Carbon neutral Hill office.
By on Feb 6th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Carbon neutral Hill office.
Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) yesterday “announced that he was installing low-energy fluorescent bulbs, turning down the office temperature, and spending $672 of his own money to buy ‘carbon credits’ from two Vermont renewable energy projects that are part of an emerging business practice called carbon trading.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
How do you turn down the air temperature in a Congressional office? Open the windows?
February 6th, 2007 at 9:56 amGood for you, Rep. Welch.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:00 amNow, can we find a way to make our government ‘Bush neutral’?
Zimzone: That would require a spine, and currently that resource is rare in D.C.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:05 amHis poor staffers. Those offices can get mighty cold as it is.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:20 amOn Sunday, I earned 12 carbonated credits for not drinking the same number of beers, and a bonus 12 credits for not watching the Stupid Bowl.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:25 amThey’re Vermonters, they can handle the cold………..
February 6th, 2007 at 10:26 amThat’s nice.
Got anything else, TP?
February 6th, 2007 at 10:30 amFrom the article:
Welch then approached a Vermont company, NativeEnergy, which agreed to take his money to help pay for a methane project on a Westminster dairy farm and a biomass, pellet-fired boiler to replace a fossil-fuel one at Vermont Technical College in Randolph.
Well, biomass combustion also releases CO2, so I dont understand too much. Common lightbulbs produce 90% heat and 10% of light when the current passes throught the filament. But I dont think thats an issue. What you do with fluorescent bulbs is to save electricity. Fluorescent bulbs are a common thing around cities, so I dont know whats the fuss about. What he should do is to put PV and thermal solar devices on his rooftop to stop burning fuel to get hot water and electricty.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:32 amGee, somebody trying to lead and set an example.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:33 amNot just words, behavior shows leadership.
Got that George the pretender.
Great idea, Congressman Welch. The more people in positions of leadership do this sort of thing, the less people will complain that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will somehow destroy our economy.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:37 amCarbon trading is the biggest load of Enron-style BS I’ve ever heard of. This idea that somehow you aren’t polluting because you gave money to some farmer in North Dakota is completely ridiculous. Totally and completely farking ridiculous.
All it means is that rich people who do all the polluting (of all sorts) can continue to pollute as much as ever as long as they pay money. It seems to me like “carbon trading” is just a tool created by energy companies and other corporation to allow them to continue polluting while circulating money in a way that DOES NOT encourage the reduction of pollution but instead makes the acceptance and tolerance of pollution something you may one day get paid for.
Maybe instead of spending money to “bribe” people to say it’s okay to pollute, these people/companies should spend that money on reducing their pollution or incesting in cleaner fuels, energy, etc. Oh wait…chances are it’s cheaper to buy carbon credits than it is to actually change your behaviour and as a result it is less likely to affect your bottom line than actual change.
This is just the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am#8…What you do with fluorescent bulbs is to save electricity.
Much of our electricity comes from burning coal which produces CO2. This is the reason we are encouraged to use ‘curly bulbs’ … along with the money savings in electricity of course.
If you haven’t seen the movie “Killowatt Ours”… it’s a real eye-opener on the relationship between electricity and carbon emissions.
If you’ve already switched to curly bulbs, you can make a visual statement about them by visiting our campaign and ordering curly bulb themed T-shirts and bumper stickers from ourCurly Is In selections.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:31 amDon’t fluorescent bulbs give one headaches, blurred vision and make them depressed -sometimes resorting to thoughts of suicide or homicide? Maybe, we should all get together and send many, many boxes of fluorescent bulbs to the GOP and all the Republican Congressmen as a sign of “good faith”, because we really care. At least, I know I do -really care, I mean.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:51 am#13. That is the older syle of flourescent bulbs. It had something to do with the intensity or frequency of light they emitted as well is the perpetual humming sound they made. Most flourescents are now available is various “colours” including one meant to replicate sunlight. It is rare that they hum…and the curly bulbs make no noise at all.
I also wanted to point out that all this talk from Bush and TV commercials about clean-coal technology being the solution to our energy problems, dependance on foreign oil and GHG emissions makes me laugh. While clean coal does reduce the amount of pollution and GHG…coal still requires tons of heavy machinery to dig up and transport. Massive polluting trucks and scoops and whatever else, that need more fuel than the least efficient hummer.
And if anyone has seen what happens to our environemnt after it has been strip mined for coal wouldn’t be advocating it as a “green” alternative. Think of mountains and trees essentially being levelled and replaced by miles of black tar. But since we’re burning it cleaner, we won’ need those trees to absorb the CO2 emissions anymore.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pmAmazing, you have 13% of Congressional Republicans who believe that humanity is playing a role in global warming, while you have a Congressional Democrat being a part of the solution. Makes you wonder why conservatives hate America.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:18 pm#14- Damn! Back to the drawing board!
February 6th, 2007 at 12:28 pmEXCELLENT! My home state of NC allows power companies to collect money to send to the state to support carbon-free power generation plants on my behalf and I take advantage of that too. I also use florescent bulbs (they save money too). I’m not carbon neutral yet, but I’m getting there. I applaud the Representative from Vermont.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:56 pmI know you were making a joke, but I just want to point out to anybody who didn’t clue in on this post that the “curly” florescent bulbs that fit in normal sockets do not flicker and do not cause headaches and so on, and also have a warmer, more natural color temperature than the long traditional florescent bulbs.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pm