1. I accept that I am under the control of a higher power (Muppet).

gore's carbon offsets

does gore buy stock and call it carbon offsets
or does he buy carbon offsets through his investment company? opinions?
Permalink school kid 
March 26th, 2007 1:05pm
We've not actually answered the specific question of the OP....  Are the credits bullshit? Is he buying stock and calling it a credit?
Permalink  
March 26th, 2007 2:26pm
Yes, the 'carbon offsets' are not traditional offsets sold by a company that goes and plants a forest in Zambia as a result. Gore is considering the stock he owns in his mutual fund to intrinsically be carbon offsets since these are green companies.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 26th, 2007 2:39pm
Dennis Forbes just linked to a blog called "global warming hoax" which just explained Al Gore's financial ties to the so-called hoax. I'm not sure if that's irony or just really bad meta.
Permalink Colm 
March 26th, 2007 3:14pm
"Gore is considering the stock he owns in his mutual fund to intrinsically be carbon offsets since these are green companies."

Source?

Running a company that invests in green is good. But it's not the same as carbon credits.
Permalink school kid 
March 26th, 2007 3:15pm
The "global warming hoax" blog asks the right question: "To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks."

True?
Does he buy carbon offsets through Generation Investment Mangement?
Does he buy carbon offsets at all?
Permalink school kid 
March 26th, 2007 3:17pm
>Dennis Forbes just linked to a blog called "global warming hoax"

Is there some reason you always refer to my full name? I personally don't care, but it seems so bizarro that I have to think that you have some sort of perverted motivation.

However, yes I did linked to a blog that takes the extreme position that global warming is a hoax, and you know I almost put a disclaimer on it because I knew that your immediate response would be to attack the source and not the facts. Why don't you refute the facts themselves for once?
Permalink DF 
March 26th, 2007 3:34pm
>Is there some reason you always refer to my full name?

Because you always used to refer to your full name. It's how I still think of you.

>However, yes I did linked to a blog that takes the extreme
>position that global warming is a hoax, and you know I
>almost put a disclaimer on it because I knew that your
>immediate response would be to attack the source and not
>the facts.

When that is the source... is there really any point in looking at the facts?
Permalink Colm 
March 26th, 2007 3:45pm
>When that is the source... is there really any point in looking at the facts?

Honestly it was the first Google hit, but it gave the same information that I've seen everywhere else regarding Gore's carbon credits $cheme (hehe). Surely a Gore defender can easily find information demonstrating Gore's selfless benevolence.
Permalink DF 
March 26th, 2007 3:56pm
Im fascinated that previously strong libertarian posters with a real belief in the power of capitalism see the fact that gore is profiting from global warming as a bad thing.

surely the idea of profiting from solving a real world problem is a good one?
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
March 26th, 2007 4:00pm
>Im fascinated that previously strong libertarian posters with a real belief in the power of capitalism see the fact that gore is profiting from global warming as a bad thing.

There is nothing morally wrong with profiting, and more power to Gore for enhancing his personal wealth. However when he is personally a catalyst for government and societal changes that just so happen to directly enrich himself financially, that's a serious conflict of interest that does draw some question about his motivations. Further, "buying" carbon credits -- where one actually does sacrifice some personal wealth -- is a world different from trading some cash for an appreciating stock. Parading the latter as the former is offensive, moreso when even the former is deplorable if it's used purely to maintain the status quo.
Permalink DF 
March 26th, 2007 4:06pm
>Surely a Gore defender can easily find information
>demonstrating Gore's selfless benevolence.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I care. You're seeing a false dichotomy "die hard Gore opponents vs. die hard Gore defenders". Really, you're all alone in that first category, which is really rather sad.
Permalink Colm 
March 26th, 2007 4:10pm
>Really, you're all alone in that first category, which is really rather sad.

I don't care nearly as much about Gore as I do about the related nonsense -- like the Daily Show selling out purely because they don't want to offend their primary following: They could have had a field day on Gore, but they were too cowardly. And of course brutal, overwhelming hypocrisy has always pissed me off, especially when people are trying to coerce public action to their agenda (I believe we had a very similar debate about Bono the Saviour once before as well).

Though even if I were a "die-hard Gore opponent", do you -really- think it would bother me if I was "all alone"? Boohoo, where is my army to yell in solidarity with me?
Permalink DF 
March 26th, 2007 4:19pm
> And of course brutal, overwhelming hypocrisy has always pissed me off

That explains the self hatred...
Permalink son of parnas 
March 26th, 2007 4:34pm
>That explains the self hatred...

Do you realize how incredibly nonsensical most of your replies are? Just some sort of inane attack that never makes any sense in the context or the history.
Permalink DF 
March 26th, 2007 4:35pm
"that's a serious conflict of interest that does draw some question about his motivations."

huh?  He is just repeating what scientists are saying.  He didn't invent the message, he just carried it.

if he has found a way of making money from pushing something positive like that, more power to him.  it makes a rather nice change from the bushs and cheneys who make their money by pushing nuclear weapons, oil and war.


but I dont think you fully understand how it works.  gore didn't invent global warming anymore than he invented the internet.  if you discredit him totally it says nothing whatsoever about global warming.

see, gore is just this guy...
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
March 26th, 2007 4:40pm
> Do you realize how incredibly nonsensical most of your replies are?

Even more nonsensical that calling anyone who has a good word to say about gore as full on complete irrational unthinking gore lover and supporter? Nothing is more nonsensical than that.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 26th, 2007 4:48pm
"Even more nonsensical that calling anyone who has a good word to say about gore as full on complete irrational unthinking gore lover and supporter?"

No, you're someone who defends everything Gore does.

I suspect you're the kind of person who would call for a criminal investigation of Cheney for campaigning from the VP Residence by having contributors over for dinner, but then would defend Gore making fundraising phone calls from the Residence because "what's he supposed to do, walk to a pay phone?"
Permalink Send private email Philo 
March 26th, 2007 5:03pm
> No, you're someone who defends everything Gore does.

How interesting you can deduce that from a single subject. But I suspect that's how you reason and you think everyone else does too.

> who would call for a criminal investigation of Cheney for campaigning f

I think we have some more substantial issues now, don't you?
Permalink son of parnas 
March 26th, 2007 5:20pm
_any_ VP using his office to raise funds for his next campaign needs to stop.

being vice president of the USA should not be seen as a good opportunity to raise money for personal reasons.
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
March 26th, 2007 7:08pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2007 Other topics: March, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics