The "Credits" That Gore "Buys"....

[Overpaid Slacker]

From OJ this afternoon:

Tennessee blogger Bill Hobbs picks up the story of Al Gore's voracious household energy use, which we noted Tuesday:

The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset "is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases." . . .

But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . .

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. 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. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management--he buys stocks. . . .

Meanwhile, Gore runs around the country and the world trumpeting "climate crisis" and blaming man's use of carbon-based energy--burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts have served to put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda, driving up the value of the stocks and companies viewed as "green" or environmentally friendly. Companies like those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples' [sic] money in. (You can see a list of Generation Investment Management's holdings here [Link omitted in copy/paste], courtesy of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.)

Another Volunteer State blogger, Bob Krumm, looks at Gore's demands for the suppression of dissent. Yesterday's Tennessean reported on a speech the erstwhile veep gave in Murfreesboro:

"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly--and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen . . . balance as bias.

"I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.

"I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."

Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.

Krumm notes that Gore was complaining as early as 1992 about excessive balance in the media. Yet in a speech at the October 2005 We Media Conference, Gore seemed to urge government-mandated balance, at least on other topics:

As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free."

As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S.--including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine--though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.

Gore is mistaken on two out of three points: Although the Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine (which regulated the presentation of "controversial issues of public importance") in 1987, the Public Interest Standard (which is part of the law that created the FCC) and the Equal Time Provision (which applies to political candidates) remain in force.

So, let's sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies.

Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this? Why aren't the mainstream media all over the story?

No, wait. Don't answer that...

JP

[dd74]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Why aren't the mainstream media all over the story?

Anna Nicole is more important.

[strupgolf]

Boy oh Boy, you hit the nail on the head, He is such a hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do.

[red-beard]

All I can say is:

Manbearpig

I'm serial.

[stevepaa]

JP. I'll sum that piece for you.

Attack the messenger when you can't defeat the message.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by strupgolf
Boy oh Boy, you hit the nail on the head, He is such a hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do.

A hypocrite is someone who acts differently than his core beliefs. ALGORE really has no core beliefs...this whole global warming thing is merely the political horse he's riding. Therefore, ALGORE is not a hypocrite for living a lifestyle of high energy consumption....he's just being himself...a man with no moral values, no real convictions.

[the]

Originally posted by stevepaa
JP. I'll sum that piece for you.

Attack the messenger when you can't defeat the message.

What's the message?

That people should talk about *others* reducing energy use while consuming energy like a pig?

I can live with that message!

Lemme try: You all should buy and drive only hybrids and 4 cylinder economy cars that get at least 30 mpg combined.

Hey, that felt pretty good!

[stevepaa]

Duh, the message is global warming is real and we need to do something about it globally.

Yeah, he has a huge house that is being retrofitted with solar cells, and he drives a hybrid.

So I guess you would just destroy your house and build a better one if you were in his shoes?

Yeah right!

[strupgolf]

pwd72s, I stand corrected. Thanks for helping me out brother.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Duh, the message is global warming is real and we need to do something about it globally.

Yeah, he has a huge house that is being retrofitted with solar cells, and he drives a hybrid.

So I guess you would just destroy your house and build a better one if you were in his shoes?

Yeah right!

And I can't think of anything to sell you people?!!?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Duh, the message is global warming is real and we need to do something about it globally.

No, there is nothing that indicates a need to do anything about global warming. While Global Warming is interesting, I'll be able to grow more grapes in my vineyard, it's of little concern to anyone except those seeking additional government power, a sort of last gasp of sociofascism.

Yeah, he has a huge house that is being retrofitted with solar cells, and he drives a hybrid.

Wow, should I get a woodie?

So I guess you would just destroy your house and build a better one if you were in his shoes?

No, enjoy the warmer February's. I certainly am.

[dd74]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]
No, enjoy the warmer February's. I certainly am.

Yeah, but the environment isn't. Ah, but who cares about that? I don't. I still drive my no smog P-car.

I think everyone should STFU in regard to global warming. Until a person is either on a bus or riding their ass to work on a bicycle, none of us should have a position on the issue.

[pwd72s]

Steve...gotta give you credit here...for sticking to your guns. Obviously, you're a believer...I am not. But our views are NOT expressed by Perky Katie, et al...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by dd74
Yeah, but the environment isn't. Ah, but who cares about that? I don't. I still drive my no smog P-car.

I think everyone should STFU in regard to global warming. Until a person is either on a bus or riding their ass to work on a bicycle, none of us should have a position on the issue.

I understand your position as stated, but until these eco-religionists stop trying to engage government force to accomplish their goals of world sociofascism, "shutting up" isn't in the cards.

After they've collapsed in a paroxysm of starvation in whatever third world country they flee to, then we can stop worrying about them.

[dd74]

Originally posted by fastpat
I understand your position as stated, but until these eco-religionists stop trying to engage government force to accomplish their goals of world sociofascism, "shutting up" isn't in the cards.

After they've collapsed in a paroxysm of starvation in whatever third world country they flee to, then we can stop worrying about them.

Believe me, Pat. The only place they're making a dent is here in Hollyweird. Okay maybe some whack jobs in Frisco and some NY cabbies have gone green/hybrid/solar, etc, but there's no way V8s, 4WD and oil-burning heat is going to be wrenched (pun intended) from the majority of Americans.

They're the new hippies, IMO. But hippies eventually do grow up to drive Mercedes Benzs.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by dd74
Believe me, Pat. The only place they're making a dent is here in Hollyweird. Okay maybe some whack jobs in Frisco and some NY cabbies have gone green/hybrid/solar, etc, but there's no way V8s, 4WD and oil-burning heat is going to be wrenched (pun intended) from the majority of Americans.

They're the new hippies, IMO. But hippies eventually do grow up to drive Mercedes Benzs.

I hope you're correct.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by fastpat
I understand your position as stated, but.....

Sweet fancy Moses, Pat may be growing a little

[URY914]

This was actually discussed yesterday on NPR. (of all places)
They interviewed a few people on the "credit" scam. Which it is. They didn't go into it as far as Gore's intrest in the company but his house was the topic of discussion. They did admit that a lot pf people feel "carbon credits" is a bunch of hog wash. You can't take a credit on something that was going to be done anyway.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Gore isn't buying credits. He's trying to buy cred.