Terra Pass -- CO2 credits

[Ursidae69]

So I found this website from a bumper sticker I saw in Santa Fe yesterday. It seems to me that the concept is that you fund clean energy projects through the purchase of your Terra Pass thus off setting your car's CO2 output.

http://www.terrapass.com/

My take: I think funding clean renewable energy is great and I support that, but the whole notion of off setting your own CO2 is just a feel good sort of thing. Though, if the feel good thing brings in money for clean energy projects, I guess the overall outcome is good.

[crawler#976]

...sounds like someone figured out how to make a bunch of $$$.

[Kermit]

Well, that made me spit coffee out my nose. You have to be kidding me!

Their slogan should state "You can go on about your normal way of living, guilt free!"

Just another way to sell more crap to the trendy people.

[Ursidae69]

Well, that made me spit coffee out my nose. You have to be kidding me!

Their slogan should state "You can go on about your normal way of living, guilt free!"

Just another way to sell more crap to the trendy people.


Oh come on Kermit, you don't want one of thier bumper stickers on your vehcile?? :shakin:

[grouch]

I am currenty lookng for a job, maybe I should become a carbon offset broker? Funny thing I heard the other day, this carbon foot print offset stuff is suppose to go towards buying trees. Well the new info on trees above the equator is they actually contribute to a hotter envornment. How? I don't know but that is the new low down. This stuff is enough to make my head spin. It is just a modern day dooms day prediction with a fiscal twist.

[Ursidae69]

...sounds like someone figured out how to make a bunch of $$$.

Very true. While reading through their FAQ I read that they were a for-profit company. This concept seems better suited for a non-profit. If I were going to buy this deal, (which I'm not), I'd want to know how much of my dollar goes to the clean energy projects they support and the FAQ doesn't show that.

[Kermit]

Oh come on Kermit, you don't want one of thier bumper stickers on your vehcile?? :shakin:


Ummm...no...:)

I don't know about the rest of you. I am getting sick and tired hearing about being Green and Global Warming. It's all very trendy right now, where is this going to be in 10 years? Heck, as for being a trend, where's it going to be in 6 months from now!?

Sites like the one you listed, just goes to show how hyprocritical people are.

[DaveInDenver]

...just goes to show how hyprocritical people are.
They ought to put their money where their mouths are:
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

[Kermit]

They ought to put their money where their mouths are:
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/


Ah....man Dave, thanks for the link!

Pretty much sums up how I feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCRStksqL0


So, I am driving the speed limit out of Crested Butte, and there is this guy in a Prius of all things, riding my ***, then procedes to blow out around me, and disappear down the road. I say to myself...."*sigh*, what a bloody hyprocrit..." :rolleyes:

[Ursidae69]

Ummm...no...:)

I don't know about the rest of you. I am getting sick and tired hearing about being Green and Global Warming. It's all very trendy right now, where is this going to be in 10 years? Heck, as for being a trend, where's it going to be in 6 months from now!?

Sites like the one you listed, just goes to show how hyprocritical people are.


I agree that the site I linked is an exercise in hypocrisy, that is why I posted it, to spur discussion, but why are you sick and tired of hearing about being "green". I'm not sure what you mean but there isn't anything wrong with people not being hypocrites and living simpler using less resources. Sorry if you're sick of that. :smilies27

[Ursidae69]

They ought to put their money where their mouths are:
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/


They want $15 an entry with no guarantee of a winner, another money maker. :cool: There is a lot of money to be made on the net fanning both sides of a political debate.

[Kermit]

I agree that the site I linked is an exercise in hypocrisy, that is why I posted it, to spur discussion, but why are you sick and tired of hearing about being "green". I'm not sure what you mean but there isn't anything wrong with people not being hypocrites and living simpler using less resources. Sorry if you're sick of that. :smilies27

The text below is in no way reflected towards you Ursidae69. General ramblings, about things in general about this Green movement.

Let me start off by saying, I want less (or no) pollution, clean air and water would be nice. I am all for consuming less, waste less, renew, reuse. More renewable energy sources. Would love to have a solar/wind powered house. Bio-fuel burning vehicles...(if they are found to be less polluting, from a nonfood source)...you catch my drift. "Oh lord, would please buy me some solar panels? All my friends have wind turbines, I need to make Amens..." ...sorry for the slaughter of your song Janice. :p

This what I don't like. People flying the Global Warming flag to sell products. If you were truely trying to be "green", you wouldn't buy more crap... The Earth is in a constant state of change. We are foolish to think we can stop or control those changes. It warms, it cools. To our knowledge, it always had, always will. (well, until the our sun swells, and cooks our little blue planet) We as humans, still do not, and may never truely understand why the Earth goes through these cycles. The Global Warming advocates, sure will tell you that we are to blame, and are trying to make us feel guilty for driving a car, flying in an airplane, while they are are flying in an airplane, WTF? I don't know about you, I am just trying to eek out a living, and trying have a little fun before I die. Everything, and I mean everything we do this modern world requires the use of fossil fuels. It is simply mind boggling. How much we use. Unless we moderns, go back to living like the Amish. I really have no idea how we will ever get off of fossil fuels.

A client the other week, was reading the Green Issue of Vanity Fair. She looks up to me and says, "Where in the hell do these Hollywood people get off in telling me how to be earth friendly, when they themselves live a life of excess!?" I nodded in agreement. " I dunno..."

Carbon credits are total bull****. Who in the hell came up with that!? Sounds more like certain religion I know of. Simply live a life of sin, and hey, at the end, just repent. Then everything, is all fine and dandy...well, hell...sign me up for that. That sounds pretty damn good!

Sorry, I am sick of hearing the words "Green" and "Global Warming"....maybe it is the mouths the words are coming from.

Let's face it, it isn't fossil fuels that are the problem, people are, way too many of them. I don't hear Al Gore promoting that we get spayed or nuetered. No that would be atroshish, wouldn't it? Or at least promoting people to not have children. I know my choice not have them lessens the strain on the earth's resources. But, that wouldn't be very popular, would it? I know the guy with the wife and 2 kids driving the Prius, uses a heck of alot more resources than myself. Yet, he gives me a dirty look because my lifestyle is different than his. I get a heck of alot of flack from my "Green" friends for riding dirt bikes. Ummm...hey man, what about those kiddies you have!? How are you better than me?

I am growing to loath the green movement and the hypocrisy.

Or maybe it bothers me on a personal note.

Finally....fricken, finally,I can afford to ride dirt bikes. I have dreamed and dreamed when I was a kid to ride them motorcycles in the dirt. I wasn't allowed and we couldn't afford them when I was younger. Ya see, my father contracted MS in his mid twenties. Most of our money went to medical bills. My mother had to get a couple part time jobs, to pay for blood transfusions, among other things... I grew up with my dad in a wheelchair. I never had those father son adventures. My recent trip to Colorado, seeing some father son duos reminded me of that...made me quite sad really. (I wish my dad was here...type thoughts...) As I write this, he lays in his bed barely able to move, the MS has been slowly engulfing his body over the past 30 years. He is only 57 years of age. A horrible thing to witness. Because of that, I try to live life to the fullist, I'll be damned if some hyprocrital green SOB, is going to stop me. For f%@ks sake. We are here for so little time....Eat, Drink, and sleep around with Mary. Geeesh!

So anyway...a little personal history. I now can ride those dirt bikes, and let me tell you, it is the most fun one can have with their clothes on. Now, I have some new environmental person telling me, that my passion is evil. I am killing the earth. Global Warming and Green are being used as ammo against my passion, my dream. Trails are closing everywhere. Finally living my dream. Now it's wrong. I truely don't know why we can't share the trails. In my view the Sierra Clubbers are selfish, unwilling to share the great outdoors, which I love. We ALL cause damage one way or another. My passion uses far less resources than that Prius....(growing to hate those cars, or maybe it's the social statement they make)....My bike is steel, aluminum, and plastic....nearly 100% recyclable. More than I can say for that Hybrid. (I am using that car as a reference, because I had a run in with an owner of one)

There is the erosion issue...ummm sir, I don't know if you checked or not. The Earth itself is the largest cause of erosion.

The emissions issue....yeah yeah...your Prius still burns fossil fuels,too....what do you think those tires and plastics are made from?

The noise issue...ok, you got me there...would be nice if the KTM was silent. 86db isn't bad.

Knowing that you, me, the Earth, our sun, the solar system are all born to die. All of this, really truely doesn't matter...the Earth does a good job of whiping itself clean and starting over. There have been 5 known mass extinctions. I don't feel too bad for finally living my dream. So, I just want to have a little fun before I meet my maker (that is, if there is one), please don't make me feel guilty for doing so.

I could sell my KTM, my VW bus, my Tacoma, ride my bicycle to work, (which I do when the temperature drops)....I could sell all of those things, buy solar panels to mount on the roof. For what I ask? To feel a little less guilt, to get the "nod" from the guy in the Hybrid down the street? Those fossil fuel burning evil beasts, give me a life of adventure...I choose adventure.




-Ok, end rant- I'll crawl back into my hole now...

[DesertRose]

Kermit,

Fantastic rant. A great read. Thank you!

Seriously, I think (and I can speak for me and Jonathan) you voiced much of what we feel, much of the time. I feel caught in the middle between the "types" you talk about. Our green friends or acquaintances seem to sometimes judge me for liking to explore in a 4x4 (and just wait til I get my motorcycle!) and that I carry a gun and shoot for fun, and our more traditional friends (for lack of a better "label," which I hate) seem to sometimes judge me for being a conservationist. Sigh. I hate labels. I hate judgementalism.

Because judgementalism is what really it's getting down to that you hate. That people think they're special and better than you or me because they drive a Prius, recycle, and send $100 a year to The Nature Conservancy. Or let's be fair, other people are judgemental and think they're better because they drive an American-built vehicle, belong to VFW, and send $100 a year to the Blue Ribbon Coalition.

Dare I say that what you are reacting to is not global warming or being green per se (because you already are a conservationist and you are aware of what's happening in the world) - it's the attitudes of those who are pushing it. I couldn't agree more. I moved way "right" in my views after spending years every day hanging out with very radical, green environmentalists (I ran Sky Island Alliance in Tucson - I still love their mission and support what they do - just not their basic politics!).

But those folks by and large, who called themselves liberal and would do protests and all that, in the end were so judgemental and sanctimonious. I didn't like it. I rebelled! (Being the executive director gave me latitude - and I did have a lot of fun showing up on SIA hikes with my holster on my hip, or at pot lucks with a big old slab of roasted elk meat . . . )

Anyway, what I would like to throw out there though is this thing against carbon credits and global warming.

Okay, I agree - the whole "trade your evil lifestyle for a quick and dirty Get Out of Jail for Free Card" thing really makes me crazy. I H-A-T-E I-T. The TerraPass thing is just so . . . hypocritical.

And I agree that it's a lot more complicated than just fossil fuels - that human population is also a big factor. But just because you're hating the messenger doesn't mean throw out the message. Global warming is an issue, and there is no doubt people are causing it. So what to do about it?

Here's my dilemma. I work for a conservation organization that supports science and community-based work to protect landscapes and wildlife in East Africa. One of the main groups we're supporting is working on some really cutting-edge stuff - without getting into it too much, basically they are close to having a "formula" for how to predict what a "minium viable conservation area" would be for a given landscape to protect the most species for the long run (hopefully perpetuity).

That's a useful tool because up til now no one could quantify this number - it's always been a "pick a number out of the sky" thing. And as you pointed out: population is the big factor here. We MUST know what we need to set aside now to make a difference as more people move into the world's wild places.

Okay, so the second biggest factor besides people IS global warming. Let's set aside the "who's causing it" debate. Fact is, the glaciers on Kilimanjaro will be GONE in a decade. Rainforest on its slopes are disappearing. Swamps are drying up.

Alright, I'm getting to the dilemma. Finally. This group - which includes some of the best conservation biologists in the world, several on my board of directors - wants African Conservation Fund to help develop a way people in the First World can support direct on-the-ground conservation in East Africa by making contributions - which would be linked to an actual, calculated carbon-offset. Because using their formula for MVCA, they will be able to calculate how much natural carbon is preserved in-situ in the East African savannahs we are working to protect (turns out this region has even more longterm carbon in the plants and soil and animals than anywhere else on earth).

Now this is not the same as "trading carbon credits" but it's close. What it would mean is that I could say to you: Kermit, you care about your impact on the planet. You love your lifestyle, you love to explore by truck and motorcycle. And you also want to make a difference on the planet. So by investing $100 or $500 or $1000 in preserving XYZ Conservation Area in the East African savannahs, you are helping to save XXX tons of carbon - the equivalent of XX years (or XXX miles of trips) or whatever.

So my question is: would that totally make you crazy against what we're doing?

Or would you say, Hey, they are giving me a real thing they are protecting and letting me know that it really does offset the impact of my footprint on the planet. I dig it. Sign me up.

My thinking now is this: people want to help, people do care, but they do want something tangible they can understand that they are protecting. That's why Nature Conservancy was so successful - they bought land. Protected forever. Easy. That's why Save the Elephants is so successful. You give us money. We protect elephants. Clear. Precise.

Those of us who try to raise money to protect big landscapes find it harder to sell.

Like it or not global warming and carbon stuff is in the news and people at least are thinking about it.

Is it so bad that I can raise money for tangible conservation - that's so important, by the way, even if it's far away in Africa, it's one of the most incredible and bio-rich places on the planet?

I would really appreciate thoughtful comments and questions and discourse on this!

Because my board wants to move forward on it . . .

Roseann

[PS - we really need to get an ExPo group together for beers soon - gotta meet you in person Kermit!]

[Kermit]

Roseann,

We need to set a date for the Tucson Chapter and get some beers.

Here is a question for you. Has it ever been found out how much carbon flora actually absorbs? I researched it a bit. From my understanding, we are still clueless. What sparked my interest, was one of those carbon credit deals. Drive your car, plant a tree type thing. Which, Alice thinks I am going over board on the planting thing...I can't seem to stop planting trees...:D

It got me wondering, Well, how much carbon does a tree absorb? Then how many trees would you have to plant to offset your carbon output? Does the tree you are buying, absorb enough carbon, to equal the ammount you are putting out driving to get the tree?

Should we save the planet? I often wonder this. Do we humans deserve to have it? Look how we treat each other all in the name of greed and power. Should we try to control global warming for the rest of the species? I think so, but, for humanity, I am unsure.

Americans are used to comfort and convenience. I don't think, we in general will sacrafice our way of living in the name of being green. We like powerful cars, huge homes, climate control (in the our homes and vehicles), fast food, etc...Look at the three most popular sports in America; Baseball, Football, and Nascar. A tremendous use of resources, all in the name of entertainment. Hollywood should be thrown in there too, (for entertainment value and waste of resources.) Do you really think the masses are going to give those up? Unless we have a catastrophic economic crash. I don't see it going away. I understand the need for competition, I do not understand the fans. Being truely green will be among the few. The masses need to be entertained, because they can't entertain themselves.

I have a hard time with someone telling me I need to buy a shirt made out of bamboo, instead of cotton, while they wear diamonds. Tell me again how we get diamonds? I forgot. More hypocrisy (http://www.ecozone.tv/defaultflash.sps)The star they are helping has 4 kids and his play room is bigger than my whole house. But, hey! he uses CFL's it must be ok...give me a break. I don't use CFL's and my electrical usage is well below the average American's usage. I will admit, at least they are bringing awareness. Are the means by which they are doing so, truely green, I am not quite sure.

Final question, why in the heck do solar panels cost so much? :p Is it feasable that Tucson put up a mass solar array instead of our coal/natural gas burning electrical plant...Since coal is so much cheaper, probably not. We have the acreage, just look at all of those rooftops. Without government subsidies, I don't see how the average Joe, like myself, can afford such renewable energy sources, without a great sacrafice. Most of us are just trying to get by, some raising familes...it is hard enough.

Apparently Tucson is going solar, but, they are going to raise electrical cost to the consumer, even though it doesn't cost them any more. Once the coal based electrical cost equals what solar cost, the consumer will have no choice, but, to go solar. That information was either on PBS or an article Alice read...we can't seem to find it.

It is going to cost alot money to be green. I don't see the general population, making financial sacrafices to do so. I myself do what I can, but, I have my limits.

Yeah, I could go solar, but, too much sacrafice for me. I am not a rich man. Do you know how many haircuts I would have to do!? That is one hell of a nice Adventure bike and the adventure to along with it.


Kermit,


Is it so bad that I can raise money for tangible conservation - that's so important, by the way, even if it's far away in Africa, it's one of the most incredible and bio-rich places on the planet?



No it is not bad, it is your passion. I support passions.

[DesertRose]

Hi Kermit -

When shall we do a Tucson ExPo meet?

My travel schedule is insane - and so is Jonathan's right now. Both of us won't actually be in Tucson together until after Labor Day . . .

Let's see about doing it after that.

As for your question, yes the amount of carbon absorbtion by plants has been quantified (I'll find sources for you). Most of the outfits that push that kind of carbon stuff are big on replanting rainforests and temporate forests with more plantations. Unfortunately many of these are non-native, and that's just not what we're after.

What we're more interested in is preserving existing wild habitat that hasn't been screwed up. Existing biodiversity (I know, it's a buzzword). It's all very complex, and the folks I'm working with are seeking funding now to get some of the final research sorted out. We want to make it simple, and we want it to make sense.

Which is why I'd like to get people's feedback on the idea . . .

And I agree with you on all the points below - people won't make personal sacrifices to go green. They want it easy. Al Gore's mansion is what, like 10,000 square feet and uses 12X the energy an average house does, and he says he's concerned about global warming? Gimme a break. Carbon neutral is just a palliative for a wasteful lifestyle!

BUT, here I am wanting to get a piece of that, right?

Oh well. If the rich aren't going to change their lifestyle but want to give away money to salve their conscience, I'm happy to take it and use it for something much better :-)

By the way, I just found this on Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp) while looking for the size of Gore's place - you have to read it. Whoa!

[Kermit]

I was joking with Alice today. I should write Al Gore a letter, seeing if he'll buy me some solar panels. It's only going to be $15-20K for what I want. A mere drop in the bucket for a guy like Gore. ;)

After Labor Day sounds good.


Alright, I'm getting to the dilemma. Finally. This group - which includes some of the best conservation biologists in the world, several on my board of directors - wants African Conservation Fund to help develop a way people in the First World can support direct on-the-ground conservation in East Africa by making contributions - which would be linked to an actual, calculated carbon-offset. Because using their formula for MVCA, they will be able to calculate how much natural carbon is preserved in-situ in the East African savannahs we are working to protect (turns out this region has even more longterm carbon in the plants and soil and animals than anywhere else on earth).

Now this is not the same as "trading carbon credits" but it's close. What it would mean is that I could say to you: Kermit, you care about your impact on the planet. You love your lifestyle, you love to explore by truck and motorcycle. And you also want to make a difference on the planet. So by investing $100 or $500 or $1000 in preserving XYZ Conservation Area in the East African savannahs, you are helping to save XXX tons of carbon - the equivalent of XX years (or XXX miles of trips) or whatever.

So my question is: would that totally make you crazy against what we're doing?


Nice twist on saving the wildlands, it does need to be set aside. I believe there should be pure wilderness areas...no humans what so ever.

Am I against it? I think it is good plan, from I can tell you and Johnathan are sincere about your actions. Those other carbon credit fly by nights, seems fishy to me.

[DesertRose]

I believe there should be pure wilderness areas...no humans what so ever.

Hmm, interesting take. We'll have to debate over beer or bourbon.

What we're doing is helping preserve the original wilderness . . . which is where humans came from - the Great Rift Valley. Humans and wilderness aren't mutually exclusive in a landscape where things are still relatively wild. Here in North America, pesky humans haven't been here long (evolutionarily), what's left of our wildlife has never forgiven us for the early evils done, and our landscapes are out of whack. It ain't natural.

In Africa, and in some remoter parts of the Americas even, there are "working wildernesses" where people and wild thing do just great. In my book, those are the best places.

[Kermit]

Hmm, interesting take. We'll have to debate over beer or bourbon.


In a tribal sense, I could see humans sharing the land. Maybe if the human is raised by wolves...then maybe...we should be allowed the wilderness. :D

When I think about wilderness in the states, some user groups are allowed in others are turned away. My belief is, to have pure wilderness..."Wild" is the first part of wilderness. No human should be allowed in.

My ex-wife was a cross country runner, she was allowed to use the trails in wilderness, me being a mountain biker was not. Since technically I use a "machine" to explore trails.(If you want to get real technical humans are an organic machine) I think that is unfair. Why are certain groups ok, and others not? Equestrians are allowed in too, boggles my mind, since a shoed horse does more damage than a cyclist. So, it got me thinking, what wilderness should really be. I even thought of starting a movement to kick all humans out of the wilderness areas in the US, but, I would only be doing that because I am discrimanted against. I am not that big of an *******. ;) Wouldn't win any popularity votes either.

Animals have learned to fear humans, why not let them have their wilderness to themselves?

From Webster's

Main Entry: wil·der·ness
Pronunciation: \ˈwil-dər-nəs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from wildern wild, from Old English wilddēoren of wild beasts
Date: 13th century
1 a (1): a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2): an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community b: an empty or pathless area or region <in remote wildernesses of space groups of nebulae are found — G. W. Gray died 1960> c: a part of a garden devoted to wild growth
2obsolete : wild or uncultivated state
3 a: a confusing multitude or mass : an indefinitely great number or quantity <I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys — Shakespeare> b: a bewildering situation <those moral wildernesses of civilized life — Norman Mailer>

[DesertRose]

In a tribal sense, I could see humans sharing the land. Maybe if the human is raised by wolves...then maybe...we should be allowed the wilderness. :D

That's funny, but it makes me crazy to remember that movie. Ack!


When I think about wilderness in the states, some user groups are allowed in others are turned away. My belief is, to have pure wilderness..."Wild" is the first part of wilderness. No human should be allowed in.

My ex-wife was a cross country runner, she was allowed to use the trails in wilderness, me being a mountain biker was not. Since technically I use a "machine" to explore trails.(If you want to get real technical humans are an organic machine) I think that is unfair. Why are certain groups ok, and others not? Equestrians are allowed in too, boggles my mind, since a shoed horse does more damage than a cyclist. So, it got me thinking, what wilderness should really be. I even thought of starting a movement to kick all humans out of the wilderness areas in the US, but, I would only be doing that because I am discrimanted against. I am not that big of an *******. ;) Wouldn't win any popularity votes either.

Animals have learned to fear humans, why not let them have their wilderness to themselves?

From Webster's

Main Entry: wil·der·ness
Pronunciation: \ˈwil-dər-nəs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from wildern wild, from Old English wilddēoren of wild beasts
Date: 13th century
1 a (1): a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2): an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community b: an empty or pathless area or region <in remote wildernesses of space groups of nebulae are found — G. W. Gray died 1960> c: a part of a garden devoted to wild growth
2obsolete : wild or uncultivated state
3 a: a confusing multitude or mass : an indefinitely great number or quantity <I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys — Shakespeare> b: a bewildering situation <those moral wildernesses of civilized life — Norman Mailer>

Ha, me thinks you might have dug your own metaphorical grave here and jumped in!

If it's exclusionary stuff that makes you crazy - and the environmentalists who are labelling you as "bad" because you ride a machine (pedalled or gas-powered) and want you out of Wildernesses, then aren't you joining them by saying there should be no humans in Wilderness?

I think excluding people from Wilderness was the first step in destroying them. Granted, I DO think there should be no vehicles, but I think humans should be out there in the wild places, back in the kind of relationship with nature that was more like the beginning.

In African the animals have been with people since the beginning, and their behavior is so different than here. It's cool to see. People, their cattle, their homes, are right out there in the Wilderness and they are more or less existing right along side each other just fine.

So I disagree with Webster:) Their definition is too narrow - there's no place, really, on earth that hasn't had people at some point or another (Antarctica, maybe). In the 13th Century when wildeoren was invented as a word, maybe there weren't humans at that time in those wild places, but rest assured 1000 or 5000 years before then there was . . .

If people are excluded from a place, particularly by rules, they won't care about it. It's human nature. If we live and breathe it, if it's part of our everyday existence, we care about it.

I guess that's why so many people care about the last episode of The Sopranos and most really don't give a hoot about conservation. :shakin:

[Kermit]

Ha, me thinks you might have dug your own metaphorical grave here and jumped in!

If it's exclusionary stuff that makes you crazy - and the environmentalists who are labelling you as "bad" because you ride a machine (pedalled or gas-powered) and want you out of Wildernesses, then aren't you joining them by saying there should be no humans in Wilderness?

The way the wilderness is designated here, the way I look at it, we either learn to share it, or nobody should be allowed in. Kinda like when mum would say "You either place nice, or nobody plays at all"....it is more a political reasoning than anything. I do believe no internal combustion mehcanized vehicles should be allowed in...only human powered machines. Bicycles, boats, hand gliders, etc....hmmm, you ever wonder why rock climbers don't catch heat for being off trail, to get to their climbing routes? I think boats (human powered) are allowed in, not sure I'll have to check. It is the politics around wilderness that drives me nuts. Trail politics makes me want to pull my hair out. What is happening, more and more people are getting outside and using the outdoors for recreation. But, some are very selfish and think their means of enjoying it is the only way. Example are hikers. (I like to hike too), I have been called names, gun jesters pointed at me, stuff thrown at me, just because my way is different. So this hiker wants to kill me, because I am different? So how does that make them better? Hmmm...back to my other thought. Either play nice or close the whole damn thing down. Which I don't want it closing down. Why am I arguing about wilderness? I can't take the KTM or the mountain bike in there anyway.... I don't like that they are trying to turn places that already have organized trail systems into wilderness, just more politics...

The thing that drives me nuts about the global warming/green people, is that they don't practice what they preach. So, I don't think I should have to jump in that metaphorical grave, since what I think wilderness should be deffined as. I don't use wilderness, me not being there is one less human on those lands. I am practicing what I preach.


I think excluding people from Wilderness was the first step in destroying them. Granted, I DO think there should be no vehicles, but I think humans should be out there in the wild places, back in the kind of relationship with nature that was more like the beginning.

I see in a tribal sense, humans co-existing along side. Hunter gatherer types...no farms, or grazing cattle, sheep, goats...what ever. Use what only they need. The "raised by wolves" was a bit of sarcasm. :D Should I join the people I hate? Nah, these are just thoughts what I think wilderness "should" be, that's all. It is what it is my mind what pure wilderness should be, is it reality and will it work, I dunno. It is not saying I wouldn't support your efforts. :)

I think people should quit watching sports and actually get off their asses and do something....do I really want that? Ahh...no....the trails would be over crowded then....<<<I hope that helps with my reasoning. ;)


In African the animals have been with people since the beginning, and their behavior is so different than here. It's cool to see. People, their cattle, their homes, are right out there in the Wilderness and they are more or less existing right along side each other just fine.


I am assuming you mean the beginning of the human species.

Yeah, I still believe in a true wilderness, humans should be allowed only in a hunter gatherer or nomadic following the heard, sense. Will that ever happen? Probably not...but, I am ok with that. Can you save the wilds without human intervention? I say the answer would be no.

Are we both right? Are we both wrong?....Heck, I don't know Roseann... All I know the we are trying to protect what we are passionate about. Better than sitting on the couch watching shows about crime. ;)

That standing on the edge of the coin is a pain sometimes...:D...all about balance isn't it!?

[Ursidae69]

I'm glad my thread spurred some interesting conversation. :) Nice posts. My views are somewhere in the midst of what you both were talking about. We'll all discuss it over some beers and a campfire one of these days.

[Ruffin' It]

I don't mind people questioning, or disagreeing with Global Warming - as long as they are truely educated about it in a systemic way and not getting their information from the latest doomsdayer or nay-sayer. Not to point fingers or get holier than thou, but I feel anyone who wants to hold a strong opinion either way on the issue should at least understand basic principles like the Thermal Haline Cycle and it's effects on Northern European climates as well as cocolith populations and the effects of their potential decline, predicted trends of warming AND cooling, as well the predicted northern shift of the American grain belt into Canadian soils (big problem). I'm not singleing anyone out or saying people expressing their opinions here are not educated on the subject. I'm not even saying anyone here is wrong, but just as many people are sick of hearing about it, I am a little sick of people (thinking of a former co-worker right now) who go on and on about how it is all crap but don't really understand it at all (this guy thought that New York having one of the biggest cold-snaps in a really long time was direct evidence against the theory). I have studied it for about 15 years now (including work done while getting an Environmental Science degree) and, from the studies I trust, things are playing out pretty close to predictions (actually a little faster).

I kind of look at it this way; this is all like auto insurance. No one really knows for sure if they are going to be in an accident. There is a chance we will, but there is also a chance we will never be in even so much as a fender bender. But, we buy insurance anway. Why? Because we know that it makes sense to spend a little now to midigate potential disaster in the future. Except in this case, instead of loosing a car or a life, it is possible (I'm not saying certain) that the lack of insurance could result in leaving our children with a world that is difficult to live on.

I will be the first to admit that I am a "better safe than sorry" type of guy though.

I am now exiting my Soapbox and will shutup

[DesertRose]

I don't mind people questioning, or disagreeing with Global Warming - as long as they are truely educated about it in a systemic way and not getting their information from the latest doomsdayer or nay-sayer. Not to point fingers or get holier than thou, but I feel anyone who wants to hold a strong opinion either way on the issue should at least understand basic principles like the Thermal Haline Cycle and it's effects on Northern European climates as well as cocolith populations and the effects of their potential decline, predicted trends of warming AND cooling, as well the predicted northern shift of the American grain belt into Canadian soils (big problem). I'm not singleing anyone out or saying people expressing their opinions here are not educated on the subject. I'm not even saying anyone here is wrong, but just as many people are sick of hearing about it, I am a little sick of people (thinking of a former co-worker right now) who go on and on about how it is all crap but don't really understand it at all (this guy thought that New York having one of the biggest cold-snaps in a really long time was direct evidence against the theory). I have studied it for about 15 years now (including work done while getting an Environmental Science degree) and, from the studies I trust, things are playing out pretty close to predictions (actually a little faster).

I kind of look at it this way; this is all like auto insurance. No one really knows for sure if they are going to be in an accident. There is a chance we will, but there is also a chance we will never be in even so much as a fender bender. But, we buy insurance anway. Why? Because we know that it makes sense to spend a little now to midigate potential disaster in the future. Except in this case, instead of loosing a car or a life, it is possible (I'm not saying certain) that the lack of insurance could result in leaving our children with a world that is difficult to live on.

I will be the first to admit that I am a "better safe than sorry" type of guy though.

I am now exiting my Soapbox and will shutup

Great soapboxing, thank you!

I agree - I've read a lot, on the science end - and heard lots of the junk, too. Change is happening, that is for sure. I agree we should be safe - that's why I think looking at creative options for financing conservation is worth looking into. I'm not sold on carbon credits by a long shot - but I trust the scientists I work with, and look forward to learning more in the months to come as we research potential ways to link landscape and wildlife conservation with offsetting first-world lifestyle resource use.

[Ursidae69]

I came across another carbon offsettng company. This thread was originally about Terra Pass and it spurred some interesting comments.

This company, Sustainable Travel International, has some pretty hefty sponsorship including Continental Airlines and they have vigorous 3rd party verification to ensure that the carbon offset dollars collected are meeting the green agendas set by the United Nations.

http://www.sustainabletravelinternational.org/documents/op_carbonoffsets.html

If someone is well off (unlike me!) and want to feel better about their travel, they can buy these credits which will be used in projects that will directly offset their trip's carbon footprint.

Is it feel-good? Yes, but if the money is used to further greener technologies, it can't be all that bad.

[DesertRose]

Is it feel-good? Yes, but if the money is used to further greener technologies, it can't be all that bad.

Thank you for the information, Chuck. I agree - I, too, struggle with this but in the end have to try to be practical. The world isn't perfect. We shouldn't expect things to be. We can only try to make a difference in some small way, and not sweat the big stuff too much.

[windy]

After being buried in my mid-term exam preparations for the last several days, I've come up for some coffee and a little EP Forum air.:peepwall: This thread is wonderfully juicy and I'm delighted by such educated and well reasoned insights.:clapsmile

There's a word I'm frequently noshing on and I would your thoughts on it.

Anthropocentrism

Whether it is intentional or not, it has quite a bit of baring on the approach of our culture toward life and everything in it. The "Green" issue is really about anthropocentrism for most people. For those of us involved in conservation or sustainability, it might not be, indeed probably isn't. But either way, it seems to shade everyone's approach to life in some way.

[DesertRose]

After being buried in my mid-term exam preparations for the last several days, I've come up for some coffee and a little EP Forum air.:peepwall: This thread is wonderfully juicy and I'm delighted by such educated and well reasoned insights.:clapsmile

There's a word I'm frequently noshing on and I would your thoughts on it.

Anthropocentrism

Whether it is intentional or not, it has quite a bit of baring on the approach of our culture toward life and everything in it. The "Green" issue is really about anthropocentrism for most people. For those of us involved in conservation or sustainability, it might not be, indeed probably isn't. But either way, it seems to shade everyone's approach to life in some way.

Hmm, good subject to nosh on, Windy.

The textbook definition means regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, over God or animals.

But in generalities, it can mean putting humans first.

Some musings here . . . sort of themed on anthropentrism . . .

One of the things that has driven me to community-based, sustainable conservation is what I think of as the urban-view of conservation. So many "pure environmentalists" I've worked with over the past 20 years have what amounts to a well-meaning but ultimately selfish approach to conservation: that Nature (capitalization intended) is some sort of pure place that they nearly worship . . . in doing so they perpetuate the myth of "balance of Nature" and that man's interactions with nature can only be bad. That we are separate from nature, and should only "take only photographs, leave only footprints."

I find this view to be dangerous. It removes us from where we came from - humans came from Wilderness. I believe that's why so many of us love nature and crave wide open, quiet spaces and feel revived when we visit them. Why we're drawn to places such as Africa or the jungles of South America or the Arctic.

Pragmatic people want to do something to help . . . TerraPass and carbon credits are one way, and I don't think that's bad. In fact, I think it's better than the "lock it up" approach to conservation - creating more parks where humans are merely visitors and animals are in a confined area ringed with urban development . . . amounting to vast zoos, really.

To me the best approach is a compromise - encouraging "working wilderness" approach to conservation, where people are part of the landscape ad conservation can happen at a sustainable level. Parks do play a part as "core" areas for refuge and breeding . . . but they are not the only way.

Perhaps this is ego-centric rather than anthropocentric - but it's in the same vein. Anthropocentric can be at both extremes: putting humans first meaning we dominate over everything no matter what cost to the environment, or putting humans first to the benefit of the environment.

I went way off and around topic, but it's a good thing to mull over.

[DesertRose]

Windy's post about anthropocentrism got me to thinking more on this . . . and I just found this interesting essay from a Mennonite cookbook (not only great recipes, but lots of stories and essays from around the world). This suggests that culture, land, and people are inextricably tied together, rather than one holding dominion over another.

I find the quote on Christian views of anthropocentric nature to be very thought-provoking!


Caring for the Earth . . . Caring for One Another

An essay from Extending the Table (by Joetta Handrich Schalbach, Mennonite Central Committee , 1991)


"I was brought up to respect everything that was on the earth, "to the smallest grain of sand," my mom used to say, to those trees there, to the smallest insect, to the big bears that we have here.

My first lesson in life was respect for those things; to be thankful when I got any food from the sea, to thank the sea and the fish for giving me life, to never take for granted anything that I received.

But when logging companies look at trees, they see only dollar signs. Many of them do clear-cut logging-not one tree left on top of the mountain. So with the rain we get here, there is flood after flood, taking all the soil. So what's left is going to be bare rock.

We were put here as caretakers of this land. Our forefathers took good care of this land for thousands of years, without harming it. Now in less than 150 years, there's been so much irreparable damage that Telanzuin Island will never be revived. And if there is nothing left on this island, there's going to be nothing left of us. If you don't have a land, you don't have a culture and you don't have a people."

- Diane Brown, Haida Indian

Land, culture, and people -- they are intimately connected. If you respect one, you will nurture all three. But remove, change, or destroy any one, and the others will change in like manner.

Grave social problems facing many North American native communities today stem directly from nation-building activities that forced native peoples onto reserves, stripped away their traditional occupations, and restricted their hunting activities and access to sacred lands.

Current consequences of actions a century earlier provide strong evidence of the ecological, or interrelated, nature of life.

Despite enormous cultural loss, voices from within the native communities continue to express the deep philosophical understanding of their ancestors: The earth is sacred. All living things are interrelated.

In recent years interest in environmental issues has mushroomed on every continent. Members of quiet farm communities in Canada and the United States work to solve the problem of groundwater contamination while urban counterparts seek alternatives to overflowing landfills. Citizens in newly autonomous countries in Central Europe want to clean the air and rivers of their industrial cities. Brazilian rubber-tappers are organizing themselves against encroaching development schemes that threaten the life of the rainforests. In Africa, many people are working to slow the growth of the deserts.

To heal the scars of a raped earth, and to permanently restore and protect it, requires that we stop and examine the values and lifestyles that led to the environmental crisis. Why did we abuse creation in the first place?

Wesley Granberg-Michaelson attempts to answer this question in his book, A Worldly Spirituality. 2 He quotes from the letter of a friend living on the Lakota Indian reservation in South Dakota:


When most Christians talk about being good stewards of the earth, what they have in mind is something like this: We conserve resources so we can use them in the future, and we conserve some wildlife areas so we can admire and enjoy their beauty. I don't think this is biblically sound because both of these ideas are still caught up in human idolatry.

. . . The creation exists for the welfare of the human race is this thinking. I don't believe that. I think we all are part of the entire creation, with our own unique roles, and we exist for God.

. . . We are all in relationship with one another because we are all in relationship with God . . . The Lakota people have an elaborate kinship system (including) the earth, who is your grandmother, the sky and eagle, who are your brothers. When you think circular like this, you place prime importance on right and proper relationships. You don't abuse or use your relatives, human or otherwise."


Despite expanded systems of knowledge, communication, and transportation, many individuals and communities run the risk of losing their personal connections to the earth and to their global neighbors. Too busy to garden and too transient to tend an orchard, most of us buy fruits and vegetables from the supermarket. The colorful displays of produce represent various countries and geographical regions, but we have little way of knowing who cultivated and harvested the produce, or what their working and living conditions ate.

The stories in this section highlight our important relationships with the earth and with neighbors. We will meet people who suffer because of destructive forces in those relationships. We will find others working to develop more constructive partnerships with the earth, and to reinforce community relationships. They encourage us to redouble our efforts at caring for the earth and caring for one another.




Notes:
1 - From a discussion with Leona Dueck Penner during the Jan-Feb 1986 blockade against logging companies on Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, from Mennonite Reporter (Jan 1990), p. 12.

2 - Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, A Worldly Spirituality: The Call to Take Care of the Earth (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), p. 28.

[Shovel]

I think funding clean renewable energy is great and I support that, but the whole notion of off setting your own CO2 is just a feel good sort of thing. Though, if the feel good thing brings in money for clean energy projects, I guess the overall outcome is good.

I, too think this is about the same as saying "Hail Marys"... a pre-packaged way to dispose of your guilty feelings, so you can pretend to be better than other people while you still do the same things you were gonna do anyway.

But as stated if it happens to funnel money into genuinely useful projects then rock on.

[Photog]

CO2, CO2. Hmmm. Our green plants seem to like this stuff. It is heavier than air, and settles to the ground (good thing, since that is where the plants are). I don't see how it could climb into the upper atmosphere, and cause a greenhouse problem. Explain how this happens, and I will get over this point.

Now, on to CO2 credits and liberty thieves.

If we really want to make a dent in the worldwide CO2 pollution problem, we need to start with the areas that would be easiest to curtail. It is possible that the USA is the country that produces the most CO2 (not sure), but there are also 350 million people here, scattered far and wide. We also have the EPA and CARB to keep our emissions to a minimum. If we could get the rest of the folks on the planet, to control their emissions as well as we do (known technologies), we would be able to make the single largest impact on the overall CO2 emissions.

When the rest of the world has their poop-in-a-group, then come back and see if we can or need to make more improvements.

The USA is not the only CO2 producer on the planet. And by the way, we are not evil either, just because we drive a car or FJ80 or ???

Wow, that rant felt soooo good. :) :wings:
I think I need to BBQ some steaks, while I still can!!:chowtime:

[Ursidae69]

Nice off topic rant......

This thread isn't about saying our country is evil or FJ80s are bad. The point of the thread was to ask opinions on carbon credits. People can do 3 things to help reduce CO2 worldwide 1) nothing 2) reduce their impacts 3) do not reduce their impacts, but instead offset their impacts by funding clean initiatives.

So what is your opinion on number 3 Photog? If you worked for a company developing cutting edge solar technologies, would you turn down funding from places like Terra Pass or STI because it is a form of liberty thievery???




CO2, CO2. Hmmm. Our green plants seem to like this stuff. It is heavier than air, and settles to the ground (good thing, since that is where the plants are). I don't see how it could climb into the upper atmosphere, and cause a greenhouse problem. Explain how this happens, and I will get over this point.

Now, on to CO2 credits and liberty thieves.

If we really want to make a dent in the worldwide CO2 pollution problem, we need to start with the areas that would be easiest to curtail. It is possible that the USA is the country that produces the most CO2 (not sure), but there are also 350 million people here, scattered far and wide. We also have the EPA and CARB to keep our emissions to a minimum. If we could get the rest of the folks on the planet, to control their emissions as well as we do (known technologies), we would be able to make the single largest impact on the overall CO2 emissions.

When the rest of the world has their poop-in-a-group, then come back and see if we can or need to make more improvements.

The USA is not the only CO2 producer on the planet. And by the way, we are not evil either, just because we drive a car or FJ80 or ???

Wow, that rant felt soooo good. :) :wings:
I think I need to BBQ some steaks, while I still can!!:chowtime:

[Photog]

Nice off topic rant......

This thread isn't about saying our country is evil or FJ80s are bad. The point of the thread was to ask opinions on carbon credits. People can do 3 things to help reduce CO2 worldwide 1) nothing 2) reduce their impacts 3) do not reduce their impacts, but instead offset their impacts by funding clean initiatives.

So what is your opinion on number 3 Photog? If you worked for a company developing cutting edge solar technologies, would you turn down funding from places like Terra Pass or STI because it is a form of liberty thievery???

Good point, and my appologies for the Off-topic rant.

If Terra Pass or STI was intent on curtailing people's lives and liberties, on the premis of CO2 reduction, I would pass on their offer for funding.

On the other hand, I would go after the funding that is being put into wind-powered-electric-generaters; and request that their money be put into my cutting edge solar cells. We could replace the roof tiles on a great many houses, and put that electricity back into the grid, without making an eye-sore on the landscape, with the wind mills.

Now, if you are a multi-millionaire, you can make much more difference to the CO2 problem by funding "green" projects, than you can by reducing your own carbon footprint. Does that make you a hypocrite? Are you not driving a modern vehicle, and using flourescent lights, and living in a well insulated home?

As for "1) Do nothing", that is happening (nationally) in many places; but not in the USA. Even when we pump oil out of the ground, we liquify pump all the gasses back into the ground, except the natural gas. We drive a fuel injected, catalyzed vehicles. Most companies use low power lighting. Etc, etc. There are countries, with large populations, where they are doing nothing. That is where efforts should be concentrated.

How am I doing? Back on topic?

[Ursidae69]

Good point, and my appologies for the Off-topic rant.

If Terra Pass or STI was intent on curtailing people's lives and liberties, on the premis of CO2 reduction, I would pass on their offer for funding.

On the other hand, I would go after the funding that is being put into wind-powered-electric-generaters; and request that their money be put into my cutting edge solar cells. We could replace the roof tiles on a great many houses, and put that electricity back into the grid, without making an eye-sore on the landscape, with the wind mills.

Now, if you are a multi-millionaire, you can make much more difference to the CO2 problem by funding "green" projects, than you can by reducing your own carbon footprint. Does that make you a hypocrite? Are you not driving a modern vehicle, and using flourescent lights, and living in a well insulated home?

As for "1) Do nothing", that is happening (nationally) in many places; but not in the USA. Even when we pump oil out of the ground, we liquify pump all the gasses back into the ground, except the natural gas. We drive a fuel injected, catalyzed vehicles. Most companies use low power lighting. Etc, etc. There are countries, with large populations, where they are doing nothing. That is where efforts should be concentrated.

How am I doing? Back on topic?

Yes, you are on topic. :shakin: On your millionaire question, I do not think that makes one a hypocrite. I personally do not have the money to buy carbon credits, so I do what I can in my own life to try to reduce my footprint. I would hope that the folks buying the credits are also trying to do more than just buying credits. But, if buying credits is all they are doing, that is better than nothing, so maybe it is mildly hypocritical of them.

The "Do nothing" analogy was meant individually I think, thinking nationally the argument is quite muddy. Yes, the USA does a lot, but we should be leading the world, but we are not. So, we can and should do more as a nation. Countries with a large population like China are not doing near enough, and when all 6 billion of them start driving cars and using oil at the rate we do, the world will really be in trouble. The USA needs to lead the way into other energy sources not just for us, but for the world. Things that happen in China, can and will affect us and our climate.

Thanks for clarifying your arguments for me. :)

[Photog]

This is a good conversation.:)

Who in the USA, is not doing something, to help with the reduction of CO2?

Maybe the really poor folks that can't afford a modern car, or flourescent bulbs, or a well insulated mobile home?

I think most folks are doing a lot to reduce power consumption. And our EPA controlled vehicles reduce personal emissions. (so far, I don't need a gas-recirculation system on my toilet).

Could Americans do more? Probably. They could use flat panel TV's, instead of tube-type TV's. They could reduce their TV watching. Turn off lights, when not in the room. Go to bed earlier. Lower the thermostat, and wear long sleeves. Don't drive anywhere; except work and the store. Live closer to their place of work. Ride a bike or walk to work, after they move closer.

Local governments could spend gas taxes on improving the roads, to reduce traffic congestion.

Question: What country is doing better at this than us? (not saying we are the best, just wondering).

My thoughts on Terra Pass? F@#%$! them! Oh, the Elitism of it all.:REOutArchery02:

[goodtimes]

. . . 3) do not reduce their impacts, but instead offset their impacts by funding clean initiatives.


OoOoO!!!! Can I jump in and play despite not having read the whole thread? (I started following it a while back, but lost track of it).

#3 just bugs the heck out of me. It is a complete cop out. If someone wants to donate $$$ to organizations which are developing 'green' energy, by all means, do it. I'll even pat you on the back for your efforts....good on 'ya and all that happy stuff. Seriously. :)

But it is complete BS to think that a donation mitigates your own impact. If you are concerned with your carbon footprint, then take steps to reduce YOUR carbon footprint. Don't think that you can simply buy your way into a carbon neutral lifestyle. It is a bunch of bull puckey. It makes as much sense as me dumping a 55 gallon drum of used motor oil in the wash behind my house, then giving my neighbor $100 if he promises to not dump his used oil out there. I still dumped 55 gallons of used friggin oil in the wash! The money doesn't change that....and carbon credits don't change YOUR impact.

I'll spare you the long rant I had typed out regarding a certain person who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize....because that would probably send this thread off into nasty death spiral, then Chuck would beat me with a stick. And that would be bad. :sport_box

[Photog]

Goodtimes,
I agree, from a theoretical point of view; but the Devil is in the details. This response is not aimed at you; but at the power play that option #3 pushes on all of us.

From a practical point of view, what does someone like Steve Forbes do, to reduce their carbon footprint? If he did everything you & I do (and he probably does), how much difference does it make?

If he could fund a program in India, that would help India to modernize their power plants, oil rigs, and automotive exhaust, Steve would make much more impact.

Steve Forbes already does things like Netmeeting, Telecommute, modern vehicle emissions control, lower energy consumption at home, etc. He probably has the finest insulation and double pane windows money can buy. I don't think you are suggesting that these types of folks reduce their standard of living. What is the use in being wealthy, if you can't hire a few people to make life comfortable. If he didn't own that extra house in the Hamptons, someone else would own it, and nothing would change. You could make a bigger difference by limiting NASCAR races to the top ten cars. maybe outlaw autoracing completely. And those shuttle launches.!

How draconian do we want to get?

If people are suggesting that the wealthy folks need to reduce their standard of living, then how do we decide how far down they should come. Is our level good enough? Some people would think we are the wealthy, and have too much impact. Maybe we should all downsize to a 1000 square foot house, with no shop or garage (Al Gore's dream for the pee-ons).

Buying carbon credits just sounds like another tax on the people that already cover 80% or the total IRS revenues.

Al Gore's dream is a nightmare.

[Kermit]

Maybe we should all downsize to a 1000 square foot house, with no shop or garage (Al Gore's dream for the pee-ons).

Al Gore's dream is a nightmare.

My house is smaller than 1000 square foot...I guess I am living a nightmare...I do however have a garage, there is hope. :D


Could someone please explain why Al, won the Nobel Peace prize, because I am really confused on that one.

[Ursidae69]

Could someone please explain why Al, won the Nobel Peace prize, because I am really confused on that one.

For raising awareness on the GW issue. No, I do not agree with it, I think there are many other more qualified folks that should have won. :)

[vcsnover]

Unfortunately, folks like us are the minority... meaning, those that do it for the good of the planet, or their kids future, etc. The cold reality is, in my opinion, that until it is made a for profit alternative to the status quo, either through government tax breaks, heavy fines/regulations (that actually are enforced with some teeth), there will be no change, at least not on a large enough scale to make a real difference. People go into business to make money and if you can make money and help the planet, or help others to help the planet then I think that could only be a good thing. Just my two cents.

[Kermit]

For raising awareness on the GW issue. No, I do not agree with it.... :)

Him winning the Nobel, tarnishes it a bit, don't you think? Oh well, I am still amazed of the tomfoolery that goes on in this country.

Back to carbon credits:

I was reading the lastest issue of Rolling Stone. It has an interview with Jane Goodall, she was asked about energy sources, she clearly doesn't like Bio-fuels, her solution is Carbon Credits.

I am confused by her answer, how does buying Carbon Credits (carbon trading) solve our energy needs?

Go to Page 164: http://www.rollingstoneextras.com/rsdigitaledition/editionLg.php

[Ursidae69]

Him winning the Nobel, tarnishes it a bit, don't you think? Oh well, I am still amazed of the tomfoolery that goes on in this country.


No, I do not think it tarnishes it at all. The peace prize is not an American award, so it has nothing to do with any "tomfoolery" in this country, even though we have a LOT of it, most prominently at the top. The peace prize is awarded by a Norwegian committee and the other science prizes are awarded by a Swedish committee.

Maybe this shows that the rest of the world might think this whole GW issue is bigger than us Americans do?

The Rolling Stone interview is very provocative, thanks for linking that. :)

[Kermit]

Maybe this shows that the rest of the world might think this whole GW issue is bigger than us Americans do?

The Rolling Stone interview is very provocative, thanks for linking that. :)

Al does deserve something for bringing awarness, but, I think he is getting awarded just a tad too much...just a tad. I am sure there a several people not in the headlines that deserve it more than he does.

The issue is serious, but, for the life of me I can't take Al Gore seriously.

Edit: I actually thought it was joke, when I heard Al won the Nobel. I always thought it was reserved for the elite, the most brilliant minds of our world. But, what do the hell I know, I am just a cynical opinionated jackass.

There are some great interviews in that RS issue, I can't seem to put it down. I am not a huge fan of Rolling Stone, it just started showing up in my mail box.