The media love a "green" story. As Al Gore and Hollywood celebrities champion the practice of carbon offsetting -- donating money toward an energy-saving project while still taking your vacation -- the media buzz in agreement.
"If more people do it over time, it's a good thing," said CBS reporter Russ Mitchell during a carbon offset story on the February 22 "Early Show."
Carbon offsetting is hypocritical because it allows the extremely wealthy, like Al Gore, to still use enormous amounts of energy (1 million miles of global air travel in 2005 and more than 20 times the national average of power usage in 2006), while telling everyone else to conserve energy to save the planet from climate destruction.
Companies who embrace a similar practice called "cap-and-trade" also earn praise from the media, but what gets ignored are the environmentalists who say these schemes are inefficient or harmful and experts who cite high costs to the economy as well as the hypocrisy of the practice.
In an interview with Sen. John McCain, Miles O'Brien didn't challenge the senator's support for mandatory "cap-and-trade" despite its failure in Europe and the enormous potential costs to the economy.
You can read the entire Business & Media Institute article here.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's so great to hear the &qu
March 7, 2007 - 14:42 ET by Jake GonteskyIt's so great to hear the "carbon credits" issue getting absolutely eviscerated for the shell game that it is. The comparison I heard the other day regarding the legitimacy of carbon offsets was apt: does that mean I can eat all I want and pay someone else to diet so that I can be healthy?
Carbon offsets to nothing more than make someone FEEL as though they're helping a (non-existant) problem. The power is still consumed, the carbon is still utilized, etc...
Furthermore, it goes beyond simply not being effective - it can even lead to some people using more resources than necessary since they're under the false impression that they can do so because they are using limitless "renewable" resources when in fact, they are still fueled by non-renewables.
http://www.notesinthemargin.com
fighting redneck media bias
March 9, 2007 - 21:08 ET by ezyryder11half of you people don't even know what carbon offsets are. just in case it means you pay others to reduce their emissions so that you can emit carbon-dioxide. so it's as if you didn't emit anything.
if you think that this is wrong, because only the rich can do it, here are two things to think about:
-life's not fair. this argument is like saying the rich get to live in fancy houses and drive nice cars while the poor can't. duh! deal with it.
-people are generally not born with riches. al gore worked to get rick.
send me any properly cited evidence against the global warming theory, and i'll refute it.
ez...Poof! Its blowin' in the
March 9, 2007 - 21:18 ET by bigtimerez...
Poof! Its blowin' in the wind....
Go catch it.
Btw...Algore is a phony empty suit.
Let's see so if I chew bubb
March 7, 2007 - 14:48 ET by radiofitz34Let's see so if I chew bubble gum a lot, then I should pay my dentist months in advance to offset my impending appointment to fill a cavity. Does this sound logical? Ummm no.
"Carbon Offsets" in plain language
March 7, 2007 - 15:00 ET by RJ"Carbon Offsets" in plain language:
1) The wealthy shall be allowed to pollute as much as they can afford.
2) Everyone else shall change their lifestyles.
Global Warming
March 8, 2007 - 09:59 ET by pbanks7Carbon Offsets: A way for politically correct jetsetters to pay an indulgence to get special dispensation to visit Gaia in the afterlife.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Carbon offsets are a fraud.
March 7, 2007 - 15:49 ET by bassndudeCarbon offsets are a fraud. They dont reduce anything. If carbon offsets are not bought, is more carbon released? No. If they are bought, is less fuel used in the private jet to go from point A to point B? No. If forced on the middle class and lower income folks, all it will do is cost them more to do what they need to do. The same amount of energy will be used, the same amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. Carbon offsets are nothing more than a way to garner more "green" to line the pockets of the ilk of gore and his deciples. If a carbon offset falls in the woods...well you know the line.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Carbon Offsets
March 7, 2007 - 20:13 ET by pbthinkerIt just hit me, and I can't figure out why it hasn't before, that companies that produce a great deal of CO2, in their manufacturing process, have to worry about being taxed ( or forced to purchase carbon offsets, same thing) out of existence. Their choice will be to move their manufacturing to countries like China and India where they will not have to purchase carbon offsets.
My guess is that, in some industries, the difference between China and the U.S. is pretty thin where, people like Gore, can make a difference with their lies and suggestions of policy. The Democrats, who claim to want to keep industry in this country meanwhile, want to push the environmentalist agenda and unionize the country. Who's interests do they have in their heart?
Carbon offsets
March 7, 2007 - 20:20 ET by Conservative VoiceCarbon offsets is very funny, the carbon offset is equalized naturally. We are in a relatively closed system as far as Carbon is concerned. The earth is not making more of it, it just changes it, recycles it, over and over again...like breathing in and out .... its amazing. As we breath out, plant life breaths in, and it goes back and forth. When we burn fuel, which is made from bio-products (ie plant life) we put more in the air...so what. The plants go ... wow, I can breath fresh clean smog. The ocean's top layer is plant life that explodes when there is more carbon to breath. The earth equalizes our carbon output very efficiently and cheaply and FOR FREE!
Carbon and Oxygen are eleme
March 8, 2007 - 12:11 ET by Tim the EnchanterCarbon and Oxygen are elements. We couldn't get rid of them if we tried. Are these clowns going to tax thunderstorms when a lightning strike causes a wildfire that burns for weeks on end?
BTW: be careful with "closed system" comments. I got taken to the woodshed a few weeks ago over something very similar.
Global Warming can no longer be denied...
March 7, 2007 - 20:23 ET by ckc1227I held out as long as I could, but I can no longer deny global warming is real. Afterall, if Sports Illustrated says it's happening, it just has to be true.
Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes. 12 million illegal immigrants are counting on you.
ckc,Well, it must be true, th
March 7, 2007 - 20:26 ET by Blondeckc,
Well, it must be true, then.
I heard Rush say something today about a way to have sex that's good for the environment.
Unfortunately....I reached my destination and didn't catch the, um, explicit details.
If you do another on Al Gore
March 14, 2007 - 12:55 ET by dscottIf you do another on Al Gore please explore with the public of the full ramifications of his energy use. Al Gore belongs to the upper class of our country, namely the 5% (15 million) of our population who owns 70% of it's personal wealth. If Al Gore is consuming at a minimum 20 times (not even counting his two other houses), then what kind of consumption is John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Streisand and Brad Pitt on the order of? It stands to reason, they all consume similar amounts of energy. Once having grasped this truth, you then come to the realization that 15 people of Al Gore's economic class is consuming the amount of energy (residential use) equal to all of the remainder 285 million people of the poor and middle class! This is conservatively based on 20 times the electric consumption on just one house (never mind any other multiple houses typically owned by the rich).
What should further blow everyone's mind is Al Gore's economic class has twice the spending power of all of the 285 million people combined!!! The bottom line here is Al Gore is the problem and buying carbon credits is a fig leaf to hide his and Brad Pitt's ravenous consumption of the planet's resources. Let us imagine for a moment that Al Gore actually took what he saying seriously. Consider then if he didn't want to sacrifice the benefits of being rich, he could reasonably address his energy usage by installing solar panels and wind turbines at all his properties. He certainly has the financial resources, so why didn't he? If all of Al's rich friends like Brad Pitt and Nancy Pelosi believed in what they said, they would do likewise, they have the means but they haven't. So here is the challenge to all the pushers of AGW and Kyoto targets. If Al Gore and all the people of his economic class were to install solar panels, wind turbines and do as President Bush did with geothermal heating and cooling, plus only flew 1st class on commerical jets like Prince Charles, then the US would meet it's Kyoto targets without burdening anyone!!! In fact we would be way ahead of those goals. Since I don't believe in AGW, my interest is in national energy security, it would still do the country good since the price of fuel would drop benefiting the poor and middle class plus produce thousands of high paying the jobs.
“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