Al Gore: Hero or Hypocrite?

[Pontiuth Pilate]

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.

But you just said that you cant prove that its actually working

& @ Machinae

Maybe remedial sarcasm-detection as well

OF friggin COURSE removing CO2 from the atmosphere....er.... removes CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

[Narz]

If you pump CO2 right into the oceans, yes, that's bad

If you do various things to encourage phytoplankton colonies to grow and absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere into biomass, generally that's good.

But I still think more trees = better solution.

Why not do both (encourage phytoplankton and plant more trees)? Far more oxygen is created by phytoplankton than trees right? (not to say I'm against ripping up a sururb or two or ten thousand and letting the natural vegetation retake it, that would be quite a beautiful thing ).

 

[JollyRoger]

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.

Agreed. But the same people that want to talk about Gore's level of energy consumption should not be able to discount out of hand his level of offset payments. I am willing to bet that as a current % of energy consumption, that Gore is paying more in offsets than most of the "he is still a hypocrite crowd" is paying towards similar green measures themselves.

"He's still a hypocrite even though I can't point to a single individual currently paying more in offsets on either an absolute or % of energy consumed basis."

 

[MobBoss]

Agreed. But the same people that want to talk about Gore's level of energy consumption should not be able to discount out of hand his level of offset payments. I am willing to bet that as a current % of energy consumption, that Gore is paying more in offsets than most of the "he is still a hypocrite crowd" is paying towards similar green measures themselves.

"He's still a hypocrite even though I can't point to a single individual currently paying more in offsets on either an absolute or % of energy consumed basis."

Do you honestly, and I mean honestly think Al Gore is paying more in offsets than any other individual in the world?

The point is that the man is the movements icon. And as its icon, he was woefully hypocritical until starting to buy offsets last November. Thats just a mere fact that you cant get rid of. The distraction of who pays more than Gore is merely that....a distraction and has no bearing on the arguement.

 

[JollyRoger]

Do you honestly, and I mean honestly think Al Gore is paying more in offsets than any other individual in the world?

Google me one.

 

[carlosMM]

It also quotes Gores spokesman and the utility company records.

So? You make my point here, as you earlier suggested that Gore's spokesman was doing spin control and not really telling the truth.

Whats to prove? The man uses a private jet constantly. If you consider that even a single short flight of a private jet puts out thousands upon thousands of pounds of CO2 into the air, and then you multiply this by how much Gore flies, you are going to come up with a huge carbon footprint - one far, far larger than $432 a year will cover. Exactly how does one offset the carbon footprint of the private jets one takes?

By paying, so please prove he never did. Maybe he DID put a billion bucks into renewable energy.

Where is your common sense?

At work. And it can tell a stupid hitpiece and ad hominem attacks.

 

[ainwood]

Carbon isn't locked up permanently in the atmosphere or the oceans either. Sequestration is a relative term: what we're really talking about here is the average retention time between a source and a sink. The only "permanent" natural sequestration possible is waiting for trees to become fossil fuel and then not drilling.

Which is why relying on natural processes to sequester carbon is a fallacy.

The oceans and plant biomass are carbon sinks. That's what matters.

That's what matters? Really? Well, in that case, the atmosphere is a pretty darned-good "carbon sink".

Of the available solutions, using plants as carbon sinks is attractive because it's easy, it's cheap, and the results are useful - the trees can be chopped down to make lumber. And if that lumber is used for housing then the carbon is effectively sequestered for centuries.

Yes, lumber is effective at locking-up carbon. But generally, people plouging money into trees is favoured because its cheap, not because its the most effective. Cleaning-up flue gas, and injecting liquid CO2 is a more effective solution. Unfortunately, its energy intensive in its own right, and expensive.

There are ways to increase the sink capacity of the oceans as well.

Yes, like algal blooms (that poison marine life). Are you really advocating stuffing the oceans to save the atmosphere?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

@ mob & sonorakitch, regarding carbon offsets as economic instruments:

If you want, you can think about it like this....

A firm wants to plant 1000 trees. Over the trees' lifetime this will take 500 tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. The firm needs $25,000 to plant the trees, money it doesn't have. So it sells 500 shares of $50 each. Each person who buys a share has thus effectively nullified one ton of their personal carbon emissions.

Or as another example, a firm wants to sell wind power. Each kilowatt-hour of windpower they sell costs $100 and "costs" 1 ton of carbon emissions to produce, as opposed to 2 tons per kilowatt-hour of coal-powered electricity. Unfortunately, coal electricity is cheaper at 50 bucks per kilowatt hour. The firm sells subsidizing "shares" at $50 per share. Each share allows the firm to sell one kilowatt-hour of wind energy at a competitive price. Thus again, for each share you buy, you have effectively nullified one ton of your own carbon emissions.

In the first example, your money went towards paying a firm that builds carbon sinks. In the second, your money went towards subsidizing alternative energy so that consumers switched over to the less emissive product. In both of these examples, the "shares" sold by the companies are carbon offsets. Thus, offsets are no different than a share in a stock or other security. The firm is "producing" a service - removing carbon from the atmosphere (directly in the first example, indirectly in the second). The shares are bought up by people who want a slice of that product (i.e., they want to finance carbon sinkage).

If you buy enough shares, you can balance your carbon emission and sinkage and become carbon neutral or even carbon positive.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Which is why relying on natural processes to sequester carbon is a fallacy.

So you're a geosequestration fan huh? :\

 

[Lambert Simnel]

@ mob & sonorakitch, regarding carbon offsets as economic instruments:

If you want, you can think about it like this....

A firm wants to plant 1000 trees. Over the trees' lifetime this will take 500 tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. The firm needs $25,000 to plant the trees, money it doesn't have. So it sells 500 shares of $50 each. Each person who buys a share has thus effectively nullified one ton of their personal carbon emissions.

Or as another example, a firm wants to sell wind power. Each kilowatt-hour of windpower they sell costs $100 and "costs" 1 ton of carbon emissions to produce, as opposed to 2 tons per kilowatt-hour of coal-powered electricity. Unfortunately, coal electricity is cheaper at 50 bucks per kilowatt hour. The firm sells subsidizing "shares" at $50 per share. Each share allows the firm to sell one kilowatt-hour of wind energy at a competitive price. Thus again, for each share you buy, you have effectively nullified one ton of your own carbon emissions.

In the first example, your money went towards paying a firm that builds carbon sinks. In the second, your money went towards subsidizing alternative energy so that consumers switched over to the less emissive product. In both of these examples, the "shares" sold by the companies are carbon offsets. Thus, offsets are no different than a share in a stock or other security. The firm is "producing" a service - removing carbon from the atmosphere (directly in the first example, indirectly in the second). The shares are bought up by people who want a slice of that product (i.e., they want to finance carbon sinkage).

If you buy enough shares, you can balance your carbon emission and sinkage and become carbon neutral or even carbon positive.

Pontiuth. Well explained, but at some stage I think you need to realise that if people refuse to see the point, it's quite possibly not the quality of the explanation which is lacking.

 

[JollyRoger]

Pontiuth. Well explained, but at some stage I think you need to realise that if people refuse to see the point, it's quite possibly not the quality of the explanation which is lacking.

You can lead an elephant to water, but you can't make it drink (something other than the kool-aid).

 

[azzaman333]

Basically, Gore bribes people to say he's being a very good enviromentalist despite the huge amount of power he uses. If you want an analogy, it's no different to Bush paying the police to ignore any illegal activty he might partake. They keep doing the wrong thing, at a very small cost to them.

 

[Sidhe]

I couldn't care less, if I want environmental knowledge I'll go to a scientist, not a politician.

The guys a damaging influence in this respect, if he could get scientists to state his case, great, but there's too much x. Don't listen to the guy get your facts from the scientific community; and certainly don't get your facts from the Australian Businessman organisation, or any other business sponsored mighty BS generator Society, because it's a) non scientific b) based on unfounded old material that's been debunked or accounted for c) undoubtedly full of bias, not in any way consistent and it reeks of BS.

My advice to the seekers of truth, find the seekers of truth not the seekers of a profit margin, anything else is mental masturbation for your futile cause.

 

[ainwood]

So you're a geosequestration fan huh? :\

No. I'm just not a ocean / forest sequestration fan. Because I think the risks are too great for the former, and I don't trust people enough for the latter (and I don't think it will be enough anyway).

Of course, my preferred means is actually tackling emissions at the source, not mitigating them later.

Not that I'm 100% convinced on the necessity of all of it anyway.

 

[Hygro]

Not offered in my area...but I do buy the lightbulbs.

So does that mean we have a consensus that Al Gore has indeed been hyporitical in his energy usage, at least through last year, but has recently taken steps to mitigate that? Is that a fair enough statement?

Sort of. As I posted in another thread, it's a "spend money to make money" scenario, only Al Gore and his private jet- and high energy lifestyle's carbon emissions are the spent money, and the work (and emissions) spent educating the rest of the public to reduce energy usage results in less aggregate energy usage, or "make money".

I too am surprised how late Gore got into the offsetting game (to use Jolly's words)

He could still send a stake of his huge profits from his film [...] to power wind farms and research fuel cells and implement green building programs around the country while living a more green life.

Al Gore used his profits from the movie exactly as you suggested. He did not keep them for himself.

You make a legitmate point about offestting the externalities of say constructing such a large house.

Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of [our] profits from the movie and the book to a new bipartisan educational campaign that will run advertising and will be a presence in the mass media, to continue lifting this urgent crisis up for people to see and focus on.

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/july/interview_gore.php

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Pontiuth. Well explained, but at some stage I think you need to realise that if people refuse to see the point, it's quite possibly not the quality of the explanation which is lacking.

I guess you're right.

 

[CCA]

If Al Gore was a CFC'er and he had a debate about Global Warming and some posters pointed out these details would that constitute an ad hominem attack?

 

[sonorakitch]

@ mob & sonorakitch, regarding carbon offsets as economic instruments:

If you want, you can think about it like this....

A firm wants to plant 1000 trees. Over the trees' lifetime this will take 500 tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. The firm needs $25,000 to plant the trees, money it doesn't have. So it sells 500 shares of $50 each. Each person who buys a share has thus effectively nullified one ton of their personal carbon emissions.

Or as another example, a firm wants to sell wind power. Each kilowatt-hour of windpower they sell costs $100 and "costs" 1 ton of carbon emissions to produce, as opposed to 2 tons per kilowatt-hour of coal-powered electricity. Unfortunately, coal electricity is cheaper at 50 bucks per kilowatt hour. The firm sells subsidizing "shares" at $50 per share. Each share allows the firm to sell one kilowatt-hour of wind energy at a competitive price. Thus again, for each share you buy, you have effectively nullified one ton of your own carbon emissions.

In the first example, your money went towards paying a firm that builds carbon sinks. In the second, your money went towards subsidizing alternative energy so that consumers switched over to the less emissive product. In both of these examples, the "shares" sold by the companies are carbon offsets. Thus, offsets are no different than a share in a stock or other security. The firm is "producing" a service - removing carbon from the atmosphere (directly in the first example, indirectly in the second). The shares are bought up by people who want a slice of that product (i.e., they want to finance carbon sinkage).

If you buy enough shares, you can balance your carbon emission and sinkage and become carbon neutral or even carbon positive.

While I enjoy your elementary illustration of comparing a carbon offset to an equity, you entirely missed my contention.

I said the purchase of carbon credits simply a way for wealth to transfer the burden of responsiblity to another party. You then claimed that a share transfers the burden of responsibility to another party. This is true in regards to transferring a debt that will gainfully return, either in ownership or the green. What you don't understand is the difference between the burden and the return it provides. Transferring debt will be back in kind, with a bond being a said number and a stock being a market number. The purchase of carbon credits in regards to funding research however returns no measurable retribution in kind (as explained in other posts), nor does it return any market rates in terms of research fruitition to the purchaser of these carbon stickers. So as a free market enthusiast, I cannot subscribe to any comparison of one item which promises some form of return and one that really might not.

Case in point: the UK band Coldplay was to offset the manufacturing of it's last record with the planting of 10,000 mango trees in India. This is what happend:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/30/ngreen30.xml
Sounds like the SEC needs to be called in on this market fraud.

A side note: I don't use the planting of trees as an argument against you or carbon offsetting in general because it is a farce. The average US citizen produces approximately 10 tons of carbon emissions annually. This figure is roughly the same as the offset provided by the planting of 30 trees annually. So if one does some quick math, and assumes each individual "offsetting" his carbon emissions each year, roughly 9,000,000,000 trees would have to be planted in the United States...every year. In the UK, the emissions of one person is roughly 6 tons annually. Again: 1,000,000,000 trees per year would have to be planted.

The whole scheme of carbon credits applying to the planting of trees is a joke.

So in short, your illustration is quaint and good until you realize that you aren't recieving what you are supposedly buying with your carbon credits, as opposed to the equity markets. There is no physical receipt of anything, other than the feeling of righteousness. And this was my point.

~Chris

 

[ainwood]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit

Posted: March 2, 2007
4:13 p.m. Eastern


© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Al Gore's Nashville mansion (PajamasMedia.com)
Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.

Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl.

Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere."

But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.

(Story continues below)


Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.

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.

"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."

As WND reported, Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.

The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.

 

[MobBoss]

Ohhhh. Nice find Ainwood. Extremely nice.