Al Gore: Hero or Hypocrite?

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Carbon isn't locked up permanently in the atmosphere or the oceans either. Sequestration is a relative term: what we're really talking about here is the average retention time between a source and a sink. The only "permanent" natural sequestration possible is waiting for trees to become fossil fuel and then not drilling.

The oceans and plant biomass are carbon sinks. That's what matters.

Of the available solutions, using plants as carbon sinks is attractive because it's easy, it's cheap, and the results are useful - the trees can be chopped down to make lumber. And if that lumber is used for housing then the carbon is effectively sequestered for centuries.

There are ways to increase the sink capacity of the oceans as well.

 

[Narz]

Pardon me, I got to this discussion late but what does a "carbon sink" mean?

Doesn't putting CO2 into the ocean (if that's what it means) cause acidification with far reaching consequences?

Again, apologies if this was already covered. I'm genuinely curious. From what I've read (not a whole hell of a lot of focused research, despite my interest) it seems that damaging the balance of life in the ocean is perhaps the one worst thing about man-made polluting. If enough dead-zones occur in the ocean won't it cause a domino chain reaction?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

If you pump CO2 right into the oceans, yes, that's bad

If you do various things to encourage phytoplankton colonies to grow and absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere into biomass, generally that's good.

But I still think more trees = better solution.

 

[Gothmog]

Al Gore is a populist with respect to AGW. I think he believes what he says about it. Does that make him a hero? Maybe, barely... I don't know.

Is he a hypocrite? Maybe, barely... aren't we all on some level?

As far as CO2 and the ocean though, if you pump it deep enough it forms a hydrate that is actually denser than water and can either sit around in already existing sediments or continue to sink until it gets to oceanic deep water that has a geologically long mixing time with the atmosphere.

Acidification is another problem with increasing atmospheric CO2, and is really only a problem for the euphotic zone, and perhaps a bit below that. It is not a problem with CO2 hydrate sequestration proposals.

Trees can be sequestration, it just depends on what you do with the resulting biomass. Even if we don't build long lasting structures with them the pool of live trees represents a reservoir of carbon. If we increase the size of that reservoir we are sequestering carbon, even if it is in steady state (that is we will always need to plant trees to replace any that may die to maintain that level of sequestration).

 

[El_Machinae]

If they die, doesn't much of the carbon remain sequestered.
I heard an article about a desire to genetically modify the poplar tree, so that the lignin in the roots was denser but less so in the trunk. That way, each tree would sequester more carbon underground, but the trunk could be converted into ethanol more easily.

 

[Gothmog]

It is true that a lot of the carbon sequestered by a forest is actually in its soil, not just roots but decaying litter etc. The soil carbon is pretty hard to quantify though which makes it tough from a market perspective (though there have been advances in carbon soil measurement technology in the last 4-5 years).

So again it depends on what you do with the biomass. In an old mature forest there are lots of old fallen trees, which represent a store of carbon by themselves, and which decay and get buried and add to soil carbon. Not so much in a tree farm.

If you deforest and pave over the land you leave a lot of the soil carbon intact, but if you convert a forest to cropland, then the crops will leach out all that soil carbon over time.

To make a proper account you have to do a full life cycle analysis. This is true for many environmental issues, such as active solar power (energy and environmental cost to producing cells), biofuel (transportation costs etc.), and even paper vs. plastic.

 

[sonorakitch]

Moderator Action: Trolling pic removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

By the same token, a share transfers the burden of responsibility from a business to a shareholder. By the same token, a futures contract transfers responsibility from the producer or consumer to the holder of the contract. And what about debt markets, where people buy and sell portions of other entities' debts?

A carbon offset is basically a bond. Are bond markets economically irresponsible?

I question your grasp of economics if you follow this line of argument seriously.

This is perhaps the weakest, most terribly horrific example of anything I have ever seen on CFC. So you are comparing a carbon credit and the redistribution of responsibilty for polluting the environment to the equity market? A bond? Do you know what a bond is sir?

A note of debt with a maturity date with a promise to refund plus interest is the same thing as a carbon offset?

A stock?

The money raised by a company through the distrubution of shares of said company?

Please continue your undergraduate classes before we finish this.

Just plain wrong, and misinformed. It is trivial to measure the average per-day carbon uptake of a particular plant - we did that in my undergraduate botany class last year. You just stick a plant in a closed container with a fixed amount of CO2 and a device to measure the decay over time.

The same method can be applied by extrapolation to systems as large as a forest. Believe me, we have an excellent estimate of the carbon uptake of planted trees.

For one thing, since biomass is mostly carbon and a plant builds pretty much ALL of its material by breathing (not through the roots!) we can just chop a few trees down and do a mass analysis to see how a forest is growing.

Regardless of the fact that you're misinformed, even if you were right, it would still be a stupid argument to say that Gore shouldn't purchase offsets if we can't estimate how efficient they are. Doing something is better than doing nothing. Which, last time I checked, is what you were doing. Please let me know if I'm wrong.

It pays people to plant trees who otherwise wouldn't have the money to do that. It gives people money for using solar power, so that it becomes more cost-efficient relative to coal.

It's really, really, really straightforward. PEBKAC, I'm afraid.

Once again, arrogance should come with knowledge. You claim that my problem with carbon offsetting is the inability to measure the contribution is absurd. You also claim that carbon offsetting is overall good for the environment and one can maintain a zero carbon footprint. Yet you have no explanation for how one can measure the carbon offsetting and just how effective the offsets are relative the the emissions used.

Then you rattle on about trees and plants, the very example I refused to include in my criticism (tit for tat, shall we say). Why don't you address instead the vast majority of carbon offset contribution, like clean technology research? Fact is, the majority of carbon offsets are purchased through private entities that supposedly forward the money on to clean technology research.

Finally you blow off your whole argument (your one wise move) in saying that we can't estimate how efficient [carbon offsets] are. Bravo! Now, let me be very clear: if the whole idea of this silly scheme is to improve our environment, and allow someone to combat "global warming" from their doorstep, then it is very easy for thoughtful people to see the fallacy in carbon credits. If we cannot ensure the carbon offsetting will actually reduce or eliminate ones' carbon footprint, then it will just promote complacency while doing little to help the environment. Luckily this problem with carbon offsetting is understood by most, especially in the very field of environmental engineering. I suggest you take a course on it next year.

And then your great reference to my supposed carbon footprint is an excellent way to seal an argument that is among the worst every witnessed on CFC by this person.

~Chris

PS--I would love to see your little trolling picture...maybe you can PM me with it? It is possible that is the missing link...the one missing fact of your argument that may change my mind.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, the other thing that I dont like about these 'offsets' is that it creates those that can afford to burn energy like crazy....and those that cant.

Welcome to capitalism. Please don't be a hater.

 

[MobBoss]

By the same token, a share transfers the burden of responsibility from a business to a shareholder. By the same token, a futures contract transfers responsibility from the producer or consumer to the holder of the contract. And what about debt markets, where people buy and sell portions of other entities' debts?

A carbon offset is basically a bond. Are bond markets economically irresponsible?

I question your grasp of economics if you follow this line of argument seriously.

Extremely weak analogy. So now carbon offset programs = wall street? Please.

By the way, I question your grasp of economics if you assume that all investments are profitable. And that is basically what sonorakitch was saying earlier.....remember the old market saying: "past performance is not an indicator of future results". People lose their ass in the markets because it contains elements of risk. What gurantees of success do we have that 'offsets' actually work? Wouldnt it be better to not have offsets and have everyone conserve equally while investing in such? I would think so.

Wrong, it is a net payment from the purchaser of the offset, to the producer of carbon-soaking or emissions-minimizing services. In essence, it boils down to paying someone to plant trees and use solar power.

If planting trees and using solar power is such the right thing to do - why do we have to pay people to do it?

 

[JollyRoger]

If planting trees and using solar power is such the right thing to do - why do we have to pay people to do it?

If serving your country is the right thing to do, why do we have to pay you to do it?

 

[Riffraff]

looking at the worldwide response to "An inconvinient Truth" - I'd say Al Gore is the last person who has to worry about his personal carbon dioxide fingerprint.

 

[El_Machinae]

A carbon credit is essentially a 'permission to pollute'. In the end, there is only so much capacity for issuing carbon credits, and so the credits will be traded based on how valuable the credit is to the purchaser. So, Chris wants to drive with deflated tyres and is willing to pay to do so (because it's fun), however, he's only willing to pay so much and probably will be outcompeted by people who want permission to pollute for profitable reasons.

It creates a market for a scarce good, which is basically what capitalism is.

If planting trees and using solar power is such the right thing to do - why do we have to pay people to do it?

Is this really a serious question? The humans species tends not to be as altruistic as would be ideal for you.

Firstly, these activities have a cost to the person who partakes of them. Many people are trying to reduce greenhouse emmissions already, out of their own pocket, but this is essentially charity work on their part. If you expect people to take an unfair share of the burden, then you're basically asking people to suffer for your excess - which is not really what anybody really wants to force others to do (though we're happy if people do it out of the goodness of their hearts).

The second bit is something you should understand more easily: it's easier to get people to do stuff, even if it's the right thing, if you pay them. This is why soldiers want pay increases even though they think they're doing the right thing.

Money gets things done; which is why people are starting to be willing to pay money in proportion to their damaging consumption

 

[skadistic]

A carbon credit is essentially a 'permission to pollute'.

See this is what I don't understand. If your bribing you way out of the pullotion by buying carbon credits hoe exactly does that remove the pollution you make from the world? All that power he uses is still being used and all the pollution is still being made. Carbon credits don't offset anything. They aren't some kind of anti pollution mater are they?

 

[El_Machinae]

Two things. Dont ever base reality upon stupid hollywood movies. Secondly, I never said the man didnt need security, but that he wasnt some high priority target for terrorists.

I don't know why you two are arguing then, it's clear the man needs security, which explains part of his electricity consumption. Your argument with Carlos on this topic is a waste of time.

Thanks for the advice on movies, and using them to form an opinion on complex topics. Except I wasn't. I was just pointing out that securing ex-important politicians is not an outlandish idea.

Anyway, back on topic. I just saw the movie "The Island" and that is sort of what scares me about this. One....only the rich will benefit from any such scientific advancement and two, what right do we have to kill an organsim that could be a sentient human being - regardless of how it comes to life?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=156322&page=3

 

[JollyRoger]

See this is what I don't understand. If your bribing you way out of the pullotion by buying carbon credits hoe exactly does that remove the pollution you make from the world? All that power he uses is still being used and all the pollution is still being made. Carbon credits don't offset anything. They aren't some kind of anti pollution mater are they?

The carbon credits move us towards greener energy consumption. Green energy takes infrastructure and that takes money. As people step up to the plate and buy carbon credits, the infrastructure for greener energy consumption across the board becomes possible. Don't you think that having people who believe in the cause enough to purchase carbon credits is a better alternative than having the government do it with your tax money?

 

[Riffraff]

It's quite easy me thinks.

You pollute the enviroment with X. Then you pay Y, so that the enviroment gets polluted by X less than it would have been without the payment.

If more people want to pay for such a service, the price obviously goes up. System works, as long as its possible to reduce enviromental damage anywhere by paying money.

 

[El_Machinae]

See this is what I don't understand. If your bribing you way out of the pullotion by buying carbon credits hoe exactly does that remove the pollution you make from the world? All that power he uses is still being used and all the pollution is still being made. Carbon credits don't offset anything. They aren't some kind of anti pollution mater are they?

I think a carbon offset and a carbon credit are different things.
A carbon offset basically brings to zero your net emissions, because you pay to reduce someone else's emissions by the same amount that you pollute. It would be like if I went to Sudan and had a meal in refugee camp (taking a scarce resource) but paid someone to bring food into the camp at the same time. A net zero effect.

With carbon credits, we recognise that there's a certain 'amount' of pollution that can be safely done (there are other types of pollution credits elsewhere). We allow pollution up to that level, and forbid anything past that. At that point, we allow people to trade the right to pollute (trade for the credits) and the market value is determined by demand. In general, profitable enterprises will end up doing the polluting instead of people letting the air out of their tyres.

It's exactly the same as any other scarce good. It's basically the entire concept of the free market.

 

[skadistic]

So how exactly does paying carbom credits reduce the actual pollution Gore emits into the air?

 

[JollyRoger]

So how exactly does paying carbom credits reduce the actual pollution Gore emits into the air?

It doesn't do anything about the actual pollution. It goes towards green energy infrastructure. As the infrastructure gets built out, less and less enegy consumption is carbon based.

 

[El_Machinae]

So how exactly does paying carbom credits reduce the actual pollution Gore emits into the air?

It doesn't, not at all. Tons of CO2 comes out of the pipe of his jet (which he tries to not fly anymore, btw, but fly commercially when he can).

However, that month he then cuts a check. This cheque is used (for example) to set up a windturbine in Texas. The turbine takes some of the pressure off of the coal-fired plant down the road, and they reduce their output. Over a period of time, the reduction in coal-burning is the same as Gore put out his tailpipe.