Al Gore: Hero or Hypocrite?

[El_Machinae]

Ohhhh. Nice find Ainwood. Extremely nice.

Yes it is, it's the smoking gun that someone can use to imply corruption on Gore's part, if one is so inclined. The man has set himself up to profit from people who try to green up their lifestyle. While it's not necessarily corrupt (I mean, it doesn't have to be, just like a doctor who brings a medicine to market does not have to actually be corrupt, but could be good intentioned), it allows people to view him that way if they're so inclinded. People have to decide whether he's generating a public good by helping create a system of carbon offsetting, which will likely be based on their opinion around the science of climate change.

Keep in mind, though, that Gore's major message has to be to reduce people's waste. Just reread the OP; the 'message' that you've been getting (and you assumed that Gore was being a hypocrite) from him is that you should do more to reduce your pollution output. This message, still, has nothing to do with the company he's a director of. If he requests that you reduce your output, he's basically asking you to reduce your potential business with him.

And this find of Ainwood's is a HECK of a lot better than your previous howling about Gore's hypocrisy with owning oil shares (which I still think was misguided).

So, keep in mind that he's set himself up to profit from carbon offsetting. There's a potential for corruption there (but it's not necessary). But also keep in mind that the major message that you've been getting from Gore (and let's use you as a proxy for the public) is that you should reduce your wasteful output - not that you should purchase offsets.

A strong analogy would be a doctor who urges you to stop smoking, meanwhile he owns shares of a cigarette company and has started a company that develops an anti-cancer medication. The RoI on tobacco is just good business, and there's certainly potential for profit on his part from fighting cancer. But the advice to stop smoking is still sound, AND it hurts his potential returns on all of his investments.

 

[jameson]

The WorldNet Daily/ Pajamas Media story ( who in his right mind would trust an outfit called Pajamas Media ?) says that Gore buys his offsets through Generation Investment Management, and then implies he buys them from GIM.

Can't these people read ? Last time I checked, you can't just walk into your local bank branch and buy carbon offsets, so you need an investment company to do it for you. So you get the management company to do it for you, in which case, the only money you as a part-owner of GIM will see flow back to you is the company's provision on buying the carbon offsets, not the price of the offsets themselves. . But the offsets will still have been bought and your 'carbon footprint' will still have been neutralized.

Anyway, the story says that

Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.

And that's bollocks. The only arguably mainstream scientist disputing man-made global warming is Lindzen, and he seems to prefer collecting fees for speaking engagements from Exxon to doing research and writing peer-reviewed articles for scientific journals.

No sale on this slander here.

 

[El_Machinae]

Even if he buys shares in companies which are trying to reduce greenhouse gases, we don't know what type of companies those are. I've said for months that penny-share ownership is vital to the success of startup companies, and is a risky (though beneficial) activity.

I am criticizing him for his constant condemnation of the average person in this country, when that person is most likely to consume less energy than he does, even as a private citizen.

What's the combined footprint of the 'average' citizen compared to the combined footprint of the 'average' executive?

When effecting a large-scale change, it's numbers that matter.