In article ,
George wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"George" wrote in message

Energy saving is a great idea but Gore and friends are hypocrites who
live
a
piggy lifestyle and then invent stuff like "carbon credits" to justify
their behavior.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv..._article_id=46
67
75&in_page_id=1879
The TODAY show had a segment about saving energy and using energy (carbon
imprint" surveys. Lester Holt had an audit of his office. It all seemed
to
make sense, but when Lester asked the guy how you could improve, the guy
said "you can donate money to buy carbon offsets". He lost all
credibility
when he said that.

That may be because you don't understand what he meant by that remark.
Those donations go to support the construction and operation of solar,
wind, and hydro plants. Basically, AIUI, the money goes to an
"insurance" fund that guarantees that the power generated by "clean"
plants will be purchased, thereby removing the risk from those who build
them. So if you're not reducing your own carbon footprint on an
individual basis, you're still supporting the cause in a very real way.

Carbon credits are just feel good stuff. If someone is wasting energy
carbon credits may make them feel good but they are still wasting energy.


Yes they're still wasting energy, but that doesn't mean carbon credits
don't help solve the pollution problem. It isn't electricity *usage*
that pollutes. It's electricity *generation.* Using less, as in CFLs,
etc., means less gets generated, which reduces pollution. But,
generating electricity in more environmentally friendly ways *also*
reduces pollution. So one person may want to use less energy, another
may want to help fund the transition to cleaner energy sources. In that
light, I think carbon credits are more than just "feel good" stuff.