By partnering with The Alliance for Climate Protection and the global
Live Earth concerts on July 7th 2007, Philips aims to inspire more
than two billion people to take simple steps, such as changing a light
bulb, to lead a more energy efficient life. I saw the details at

http://theanalystmagazine.com/pr/841.htm

wrote:
By partnering with The Alliance for Climate Protection and the global
Live Earth concerts on July 7th 2007, Philips aims to inspire more
than two billion people to take simple steps, such as changing a light
bulb, to lead a more energy efficient life. I saw the details at

http://thanalystmagazine.com/pr/841.htm



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...n_page_id=1879

"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...n_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.

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...rticle_id=4667
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.

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...rticle_id=4667
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.

Its the same sad logic Ford uses when they pitch dolled up 5 ton trucks
for use as personal vehicles and claim they use less gasoline because
they are E85 capable. Overall they still use more fuel than is necessary .

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:33:59 -0400, George
wrote:

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...rticle_id=4667
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.

You're absolutely right. Just like if you don't exercise and eat
right you're not accomplishing anything when you give money to a poor
family so they can buy food, or when you give money to pay for medical
research, or to build a hospital or to furnish one room in one.

That's why I never give anyone anything. I know it's just a fraud to
make myself feel good even though I myself don't live the best
possible life. I refuse to be part of such a fraud.

Its the same sad logic Ford uses when they pitch dolled up 5 ton trucks
for use as personal vehicles and claim they use less gasoline because
they are E85 capable. Overall they still use more fuel than is necessary .

Here I agree with you.

mm wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:33:59 -0400, George
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...rticle_id=4667
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.

You're absolutely right. Just like if you don't exercise and eat
right you're not accomplishing anything when you give money to a poor
family so they can buy food, or when you give money to pay for medical
research, or to build a hospital or to furnish one room in one.

That's why I never give anyone anything. I know it's just a fraud to
make myself feel good even though I myself don't live the best
possible life. I refuse to be part of such a fraud.


Might I suggest that there are charities that are not fraudulent. I give
to them for a totally different reason than a lib buying carbon credits.

Its the same sad logic Ford uses when they pitch dolled up 5 ton trucks
for use as personal vehicles and claim they use less gasoline because
they are E85 capable. Overall they still use more fuel than is necessary .

Here I agree with you.

"George" wrote in message
. ..

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.

Its the same sad logic Ford uses when they pitch dolled up 5 ton
trucks for use as personal vehicles and claim they use less gasoline
because they are E85 capable. Overall they still use more fuel than
is necessary .

I'd say it's more like the "pollution credits" scam they setup as a
solution to pollution problems Pollutors would just give money to
companies that pollute less, and everything is OK. Right.

Bob

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.

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.

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, ...

--

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.

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...

--

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:15:34 -0500, 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.

There are several ways to help the environment, and each is mostly
independent from the others.

Below you say it is a bonus if he donates to stop pollution. Well it's
a bonus to do that whether he does the first thing or not.

This is not a political thing for me. It's straight facts and I'd say
it no matter who was being discussed. If a conservative were saying
don't have extra-marital sex, even though he was cheating on his wife,
his advice would still be good. In fact if he can convince even four
people not to have extramarital sex, that would be two more people
than him and the tramp he's having sex with. Now, if he got caught
later on, it might cause some of the people he convinced to say, well
if he does it,I'm not going to listen to his advice anymore. But
that's only if he gets caught and it's publicized. For his sins,
he'll have to answer to God and if he gets caught to whoever knows
he's done it, like his wife, children, parents, and friends who will
lose respect for him. But probably most people he convinced not to
cheat on their spouses will still not do so. That part of him is a
positive thing.

Say he's cheating on his wife and someone for any reason asks him if
he or she should cheat on his spouse. Should he say, "I can't
answer"?

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.

That's not the definition of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is saying I do that
or I beleive that when the person really doesn't.**

If people could only give good advice when they lived up to that
advice themselves, there would be a lot less good advice.

One of thousands of possible examples:

Let's say A is using heroin, and it's ruining his life, maybe he's
gotten AIDS even. He also has a 14 year old son who has "friends" who
are offering to get him heroin, free at first, of course. Who knows
better than his father that heroin is bad. Should he think, well I
can't say to my son that heroin is bad for you until I stop using it.
I'll just keep quiet until I quit. Or should he think, No I have to
save my son, even though it will make me a hypocrite.

If he says to his son, I don't use drugs and you shouldn't either,
he's a hypocrite, even though it's better than saying nothing.

If he says to his son, you can ruin your life if you use drugs/heroin,
it's good advice and he's not a hypocrite. He's not obliged to tell
his son every bad thing he has done. And if he's not showing his
sickness yet, if he's still healthy looking, and he tells his son he's
on drugs now, it will just make his advice not to use them seem silly.


** a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious
beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved
attitude.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006.

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, ...

mm wrote:
....
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.

That's not the definition of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is saying I do that
or I beleive that when the person really doesn't.**
....
Well, I think they _are_ saying something they don't really believe or
they would "walk the walk" instead of just spouting the talk...

--

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:21:06 -0500, dpb wrote:

mm wrote:
...
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.

That's not the definition of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is saying I do that
or I beleive that when the person really doesn't.**
...
Well, I think they _are_ saying something they don't really believe or
they would "walk the walk" instead of just spouting the talk...

I don't think that. If our goals are not greater than our reach, our
goals are not high enough.

If you were/are right, you'd be right that they are hypocrites, but do
you really think that they don't think that its better for the planet
and for the future of people if people would avoid energy consumption?

Al Gore, at least, has spent lots of time on this going back more than
20 years that I know of, I think, when it was doing little good if any
for his political career. I was wandering along the DC mall some
summer day around 3PM in the 80's or possibly early 90's and there on
the grass in the wide area in the middle was a competition for solar
powered cars, and there was Al Gore giving out prizes, I think he was.
There was no sign, no podium, no microphone, no cameras, and there
were only about 7 cars and fewer than 25 people there, iirc. I saw
the experimental cars and I had to ask someone what was going on.

BobR wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:08 am, dpb wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:13 pm, dpb wrote:
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. ...
I respectfully disagree. If Gore and friends wanted to "help the
environment" they need to live exactly like they want everyone else to...
...
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
...
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. ...
I recently had a long and heated argument with my boss and his boss
over raising some prices for medical procedures. The reason they
wanted to raise the prices was that one of the insurance providers was
so stupid that they were paying more for some services than they
should and they believe we should be taking advantage of the
opportunity and NOT leaving any money on the table. I argued that we
should instead be fair and not take advantage of the providers
stupidity. I ultimately won the argument even though the cost over
the next two years will be several hundred thousand in potiential lost
revenue.
Simply because a market can be created due to the stupidity and
gullability of others, it never makes it right to take advantage of
others just because you can. I staked my job on that belief and I
will continue to do so even if it means that I must look for another
job.
I think there's no comparison here, personally. Overbilling (which is
fundamentally what they were wanting to do) is indeed at least unethical
(although certainly widespread enough it has lost even the shred of
shame once associated with it) if not illegal and probably covered in
the agreement w/ the insurance company under their general rules of
reimbursement. I'd venture there would be at least a remote likelihood
that down the road another arm of the insurance company or
Medicare/Medicaid might well come calling for restitution if the
practice were followed.

A credits market is another animal entirely -- whether you think it a
reasonable policy or not, it is open and reasonably transparent and both
parties are able to play or not as they choose. Don't see any ethical
issue there as long as all parties follow the rules and those rules are
up front. That it is organized so that the broker makes a profit is
part of those rules that everybody in the game understands.

The comparison which you clearly missed is on the basis of what is
fair and not what is legal. ...

No, I didn't miss anything--I said "ethical", you said "fair". I submit
same concept, different word.

The same fairness holds true on the issue of so called "carbon
credits". There is no guarantee that what you are paying for is
actually being delivered and absolutely no oversight in any form. It
is little more than another scheme to make a few people rich while
easing the guilt of those who are too damn hung up on their excess
consumption to actually take action to reduce their usage. The only
thing you got right is that both parties have the right (at least for
now and until the liberal do gooders make it mandatory) to NOT buy
into the stupidity.

Well, same issue comes to play -- it relies (again as I said in the part
on openness) on ethical behavior. Again, whether someone has it or not
isn't anything you can legislate. If there is an agreement of what the
credits are to produce, that is verifiable.

Whether you think the concept is a scam or not isn't really of any
particular import. Perhaps some who are offering are, some aren't.
(That's the part I noted is where motives are harder to impute other
than by subsequent action.) Either way, free market forces will sort it
out (as they should imo).

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
mm wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:21:06 -0500, dpb wrote:

mm wrote:
...
...
Al Gore, at least, ...

Al Gore is an idiot..._probably_ well-intentioned, but an idiot
nonetheless...

But how much smarter an idiot than the one in the white house. Now
that's an idiot!

Bob

On Jul 8, 10:52 am, wrote:
By partnering with The Alliance for Climate Protection and the global
Live Earth concerts on July 7th 2007, Philips aims to inspire more
than two billion people to take simple steps, such as changing a light
bulb, to lead a more energy efficient life. I saw the details at

http://theanalystmagazine.com/pr/841.htm

.................................................. .......................

Carbon cedits or not .......................

We humans are using the resources of the planet without recycling
them. And there are way too many of us (humans that is!).

Maybe we will over-breed/over-produce ourselves out of existence?

Whether it is to build/buy our third fourth or fifth mega-mansion, fly
across the world in a jetplane, or just to varnish something ourselves
on a personal work bench, we are using materials that came from
nature.

Nature is finite:

Everything will rot and 'return to nature' eventually.

Perhaps millions of years hence our 'scraps' willl recycle and
reappear as something some living creature could again use?

And maybe a few tens of thousands of years from now some post humans
will be digging up our landfills and atomic waste dumps and saying, in
whatever language or speak then in vogue, "Lord what fools these
mortals were!". With apologies to Shakespeare, Puck, in Midsummer
Night's dream, IIRC?