Home Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Al Gore is FULL of CO2

If a tree gets planted in the forest and no one is around to give Gore credit, can it still reduce CO2?

In the press release about the S.O.S (Save Our Selves) series of concerts, Gore and company announce that, “Live Earth alone will engage an audience of more than 2 billion people through concert attendance and broadcasts.” The sponsors are hoping that 3 million people will attend in person for one of the seven concerts held around the globe. For the sake of the polar ice caps, let’s hope the event promoters are being wildly optimistic. But for the sake of showing how egomaniacally deluded Gore is, let’s assume that the numbers are obtainable.

In 2003, the Rolling Stones became the first band to undertake a “carbon-neutral” tour. To achieve this feat the band estimated that the total emissions for everything--from the power requirements for the venue to the transportation to the concert--came to 13 kg/CO2 per fan. If Gore is able to find three million people to attend in person the fans would produce 39,000 metric tons of CO2.

Then there are those who will watch it at home on a TV or computer, both of which use about 200 watts of energy per hour. Let’s also assume that everyone is a conservationist and watches only one hour of the 24 hour concert. This would reduce the amount of energy used to 400 billion watts of energy (2 billion people using a 200 watt source for one hour).

In order to convert kilowatts of electricity (400,000,000 kw) to kilograms of carbon dioxide we multiply by .43, which gives us 172,000 metric tons of carbon produced simply by the viewing of this concert. Add that to the concert goers and you have roughly 200,000 metric tons of CO2 produced by this event.

To put those numbers in some kind of perspective consider:

The concert will produce more CO2 in one day than Zimbabwe produced in any month in 2003.

The concert will produce more CO2 in one day than the total daily fossil fuel emissions for Austria, Chile, Finland, Greece, Iraq, Kuwait, New Zealand, Philippines, Portugal, Sweden, the Virgin Islands, and a dozen other countries combined.

The concert will produce more CO2 in one day than the entire nation of Afghanistan produces in a year.

Presumably, Gore and company will buy carbon offsets to make up for the pollution the event will create. Since it takes an acre of Douglas fir trees (and 50 years of growing time) to offset 1000 tons of CO2, Gore will need to plant 200 acres of trees to make up for his concert.

Reasonable people might ask why they don’t just skip the concert and use the money saved on logistics and promotion to plant twice as many trees? The Zen-like response: If a tree gets planted in the forest and no one is around to give Gore credit, can it still reduce CO2? Apparently, the answer is “No, it cannot.” For the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore cares more about being viewed as an eco-savior than he does about actually acting in a way that might help us “save our selves.”

Al Gore’s Plan to Warm the Globe

Comments

Yeah, but if there’s no concert Algore doesn’t get any attention and his political career doesn’t get a boost.

You’ve got a lot to learn about the politics of global <s>warming</s> socialism.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on February 25, 2007 at 09:45 am

if there’s no concert Algore doesn’t get any attention

So then, political posturing is better than actually saving the planet?



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 25, 2007 at 09:50 am

So then, political posturing is better than actually saving the planet?

Their effort to “save the planet” IS political posturing, nothing more.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on February 25, 2007 at 09:59 am

Can someone explain what a ‘carbon credit’ is?  The rationale is that it is fine for Al Gore et.al to travel by private jet because they buy carbon credits.  I went to wiki and the topic not compute with my simple brain.

Who sells these mysterious carbon credits?  What do you give in return?  Can I sell them?

I don’t know the details, but from the surface, it sounds like a scam.

RealManOfGenius on February 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm

The way I understand it is that I promise not to fly in a private jet, something I’m unlikely to do, and then I get to sell that non-flying to Algore.

We both get to feel good about saving the planet.

Or I could plant a tree (that I was going to anyway) and then sell the carbon credit for planting the tree.  Meanwhile I get to use the money I sold the carbon credit for to buy a chainsaw so that I can do vasts amounts of damage to the forest.

I think it’s supposed to work like that.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on February 25, 2007 at 01:06 pm

Without doing a lick of additional Googling, I will retrieve from the Wetware Archives a compilation from Property Law, Administrative Law and Environmental Law courses which dealt with carbon credits thusly:

The concept behind Environmental Law is that Polluter Pays. Heretofore, the theory goes, polluters were able to derive the complete benefit from their pollution (selling products and taking in profits) without having to bear any of the cost of the pollution created in conjunction with their product (think smelly smoke stacks, car emissions, dead fish floating in a polluted stream, old, discarded products in a landfill or junkyard).

Those costs were shoved onto the breathing, drinking public in the form of environmental pollution that we all have to breathe, drink, eat, live amongst, etc..

The Polluter Pays doctrine holds that the cost of cleanup should be factored into all human activities and endeavors.  In one sense, this theory seems reasonable.

But to allow such legislation to make it through Congress, it couldn’t unduly burden pre-existing industries.  They had to have an out.  Buying a carbon credit allowed the polluter to continue his filthy, Gaia-hating, Capitalist enterprise by paying into a common clean-up fund.  Businesses write the added cost as a cost of doing business, or they offshore where they can pollute to their hearts’ content, or they simply shut down or cease building additional plants—such as what led in part to California’s energy crisis.  It might be the locality or the federal government that receives the dollars from the carbon credits by my understanding.

I won’t argue that reigning in polluters is a bad thing. After all, one of my favoritest Presidents was Teddy Roosevelt, who established the National Park System and shouted a quote to the effect that I hate a man who would skin the land!

But like any creature created by the Left, it would be interesting to see where these carbon credit dollars actually go.  To my understanding, whenever the Leftists get their hands on funds they tend to go to Leftist political enterprises rather than to their intended targets.  You might recall that a lot of the Hunters’ Duck Stamps under the Clinton Administration were being funneled off to some Marxist purposes.


...for great justice

Move_Zig on February 25, 2007 at 01:08 pm

There seems to be a lot of ‘carbon credits’ being purchased with real money.  I promise not to mow my yard next year and let the biomass accumulate.  Imagine that, Al Gore can take a limo to the oscars tonight and in return pay me $50 not to mow my yard.

I gladly accept paypal.

Dutch elm took 15 trees last year and I was planning on buying lots of baby trees this spring.  It sounds like I should be able to have someone else pay for this project.  is http://www.carbon-credits-R-Us.com taken?

RealManOfGenius on February 25, 2007 at 01:28 pm

Captain Ed Morrissey over at Captain’s Quarters likened it to the buying of indulgences in medieval times.

The example Gore is setting, regardless of what he says, is that if you are rich, you do not need to make sacrifices to save the planet. You only need to pay other people to make sacrifices for you!

In fact, if I may coin a new word, when you ask someone to make sacrifices you are not willing to make yourself, then you are full of sacrifeces!



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2007 at 03:12 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.