Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush vs. Gore in energy consumption
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2542 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 33 of 77 (399880)
05-08-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by riVeRraT
05-08-2007 4:28 PM


as to offsetting carbon emissions:
I work at REI. At our store, all of our power comes from non-renewable resources.
However, we don't pay just for that electrical power. We pay X amount more so that 40% of the power we use is offset by the production of electricity by renewable resources. Even though the specific store I work at does not get the renewable energy, someone is.
Gore is doing something similar. Even if his house itself is not using renewable energy, he's paying for the creation of such, and someone is using it.
The whole idea behind offsetting carbon emmissions is this:
My carbon footprint is 100 lbs per year (just a random figure). To offset that, I'll pay extra so somewhere along the line, 100 lbs of carbon is not being produced. Note that that's the ideal situation, which REI doesn't do (yet).
What you mention
Cutting your energy costs, and upgrading your heating and AC equipment is offsetting your carbon emmisions.
is actually called reducing your carbon emmissions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 4:28 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 8:19 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024