Is there any value just to getting the issue on the table? Or do the yammering and almost meaningless action begin to shut our ears and numb our minds?

Might there be some good byproducts? Might increased demand for wind-generated energy increase interest and investment in the area and ultimately lead to technological breakthroughs, social acceptance of turbines, and efficiencies that lower the cost of such energy and/or increase the types of situations where it might be viably produced so that wind-generated energy would start actually replacing coal- and oil-generated energy?

When I get pessimistic about these things, I remember that thirty years ago, people all over America smoked just about everywhere, including hospitals and nursing homes. Similarly, although we still have a distance to go on racial issues, we have come a very great distance from where we were fifty years ago. I’m not for getting snookered by hype and spin but I also don’t want to be broadly negative about nascent efforts.

“Get yur solar-cooked, organic hot dog here!”

First, nothing changes at Gillette! They are using the same amount of power from the same dirty sources that they used last year. Just as much carbon is going into the atmosphere. (And, by the way, do you think that the Kraft’s fly commercial when they go to away games? I doubt it! In fact, I bet you a lunch at Owl Feather War Bonnet Wind Farm that the Krafts take a separate private jet from the one that the team uses. No worries, though! They are buying offsets.

Second, why can’t a newspaper article like this quote any skeptics? Why not just reprint the Patriots’ news release?

Third, did you note the key number that is not reported? How much money did the Patriots spend on these offsets? As far as we know, it could be $1! The entire rest of the article would still be true even if no real money was used.

Fourth, even if some non-trivial amount of money was used, what is the real world substance? Was less carbon put into the atmosphere? Not that I can see. At best, those dollars subsidize wind power, thereby encouraging firms to build more windmills. Maybe that is a good thing but it is not clear that this meaningfully decreases carbon emissions. That only happens if this wind power displaces carbon-power that would have been used in its place. Is there much evidence of that? Not that I can see.

In any case, make-work here beats having a totally free market that incidentally underwrites international terrorism.

You can read about the study here http://carbonneutraldigest.com/?p=89