![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
c9A couple recent items...
1. Dr David Suzuki is being skewered by right wing blogs and columnists in Canada. He's a huge environmental activist in Canada -- for like 40 years -- and he's on a big climate change tour across the country. His team is traveling in a specially-painted bus. To account for the greenhouse gas emissions of the bus, he is going to purchase carbon offsets for every bit or air, train, bus, and car travel. This is a way to essentially donate money to research into non-GHG power generation (among other things), offsetting the GHG emissions from the bus. It's a free-market, capitalist approach to the problem of excess GHG emissions and/or air pollution. It's actually part of the Kyoto Protocol's bag of tricks too: if Canada doesn't meet its Kyoto commitment, it can purchase carbon offsets (sometimes called credits) from other countries. While Dr Suzuki is promoting government regulation of GHG emissions, he's doing something about his own emissions now, with his own money.
2. Al Gore is being skewered by right wing blogs and columnists across North America. He comes from a rich Southern family, and they have a mansion. Apparently, big houses use more electricity than small houses, and therefore Gore must be a hypocrite. Despite the fact that he's also purchased carbon offsets for his energy usage (and all his plane travel and so forth). While Mr Gore is promoting government regulation of GHG emissions, he's doing something about his own emissions now, with his own money.
So let's review: individual makes major contribution to public discourse on environmental awareness and climate change. Individual happens to use gas or fly in a plane. Therefore everything else the individual does or says is irrelevant. Makes sense to me.
It's funny, and a bit sad. "Nobody should tell you how to live your life or how to use energy, and the free market should rule all" is a common (and overly simplistic, truth be told) way of describing right-wing views on climate change. Yet here's a great opportunity to complain about Al Gore and David Suzuki. Convenient how the only environmentalist that's OK by some people is a tree-hugging hemp-wearing cave-dwelling luddite, and that sort of individual has a hard time getting any press at all. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
1. Dr David Suzuki is being skewered by right wing blogs and columnists in Canada. He's a huge environmental activist in Canada -- for like 40 years -- and he's on a big climate change tour across the country. His team is traveling in a specially-painted bus. To account for the greenhouse gas emissions of the bus, he is going to purchase carbon offsets for every bit or air, train, bus, and car travel. This is a way to essentially donate money to research into non-GHG power generation (among other things), offsetting the GHG emissions from the bus. It's a free-market, capitalist approach to the problem of excess GHG emissions and/or air pollution. It's actually part of the Kyoto Protocol's bag of tricks too: if Canada doesn't meet its Kyoto commitment, it can purchase carbon offsets (sometimes called credits) from other countries. While Dr Suzuki is promoting government regulation of GHG emissions, he's doing something about his own emissions now, with his own money.
2. Al Gore is being skewered by right wing blogs and columnists across North America. He comes from a rich Southern family, and they have a mansion. Apparently, big houses use more electricity than small houses, and therefore Gore must be a hypocrite. Despite the fact that he's also purchased carbon offsets for his energy usage (and all his plane travel and so forth). While Mr Gore is promoting government regulation of GHG emissions, he's doing something about his own emissions now, with his own money.
So let's review: individual makes major contribution to public discourse on environmental awareness and climate change. Individual happens to use gas or fly in a plane. Therefore everything else the individual does or says is irrelevant. Makes sense to me.
It's funny, and a bit sad. "Nobody should tell you how to live your life or how to use energy, and the free market should rule all" is a common (and overly simplistic, truth be told) way of describing right-wing views on climate change. Yet here's a great opportunity to complain about Al Gore and David Suzuki. Convenient how the only environmentalist that's OK by some people is a tree-hugging hemp-wearing cave-dwelling luddite, and that sort of individual has a hard time getting any press at all. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 12:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 12:06 am (UTC)(there's just no logic with some people it seems)
no subject
Egads, is it that obvious?
Carbon credits don't actually address anything
Date: 2007-03-05 01:48 am (UTC)1. Global warming is a CRISIS. Remember, this is the message from all who ride the global warming bus.
2. People who buy carbon credits do so because they do things that contribute directly to global warming - use more energy, etc, etc.
3. Carbon credits are nothing more than money donated to organizations interested in doing something about environmental problems. Though more funding certainly helps the advance whatever they're working on, it certainly has less effect than would a mass movement of individuals toward conservation - i.e. use less energy, etc, etc. That is, by the time whatever they're working on comes to fruition, global warming will have done us in. It's a crisis, remember. They typically play out quickly - ergo the word crisis.
Conclusion - Carbon credits are an excuse for hypocritical behavior. Simple. If Gore really believes global warming is a CRISIS, he should sell his big mansion and start traveling like the rest of us on commercial flights (instead of his fuel guzzling private jets). But you see, he doesn't. Want to know why?
Because Gore is a man on a quest for relevance. Global warming just happens to the cause du jour that has garnered him the attention he so desperately needs. But does he really put his head on the pillow every night and worry that the world is going to be destroyed by climate change? Of course not. He lays his head down and muses on how great it is to be everyone's new hero.
Get to know your species and all this will make good sense.
Re: Carbon credits don't actually address anything
Date: 2007-03-05 01:56 am (UTC)"ridiculous idea" -- free market solutions are touted as the way to fix EVERYTHING according to much of those in power. Since "doing nothing" and "voluntary policing" and "carbon offsets" all don't work, does that mean only government regulation?
"excuse for hypocritical behaviour" -- for some, yes. But that's the point: those who buy the offsets are funding new technologies and conservation despite their habits. Those who care (including Gore, if you bother to learn a bit about his actual practices) change their behaviour, reduce their carbon footprint, *AND* buy offsets for the rest.
Thanks for the friendly and not at all condescending comment, he said sarcastically.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 03:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-06 01:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 01:04 pm (UTC)I'm sure that the carbon offset money does good work, but still, it's a way for rich people to dedicate themselves to a cause without having to make the kind of sacrifices they expect from others. This kind of behaviour disturbs me.
Climate change is an issue, but Gore is not helping as much as he could. He lacks the charisma to carry off the role of poster child he has cast himself in, and furthermore, if he is going to be the face of climate change, if he is going to convince the world that climate change can be tackled, then he has to be a perfect role model, and on that he has failed.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 01:14 pm (UTC)1. You're right that some take carbon offsets (and hybrid cars and whatever) as convenient ways to buy themselves clean. That's actually the point of carbon offsets, since they are thereby funding things that will improve the overall planetary situation.
2. Gore and others actually are doing more than just buying offsets. As most sane people agree, the best approach is to evaluate your own carbon footprint, reduce it as much as you can, then account for the rest. You're right that Gore could just move into a cave (or a 2-bedroom condo or whatever) and that would save more. However, I don't think that's a really sellable approach: "just move into a cave and the planet will be safe! sorry, no TV in the cave."
3. "he has cast himself in" -- actually, it's the media and the fanboys who cast him as the saviour. He certainly is promoting better energy usage and climate change awareness, but he actively avoids extra press when he can. He was in Montreal and Toronto 2 weeks ago and did not allow press attendance at his lectures.
4. What would a perfect role model do? Every single thing a person in North America does causes GHG emissions, so to judge someone by the fact that they still cause any is to say that it's impossible to be an acceptable spokesperson on this issue. Hardly productive or realistic. Should he refuse to travel? Use electricity at all? Do slideshows? Do interviews? He'd have a pretty big impact then, wouldn't he.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 02:36 pm (UTC)And a criticism that I saw applied to Suzuki can also be applied to Gore - why must he travel? All that traveling is horrible for the environment, and in the Internet age, it is completely unnecessary. I expect that Gore knows enough about the Internet to know that.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 02:43 pm (UTC)It's true, they don't have to travel to be available to communicate. Suzuki is a great example of this, since he's been an activist without travel for 30-40 years -- TV shows, interviews, phone calls, letters, websites. But as you know being in the same room as someone has a much different impact than just being in a webcam window. They make a larger impact by traveling. That, combined with their promotion of conservation in others, and their actual conservation and purchase of offsets, makes for a much larger overall impact.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 03:57 pm (UTC)http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56953
I just happened to come across that article, never figured car racing organizations would have been thinking about that, especially 10 years ago.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 04:00 pm (UTC)