Al Gore: Hero or Hypocrite?

[skadistic]

So its a farce. Gore is still polluting as much as ever. If you are going to pay to make greener energy then say thats what you're doing. Its incredibly disingenuis to say your carbon print is null when in fact your pumping out 10 times more then the average American. I find all this beyond the pale.

 

[El_Machinae]

So its a farce. Gore is still polluting as much as ever. If you are going to pay to make greener energy then say thats what you're doing. Its incredibly disingenuis to say your carbon print is null when in fact your pumping out 10 times more then the average American. I find all this beyond the pale.

No, it's not really a farce. I can't even see why you'd think it is. If the net result of his actions results in zero CO2, then what does it matter?

 

[JollyRoger]

So its a farce. Gore is still polluting as much as ever. If you are going to pay to make greener energy then say thats what you're doing. Its incredibly disingenuis to say your carbon print is null when in fact your pumping out 10 times more then the average American. I find all this beyond the pale.

If the average villager eats one slice of bread, but I come into the village and eat 10 slices, but then pay for 10 slices beyond the ones I consumed to be shipped into the village, what is my impact on the village bread supply?

 

[skadistic]

No, it's not really a farce. I can't even see why you'd think it is. If the net result of his actions results in zero CO2, then what does it matter?

Because his actions don't result in zero CO2. (and CO2 isn't the onl;y polluter)

 

[MobBoss]

If serving your country is the right thing to do, why do we have to pay you to do it?

Because its my job? However, living a cleaner lifestyle is something that everyone should be doing correct? We are not paying 'avg joe' to do the right thing, and in fact it would seem that we offer 'above avg joe' an out to excuse his utterly wastefull lifestyle. I dont see that being very effective at all.

Money gets things done; which is why people are starting to be willing to pay money in proportion to their damaging consumption

But to me thats backwards thinking....why charge people more to continue their bad behavior when we should be offering them incentives to be less polluting? I agree here, all you are doing is allowing certain individuals to continue in their wasteful lifestyle by paying a fine....all the while telling those who cant pay the fine they should change their lives like they do? But are they really changing anything? I dont think so. What sense does it make for me to drive my SUV in California but justify it because I paid for some guy in upper NY to plant a tree? Does it to anything for the smog in California? Hell no.

If you really want to alter peoples lifes, give them finanacial incentives (tax breaks and savings) to live a more responsible lifestyle. As you said, money gets things done and that would do it quicker than Al Gores movie ever could.

 

[JollyRoger]

Because its my job? However, living a cleaner lifestyle is something that everyone should be doing correct? We are not paying 'avg joe' to do the right thing, and in fact it would seem that we offer 'above avg joe' an out to excuse his utterly wastefull lifestyle. I dont see that being very effective at all.

Gore is basically donating to the charity called Greener earth - doing something from his private funds instead of your tax funds. His payments pay for infrastructure that will make our energy consumption greener. If you donate to feed the hungry, are you a hypocrite because you weigh more than the average person?

 

[MobBoss]

Gore is basically donating to the charity called Greener earth - doing something from his private funds instead of your tax funds. His payments pay for infrastructure that will make our energy consumption greener. If you donate to feed the hungry, are you a hypocrite because you weigh more than the average person?

There is a difference between someone who donates to feed the hungry and someone who actually goes downtown to the shelter to help feed the hungry. Try it some time, you may learn something of what I am talking about.

I guarentee you, if more people were 'hands on' than merely willing to cut a check to sooth their conscience a lot of the worlds ills would be done away with.

 

[JollyRoger]

There is a difference between someone who donates to feed the hungry and someone who actually goes downtown to the shelter to help feed the hungry. Try it some time, you may learn something of what I am talking about.

I have done it and I have seen many fat people do it. I have never once seen a fat person donating their time called a hypocrite.

And are you expecting Al Gore to build the wind farms himself?

 

[MobBoss]

I have done it and I have seen many fat people do it. I have never once seen a fat person donating their time called a hypocrite.

And are you expecting Al Gore to build the wind farms himself?

But you see, the Gore analogy that fits that is he is a fat person that talks about people feeding the homeless while never doing it himself.

And no I dont expect Al Gore to build wind farms himself, but I do expect him to do what he wants all of us to do. And since he is only just now taking steps to follow his own advice, I am well within my right to call him a hypocrite for not following his own advice for the last 6 years or so.

 

[JollyRoger]

But you see, the Gore analogy that fits that is he is a fat person that talks about people feeding the homeless while never doing it himself.

And no I dont expect Al Gore to build wind farms himself, but I do expect him to do what he wants all of us to do. And since he is only just now taking steps to follow his own advice, I am well within my right to call him a hypocrite for not following his own advice for the last 6 years or so.

So you admit that he is currently not a hypocrite?

 

[El_Machinae]

But to me thats backwards thinking....why charge people more to continue their bad behavior when we should be offering them incentives to be less polluting?

The money needs to come from somewhere. Ideally, the money would come from people who're fined for polluting.

And it's not backward thinking to charge people for their consumption; it's basically the way the world works. It's (usually) better to force the polluter to pay for polluting than it is to force others to pay him to stop.

What sense does it make for me to drive my SUV in California but justify it because I paid for some guy in upper NY to plant a tree? Does it to anything for the smog in California? Hell no.

What does this have to do with smog? Climate change is a CO2 problem and a global issue. The CO2 can be offset a globe away.

If you really want to alter peoples lifes, give them finanacial incentives (tax breaks and savings) to live a more responsible lifestyle. As you said, money gets things done and that would do it quicker than Al Gores movie ever could.

People already have financial incentives to cut back, but in general are too short-sighted to partake of them. I know a person who drives his obese butt in a pickup truck to a deskjob every day. He has a ton of incentives to drive more cheaply and lose weight; namely money and health. He doesn't care to. Why should I have to pay extra taxes, so he can get a tax break to buy a cheaper car? He already has an incentive to purchase a more efficient car, but is unwilling to. He probably pays hundreds of buck more per year in gas than he needs.

 

[MobBoss]

So you admit that he is currently not a hypocrite?

No, I still think he is, but I recognize he is working (now) to make himself less of one.

As for him being genuine about it...I cant help but wonder how much the USAToday story that exposed his utter lack of offsets back in 2006 helped spur him towards becoming more green.

 

[El_Machinae]

Like before, Mobboss, you don't know what he's doing with the rest of his money. Even if he wasn't actually offsetting, he might have been donating to green-type projects, charities, and investments. The 2006 hatchetjob didn't explore that, because it wasn't interested.

We can commend that he's spending $400 per month offsetting his CO2, but there's an opportunity cost on that money. It might have a better use, for the actual environment.

I personally know that this is a viable excuse; I don't purchase offsets (I don't even know if they're in my region), but I have put some of my investments towards green companies, hoping to spur their development (through penny share support). If these investments help them (and I believe they do), then I'm already helping do my bit. And, while I'm not purchasing offsets, it's clear that I'm contributing.

 

[MobBoss]

The money needs to come from somewhere. Ideally, the money would come from people who're fined for polluting.

And it's not backward thinking to charge people for their consumption; it's basically the way the world works. It's (usually) better to force the polluter to pay for polluting than it is to force others to pay him to stop.

You miss the point entirely. Its not better to force the polluter to pay for polluting when they are so rich that money is no object. They will not change their lifestle to adjust as long as their money holds out. And neither is it correct to say I advocate paying others to force him to stop - what I think changes peoples behavior more is incentives, not fines.

What does this have to do with smog? Climate change is a CO2 problem and a global issue. The CO2 can be offset a globe away.

What proofs do you have that your offset is actually accomplishing this?

 

[El_Machinae]

I can't prove to you that sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere causes a reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, or that reducing CO2 output will reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.

And neither is it correct to say I advocate paying others to force him to stop - what I think changes peoples behavior more is incentives, not fines.

That's not what I said: I said it's not fair to force others to pay to get the polluter to stop (through incentives). In order to give the polluter incentives to stop or cut down, the money needs to come from somewhere. It would not be fair to get that money from people who have already cut down their own consumption.

As well, as long as the rich polluters are offsetting their pollution through a pollution fine, it doesn't really matter if they can afford it all day. That's pretty well the point of the offsetting system.

 

[JollyRoger]

No, I still think he is, but I recognize he is working (now) to make himself less of one.

Can you point me to a single individual that currently pays more per month in offsets than Gore?

 

[MobBoss]

IAs well, as long as the rich polluters are offsetting their pollution through a pollution fine, it doesn't really matter if they can afford it all day. That's pretty well the point of the offsetting system.

But you just said that you cant prove that its actually working, so tell me again, whats the point of the offset system if we cant prove that its working?

 

[JollyRoger]

But you just said that you cant prove that its actually working, so tell me again, whats the point of the offset system if we cant prove that its working?

Can we prove that donating time, money, and food to hunger charities is solving the worldwide starvation problem? What's the point of trying if we can't prove it will ever work?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Yet you have no explanation for how one can measure the carbon offsetting and just how effective the offsets are relative the the emissions used.

Amazing. Both Gothmog and I answered that before you asked it. Can you read?

It's pretty interesting that all the right-wingers in this thread are the ones who can't understand the concepts of "stock exchange," "market," and "net cost."

A carbon offset is EXACTLY like any other common economic instrument - it's pretty much a reverse stock market. It's a pledge of indebtedness (i.e. "I screwed up the environment this much.") Gore buying carbon offsets is analogous to a company selling shares. That share is then traded on the open market for a market-determined price to anyone who can reabsorb exactly that much carbon from the atmosphere. The result is that people who clean up the environment get paid by those who pollute, and the effect of Gore polluting is nullified.

Some people in this thread seriously need remedial econ.

 

[El_Machinae]

Can you point me to a single individual that currently pays more per month in offsets than Gore?

The true measure of his generosity would be how much excess offsets he purchases, to be fair. Any offsets that include his consumption is just doing his part.

But you just said that you cant prove that its actually working, so tell me again, whats the point of the offset system if we cant prove that its working?

I said I couldn't prove it to you, not that I can't prove it. It doesn't really matter, even if I bothered running through it with you, you would still think it useless because you don't think that CO2 is a problem.

Carbon offsets is one of a myriad of potential solutions being brought forward by people who are concerned (and people supply a market for solutions). Ideally, people would make their own attempts to reduce their effective CO2 output and to speed the advance of green solutions. Unfortunately, there are many people who are entirely unwilling to capture the externalities regarding their CO2 excess.