BobR wrote:
dpb wrote:
George wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

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.
I respectfully disagree. If Gore and friends wanted to "help the
environment" they need to live exactly like they want everyone else to
live. That means use mass transit or efficient vehicles, dump the mega
McMansions etc. If they want to donate to help stop pollution/save
energy then it is a bonus because they will have already saved a lot by
abandoning their piggy lifestyles.
Philosophically, I have to agree with the sentiment that about 90% of
the most vocal proponents of many of these movements are about as
hypocritical as it gets in the "do what I say, not what I do" venue.

OTOH, in open market, the way to make progress is to make it
economically viable and the credits markets may have a role to play
there. Too soon and too small a market yet to tell how much impact it
may have imo, but don't think it should be ruled out.

Motives are harder to ascribe, of course, ...

--

Tell you all what I am willing to do for you....I will guarantee you
an offset of carbon credits by reducing my carbon footprint to ZERO if
you will send me your money to finance my retirement to a beach in the
tropics. How is that for a feel good deal for both YOU and ME.

Carbon Credits are another scam that just pads one mans pocket with
anothers guilt.

Have to see in the longer term, methinks...but, if they can create a
market, can't see as those who can, shouldn't. Your choice to
participate on either end, as is mine...

--