Al Gore's Inconvenient Loot

Former Vice President Al 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. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

As Bill Hobbs first pointed out, Gore supposedly pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management (GIM) - and if you're looking to go green, and have your wallet go along with Gore, think again - average people are too insignificant to play - verifiable from this pdf.

Generation is based in London, with its U.S. offices in Washington, DC. The firm will manage the assets of institutional investors such as pension funds, foundations and endowments, as well as those of select high net worth individuals.* Generation expects to make extensive use of long-term performance based fees. Generation will begin its investment management business in early 2005.

* like Al Gore

Gore's company, GIM was specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming. The Global Warming crowd has told us that just recently new science emerged confirming the alleged fact that Global Warming is man made. So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004? Is it possible Gore knew what the science would say before it was out? And even if not, can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be trusted as an honest broker on that topic? Talk about giving the fox the keys to the hen penthouse.

Even if Global Warming did exist, in principle, what's the difference between war profiteering and this? One could justifiably argue that Gore is taking advantage of, in his opinion, a catastrophic situation to clean up - and I don't mean the environment.

Here's a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore's control. And, as you'll see below, Gore's selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.

AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC

According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns. If we borrow John Edward's so-called two Americas concept for a second, this all means higher prices and taxes with more regulation and an altered standard of living for people like you and me, while Al Gore sits ensconced in his other America reaping profits from each new government mandate for us, business and even government itself. It's win win, alright, but mostly for Al.

To add insult to injury, Gore chose Peter S. Knight, an old friend and colleague some are sure to recall, as the US President of GIM.

Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton's successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.

This would be him:   Reno Rejects Inquiry Into a Clinton Aide

Atty Gen Janet Reno decides against any further investigation of Peter Knight, Pres Clinton's 1996 campaign manager in connection with office building development in nation's capital; such an investigation could have led to naming independent counsel to look further into activities of Knight, who is also former top assistant to Vice Pres Al Gore.

Yes, thanks to Janet Reno, no one ever found out how $20,000 in stock turned up in an account for Knight's then 13 year old child.

Dispute over Democratic Party campaign-financing shifts to Zachary Knight, 13-year-old son of Peter S Knight, Clinton-Gore campaign chairman in 1996, who was given $20,000 in stock by William Haney 3d, chairman of Molten Metal Technology Inc; Republicans believe gift, which came after father was named chairman of campaign, was really payment to Knight, who had worked as $7,000-per-month lobbyist for company; Knight denies involvement in any impropriety; photo

If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in? And given the history of Gore and Knight, are these people we should trust to drive a re-vamping of the world economy at the same time they're lining their pockets because of our much smaller carbon footprints?

If Al Gore is successful with this latest scheme, Gore and his cronies are going to be much more $green$ than most of the earth. And the only green in this for you and me is the kind that accompanies envy as Gore trucks around on private jets putting dollars to offset his extravagance into a cash machine generating profits on the backs of the middle class with misrepresented science that doesn't deserve to be called science at all.

Mr. Gore starts out, ironically enough, asserting the importance of peer-reviewed science. I call this ironic because the misrepresentation that follows (a) hasn’t been peer reviewed, and (b) the peer-reviewed literature contradicts the misrepresentation.

From the Center For Public Integrity: one of the issues involving both Knight and carbon friendly Al was the installation of a hot tub and steam shower in the Master Bedroom of the VP's house. How Green is that?

Here's what the Center found about some of the most generous contributors to the foundation: Peter S. Knight...

Peter S. Knight, Gore's former chief of staff, managed Gore's first bid for the presidency in 1988. In 1989, he began lobbying for the firm Wunder, Diefendorfer, Cannon and Thelan. Given his closeness to Gore and the rest of the Clinton administration, corporations now pay Knight upward of $10,000 a month to wield his influence with Gore. With the help of his new clients, Knight soon cemented a new role for himself as Gore's "chief of fund raising."

Since 1996, Knight's various lobbying and fund-raising activity has been the subject of a Federal Election Commission investigation, a Justice Department inquiry and two House Commerce Committee probes.

Gore chose Knight to act as chairman of the foundation during Gore's first vice presidential term. Three of Knight's clients - millionaire publishing magnate Vance Opperman, Bell Atlantic and Fluor Corporation — showered the foundation with $10,000 each.

Knight also solicited $10,000 contributions from foundations run by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), Coca-Cola Company, MCI Communications (now MCI WorldCom, Inc.), Time Warner Inc. and Microsoft Corporation (Chairman Bill Gates also contributed a $30,000 glass sculpture). Under Gore's supervision, the foundation pledged to take corporate money only through their foundations, not from corporations directly. The $10,000 paid by the Coca-Cola Company, however, came out of the corporate account.

Comments

[Gary Maxwell]

already provided ample proof of his own personal actions to reduce his carbon use and has provided a financial vehicle that offsets his use.

Where?

And ample to you? Grudgingly and still negligible to none existent to most fair observers would probably be a reasoned retort.

If we all offset our use with pretty certificates exactly how does co2 get reduced one micron? Its amazing how that small fact seems to escape you.

[supernintendo Chalmers]

Today Comedian Rush Limbaugh on his radio show said:

You cannot believe in God AND global warming.

.

[iftheshoefits]

"So, you think that Al Gore doesn't really believe or care about global warming, it's all a sham to make money, is that what you are saying?"

You know, raising up strawmen and then burning them isn't helping our CO2 problem...

I know that there are are lots of people who believe it's all a sham. As an environmentalist, that is an ongoing source of discouragement for me. Most of us know that human actions are usually based upon a complex mix of motives.

I think Al Gore believes what he says. Not enough to have triggered any real government policy while we was VP, but hey, he was VP, not the pres, and the pres seemed a bit pre-occupied much of the time. Did I mention that the Republican congress passed the residential renewable energy credits legislation, and GW signed it?

I also think that Al Gore is waaaay ahead of the actual science. And that will ultimately hurt the cause more than it will help. And that maybe his other political convictions, having nothing in and of themselves to do with Global Warming, might have a wee bit to do with his motiviations.

I personally don't think Gore's self-owned carbon trading thing is necessarily all that bad. I do suspect though, that it's likely to have no effect relative to it's primary claimed purpose, that is, offsetting atmosphereic CO2 caused by his fossil fuel consumption.

As far as the "appearance of impropriety" angle, the whole scheme sure was set up in a such a manner that indicates that he never expected any of the internals to get the kind of significant airing in public that it's now getting.

The problem with getting serious about actually reducing energy consumption (as opposed to trading offsets) is that it's a bitch, no matter who you are.

[Boris]

"The whole point of the post (and the discussion, I had hoped) is to question whether Al Gore's particular investments were having the carbon neutral effects that he claims."

Once again, it's not the investments Gore is making--and potentially profiting from--that offset carbon emissions. It's the projects GIM funds. In Bulgaria (I think I mistakenly said Bolivia before), India and Sri Lanka. GIM offsets the CO2 emissions of all of their employees, including Gore, and the CO2 emissions of their offices and travel.

Gore and GIM's customers are investing in green technologies, which encoourages these technologies. Anyone can invest in them if they want. Go ahead, get rich and help the environment.

[Boris]

"The whole point of the post (and the discussion, I had hoped) is to question whether Al Gore's particular investments were having the carbon neutral effects that he claims."

Once again, it's not the investments Gore is making--and potentially profiting from--that offset carbon emissions. It's the projects GIM funds. In Bulgaria (I think I mistakenly said Bolivia before), India and Sri Lanka. GIM offsets the CO2 emissions of all of their employees, including Gore, and the CO2 emissions of their offices and travel.

Gore and GIM's customers are investing in green technologies, which encoourages these technologies. Anyone can invest in them if they want. Go ahead, get rich and help the environment.

[Gary Maxwell]

Well I keep thinking of another comedian, Dana Carvey. And in his now famous role as the Church Lady he played a bit of a skeptic. So excuse me the luxury of thinking of her response after drilling down deep in Gore's tale and hearing that he is "installing" ( not has had installed ) solar panels. (As a point of some pride I can say Hell I have had a solar panel on my house since 1998). And some more grilling and it comes out that the certificates are produced by a company he owns, is an officer in and draws a salary from. No explanation of how or how much and how its calculated. As the church lady might say " How conveeeeenient!"

[Hard Right]

Al Gore-modern snake oil salesman. If the prdictions from people like him had come true, then over the last 40 years there would have been global freezing, worldwide starvation (several times), and overpoplation. Wake up lefties, you're being manipulated-AGAIN.

[yyy]

I must have missed that whole ice age thing, though I do remember the global starvation scare.

[yyy]

I'm curious, even if Al Gore IS a hypocrite does that mean global warming is a lie?

The saddest irony of the wingnut left is they are willing to go to war over and over again based on faulty evidence, made up evidence or secret evidence, yet they unfailingly refuse to believe the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific bodies that have studied climate change.

I guess if George Bush told them the Islamofascist Terrorists were behind global warming they would be lining up for hybrid cars and building their own mud huts by the millions.

[iftheshoefits]

Boris,

You may well be correct. I haven't seen enough hard data about GIM to know one way or the other.

And I'm willing to cut Al Gore a lot of slack, if he'd just back off his high horse a bit, and show a little more genuine graciousness to those who aren't completely with the program.

Al Gore is the single person on the planet most responsible for hyping up the apocalyptic consequences of our current energy consumption practices. If that is truly the case, then trading credits ain't gonna cut it. At all.

Significantly reducing one's personal energy consumption, as opposed to buying off the problem, is really expensive. Typically it means building an entirely new custom designed passive solar home, or radically refurbishing your present one. (Heating/cooling loads account for about 80% of the typical residential carbon footprint, solar panels only address about 20% of the problem.) A lot of homes can't be refurbished, you just have to move and start over. Not a very sustainable concept, but as I said, real energy reduction is a bitch.

Then for electricity, you have to invest in about $30-50K of solar panels and inverters. Another 3-5K in solar hot water panels for domestic hot water, $10-12K in addition if you want to provide solar-based radiant in-floor heat. And these costs are for an average sized home.

And then there's transportation. Hybrids are great, but they only affect things at the margin. To really make a difference, you have to radically re-think your use of automobiles.

If we're at the crisis point that Gore says we are, then most of us need to be looking at taking all or many of the above steps. Most people can't afford it. Al Gore and Hollywood entertainers are some of the few that can. Why hasn't he pursued these things aggressively already? Other people who really take him at his word are.

Am I holding him up to a high standard? You bet I am. He asked for it, by virtue of the position he's put himself in. Raising awareness is great, Al. Now lead the charge like a true leader would.

[Gary Maxwell]

Just because you missed, reading Hardy Boy novels I assume, does not mean it did not happen. It was all the rage for years. We were heading for another ice age, and of course man was responsible. Then there was the hole in the ozone fracas and we banned CFCs guess what no change in the hole even with a world wide ban. The hits just keep on coming.

Could we please wait until we have a computer model that can accurately even model our climate. And if we are in the closest to the Sun part of the Earth orbit wobble, what portion of .7 degree warm up that we have experienced only recently due to the wobble. If we dont know we should tell people.

The hardest part is even if you accept that man is totally responsible ( I dont and could if I saw some convincing evidence ), you still need an accurate prediction of what the consequences will be.

Finally is what should be a response and what will that cost and what results will it bring both on the atmosphere and our way of life. there is nothing remotely near repsonsive to this last one.

[yyy]

Sorry, that's pure crap.

If we can't do 100% of what is needed then we shouldn't bother with doing 20% or 30%, how ridiculous.

The fact is that if global warming is as bad as scientists say it is, we're already screwed unless someone invents an entirely new, renewable, non polluting energy source in the next 20 years.

Anything is better than nothing at this point.

The idea that everyone needs a new house is just more right wing fear mongering. What about we start with some energy efficent light bulbs. Then, we could move on either to stricter standards for household appliances or tax credits for buying the top of the line energy efficent models. We could do the same for cars.

[yyy]

I don't think anyone ever said banning CFC's was going to miraculously replenish the ozone, what the banning sought to do was stop the hole from getting bigger...

[Gary Maxwell]

Let's start in Al Gores three mansions. And close down the zinc mines raping Mother Earth.

[Boris]

iftheshowfits,

I agree I'd like to see Gore do more--but then we don; treally know the details of his house, how many people work there, etc, etc.I think he should publically give up private jets as well, because that's a tone of emissions right there.

But your other points seem to suggets we have to do everything at once. WHile global warming is lightning fast in geologic terms, it's slow enought hat we can move in stages, the first of whihc should be to reduce waste. CF lightbulbs save money now, so except for lacking the initial purchase price, there's no excuse not to have them.

There are many other ideas--carbon sequestration and other forms of energy that will help reduce CO2 enough that we can handle the rest of the warming via adaptation. But adaptation to a much warmer world has a cost of its own--a high and unknown one at that.

[Gary Maxwell]

I don't think

You should stop right there. Peopel did say the hole would close back up. And the hole has gotten bigger this year without any CFCs. How did that happen? You dont know do you? Neither does anyone else. Point is that we need to better info that we have, or we can make some more stupid decisions.

[yyy]

I see, so we should continue on our merry way, keep on burning fossel fuels and get the CFC emissions back up again as well, keep on waiting for 'conclusive' evidence.

Got it. Great plan.

[yyy]

PS

Just as I thought you are full of sh*t about the ozone. The ozone hole has gotten bigger because of unregulated CFC in Asia, primarily from air conditioners.

So, um, I guess that means that the scientists have an explanation afterall that doens't include 'oops, we were wrong about the relationship between the hole in the ozone and CFC's...

Caught lying again, what a surprise.

[Gary Maxwell]

Here is a quote from an old article.

In 1989 world leaders met in Montreal, Canada, and agreed to reduce CFC production. The treaty is known as the Montreal Protocol. It worked! Scientists now are finding fewer CFCs in the stratosphere, and they are optimistic that the hole in the ozone layer might disappear in the next few decades.

Yet 2006 the hole was the largest ever recorded. Now who is full of it?

[yyy]

The ozone hole has gotten bigger because of unregulated CFC in Asia, primarily from air conditioners.
----------------------------

What part of that did you not understand?

Just like a right winger, when called on something, never admit error, compound your error by further attempting to mislead your audience.

[yyy]

A recent technical study by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Program found that

the so-called ozone "hole" over Antarctica — actually an area of unusually low ozone concentrations — was dissipating more slowly than expected.

Scientists mostly blame chlorofluorocarbons, a chemical used in an early form of refrigerant that they now realize was released into the atmosphere in larger quantities than forecast. As a result, the international agencies now say that injury to the Earth's ozone layer could take a quarter of a century longer to heal than previously expected.

The fastest-growing offending gas that scientists say can be better managed is HCFC-22. Nearly 200 diplomats will gather in Montreal in September to determine how to speed up the timetable for the elimination of certain gases that threaten the ozone layer, in particular how to manage HCFC-22. A deadline for proposals is March 15.

At a meeting in Washington last week, Bush administration officials said for the first time that they were considering four possible proposals for a faster phaseout.

Industrial countries currently must phase out production of HCFC-22 by 2020 and are ahead of schedule, with the United States banning domestic production in 2010. The Environmental Protection Agency is studying whether to ban imports of the gas and the sale of new products using the gas by then as well.

By contrast, the Montreal Protocol, which governs the phaseout of ozone- depleting chemicals, allows developing countries to continue using HCFC-22 through 2040.

China in particular is stepping up exports to the United States of air conditioners using the chemical, often labeled as R22, especially after the European Union finished phasing out the production and import of such air conditioners in 2004.

Pound for pound, HCFC-22 is only 5 percent as harmful to the ozone layer as the chlorofluorocarbons it replaced. But it still inflicts damage, especially when emitted in enormous quantities by China, now the world's dominant producer of window air conditioners, and by India, a fast-growing market and manufacturer.

The latest estimate from technical experts is that the chemical's output in developing countries is rising 20 to 35 percent each year and could continue at that pace for years: slightly over 2 percent of Indian households currently have air conditioners, according to LG of South Korea.

--------------------------------------

In other words, scientists UNDERPLAYED the problem....just like they are doing now with global warming.

[Sydney Carton]

I have never seen a bigger load of crap than Kevin's post. It's time for a fisking:

"Non-indexed investment funds are regarded by the SEC as inherently risky investments."

WRONG. There are hundreds of non-indexed investment companies out there. You're probably referring to hedge funds, but even the SEC doesn't regard them as "inherently risky," only that the qualified purchasers/accredited investors who invest in those funds do not need the protection of the securities laws. The funds themselves could be relatively bland.

"Gore's fund targets sophisticated investors - as almost every clever-pants speculative investment fund does. This is industry standard practice."

Hedge funds are not permitted to market to the public. If they did, they'd have to register under the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Investment Company Act of 1940. Hedge funds can, however, market to accredited investors if a 3(c)(1) fund, or qualified purchasers if a 3(c)(7) fund. Your limited knowledge on these issues exposes your greater ignorance on the hypocrisy of Gore, which I'll discuss shortly.

"As for the purpose of the fund, it brings market leverage to bear on the environmental crisis by supporting and investing in the long-term growth of businesses with sustainable business practices. You don't have to be an environmentalist to invest in their fund; you just have to believe in their ability to find successful investment targets."

This is technically correct. But the investment targets are successful with the help of Al Gore's scaremongering about global warming. AL GORE is creating the "environmental crisis." He has a FINANCIAL STAKE in scaring as many people as possible into purchasing carbon credits, or soliciting from so-called eco-friendly companies like Whole Foods. Hence, Al Gore's gospel about global warming is really just a sales ploy.

"If you think they can make money, you have an incentive to invest with them - which means that their fund inherently puts non-environmentalists' money to work supporting environmentally sound business, out of purely economic motives alone."

Purely economic motives alone. Let that sink in. Gore is doing this for purely economic reasons alone. His hyping of global warming is a market ploy to get people to buy the products from "eco-friendly" companies that his hedge fund invests in. If they do well from all his scaremongering, he'll make a big profit from his investments.

"Isn't that the kind of "market solution" you're supposed to support?"

Not when there's nothing worth buying. He's basically making money off of people's fears. We're supposed to shop at Whole Foods, spending double on products like chicken and beef, only because Al Gore tells us to? And he tells us because he has large investments in Whole Foods. So the more people who spend exhorbitant amounts at Whole Foods, the more money Al Gore makes. Don't you see something wrong with this? He's a huckster. That might be capitalism, but it's capitalism of the robber-barron type.

"GIM is an ordinary "growth" investment fund with a particular investment strategy. It was founded for the purpose of supporting sustainable businesses, but it operates the same way all such funds do, each of which has their own pet investment theories."

The investment strategy only works if the investment targets make money, and those targets are promoted by Al Gore.

"Gore's not making money off your carbon offsets, if you even use any, and if he did, again, isn't that the sort of thing you're supposed to support?"

Of course he is. People buy carbon offsets. Which companies are the buying them from? The ones Gore's fund invests in. He makes money every time someone buys a carbon offset from a company his hedge fund owns. Carbon offsets are like cash flows into those companies. They're selling things like land tracts of trees to morons who pay money for those trees to suck up carbon dioxide. It's a cash cow. Gore's fund makes a nice profit from all of that.

"By investing in the company that trades carbon offsets, he creates a market for such trades, and those trades support renewable energy resources."

If you think it's a good idea to pay a company to NOT cut down trees, fine. But it's a cash cow. And Gore is trying to convince lots of people to do that. He has an inherent financial stake in the matter. That's the point.

"That's the kind of investment that brings social goods as well as profits"

Profits to Gore, of course. There's no profit to anyone else to NOT cut down a tree.

"but if the investment is attractive from the profit perspective alone, isn't that an even better and more likely way to achieve the social benefit?"

It's an investment in ether. It creates NOTHING. Convincing people to buy carbon credits is like convincing people to pay you to drink less water. You get a lot of money for something that is a complete fraud. It's a great thing for YOU, if you get the money. But it does nothing for society. Same thing with buying organic food. It's just a complete waste of money, except for the companies marketing organic food.

"And as others have pointed out, there's nothing hypocritical or unusal about Gore's energy usage; what's different is that he tries to do something about it. What you can't seem to stand is that he does it in a way that uses the market for good ends."

It's very hyporcitcal. Gore knows better. He's "buying" carbon offsets in companies that he owns. It's like transferring 5 dollars from his left pocket to his right pocket. But all the other people he tells to buy carbon credits are basically giving him free money.

"Really, you're just bent out of shape because Gore has money and is playing your game to his own purposes - so far, successfully."

I'm not happy to see a huckster. Magic shows are entertainment, not serious investments.

[Ennis]

Rev. Gore is just following the advice of L. Ron Hubbard who once said 'If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'.

And the same suckers who fell for Hubbard are now falling over themselves for Rev. Gore.

There are some differences, though.

The Scientologists are rather low key about their religion, except for that whack job Tom Cruise. And Scientology doesn't have a high hypocrisy factor built in, either. Rev. Gore and his high Hollywood clergy obviously do not think there really is a "crisis" or they would actually practice what they preach. And practicing what you preach is not screwing in a couple florescent light bulbs at your mansions while air conditioning your stables or parking a Prius in your driveway in front of your garage full of SUV's and sports cars. The Pious in the driveway is their version of a plastic Pink Flamingo in the yard.

The scary thing in all of this is that the cultists in Rev. Gore's Church of Gaia are increasingly reminding me of the followers of another cult.

The People's Temple.

All one has to do is read some of the posts made by them here. If you are unfortunate enough to have a friend or relative who has fallen for this cult you know this one first hand. They have all the classic behaviour changes that occur in people who fallen into a cult.

Rev. Gore's Church of Gaia and it's followers beginning to exhibit all the warning signs of a destructive cult like the People's Temple, too.

1. A destructive cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of its members' behavior. CHECK.

2. A destructive cult tends to have an ethical double standard. CHECK.

3. A destructive cult has only two basic purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising. CHECK.

4. A destructive cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. CHECK.

5. A destructive cult is authoritarian in its power structure. CHECK.

6. A destructive cult's leader is a self-appointed messianic person claiming to have a special mission in life. CHECK.

7. A destructive cult's leader centers the veneration of members upon himself or herself. CHECK.

8. A destructive cult's leader tends to be determined, domineering, and charismatic. CHECK.

I wonder how long it will be before the Rev. Gore starts advocating that people should be killed in order to "save Gaia"?

[iftheshoefits]

"But your other points seem to suggets we have to do everything at once."

No that's not my point. We only have to do everything at once if the problem is as catastrophically bad as Al Gore seems to want us to believe. I'm sorry, we can't have it both ways. Either the problem is an extreme crisis, a global catastrophe out there in our very near future, or it's something much less severe. And I stand by what I said, if our situation is that grave, trading energy credits to a handful of companies trying to do the right thing won't suffice. All it will probably do is very slightly reduce the rate of growth in US energy consumption, who knows if any at all worldwide. And that is an inconvenient truth that really sucks, I wish it were different.

I don't happen to agree with Gore that things are that dire, at least not based on the information we have today. But it's a complex puzzle, and reasonable people can come to different conclusions. Regardless, for a whole host of reasons (global warming being one of the weakest, IMO), everybody should do what they can to reduce consumption. That usually ends up meaning, not a whole heck of a lot without government coercion or really substantial subsidies.

And yeah, I'm a free market kind of guy, even though free markets are far from perfect. My prediction about future energy consumption is that the real reductions in fossil fuel consumption will probably come from
1. demand side, mostly through energy price increases, forcing changes in consumption patterns, and
2. supply side, by technological breakthroughs and advances, the timing of which are hard to predict.

And I'm guessing that all of today's global warming excitements will pass because there isn't enough substance there, although I could be wrong.

[yyy]

Since no one has so far convinced the US government that global warming is a serious problem that needs a global solution and Kyoto is dead in the water and China and India are gearing up for a fossel fuel burning party like the world hasn't seen...what do you propose?

Do nothing until all the governments of the world are on board with a global plan?

I'm guessing that science is right this time on global warming and future generations are in for a world of hurt, and deservedly so.

[Gary Maxwell]

and deservedly so.

Sometimes you make even less sense than at other times. This is surely one of those. How in th world would future generations ( ie the unborn ) deserve some "worlds of hurt" whatever that means? Can you just make stuff up out of thin air and convince yourself of your correctness.

Listen if Core is right Manhattan to going to be undewater. Seen a big exodus off Chief Manhattan's former possession? Me either. Why is that, with all those Democrats there, so predisposed to the Al Gore message. Answer, cuz those folks know him best, and know just how full of it Al is. No other logical explanation.

[iftheshoefits]

What I would propose would depend upon what the biggest problem really is.

If it truly is radical global climate instability on the horizon, due to massive amounts of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, I have to reluctantly agree with those that say nuclear power is the primary answer, conservation 2nd, wind 3rd, solar probably 4th. I'm neither particularly pro or con as far as nuclear goes, there are lots of problems still unaddressed w/r/t waste disposal. It is the only solution that could massively reduce fossil consumption quickly because it could very readily be "dropped in" to the existing energy transmission and distribution infrastructure.

I don't want to live within 50 miles of either a fossil or a nuke plant myself. But I'll gladly live within 100 miles of a nuke plant instead of the coal plants we have now that muck up my air in the desert southwest, just to ship power to Las Vegas and CA.

And I'll gladly live within 5-10 miles of wind farm, unlike some I know. If I wanted to score cheap political points I would say that nuclear is a solution that even John Kerry could get behind, as it would follow the lead of the French and it wouldn't have to involve windmills of the coast of Nantucket, but I wouldn't think of doing that.

If the problem really is that we're running out of oil, well, the price mechanism will do its work, not without pain, but what choice do we have. Some subsidiies and taxes to amplify and speed up its effect probably wouldn't hurt along the way. Again I think nuclear would play a big role, in large part because the younger generation isn't spooked by nuke the way my generation is (the way my parent's generation was spooked by hydrogen 'cause of the Hindenberg).

I think the problem really is that we're starting again to muck up our air after a generation of steady improvement, due to coalstack emissions and too many automobiles in too concentrated an area. I voted with my feet and left the city. We should ratchet up the pollution standards again on all fronts, cleaning up the air further and resulting in small energy price increases which would only help decrease consumption. I don't agree with conservatives and industry folk that say we can't afford it. The economy wasn't exactly screaming in the 70's when all the pollution standards first got rolled out, and it's done quite well since. Energy in inflation-adjusted prices costs about the same then as it does now. So yeah, we can afford if.

And let's keep ratcheting up the incentives for real personal energy conservation (not trading so much, although it's OK within the limits of what it can do), so that we don't have to keep wasting the landscape with so much energy drilling, open pit coal mining and new transmission lines. And so we don't need to add too many nukes.

[yyy]

Seen a big exodus off Chief Manhattan's former possession?
=============

Are you really, honest to god this stupid?

Sea levels aren't predicted to rise to the level of submerging Manhattan for many decades, perhaps not for a century.

LOL is this the best you numbnuts can do.

Manhattan is still full of people so global warming is a myth because they all 'know' Al Gore.

Dear God, you people make me embarrassed to be an American.

[Gary Maxwell]

i think all needs a catchier name for his new venture. that GIM is downright boring. To help him out I have racked my brain for something description yet familiar and kinda catchy. Tell me what you think:

Greenfleece

Is that perfect or what.

For the record I have compact fluorescent spotlights in all outdoor lighting, 13 SEER air conditioners, computerized thermostats on every zone in the house, 60% solar screens on all western exposures, a solar panel and I recycle more than 50% in volume of my weekly trash output. And I have not bought one single credit from some trading company. I live the low footprint life a lot better than the high priest I am afraid.

[Gary Maxwell]

YYY

I have refrained to this point from commenting on your juvenile and demeaning comments. You are the ignorant one and lots of people are laughing at you. I am the only one that will tell you. But take your bad attitude and insults and stick them where the sun dont shine. You are the poster boy for an ignorant yet arrogant liberal so smug in what they dont know. Truth problem would hurt if it could penetrate your dense skull.

[yyy]

Gary,

Lots of people are laughing at me? Really? The freaks and idiots here who troll Danny boy's blog? Oh, boy I am mortified.

YOU are a liar. Period.

I called you out on your bullshit about the ozone, and you had nothing to say about it.

The best argument you can come up with on global warming is that people aren't feeling Manhattan so it must be false, and you call me juvenile?

Your next best argument is that 40 years ago some scientists though the earth was cooling, so that today, 40 years later, with computer models and huge leaps in climate study technology, since they were wrong 40 years ago they must be wrong today.

Why don't you go pray to the baby Jesus for the unborn, kay.

[Steel]

...I wonder how long it will be before the Rev. Gore starts advocating that people should be killed in order to "save Gaia"?...

He already has done in spirit.

He said that when it comes to global warming, there's such a thing a 'too-well balanced' press.

Stifling freedom of speech is but one small step from killing the speaker.

[Gary Maxwell]

You are an asshole period. Neither of us have accomplished much but after all of your insults, I just wanted you to know exactly how I felt. Why does an moronic asshole hang around a conservative site anyway? It cant be to share your wit and wisdom cuz frankly sir you have so little to spare.

[yyy]

Another LIE.

What he said was the press reports the global warming debate as 'balanced' when the scientific CONSENSUS is that global warming is occuring and in large part due to human activity.

In other words, when 99% of the world's scientists agree on these points it is wrong to write articles that make it appear there is a 50/50 split of opinion.

[yyy]

It amuzes me to whip up conservative, jesus loving, muslim hating, torture loving, war mongering losers such as congregate here at Dan's blog.

It's also a good reality check, I need occasional reminders of just how crazy, untethered and immoral the ring wing nutters are.

You all never disappoint.

[Purple Avenger]

"China and India are gearing up for a fossel fuel burning party like the world hasn't seen..."

Since both India and the PRC have significant coastal areas, it would appear Algore hasn't convinced them eh?

[yyy]

Hmm, well the Chinese have yet to be convinced that killing baby girls is wrong, that torture is wrong, that trading in endangered species is wrong.....

Kind of a non issue, really, what the chinese think of global warming.

[Hard Right]

Do I think the earth is warming up? Yes. Do I think man caused it? Hell no.

Look lefties, everyone is for protecting the environment. However, we aren't willing to cut our throats economically for highly questionable results as you are demanding. Gore AND Kerry had the chance to approve the Kyoto treaty and they DIDN'T. So them bashing Bush over it is blatantly hypocritical. On top of that the Euros and others who signed have hardly tried to meet the goals. Why? Because they aren't achievable without destroying their economies!
Lastly, if the world is in such dire shape and Kyoto is SOOOOO needed, why do China and India get a pass? Because it's BS. Period.

[hts]

You couple of libs here crack me up. Obviously products of the Socialist agenda. I'm talking about the part where they take control of the schools, and get rid of teaching scientific method. You people are dangerous. You believe alien technology will solve global warming. You people believe in "consensus". You don't believe in experimentation. You believe in data manipulation. Einstein once said something like, "no number of people can prove me right, but it only takes one to prove me wrong." You people have abandoned any precept of using facts. Only manipulation.

hts

[yyy]

More hyperbole and bullshit.

Cut our throats economically, destroy the economy.

Same old same old. It it was up to you nutters there wouldn't be ANY environmental protections, since all environmental protections demand some degree of economic sacrifice. In order not to fish a species into extinction someone at some time has to reduce their fish count. In order to protect wetlands someone somwhere isn't allowed to build a house or a development. Not using DDT hurt the DDT industry. It cost the auto industry money to upgrade emissions standards, as I remember, it was going to BREAK the industry, but of course it didn't.

[yyy]

You people have abandoned any precept of using facts.
------------------------------------------------

Don't you ever get tired of lying? The FACT is that the scientific community...based on their scientific methods, climate models and peer reviewed studies have concluded that global warming is occuring and it is due in large part to human activity.

[JimK]

Wait, Al Gore is using extreme amounts of energy - just in his home, mind you, forget the jet-setting - and he is buying carbon offsets from himself at a profit and the left still defends it?

WTF? Am I through the looking glass?

[Boris]

iftheshowfits,
"We only have to do everything at once if the problem is as catastrophically bad as Al Gore seems to want us to believe."

Why do you think Gore is exagerating the science? The problem is bad, but you also don't want--or need--to ruin any economies.

Interestingly if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions tomorrow we would likely see a short term increase in warming. This is because CO2 has an atmospheric life of 100 years, while aerosols (which provide a cooling effect) have a life of only ten days. There are all kinds of things to think about, but most scientists believe we need to begin acting seriously within the next ten years to mitigate future warming.

[Boris]

"You people believe in "consensus"."

So when the vast majority of the world's leading scientists agree on something, we should do the opposite? Interesting logic there.

[ZuZu]

>>>So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004?<<<

Are you truly that stupid?

Do you really not know that corporations have been trading in carbon emission offsets for years? That the Prototype Carbon Fund, for example, was established in the World Bank in 1999?

http://www.undp.org/energy/docs/cdmchapter7.pdf

That, as another example, a voluntary market based exchange was established in Chicago in 2003?

http://marketinggreen.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/marketing-carbon-offsets-in-a-voluntary-market/

That consumer-oriented carbon offset investor groups like TerraPass were already in existence in 2004?

http://www.terrapass.com/about/ourstory.html

You honestly think that Al Gore was not paying attention?

I guess you just assume everyone's as ill-informed as you.

[Thomas McCord]

"Don't you ever get tired of lying? The FACT is that the scientific community...based on their scientific methods, climate models and peer reviewed studies have concluded that global warming is occuring and it is due in large part to human activity."

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

Doug Hoyt has developed a scorecard to compare the major predictions of global warming models with actual observations. He gives each prediction a "yes-no-undetermined score." So if the major models' prediction is confirmed, the score at the beginning would be 1-0-0. So how do the models score when compared with the evidence? The final score is 1-27-4. That's one confirmed prediction, 27 disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined.

Hoyt isn't a newcomer to the debate. He's published important work on sunspot observations over the past 4 centuries. He also coauthored a book called The Role of the Sun in Climate Change , published by some fringe outfit called "Oxford University Press."

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

[Dan Riehl]

"ill-informed"

Sure ZuZU. Now go read the independent review of terrapass and see how they don't even rank as a tier one supplier of snake oil.

[Schmuck]

Whatever Al Gore does, and however much he profits from peddling his influence in support of global warming, there's two reasons why it's OK.

1. He is a high ranking Party official and as such is better than everyone else.

2. There's no controlling legal authority.

[Boris]

Thomas,
Your link was filled with a cherry picking of the literature. One small exampl, boreholes are touted as evidence of a MWP, but ignored as counterevidence for the urban heat island effect.

[Zuzu]

Sure Dan. Now go read my post again. And read that insightful comment of yours to which it was responding:

>>So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004?<<<

Way to deflect, eh? I guess you assume your readers are just as ill-informed as you.