BLAKE: Expiating your carbon sins
Peter Blake
Published April 16, 2008 at 4:34 p.m.
You don't have to wait to be taxed and regulated into paying much more for energy - although you certainly will be. The state of Colorado has a program that lets you pay more now for what you're already getting.
If you feel guilty about the size of your carbon footprint, state government is making it easy for you to expiate your sin. All you have to do is contribute to its new "carbon fund," which is run out of the greatly expanded Governor's Energy Office.
The proceeds from these "carbon offsets" will go to projects within the state that will reduce, by "a quantifiable amount," the carbon going into the atmosphere, says Tom Plant, head of the energy office.
Although this program bears an eerie resemblance to the sale of indulgences by the medieval church, the process is entirely secular and no representations are made as to your fate in the afterlife.
What your offsets are supposed to do is slow down the process of "global warming." If you're in "the tiny, tiny minority" who doubt your energy consumption causes warming, then you are among "those who believe the Earth is flat." Or so says Al Gore, who has been elevated to the post of secular pope by the college of environmental cardinals. When he issues his bulls, he brooks no heretics.
"There are snake-oil offset programs out there," says Plant, but he says Colorado's isn't one of them. "Certain criteria need to be followed to make it a bona fide carbon offset." It's called "additionality," he says. It's something "that wouldn't have been done without investment in the carbon fund."
The carbon fund program will have three main divisions, according to carbon fund manager Susan Innis: At-home, vehicular and air travel.
The program hopes to soon to have a Web site that will help you estimate how much carbon dioxide your house and your vehicles are putting out. But you can get a preliminary estimate by going to a site out of Oregon: CarbonCounter.org. Just don't click on its "Donate Now" button. Save your money for Colorado!
You can choose to offset as much or as little as you want of the estimated $15-$20-per-ton cost of your carbon dioxide equivalent. The program hopes to raise $3 million a year or more.
A third-party nonprofit organization apparently has been recruited to operate the carbon fund but it won't be identified until next week. The fact it's a nonprofit makes it possible for your contributions to the fund to be tax-deductible.
Plant and Innis hope the fund will also be supplemented by fees paid by purchasers of a special "Colorado Carbon Fund" license plate. Under Senate Bill 186, now in the House, it would be issued to owners of vehicles weighing under eight tons who make a contribution to the carbon fund, invest at least $50 in energy-efficiency devices for the home - and pay an additional fee for the plate.
SB 186's sponsors, by the way, are Republican. The GOP has decided it can regain the majority by becoming Democratic Lite.
In January, Denver International Airport announced it would try to establish its own carbon offset program. If you're jetting off to Bali, say, to join Al Gore at a global warming conference, you could appease your conscience by buying an indulgence at a kiosk or computer on the concourse. But that program, not yet operating, may become part of the state carbon fund.
History says the voluntary state carbon fund is likely to survive even as more coercive and expensive anti-carbon measures are enacted. For instance, Xcel Energy's long-running Windsource program, which asks customers to pay extra so Xcel can buy more wind-generated electricity, is still fully subscribed with 43,000 customers.
And that's despite the fact Xcel was recently compelled by the legislature to produce 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, even if it has to charge all its ratepayers more.
Peter Blake is a former Rocky Mountain News political columnist. He can be reached at pblake0705@comcast.net.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Broncos Game Action
Click for more game action photos from Invesco field.
-
2008 Race for the Cure
The 16th Annual Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A Dozen on Denver
Connie Willis is the featured author this week in 'A Dozen on Denver'
-
Rocky Truth Patrol
Reporters Laura Frank and Katie Kerwin McCrimmon hunt for truth in politics.
-
Peak Picks
Submit your fall foliage photos to our contest and vote on other submissions.
April 16, 2008
8:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
a_watcher writes:
Can a carbon tax be imposed on political hot air?
April 17, 2008
midnight
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
And I thought the mafia had the corner on extortion.
April 17, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
.011 or 11 one thousands of 1% is the estimated co2 contribution of man to the greenhouse gasses, before it's absorbed by plants, oceans and other natural processes in our great world. Insignificant impact. On top of that it's never been proven that CO2 actually causes warming. Much to the dismay of the green militia, it's the SUN that has been responsible for our climate. NOTE--since 1999 It's been cooling while CO2 readings have been allegedly rising. ( a much hidden fact that the alarmists don't want you to see) What is needed is clear thinking, LESS of the hysteria, MORE common sense and a "just say NO" policy to the elitists who seek environmental control to seize your freedoms. What's needed NOW is cheap energy (by LESS regulation) and a stronger dollar period. And if you think it's OIL companies raising the prices,...go find a chart of the declining US Dollar and do the math...it's pretty simple, OIL is being adjusted for our dollar which loses its value daily due to the policies of this CONGRESS to spend money which they print (yet the Fed calls is borrowing) requiring MORE paper to buy the same things. Are they tied together, of course. Get your officials to back Energy polices based on growth not restriction, and financial policies based on conservation. They have it backwards.
April 17, 2008
7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
Man, have you been over-caffeinating? It looks as though you were up most of the night and posted 9 times-wow! What's that all about? You're actually encouraging icdrjjxant to post a rant? I don't know buddy, even buying carbon credits makes more sense than that!
April 17, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
So an old coal plant is forced to clean up, costing millions of dollars, by wealthy politicians and their laws, and luckily it generates carbon offsets for the slight improvement in efficiency. The poor pay more for their electricity to pay for the improvements, and the rich pay a pittance so they can justify going out and emitting the difference from their huge houses and gas guzzling cars. The amount of carbon going into the air remains the same, and the poor are fleeced for the egos of the rich. Sounds to me like business as usual.
April 17, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
ghoax,
I am not a climatologist, are you? I am a botanist however and have seen first-hand some of global warming on plants I work with. Unlike Gene, the president of the United States and I do believe in global warming and that man does play a part. The real controversy which you speak of is the degree to which man has a role. You say that CO2 has never been proven to be a causative agent of global warming. As a scientist, I would explain that no theory is ever totally proven, be it relativity , evolution or Co2 as a factor in global warming. Scientists test and then retest these theories over many years and the results are reviewed and replicated by other scientists. Its a very careful and painstaking process.
As I said, I'm not a climatologist. I know certain things about CO2, among them the fact that it accumulates in the atmosphere over time, One would expect, logically, that man's introductions of this gas over time to be small in any given year, but much like bank deposits, would add up to a much more significant amount overtime. The natural world is indeed the major contributor, but I certainly don't believe it takes a very great intellectual jump to accept that man is making GW worse or to move along faster than it would naturally.
Even if you don't believe man is an agent of global warming certain steps such as energy conservation make sense anyway, as they reduce other pollutants that you can actually see and smell with your own senses. Diversifying some of our energy sources into the areas of solar, wind and geothermal also make sense on the geopolitical level, not to mention adding jobs to rural areas.
If you are a fiscal conservative, as I am, you can save money by installing cfl bulbs, buying a more efficient car or insulating your home. I believe far more in taking steps such as these first before considering carbon offsets.
April 17, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene.
Actually I am having a cup of Joe before launching into the world of business. I kind of like the "Fat Albert" joke. I might even use it myself sometime.
Actually I'm not in the middle of the road on global warming, I do believe we are having an effect on the process. I just have a problem with "Fat Albert" setting himself up as the Guru of a grass roots movement I was a part of when he was still contemplating what he wanted to be when he grew up. Hmmm, that was a looooong sentence. Maybe I need a little less coffee this morning?
Gore is a flawed messenger because he didn't green up his own act as he should have prior to going on tour with the GM message. I feel a little like the trusting evangelicals whose most prominent leaders have so often been caught with their pants down to the embarrassment of all concerned. I didn't vote for Al either to be president or "Pontiff" of the environmental movement. As I've said before he's an inconvenient distraction now from the inconvenient truth he is trying to promote.
As for carbon credits? Until they are better accountable and certified somehow, I'll put my money into conservation efforts in my home and business.
I'll also continue working my tail off trying to do damage control for the environmental message, no thanks to"Fat Albert".
April 17, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Squatch,
The day I see you being able to post without insult will be the day I think there is hope for the world!
April 17, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
The GHG / climate change hoax is based on flawed models that can't even replicate the 20th century where we have real data available to test the models. China has built over 150 coal fired plants since 2005 and placed online 186,000 MW of coal fired power in 2006 and 2007. CO2 control efforts are a joke and will have no effect whatsoever on the climage where man's contribution to global GHGs is only 0.04% of the total. Kind of like the equivalent to 1.7" on a 100 yd football field. At least the morons that volunteer for these measures do so without trying to force it on the rest of us. It is where there try to force their will on the masses that we have to draw the line.
April 17, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
I think so don't you? How else would Squatch intend it? I like your use of the word "enviros". Its a logical abbreviation and sounds informal without being insulting.
April 17, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
pak,
Better words might be : flawed, well intended but misguided or some other more accurate and less mean spirited way of way of referring to individuals who contribute to carbon credits.
You might not agree with them, but that certainly doesn't make them morons or you the brightest bulb out of the box by comparison.
I won't contribute to carbon credits at this point either, but I commend people any time and anywhere who at voluntarily go to a little expense and effort to combat something they regard as being a problem. Call them misguided or say they are using flawed logic but don't insult them.
At least they care enough to do something without looking for what's in it for themselves the way so many people do!
April 17, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
I found the indulgence part rather comical. Every person can now get out of their car and walk to work hitting their head with a board...oh the carbon...oh the carbon...bad...bad...bad...bad me...bad...bad...bad me! I find the parallel of the medieval Lords and Bishops misuse of Christianity and the socialists use of "Global Warming" to control the minds of people rather intriguing.
April 17, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
Looks like a good program to me, and why not? It's not mandatory, there are already many other offset programs out there that are putting there money into projects, why not have one that invests its money in Colorado?
I have a hard time following the people who post on this page. If it were mandatory, you'd be screaming about liberal crazies controlling your life. When it's voluntary you scream about.... well.... liberal crazies controlling your life.
Get a grip!
April 17, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
socrates,
You have a good point, these people are taxing themselves. So what is the problem?
I wonder if those who are complaining the loudest would consider doing the same self taxation for something they believe in? If they would consider it than why don't they understand why others would?
April 17, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
SASQUATCH.
I congratulate you on a pretty decent stab at humour without insult. Good for you buddy. I'm glad to see it! Can we expect more of the same? I hope so!
April 17, 2008
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
socrates,
Give it time it will be mandatory. Remember when you could chose renewable energy. Now it has become a mandate.
Mark79trans,
When I see a Prius, I drop to the ground and chant I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy.
April 17, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
So that was you that I had to swerve to avoid the other day? At least wear brighter colors and reflectors if you are out at night, actually a flare might help too!
April 17, 2008
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
That's a good one!
April 17, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Greenleaf
Florence clothes and flares contribute to global warming, as does erratic driving. You should have hit me.
April 17, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
Actually, the Prius has regenerative brakes. I can slam on them and hope for the best, but I won't waste that much energy doing it!
I worry a little about my alignment though if I don't stop in time. Could you try to distribute yourself evenly across the road just in case?
Thanks buddy! You're a pal!
April 17, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
I've been thinking, the Prius is pretty roomy, but I'm still not sure there would be enough room for Cheney's ego. He better stick with his custom stretch Hummer ambulance with the tow behind extra fuel supply.
April 17, 2008
2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Greenleaf,
Sure thing. Anything for the planet. Cautioun, I'm a plus size guy. No amount of distribution will save your alingment.
April 17, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
Besides, that's what "Fat Albert" uses. If they want to be environmental, maybe they could carpool!
April 17, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Just for fun, I went to greenprogress.com and calculated my families so-called carbon footprint.
"72,388 pounds of CO2/year
36.19 tons of CO2/year
Your overall Carbon Footprint Grade is F"
"Areas where you need the most improvement
1. Your electricity usage
2. Amount of waste you are producing
3. Amount of recycling you do
4. Number of miles you drive
5. The fuel efficiency of your car (MPG)
6. The amount of meat you eat"
I am a SINNER ...let the self loathing begin!
I better tithe 10% to the Carbon Fund or I am going to hell literally if Global Warming is true!
April 17, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
6. The amount of meat you eat ...I wonder if I need to tithe 20% since my family are ranchers? Or, maybe I will drive to my house in the mountains, dust the snow off the grill, and fix some steaks!
April 17, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
"Posted by Gene on April 17, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't it amazing. How much meat you eat? You began to see what it is really about. Enjoy your steak ! !"
The question was very general in terms of eating habits...I answered average. With a family of five and a free side of beef per year, we consume our fair share :) ...with a foot of snow in the driveway, I had to drive the Yukon today...I am an evil evil man!
April 17, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
I went to greenprogress,com. My family has a negative 84 tons per year CO2 foot print or an A+. I own a small hydro power project so my annual electric CO2 foot print is a minus 103 tons. I'm creating more CO2 credits that I need to offset my family's life style. I may be one of the greenest guys in the state and I bathe daily and drive a pick-up.
April 17, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Gene,
The reason I find this carbon thing so ridiculous is that carbon dioxide is a building block of life. Carbon dioxide can be used for photosynthesis organically or synthetically. If we are so worried about CO2 levels, lets make some Oxygen out of it, plant some trees, or whatever. This can be done without scaring the hell out of everyone. Like the Spotted Owl of the 80s, this is a means to accomplish a secret agenda. ...nothing like releasing more of our freedoms all in the name of being "Green".
April 17, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
"Posted by Trythinking on April 17, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I went to greenprogress,com. My family has a negative 84 tons per year CO2 foot print or an A+. I own a small hydro power project so my annual electric CO2 foot print is a minus 103 tons. I'm creating more CO2 credits that I need to offset my family's life style. I may be one of the greenest guys in the state and I bathe daily and drive a pick-up."
Yes, but are you protecting the fish...you can't forget about the poor fish. The BPA in the Northwest was pushed by the environmentalists for years to pull down the dams. The fish! The fish! The poor poor little fish!
April 17, 2008
6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
OK- you must admit, for Peter Blake, especially, this is funny! My teenager, who is studying European History, said, even before I got to the "indulgences" part, (while he was eating breakfast and I was boring him with the Opinion section because I'm a good mother), "Geez, that sounds like medieval indulgences", then we hit the floor laughing when Blake said it, too!
We try to be conscientious, and I am sure there is some validity to this issue, but I think the reason that people are so scornful is that the "progressive" way of thinking is so guilt based! And I'm an Italian Catholic, so I KNOW guilt! Seriously, I am very skeptical of giving the gov't more of my $$$ to create more gov't jobs to create more need for gov't research which will require more of my $$$ to create more gov't jobs...you get the picture.
I know it's voluntary to give to this particular effort NOW, but the huge increase in tax dollars spent to enlarge the Governor's Energy Office, and the dollars being spent there, are not. And I foresee that in the near future, this will not be a choice, and because of politics, not facts (see the bio-fuels boondoggle). As a small business owner, I foresee this impacting me and my employees greatly, as we are the main source of revenue for a short-sighted gov't that does not understand that the trough is finite.
That's why people are laughing at this now- because we still can.
April 17, 2008
6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Guys,
I know that there has been a lot of hysteria associated with the environmental movement through the years. Some of it is laughable and lends itself to jokes. What else can you do?
You are all logical guys and I've spoken to all of you before. I like to think that as a businessman and conservative where it comes to economics and regulation that I have a pretty level head. I come from a very long line of farmers who loved the land as much as you probably do Mark, coming as you do from a ranching family. I think most of us have been around the block a few times, maybe a few too many times! I assume that you are a Colorado native Mark as I am. We have seen quite a few changes over the years: more people, more highways, more sprawl, more pollution. We have also seen open spaces disappear, cities expand, noise and crowding increase. We have gained 3 million people in this state since I was born in 1950,and a lot more are coming . I like people guys, and always have, but I like nature too.
What is a person to do if they see something they have always loved be threatened? Should they sit by idly and do nothing? Should they not try to intervene? Different people have different styles. Some are by nature combative or shrill. Some are great communicators and others would be better letting others speak for them. When people feel that their lifestyles or livelihoods are threatened, they organize, march, blow, bluster and threaten. How is this any different?
Just for the hell of it guys, how do think it should be approached? Do you honestly think that environmentalism has no merit and is just a yuppie diversion?
I'd really like to know.
April 17, 2008
7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Greenleaf
Yes, I am a Colorado native; I sure liked Colorado far better in 1990 then I do now. I don't think environmental awareness is at all bad. I believe that mainstream thinking encourages environmental responsibility. However, I see the extreme preservationists using scare tactics to push theory as facts and scare mainstream thinkers into more radical positions. The Endangered Species Act is the most costly, most rigid, the most community impacting, and often the most ridiculous piece of legislation ever drafted. It is foolishness to think we can preserve anything; however we can mitigate for wildlife while minimizing community and individual impact as well. Some species will die out as have throughout this planet's history. To sustain our population, we will need to look at power and water in a different way. I am all for pushing technology to ensure our national security. However, I don't even think that people in this country understand national security or population planning. We can't even talk about sustainable population planning without being marked as racist. Your father and my father are the same age although I am the youngest of three kids, their generation sacrificed a lot to give us a country we are flushing down the toilet. I am sure we could develop a good strategy for our nation's future if people, their freedoms, and their communities were placed first. I don't like the hidden agenda in the environmental movement and I never will. The carbon thing really blows me away given it is one of the key ingredients for life. Although, I will say I am not a bid fan of deforestation without replanting...dumb idea!
April 17, 2008
8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
mark,
I have fond memories of places my kids and grandchildren will never know because they are forever altered: buried under asphalt or covered with vacation homes. Its futile to be concerned about what is lost. My concern is with what is left. There are too many people demanding too many pieces of too small a pie. I know what you mean about being called a racist for being in favour of population control; that actually happened to me.
I don't like hidden agendas either. I know environmentalists who would use The Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and others as weapons against development, not tools to protect wildlife. I regret that immensely and have always protested and fought against it. I see the same thing happening with energy development. I understand that we need old energy sources and new energy as well. I distrust the interrelationship of the extraction industries and the current administration. Its too close and too convenient. There's a collusion of power and money that leaves me very uneasy. Its like a giant bulldozer, powerful and unyielding. Its hard to reason with a bulldozer!
The saddest part is, as you and I have previously discussed, that so few of opposing views actually speak reasonably to one another.
I'm going to sign off Mark. its been a long day and I'm not in my best form. You deserve a better discussion. Maybe tomorrow!
Thanks my friend.