renewable energy magazine articles
When done properly, solar panels for the home not only can eliminate your utility bills, but may also generate enough additional power to sell back to the Utility! Here's some information that will help you. Free DIY Solar Panels Review
renewable energy magazine articles
Promotion means of carbon offset
Typically, green represents the deadly sin of envy, but with the media contribute the company is also hypocrisy.
In this case, the hypocrisy of the media is to promote the purchase of offsets Carbon – Give a gift to a draft energy savings, as penance for the high consumption of gas jet to an exotic destination. With Al Gore and other celebrities from Hollywood to the head, the media joined the excitement, encouraging individuals and companies to offset emissions of carbon dioxide.
"If most people in time is a good thing," said reporter Russ Mitchell during the "Early Show" on CBS February 22.
Mitchell even undermined critical compensation for most people even on the radio: "It Some critics of carbon offsetting who say it makes people feel less guilty about how their lifestyle affects the environment. know, However, considered as a step in the right direction. "
Gore and others call being "carbon neutral" and is fashionable these days – Look who the fact: the Oscars, Dave Matthews, George Clooney. Indeed, "carbon neutral" was the Oxford American Dictionary word of the year in 2006.
To become carbon neutral is as simple as buying a "carbon offset" or what lawyers say. Then you can help save the planet from global warming and still fly to Cancun for vacation. Online booking sites like Travelocity and Expedia even partner with companies that sell carbon credits to consumers.
The companies then use the money for projects to reduce carbon, such as renewables such as wind and solar. The media have supported not only individuals' offsetting, but also businesses. Nightly News "praised NBC 'Timberland shoe company in the February 3 broadcast for the government not wait to take action to stop global warming by reducing and offsetting emissions.
"25 tonnes of carbon each year for all Americans. All that carbon is added to a layer of greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, "said NBC's Tom Costello." And it is possible that each of us to act locally, to really make a difference overall. "
Wall Street mantra of "greed is good" has been replaced by Green Is Good "Evening News anchor" CBS, Katie Couric said on February 26.
However, carbon offsetting may also be a joke economists and environmentalists. "The issue of 'good' energy in order to justify the" bad energy "Is like eating salad in order to justify eating dessert. This is an exercise in self-delusion," wrote economist and author Arnold Kling on March 6.
Just one day after the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar in the green ',' Oscar, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported irregularities in the former vice president of green sermons.
In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh over 20 times the national average, the free market of ideas expressed, highlighting the hypocrisy of the message Al Gore's conservation.
An article in The Tennessean defended Gore from the charges, saying "The green energy is used in home in Tennessee, and quoted a spokeswoman Kalee Krider who said: "They, of course, make carbon".
But it is that purchase offsets through Gore, Generation Investment Management, a company he founded and chairs.
While Gore is argued that his movements and energy options that can extend raids across the world to spread the conservation message, a BBC article from February 20 said compensation programs may actually be harmful.
The BBC quoted Jutta Kill, Forests and network resources of the European Union (FERN), who said that the compensation does not reduce carbon emissions and the public is seriously wrong.
Killing and several other environmentalists are explained in the story that the compensation often go to tree planting and other projects, but are not really dealing with its effects on the global environment. The compromise of the system, said, because people believe they are taking steps to reduce gas emissions greenhouse when they buy offsets.
Planting trees to offset carbon emissions was also criticized by columnist Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun. To absorb the bulk of carbon dioxide caused by a passenger to board a flight way back home via Canada in 2007, planting Requires 15 trees today that will not be completed until the year 2047-2057, assuming none of them was destroyed by fire, disease or insects. If they are, they will release their carbon into the atmosphere.
In Mai 2006 Wired Magazine, in which Al Gore said purchase for 1 million miles in air travel worldwide in 2005, also admitted that the average American is unlikely that the practice of carbon offsetting, which is essentially a system of voluntary tax.
But now what if the voluntary offsetting becomes mandatory?
Carbon offsets are an option for individuals and businesses who want to spend money, but a legislative proposal called "cap and trade" emissions limit force by industry or the economy as a whole and act as a tax, according to some experts.
Al Gore has called global trading emissions, also called cap and trade approach "responsible for solving the climate crisis," according to Newsweek.
Cap-and-trade system is a twofold. The "ceiling" is a government imposed on carbon emissions, either for industry or the economy as a whole. The "trade" is a government to create the market to buy and sell pollution credits and greenhouse gas emissions. Companies remain under the limit can then sell credits so someone else can emit more greenhouse allows the CAP. The bulk of high emissions companies try to offset their own emissions by paying out less business.
A CAP and a regional trading system is in preparation for the western United States, now that the governors Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington have signed an agreement in late February.
The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post covered the story positively February 27 without including any criticism. The Times even called "a plan against global warming," and called it a market "based" approach. Between the two floors, 10 people or groups have been cited that support this cap and trade agreement.
But, according to an editorial in the edition of the weekend 3-4 March, The Wall Street Journal not a market approach: There is no market here unless the government creates.
Kling, an economist and author who writes with frequency for TCS Daily, called cap-and-trade "policy of law on which companies will be given licenses to pollute, which would then trade in a market."
Then, the rights declared such a tax "and subsidy scheme" because companies that exceed the government essentially be taxed to have to buy credits from another company.
The editorial in the Wall Street Journal has called on companies lobbying for "researchers Revenue weekend paper editing'en 3-4 March.
In his chronicle of the Journal of January 26, Kimberley A. Strassel explains why 10 large companies, who joined the Climate Action Partnership, called for a national cap on emissions of carbon dioxide. Several companies utilities with investments in wind, hydro and nuclear energy, while others have invested in biofuels, but the point is that each represents a profit and 'Sock while its competitors, "Strassel wrote.
Duke Energy CEO James Rogers said earlier this year: "If you're not on the table when negotiations are underway, which will be on the menu. "
Cap-and-trade system promotes the idea that the planet has suffered as a result will reduce emissions and global warming will be mitigated, but can not be the case.
Echoing Couric noted that "green is good", Newsweek reported on climate change now. Any agreement, it reeks of greenhouse gas emissions has accused Goldman Sachs, who directs the transformation Eco Wall Street, according to the edition of March 12.
Legislator suggested that the CAP and trade legislation is Sen. John McCain (R Arizona). When Miles O'Brien of CNN asked McCain about his support for cap-and-trade system, McCain called "free market based on the proposal which is working in Europe [to reduce gas emissions Greenhouse].
O'Brien did not disagree or mention any criticism of buffers and trade during the interview, nor the fight against McCain's claims about how well cap and trade is active in Europe.
"In fact, CO2 emissions in Europe increasing twice as fast as the U.S. since Kyoto, three times faster since 2000, "wrote Christopher C. Horner, senior lecturer at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, February 2 Washington Times.
Horner, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism "has also wrote in his book that the only countries in Europe, which significantly reduces emissions, with one exception, made the old fashioned way: the collapse economy.
Schemes emissions trading scheme has proved little more than a shell game, allowing polluters in the developed world to shift the burden of making cuts on factories in the developing world, Newsweek International reported March 12.
The decrease in emissions is not a guarantee. Without But under the CAP and trade, research companies working with government to build the market and invest in projects that emit less carbon dioxide. They can benefit while ordinary citizens and the poor lose by costs are higher in their camp.
"The CAP and proposals on trade would be the largest tax increase in American history" The Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said February 14. While some large companies can benefit from these schemes, the American people would be seriously hampered, especially the middle class, working poor families and low income.
Horner agreed. "The tax on carbon dioxide and ration systems are regressive: they disproportionately affect the poor and elderly, "he writes in his book.
In fact, this green plan may take a bit of green in the wallet.
"The group of environmental resources for the future that have cap and trade are in fact four times as costly to the economy as an energy tax to achieve the same result, "Horner says.
In his book, Horner includes figures of loss Cumulative gross domestic product in 2025 of three separate CAP and trade policies have been introduced Senate. The range of losses of 331 billion U.S. $ 1.4 trillion.
About the Author
James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.
James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.
“The 7 Myths of Alternative Energy”