Your Questions About Green Living

The Expert answers:

The basic idea that people who feel bad about something can buy them to get rid of the guilt.

The way that they work is that a very small amount (much less than the subsidies and tax breaks given to politically correct energy) of money goes to those who operate a wind turbine or solar panel (or even methane gas recovery systems at landfills, sometimes things that would have to be built regardless of whether any carbon credits were sold), the amount of money that the carbon offset actually provides is really too small to actually encourage use of politically correct energy, especially when you consider how much bigger the subsidies are (and they really are over-subsidised compared to how much energy they produce).

Of course there are renewable energy credit systems that do actually help, just that they cost so much more that the frauds out compete them (and governments don’t seem too interested in keeping that sector honest, some such schemes are actually run by the government, including some that sell more renewable energy than they actually generate (in other areas of the economy the word used for that is fraud)).

The main purposes that renewable energy credits serve are to act as indulgences and to help fool people into believing that fossil fuels can be replaced without using nuclear power (which thereby prevents fossil fuels from actually being replaced and keeps the coal and oil companies in business).

The Expert answers:

I don’t think the certificates are designed to save you money. My utility company has a program called greeen energy that cost me about 1/2 of 1%, so about $10 in the summer. They will buy electricity from renewable/clean sources in the amount that the participants in the program use. This helps build the demand for renewable energy and fund new projects. Part of the program also helps with the rebates offered for homes and businesses to install solar systems.

I know you can buy credits to offset travel and a variety of other things, but again I don’t think they are designed to save money. It is a way for people who want to do their part to reduce carbon emissions to help fund programs that will help reduce CO2 in other ways.

The Expert answers:

There is a table from the Dept. Of Energy that compares various vendors and their costs. See:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/certificates.shtml?page=1

In effect, you are donating money to fund alternative energy sources (wind, solar, hydro, biogas) that subsequently feed into the nat’l power grid.

Since you are donating money, you might as well get a charitable deducation on your income taxes. The nativeenergy.com site won’t give a definitive answer on this question, but suggests you can do it.

So go with a group which is a charitable non-profit organization that clearly states donations are tax deductible. Look at your yearly electricity bills, multiply kilowatt hours by 2 cents and donate that much.

Unlike the carbon offset credits that are often nebulous and sometimes outright fraudulent, renewable energy credits (RECs) trace back to definite generating capacity that can be (and usually are) audited to make sure they are above board. (The US gov’t buys RECs, so any egregious fraud tends to get uncovered quickly.)

I think you are taking the right approach to renewable energy, and these projects will stand the test of time regardless of how the global warming issue pans out.

Despite all the bashing of the US, the graph at:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/GHG2006-en

shows how the EU-25 don’t come close to meeting their Kyoto promises.

The non-Kyoto country, the US, in 2006 DECREASED CO2 emissions in by 1.4%.

I guess that signing Kyoto and then reneging somehow makes countries feel noble and good about themselves. But buying RECs that actually do something doesn’t count.

The Expert answers:

I don’t know any web sites but I can tell you why I don’t like the idea of tax credits for alternative energy. Tax credits are a penalty against conventional energy sources. If the alternatives are so great they shouldn’t need tax credits to make them competitive. Using tax credits to make alternative energy able to compete with conventional sources doesn’t encourage the companies that make alternatives from improving their products to compete in a free market. The tax credits have to be replaced with some other source of revenue or savings. The term “savings” is not known to the government so they raise taxes or increase the deficit. Their is also the administrative cost of monitoring the tax credits. That means more government. Let the laws of supply and demand work without government interference

The Expert answers:

Sorry, but actually voting no would have required McCain to take a stand. Reread the article – he failed to appear for the vote 8 times. On one of those occasions, he was in his office and refused to come to the Senate floor. The man is a career politician to his core and cannot be taken at his word.

EDIT: To Cracker: Why does the government give tax breaks to oil companies? As you say, if it’s an economically feasible industry, it doesn’t need those. So you’re saying you’re with Obama on this one – we should eliminate those tax breaks and start taking some of the money back to help consumers? Now you’re thinking right!