Amid controversy over former Vice President Al Gore's decision to buy carbon offsets from himself, NPR's All Things Considered jumped into the fray to supposedly get to the truth. Unfortunately, as you can tell from this short broadcast and a few facts, what they did amounted to a cover up for Gore.
On Sunday night, when the movie An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar, its star, Al Gore, took the stage with a message about global warming. He called for people the world over to change the way they live, so that they have less impact on the environment.
Not so fast, said a libertarian think tank called the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. They called up the Nashville Electric Service and asked about the bills for the Gore's 10,000-square-foot home.
This much is true:
Melissa Block talks with Mark Trexler, president of Trexler Climate and Energy Services in Portland, Ore., about carbon offsets — what they are, and how a small consumer can reduce carbon emissions.
But what neither NPR nor Trexler chose to address is that, given a report performed by Trexler himself, Al Gore's method of purchasing carbon offsets doesn't pass the test.
via CNET: Cashing in on carbon guilt
Although the idea of voluntarily spending money to help preserve the environment may seem beyond reproach, a recent study has called on consumers to be more discerning about their choices.
The report (available at link above), which rated the effectiveness of these services and called for industry standards around carbon offsets, was published earlier this month by the nonprofit organization Clean Air-Cool Planet.
Based upon the analysis performed by Trexler's company, transparency and the ability to confirm the worth of any so-called carbon offsets are keys to evaluating if a program is any good, or even real. Because Gore opted to go to England and set up an LLP to, in part, purchase his offsets from himself, there is no ability for anyone outside Gore's firm to validate the program. Instead of pointing that out, the NPR report concentrated on the alleged validity of carbon offsets, leaving their listeners with the impression that what Gore is engaged in considered compliant with any standard at all.
Says CNET:
"It is a business opportunity. And just like any other, there will be good businesses and not-so-good businesses," said Bill Burtis, the communications manager at Clean Air-Cool Planet, which advises businesses and communities on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "Some folks will step up and offer high-quality products, and there will be some people who can't."
—Dan Riehl is a blogger and journalist. Read more of his work at Riehl World View.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why don't we all just send Al
March 3, 2007 - 23:16 ET byWhy don't we all just send Al a Pine Glade Air Freshener?
When the sun sets and the win
March 3, 2007 - 23:28 ET by upcountrywaterWhen the sun sets and the wind dies, what then? algore.
The wind will not die until
March 3, 2007 - 23:31 ET by dervishThe wind will not die until Al does.
I have to warn you and everyo
March 4, 2007 - 09:36 ET by ThisnThatI have to warn you and everyone else -- as a result of the Maher and Huffington Post comments about "Dick Cheny's gotta die comments", I have been assigned by Bombs 'R Us International to police all known Blogs in the Universe and seek out and destroy all future "gotta die"-type of comments.
So, for now on, no more "the wind will die" comments when talking about Al.
NPR's mission is to reassur
March 4, 2007 - 00:15 ET by zhombreNPR's mission is to reassure the Stepford Liberals. In addition to the spoken words, embedded in every broadcast are secret coded, subliminal messages only they can hear.
Terrapass is a web site where
March 4, 2007 - 00:50 ET by jdhawkTerrapass is a web site where global warming wingnuts can assuage their guilt by buying "carbon offsets."
Buried in their web pages is this:
"Additional information about Renewable Energy Certificates
When a renewable energy facility operates, it creates electricity that is delivered into a vast network of transmission wires, often referred to as "the grid." The grid is segmented into regional power pools; in many cases these pools are not interconnected. To help facilitate the sale of renewable electricity nationally, a system was established that separates renewable electricity generation into two parts: the electricity or electrical energy produced by a renewable generator and the renewable "attributes" of that generation. The renewable attributes or "green" attributes are sold separately as renewable energy certificates (RECs). Only one certificate may be issued for each unit of renewable electricity produced.
A portion of this product is comprised of RECs. With the purchase of RECs, you are buying the renewable attributes (i.e. environmental benefits) of a specific amount and type of renewable energy generation. Your purchase of renewable certificates helps offset conventional electricity generation in the region where the renewable generator is located. Your purchase also helps build a market for renewable electricity and may have other local and global environmental benefits such as reduced global climate change and regional air pollution.
The renewable certificates in this product are verified and certified by the Green-e Program. Each supplier of renewable certificates is required to disclose the quantity, type and geographic source of each certificate. Please see the Product Content Label for this information. The Green-e Program also verifies that the renewable certificates are not sold more than once or claimed by more than one party. For information on the Green-e Program please visit their website, www.green-e.org, or call them toll-free, 1-888-63-GREEN."
The bolded type is mine and gets to the heart of the scam. Basically, what they have done is "created" an attribute called RECs or Renewable Energy Certificates. This isn't the generation of actual energy, but the so-called "attribute" of that generation. Huh? They don't mention what the unit of energy generation is. They don't mention the correspondence between that unit of energy produced and the so-called attribute. It is all hokus pokus.
The bottom line is, if these forms of energy production are so great they can stand on their own and produce less polluting energy and make a profit to their owners. I don't believe they can and this is just a form of subsidization.
Look for lawmakers to make this REC or tax mandatory and after the government overhead takes it share the rest goes to the favored few that those same lawmakers have annoited as the "holy" energy producers.
And, it looks like Al Bore has positioned himself to materially benefit from just such a scenario - natch!
I think there are two product
March 4, 2007 - 05:59 ET by Carbon SasquatchI think there are two products in question here. The REC's Gore is buying (possibly from himself--sweet) to offset his enormous footprint from activities such as jetting around the world and driving some big gas guzzler; and the other is a green power product from his electric utilities in Nashville and WaDC. The interesting thing is that last fall a utility group contacted both companies and confirmed that neither house was signed up for the 'green power option'. This was reported in American Public Power Assn's newsletter and Gore's publicist, when asked why, pled ignorance and said they'd look into it. Now of course they have purchased the green option and don't bother to mention it's only been a few months.
Under the 'green power option' the consumer pays a premium per kilowat hour and the utility acquires an equal amount of power from a renewable source. It's like pouring a bottle of perrier into the reservoir then refilling the bottle from the tap and claiming it's springwater from france, but it's more real than the credits scheme.
As for the renewables producers, electricity is a cumbersome byproduct of their business. They are really farming federal tax credits. Construction of windmills in the Pacific Northwest is wholely dependent on Congress renewing the tax credit program.
You can't offset your carbo
March 4, 2007 - 12:30 ET by Dee BunkYou can't offset your carbon footprint by paying for it. When you pay for something you cause something else to be produced and you keep the evil Capitalist economy rolling. The only way to reduce your footprint is to not consume period. When the economy completely fails and we are all poor and die of starvation then the planet will be safe. Oh - but we have to kill all the animals first because they have already caused GW an Ice ages. Ah - let's all dream green for a planet with no people and no animals - what a Nirvana.
ThisNThat! Code Red! Dee
March 4, 2007 - 14:46 ET by dahliatraversThisNThat! Code Red! Dee said "kill all the animals"!
P.S. No, I still don't understand carbon offsets. As Dee said, you're still contributing greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, no matter how much money you give someone.
Exactly, dahlia. If things ar
March 4, 2007 - 15:01 ET by QueenMumExactly, dahlia. If things are as dire as alGore's movie portrays, then the only solution is for him and all the rest of us to just shut everything down until things clear up. Of course, we'll also have to convince the rest of the people on the planet to do likewise AND kill all the cows and other animals that are stinking things up with their flatulence. But we must save the polar bears. Otherwise we won't know for sure whether or not we've averted the cataclysm.
let me help then daliah
March 4, 2007 - 15:46 ET by SportPoliticslet me help then daliah:
I want to be a carbon offset provider. I'm going to make a carbon "sink", and also offset my own useage of carbon spewing.
First of all, I've wanted a nice big plush row of privacy bushes along the west property line for sometime. I've done the calculating, and if the green thumb works, over the course of one year, each big green bush will offset 13501 pounds of carbon, acting as a "sink" for fat hog polluters like Al Gore. That should net me $345.00 per shrub per year, and I'll sell for 20 years out, with 35 bushes for a total of $241,500.00 net carbon offset "purchaseables".
Next, I'll populate my 32 light bulb sockets with the curly cue flourescents, made in mexico, less than $2.00 each, but they'ell be buying the cost of the bulb and installing (at contractor rate - my wrist is an expensive contractor),plus the savings in electric -( labelled on the bulb package) . I'll sell these credits each year, because when a bulb burns outs they need to renew, at the new premium, and new electric rate ( presumably higher by then). Skip the open math, this is 3,200.00 per year all told.
Then I'll sell my carbon offset solar camping articles useage, calculating my trips to the woods and dales and streams, a nice selling point, keeping things all natural. The solar blanket,water shower pack, battery trickle charger, crank radio, flashlight, inverse dome sundog cooker, and a few other amenities gives me $455.00 per outing in "offset sales".
Thanks for the wonderful life libbies. My bushes look great, and ifone dies I'm sure I can count onanother great donation from a "concerned fellow earther".
None of this of course could happen without the care and concern of fat flying carbon pig liars like al whore.
:-)
Well done, Sporty.
March 4, 2007 - 15:48 ET by QueenMumWell done, Sporty.
Ah ... thank you for explaini
March 4, 2007 - 16:39 ET by dahliatraversAh ... thank you for explaining, SportP. I think I understand now.
By the way, Al Gore's cable channel, Current TV, was picked up by EchoStar Dish Network last month, thereby doubling the number of households that can watch his channel. Now, because of Al Gore, the television sets of many more households will be on. To watch his channel. Using electricity. (Cue ominous music.) And contributing more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. Doesn't that enlarge Al's carbon footprint quite a bit?
helps build a market for re
March 4, 2007 - 06:34 ET by motherbelthelps build a market for renewable electricity and may have other local
and global environmental benefits such as reduced global climate change
and regional air pollution.
Repeat: MAY reduce global climate change. And may not. It's like those commercials that tell you certain foods MAY help help you reduce your cholesterol.
The rest is just gibberish to me. It sounds to me like taking the option of paying a fine instead of going to jail. Nice for rich folks, but what about the rest of us poor schlubs? I guess we're just supposed to bite the bullet and take cold showers and bike everywhere when we can't afford electircity any more.
Ed Begley, Jr. has found a wa
March 4, 2007 - 15:05 ET by QueenMumEd Begley, Jr. has found a way to convince himself that he's still relevant.
Global Warming...the ultimate in narcissism...
March 4, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasGlobal warming is the ultimate expression of narcissism. Not only are libs infected with a virulent strain of the narcissism virus but it appears to have mutated causing not only the belief that the social world should revolve around them but that earth itself along with its ecosystem revolves around...who else?...truly caring and concerned LIBS. It's always about them. And now an apocalypse threatens the world unless....yes...unless libs are listened to and the lives of the rest of the world revolve around their demands and beliefs. Man it stinks in here!
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
what happened to Al-Gorezeera?
March 4, 2007 - 07:35 ET by Jack BauerAnyone up to speed on what happened to Alfred Gore's other attempt at mass brainwashing.
Remember the huge fanfare a mere 2 years ago over his TV Channel?
I think it's called Al-Gorezeera, or something.
Press had orgasms over it. Again from memory they even compared it favorably with that exciting new radio station Airhead America.
Clearly they have both been incredibly successful. Who says quasi-socialists can't give the people what they want.
That's COMMUTAINMENT!!
In a related development NPR has announced that the program formerly known as ALL THINGS CONSIDERED will be changed from April 1, 2007 to..
A FEW CAREFULLY SELECTED THINGS THAT FIT OUR BIASED LIBERAL AGENDA CONSIDERED
Al Gore TV
March 4, 2007 - 11:57 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsAhhh yes, the Al Gore channel. Al Gore 24 hours a day. They could use this at Guantanamo Bay detention camp to torture the prisoners.
D
Native Americans didn't believe in secure borders. Look what happened to them.
Honest to pete, Jack, I thoug
March 4, 2007 - 14:59 ET by dahliatraversHonest to pete, Jack, I thought you were kidding. But you weren't:
The channel will try to engage viewers ages 18 to 34 using the Web's signature blend of interactivity and populism, Gore and Hyatt explained.
"We're about empowering this generation ... to engage in the dialogue of democracy and tell the story of what's going on in their lives in the dominant media of our time," said the 57-year-old Gore.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/05/entertainment/main685563.shtml
dahlia -- oh, you missed th
March 5, 2007 - 05:18 ET by Jack Bauerdahlia -- oh, you missed the free PR blitz provided by the breathless BIG MEDIA when he announced Al-Gorezeera?
Remember.. to quasi-socialists, organizations aren't really successful until they they lose money hand over fist, and need a government hand-out to help out.
Carbon Offsets, REC's, Green
March 4, 2007 - 09:56 ET by rimskyCarbon Offsets, REC's, Green Taxes... all of these are money vacumns. Whose going to be the steward of all this 'save the planet' cash?
Drat those libertarian thin
March 4, 2007 - 10:03 ET by sarcasmoDrat those libertarian thinkers! Always inconveniently-doing the actual journalism the paid-media won't do for free!! (And by the way, big oil & big news-media companies of the world, nobody has contacted sarcasmo about the big checks I mentioned the other day...)
JMR
Folks, you want to know why A
March 4, 2007 - 11:41 ET by dscottFolks, you want to know why Al set up that LLP in England of all places? Get a load of the benes he gets:
It should be made clear at the outset, that this is simply an illustrative example. Any person considering investing in a Carbon Credits Scheme MUST take appropriate professional advice from competent tax and financial advisors. In this example, the following assumptions are made:
On this basis, the investor should receive a tax rebate of £64,000 being 80% of £200,000 (£160,000) at a tax rate of 40%.
It should be noted that the actual effective rate of tax relief obtained will depend on both the capital contribution raised by the partnership, and on the amount and timing of expenditures made. It may, therefore, be more or less than the 80% figure used in the illustration.
http://articles.taxationweb.co.uk/index.php?id=66
Obviously, if the partnership operation were to be successful, the investor would obtain dividend income and, of course, his loan would be repayable subject to any conditions entered into as a result of taking it out.
He's one slick operator.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Too hard to believe
March 4, 2007 - 16:54 ET by w0tmThat Al is anything but as dumb as a sack of rocks is just too much to fathom. That he's hired people who are "slick operators" -- now, that I believe! I understand Al uses some of the same "investment advisors" the Kennedy family has used for generations. Why does no one care the Kennedys have never paid a nickel of estate tax? That most (including Ted) pay no income tax? They have their old money assets in trusts in Fiji. No estate tax there! Ted makes a big deal each year about donating his senate salary to charity then borrows more millions from his always growing trust in Fiji. No income tax on borrowed money. When he dies, all the money he's borrowed drops to zero and the scam continues with the next generation. So many big-money Democrat politicians have copied the Kennedy Fiji trusts that, in Fiji, they are simply called "a Kennedy trust". What is that old saying? "Taxes are for the little people - and Republicans".
Forgive me for putting forth
March 4, 2007 - 13:40 ET by QueenMumForgive me for putting forth an old cliche', but: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t."
The greenie/lefties pretend that this carbon offset scam makes sense so that they don't appear as stupid as what they consider the ignorant masses to be.
Just another manifestation of the trend toward "buying" one's way out of the guilt that comes from financial success. It's much like the current trend of "donating a portion of the proceeds" to xyz charity. The buyer still spends the money and enjoys the product, but is supposed to "feel better" about it because some of the profit is going to charity. Nevermind that the company selling the product is getting a tax write-off and the "giver" is not.
I prefer to give to charity out of a sense of voluntary sharing with and compassion for my fellow man; not a sense that I must atone for my personal wealth. And even though I feel that the RC and I are quite generous in our charitable contributions (according to our means), we still don't manage to qualify for any appreciable tax credit. Not complaining. What goes around comes around.
I have always liked your site
March 4, 2007 - 14:43 ET by JDWI have always liked your site and have often used for ideas and links.
JDW
Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Maybe someone new will get a
March 4, 2007 - 16:31 ET by tkeefeMaybe someone new will get a clue if they watch. Interesting read i thought http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary
All plants are pollution neutral
March 4, 2007 - 16:32 ET by w0tmWhy is the simple fact that all plants (i.e. trees) are pollution neutral rarely mentioned? A VERY "Inconvenient Truth"!! Yes, as trees grow, they absorb CO2. So Al Gore can act like his palace and jet-set life-style has a "zero carbon foot print" by paying others to plant trees. Fine. After he's fooled all the Useful Idiots and raped and pillaged (figuratively speaking) all he wants before leaving this earth then Al Gore the Fifth is president in 2107, all those trees of Al's planted back in 2007 are dead and decaying releasing lots of carbon dioxide. All that nasty CO2 they took in as they grew.
Sorry, there's no such thing as a free lunch (unless you're a liberal and then there is -- it just originally belonged to someone else).
Gore
March 4, 2007 - 21:51 ET by Pixie_MateWhat really amazes me is that instead of bothering to learn anything about global warming and trying to get past the fact you don't like a particular former politician you take refuge in chatrooms and on blogs where you fester and say ridiculous things and take shallow comfort in your conservatism. Yes, climate change is an issue you're more likely to find liberals talking about than conservatives. Does that mean you're going to turn your back on what scientists have to say just because you're afraid of what it might do to your identity? There is almost a complete consensus within the scientific community. That is quite a rarity. Why do you insist on ignoring an issue that is starting to affect the way we live just for the sake of maintaining you identity or being true to the free-market? Green technology exists and yet there are so many people who are wrapped around the pinkie finger of giant corporations that dont' want to invest in it and the future because it doesn't benefit them immediately. You people are just beyond belief....
Pixie...You evidently haven't
March 4, 2007 - 21:56 ET by bigtimerPixie...
You evidently haven't been here long enough to read plenty of well-informed posts from very well informed posters....
I think you may be on the wong site...by accident...lost your way, stumbled on in or some such....look for the exit...
That isn't you is it wobbly?
LOL!
Too funny BT
March 4, 2007 - 22:06 ET by acumenToo funny BT - Pixie acts like this is the first time we have heard any of this pontificating and shallow arguments. And here we go again with the eeevil big corporations....that's new. But here comes Pixie to save the day and possibly the planet too. I'd love to stay and play, but me and some conservative friends got us a concensus going to pull a heist tonight down at Gore's cabon-credit union. But we'll be back tomorrow to screw up the planet again. Allah Akbar, these useful idiots are getting old. See ya tomorrow BT.
You have a good one acumen..a
March 4, 2007 - 22:11 ET by bigtimerYou have a good one acumen..and watch those carbon footsteps!
I'll catch ya tomorrow....
So glad you stopped by. Spe
March 4, 2007 - 22:17 ET by dahliatraversSo glad you stopped by. Speaking of science and taking all evidence into consideration, perhaps you could explain why there were pre-industrial periods of global warming if, indeed, global warming is manmade.
When I wake up Wednesday morn
March 4, 2007 - 22:07 ET by nicksmith112When I wake up Wednesday morning the temperature will be 6 degrees (-5 windchill) on Long Island obliterating the record low temperature for that date in history.
Dam you Global Warming!!!!!!
Don't sweat it, Pixie. Big
March 5, 2007 - 01:34 ET by bushwickbillDon't sweat it, Pixie. Big Al's hypocrisy notwithstanding, these fools are just mad because the Dems are right on yet another major issue. When corporations are going green, you know it's a done deal. Capitalism is hard at work! The irony is delicious.
Do it like a G.O.!
Take two. If, indeed, globa
March 5, 2007 - 14:04 ET by dahliatraversTake two. If, indeed, global warming is manmade, how are pre-industrial periods of global warming explained, bwb?
Dahlia, I'm not a scientist.
March 5, 2007 - 15:19 ET by bushwickbillDahlia, I'm not a scientist. Are you?
Here is what scientists say.
Well, bushwickbill, this quote from your cite says it all.
March 5, 2007 - 15:35 ET by acaiguanaWell, bushwickbill, this quote from your cite says it all.
"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it."
So, let's tax the United States citizenry to death to redistribute the wealth of our country to countries that don't have the same level of output. Then, when we have devestated our economy with a major shift to 'alternative' energy sources for production, sources that simply do not exist today, we can offer our grandchildren a world that:
1. Has suffered great famine and the deaths of millions if not billions through our misguided 'bet' that 'consensus' is right.
2. Has lousy transportation services to move goods through the supply chain.
3. Has lousy argiculture to feed the starving masses that will abound.
4. A Middle East that is bankrupt from the end of their only source of income.
5. A political structure that will devolve into a civil war over the lack of the US ability to meet the demands of its populance for freedom.
Thanks, that's just what I thought I'd support over breakfast this morning.
Don't you have some Leggo blocks to play with?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Acaiguana: "A political
March 5, 2007 - 17:00 ET by bushwickbillAcaiguana: "A political structure that will devolve into a civil war over the lack of the US ability to meet the demands of its populance for freedom."
Your whacko-ness is showing. Are you blogging from a cave in Idaho? How's that fertilizer bomb coming along? Say hi to Tim McVeigh for me.
If you want, you guys can continue to believe that global warming is not caused by humans. And that evolution is "just a theory." And that homosexuality is a "lifestyle." But the world is leaving you behind...and you're going to pay a political price.
Do it like a G.O.!
So, you didn't like that comment, huh bushwickbill?
March 5, 2007 - 17:05 ET by acaiguanaSo, you didn't like that comment, huh bushwickbill?
That comment was no more over the 'top' than the Human Global Warming scare tactics used by ... gosh -- the Democrats.
So, get over it.
<edit - I assume you totally agree with the first 4 points I made. :-)end edit>
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
In case you're accused of exa
March 5, 2007 - 21:47 ET by dahliatraversIn case you're accused of exaggerating, aca, let's remember North Korea in the 1990's: 3,000,000 - 4,000,000 (possibly more) dead of starvation. And Christopher Hitchens says it hasn't improved much since. I'm shuddering ...
http://www.slate.com/id/2117846
The situation has been heart-
March 5, 2007 - 21:57 ET by bigtimerThe situation has been heart-breaking for years and years and years now...
The msm has been largely silent about it. Which I know it is hard getting video and such very often out of NK...there still has been plenty to report on.
Whatta ya gonna do 'bout it though?
Sad.
And there are many other scie
March 5, 2007 - 15:53 ET by NL207And there are many other scientists who paint a different picture than these government financed shills you are so fond of, like this one.
Now, let us cure one of the deficincies that you cite in Dahlias debate with you. You complain that you are not a scientist. I am. Let me help you understand what is going on here.
Gore and people like him, for reasons that have little to do with the fate of the earth, are presently engaged in a major league scare campaign designed to frighten the average American into surrender of a part of their sovreignty and personal freedoms to politicos like Gore and those thieves at the UN.
Nobody, not the IPCC, not Al Gore, knows for sure whether man is causing the recent observed warming, but one thing is certain: if the people surrender their liberty to this man and his ilk, they will never get it back without a bloody battle. There is nothing scientific about Gore.
Thank you NL207 - you get my point. ACA
March 5, 2007 - 16:04 ET by acaiguanaThank you NL207 - you get my point. ACA
:-)
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
No, I am not. The article
March 5, 2007 - 21:34 ET by dahliatraversNo, I am not. The article you linked did not provide an answer to my question, bushwickbill. But I will move on to the overall question:
1.) As you may or may not be aware, the theory that global warming is manmade is based upon computer models. With such an enormous (literally), complex question to be analyzed, it is impossible to know for certain that all pertinent data has been put into a model OR THAT IT HAS PROVIDED THE CORRECT CONCLUSION, even if it has all data. I am not saying this, many scientists have said so.
2.) I'm open minded; I agree the question has not been fully settled either way. Let us stipulate for a moment that global warming is manmade.
So we implement Al Gore's solution. Now, take it right to the end, which Acaiguana has done. The only item on his list that I would disagree with is the Middle East going broke.
In fact, India and China - soon to become the biggest consumers of oil, yet inexplicably let off the Kyoto hook by Al Gore - will happily buy the oil we stop buying AND FILL THE ATMOSPHERE WITH THE GREENHOUSE GASSES THAT AL GORE AND HIS FRIENDS BELIEVE IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.
In short, we will have global warming anyway and everything else on Acaiguana's list will come true. What will we have accomplished then?
When large corporations latch
March 5, 2007 - 15:36 ET by NL207When large corporations latch on to a trend, particularly THESE corporations, who are so heavily invested in government regulation, that says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the proposition that global warming is all or in part human caused. It says only that some money can be made from the situation, mostly rent-seeking through government regulatory meddling in the economy. There is nothing capitalistic about any of this. Remove the government coercion and the deal collapses, from these carbon offsets Gore is selling to himself to the production of ethanol as alternative fuel.
time to refute redneck bias
March 9, 2007 - 20:56 ET by ezyryder11i won't read all the comments you made, but reply with any argument against the global warming theory and i'll refute it. if you give me stats or something, give me a source for them
Now You Can Combat Global Warming Hoax With Bogus Carbon Credits
March 14, 2007 - 17:32 ET by lostinspaceRich people had the same thing in the middle ages. It's called paying
for penance. You just hire poor people to say your "Hail Mary's" and
"Our Fathers" and you could keep right on sinning with no worries.
Carbon credits are like voodoo. In fact I tend to agree with what PETA
recently said. Animals cause more global warming gas productions than
anything. You cannot be a meat eating environmentalist. So in order to
do the most good instead of buying credits Al Gore should be staying
home in a 2 bedroom house and eating only vegetables he grows in his
back yard.
How much greenhouse gas was consumed flying caviar to all the Oscar
night parties? How much did Al Gore spend on his Armani suits instead
of giving all this money to a charity? How many of Al Gore's personal
appearances could be conducted via satellite link instead of jetting
all over the globe? How much will be consumed flying rock bands to five
continents for his planned "Live Earth" concerts? How much Evian will
be flown to Antarctica to meet 100 rock musician's celebrity contract
riders?
Hypocrisy surrounds global warming on all sides and Al Gore is the poster child of this hoax.