Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (57971)	4/17/2007 3:32:05 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

That's OK. Gore and his friends can afford higher food prices. And the bonus is that people struggling to pay for food will bring them more votes. Especially when they blame it on greedy corporate farmers and global warming, and promise handouts for "the victims".

To: Sully- who wrote (57971)	4/26/2007 11:34:15 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 90947

Jonathan Adler, April 26, 2007 at 8:51am] Trackbacks Can Carbon Offsets Be Confirmed? Many celebrities have sought to burnish their environmental credentials by purchasing "carbon offsets" to compensate for their lavish lifestyles. Former vice president Al Gore, among others, claims the purchase of such offsets enables him to live a "carbon neutral" lifestyle, despite his conspicuous energy consumption. Think of these carbon offsets as environmental <u<indulgences. Some corporations have also begun to purchase carbon offsets so as to reduce their net carbon dioxide emissions. An investigation by the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html) suggests that many carbon offsets are illusory, and that there is little assurance that purchasing carbon offsets does much of anything to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, the report found: - Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions. - Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially. - Brokers providing services of questionable or no value. - A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits. - Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts. The idea of markets for carbon emissions is a good one. If carbon dioxide emissions need to be reduced, it makes sense to achieve those reductions in the most cost-effective manner possible. Carbon credits can also enable those with stronger environmental preferences to take additional voluntary action, such as celebrity carbon offset purchasers have purported to do. The problem is that offset plans can often be more difficult and costly to verify than more traditional means of controlling emissions. When these costs are factored in, it is not always the case that such market-based approaches are more cost-effective than more clumsy alternatives. The bottom line is that if Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio truly want to be sure they are reducing their carbon footprint, they are going to have to reduce their own energy consumption, rather than paying others to do it for them. volokh.com