units). The site then asked for my Visa number and even said that I could buy additional carbon credits for anyone as a gift. I am not kidding folks...
But having a science background, and working daily with plants in my vineyard, I started thinking -we live on a 20 acre ranch, with an estimated 600-900 mature oak trees. When we built our house we landscaped with over 500 plants and shrubs, and we have 200 mature grape vines. We have our own water system and burn clean propane for cooking and heat (in addition to a high tech efficient fireplace). Just these oak trees, plants, and vines alone must suck up huge amounts of CO2 and exhale pure clean oxygen. I do not know how to calculate "carbon credits", but we must have them coming out the wazoo. And since we do not really need additional income at this stage of our lives, we have decided to "donate" these carbon credits to friends and family, rather than sell them.
Our son Mike drives a huge gas guzzling SUV which spews CO2 emissions into the beautiful countryside around Washington D.C. Our good friend Scott Forward drives off-road motorcycles all over Baja, not only destroying the environment, but also polluting the pristine Mexico air. And our liberal friend Mike Holland flies all over the country in his private plane dumping CO2 into the upper atmosphere. But being close friends and family, these folks do not have to worry...we have decided to give them a carbon credit certificate which will make them "carbon neutral'. Here is all we ask in return... the next time we are together, they buy us a dinner or a few bottles of good wine. It's our sacrifice...but we have the carbon credits and want to share.
I hope this is a start of a movement - if you have excess trees, or plants, or drive a Prius, or ride a bike to work, or use florescent bulbs, or are lucky enough to own some "retired pollution" - you most likely have extra "carbon credits" that you can pass on to your polluting friends or family, like we have. Let's work together on this so Big Al will be proud of us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
We have a friendly banter about this global warming/climate change issue, but in all seriousness, your position is starting to look like that of a polar bear on a rapidly shrinking ice floe. In the relatively short time since this issue has gained widespread attention, I've seen the position of the "non-believers" (to use a term you’d probably agree with, ha ha) go from claiming there is not enough data to even support the contention that the Earth is warming; to a grudging acknowledgment that it is warming, but it has nothing to do with humankind ("it's a natural cycle").
I expect it's just a matter of time until the position of the "non-believers" erodes further, to the point that they will finally be forced to accept the truth staring us all in the face. As more and more data comes out, it becomes harder and harder to deny our contribution to the warming of this planet. To whit, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released its latest scientific report, "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis."
Though I suspect your opinion of the UN runs in lockstep with that of most conservative commentators, the report was produced by 600 authors from 40 countries. More than 620 expert reviewers and several government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the summary line by line before adopting it and accepting the underlying report. To me, anyway, that kind of review suggests a pretty objective presentation. And besides, you consistently refer back to your scientific background, so this should be just the kind of information that can get through to you.
The most disturbing conclusion of the report, however, suggests there's not a lot we can do at this point: "Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized." So maybe we should just live it up in our SUVs and private planes, and party like it's 1999.
You can find the summary of the report here:
http://tinyurl.com/24kc8q
Well, I may be a polar bear on a rapidly shrinking ice flow, but I am not a lemming.
It is difficult nowadays being a "skeptic" on Global Warming, but it's my nature to question things that cannot be proved. And sorry, but I cannot believe anything that the UN says until someone can show me what they have done to make this world a better place. In my opinion, the UN has no credibility on anything. Does "Rwanda", or "Oil for Food", or "Darfour" add anything to their resume? Sorry that organization is an inept political attempt at trying to pull this world together.
And I am not walking in lockstep with "conservatives" - my attitude about them is based on their performance... to call the UN incompetent is letting them off easy.
So not much will change...we will continue to read about the Global Warming crisis and Al Gore will get his Nobel prize, and "experts" will tell us we are all doomed, but sorry I just need more proof that this phenomenon is caused by man.
If you discount all data and analysis simply because it comes from the U.N. (never mind that it came from 600 authors and 40 countries, and was reviewed by 650 experts and 113 countries), then I'm not sure what kind of burden of proof will meet your standards. I think it's possible to disagree with the politics of the U.N. and still view and analyze the scientific data they've published with an open mind. I'm not claiming that their data is absolutely correct and irrefutable; I just think 600 scientists have a slightly better knowledge of this issue than either your or me.
In 2007 we are having the coldest April on the East Coast in history...hmmm. But the Global Warming "experts" call this a "climatic aberration", us skeptics can't win this argument, the "experts" have an answer for everything - hot-cold-moderate-anything out of the ordinary, it's all "Global Warming". Sounds a lot like politics to me.
Those "mature skeptics" like me that have been around for awhile have experienced a lifetime of climate changes...but we can't win this argument with the press and the politicians leading the charge. And to say that 600 "experts" confirm Global Warming is BS. There are probably 600 or more that think it's not science...you just will never hear from them. A leading scientist from MIT just came out and said Al Gore was way off base with his movie and predictions...and MIT is not exactly a "junk science" institution.
Post a Comment