Al Gore's inconvenient truth

[schmosef]

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/20/video-hannity-on-the-inconvenient-truth-of-al-gore/

[Dr Mordrid]

Do what I say, not what I do

"Gulfstream Liberal" .... I like that

[Umfriend]

I'm sorry but the only thing that bothers me about this affair is the slander against Gore as a way to avoid the issue.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm by no means a Gore fan; in fact, I think he is a political opportunist, but this reportage was dirty. Could they rake up nothing later than his obvious travels 6 - 7 years ago, when he was addressing a lot more than the environment? I suppose that the anchor thinks that a Presidential campaign can be run from scheduled Greyhound buses or, better, on the back of a Democrat Donkey?

However, this notion of buying one's way into carbon neutrality is a myth; it could never work the way that Gore pretends - and that is either hypocrisy or plain dumb ignorance. OTOH, making individual carbon economies by such things as hybrid cars, economy light-bulbs, low-consumption fridges etc. is worthwhile and valid. Nevertheless, no one in the developed countries can ever be carbon neutral. Let's examine the term reductio ad absurdum; the year is 2100 and every man woman and child on earth is "carbon neutral"; this means that zero, zilch, fossil fuel (oil, gas, coal) is extracted from the earth, no cement is made for concrete, no wood grown over the last 200 years is burnt, chemical fertiliisers manufactured, no ruminant animals are grown for food, no rice is grown in artificial paddies etc. Likely? Of course not! Just plain impossible!

[Umfriend]

Me neither. At least you address what he says. AFAIK though, 'carbon neutral' does not mean that zero fossil fuel is extracted. What it means is that the carbon that is extracted is compensated for by putting carbon back somehow, e.g., reforestration. It is about directing part of one's wealth/income to compensate for the effects of consumption on carbon extraction.

[Brian Ellis]

Me neither. At least you address what he says. AFAIK though, 'carbon neutral' does not mean that zero fossil fuel is extracted. What it means is that the carbon that is extracted is compensated for by putting carbon back somehow, e.g., reforestration. It is about directing part of one's wealth/income to compensate for the effects of consumption on carbon extraction.

Reforestation is a myth, as well.

Photosynthetic sequestration

There has been some emphasis that the notion of planting trees will make a significant difference to the carbon loading in the atmosphere. To be able to absorb the excess annual loading of 3 Gt would mean that about 15 Gt of extra trees would need to be grown each year and this would do nothing for the carbon already added as a result of human activity. Some of this would be returned in the short term as a result of rotting leaves. What exactly does this mean? The General Sherman tree in the Sequoia National Park in California is estimated to weigh a little over 6 kt; it would therefore require an extra annual growth equivalent to 2,500,000 such trees, just to sequester the excess carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere each year, and we would have to repeat this feat every year. This is unimaginable. Of course, sequoia trees are not ideal for this, and smaller fast-growing species, such as willows, pines, hazel etc. would be more suitable. These would require vast quantities of water, which is a precious commodity in many places, and nutrients, some of which are derived from fossil fuels sources.

Let us imagine that, by some means, we are able to plant millions of new trees, obviously quick-growing, in sufficient quantity to make a significant photosynthetic absorption. What will happen? Two scenarios are possible: either man culls the new trees when they have reached the end of their main growth period (say, after 20 or 30 years) or nature takes its course. Such trees are unlikely to be a suitable source of timber. The main usefulness would be as fuel for renewable energy generation. So, they are burnt. All the sequestered carbon is therefore returned to the atmosphere and we are back where we started. The same applies if they are used for cheap paper production (newsprint): sooner or later, the carbon will be released back to the atmosphere, no matter how many times it is recycled. If we let nature take its course, the trees will die and rot or be burnt in forest fires. Either way, the sequestered carbon will be returned to the atmosphere.

Such sequestration, at the best, can be only a very temporary palliative and can never represent a permanent solution to the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

( Full essay here)

The other method is to buy "permission" to emit carbon by carbon trading. This means that those who care to pollute must pay those who care not to pollute (if you can find them). Unfortunately the going price for carbon emissions is very much lower than the true cost price. So Al Gore may pay peanuts for his so-called carbon neutrality, whereas the true cost to the recipient will never be amortised. See here

There is only one way to tackle the issue and that is to reduce drastically the near-20 billion tonnes of CO2 we pump into the air we borrow on this planet each year. As large scale sequestration is not practical, the only other solution is to stop a good part of its production by all the means at our disposal. This is an issue of energy, more than the environment proper. Here are some 280 pages on the subject: You figure it out!

[Umfriend]

I did not mean to imply that reforestration is sensible or anything, I am ignorant on the subject. Just to state that 'carbon neutral' is not supposed to mean we do not extract fossil fuels which you said it meant.

[Brian Ellis]

What I was saying that if every man, woman and child on this earth were carbon neutral, then no fossil fuels or limestone could be extracted and no anthropogenic methane could be generated. The moment that one person started to emit non-natural carbon, then he could no longer be neutral. Carbon neutral in a real world means the low emitters pay the cost for permission for the high emitters and this is so artificial that it is ridiculous.

[schmosef]

[cjolley]

You guys do realize that since that house is in Tennessee, most if not all of Gore's electric power comes from hydro and nuclear.
How much greenhouse gas do those put out?

[schmosef]

I just don't understand why asking questions about climate change has suddenly become a double plus ungood mindcrime.

I want the people who's job it is to be thinking about these issues to be keeping an open mind.

[cjolley]

I just don't understand why asking questions about climate change has suddenly become a double plus ungood mindcrime.

I want the people who's job it is to be thinking about these issues to be keeping an open mind.

That has what to do with anything in this thread, which seems to be about what a hypocrite Gore is?

When did going along with what most climatologists say about climate change "suddenly become a double plus ungood mindcrime?"

[Dr Mordrid]

You guys do realize that since that house is in Tennessee, most if not all of Gore's electric power comes from hydro and nuclear. How much greenhouse gas do those put out?

Doesn't matter because that isn't true. Even if there is a reactor in the next city you have to look at the whole TVA grid because the distribution network reshuffles its sources constantly. So, let's look at it;

Most people mistakenly connect the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), which generates the vast majority of Tennessee's power (and therefore Gore's), with hydro and nuclear. In fact 60% of the power generated by them is from fossil fuels.

Now let's look at the fact that his carbon offsets are being bought from a company he owns, meaning he's shifting his bucks from one pocket to another in order to score PR points after a negative story

About those offsets; let's assume you buy an offset for a round trip across the country in a Gulfstream jet. If that offset is, for example, 15 trees they will take 50 years to remove the several tons of CO2 generated by that persons share of the full CO2 load created by that flight.

If it makes you feel better buy them, but don't do it under the illusion that it'll actually amount to a hill of beans.

[schmosef]

That has what to do with anything in this thread, which seems to be about what a hypocrite Gore is?

When did going along with what most climatologists say about climate change "suddenly become a double plus ungood mindcrime?"

You right, I'm OT. But it's a related issue.

I never said that agreeing was a dpugmc. I said I didn't understand why disagreeing was. I just want the scientists to keep an open mind.

[cjolley]

Doesn't matter because that isn't true.

Most people mistakenly connect the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), which generates the vast majority of Tennessee's power (and therefore Gore's), with hydro and nuclear. In fact 60% of the power generated by them is from fossil fuels.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Still 40%, by it's self would be pretty good.
However the Gore's are also signed up for the max on TVA's alternate source program.


Another interesting thing to think about.
We signed up for 100% wind power when our supplier (OG&E) first came out with it.
It cost a extra, but it wasn't much so we were willing to spring for it.
Now production has vastly expanded here and our wind power gets a discount
Also small, but hey, free money.

[edit]
I agree with the part you added Doc. But that just strengthens the validity of their alternate source sign up.
[/edit]