Cynical Nation

The Tennesean had done an investigation into the Gore "carbon offsets" a couple months ago.

"The Tennessean raises serious questions (about Gore's carbon offsets). According to the newspaper's report, Gore's spokesperson said 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, she said...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."

"And it is not clear at all that Gore's stock purchases - excuse me, "carbon offsets" purchases - actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all, while the gas lanterns and other carbon-based energy burners at his house continue to burn carbon-based fuels and pump carbon emissions - a/k/a/ "greenhouse gases" - into the atmosphere.

"Gore's people tout his purchase of "carbon offsets" as evidence that he lives a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle, but the truth is Gore's home uses electricity that is, for the most part, derived from the burning of carbon fuels. His house gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which gets its from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces most of its power from coal-burning power plants. Which means most of the power being consumed at the Gore mansion comes from carbon-emitting power sources."

Investigators have said,

"The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming. The appeal of becoming "carbon neutral" has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which often are a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation."

But it "sounds good," and we all know that "good intentions are far more important than actual results," just as emotion (feeling good) is more important than facts.

For me the worst part of this whole "carbon offsets" scam is the cynicism with which it is used. Rich liberals use them to buy their way out environmental responsibility and then demand that the rest of us make up the actual environmental difference for them.

If Al Gore and company truly believed that greenhouse gasses resulting from human activity are a threat to the planet, they would be doing everything possible -- including promoting safe, modern nuclear power -- to eliminate them, instead of just trying to disassociate themselves from their own waste.

I love how much of a bug up your asses you all seem to have about Al Gore. It won't help you, you know, but it's amusing. This "Hate Al Gore Circle Jerk" must be terribly exciting for you.

Where did you get "hate" toward Al Gore, in my post, DBK? I'm happy that Al Gore's a non-player politically, so I'm more than happy he's making movies, etc.

I've said this all along, Newt Gingrich very well MAY get into the '08 Presidential race and even make some waves, but it's highly doubtful Gore will.

I'll stand by that.

But it's not "hating" Al Gore to point out a possibly criminal enterprise he's founded (Generation Investment Management), as the entire carbon offsets "industry" is being investigated on fraud charges, as we speak.

I have a very vested interest in Gore's venture and I wish him well by the way. I'm looking at going in partners on a petroleum recycling business and we're looking into selling "carbon offsets," as a benefit of that recycling, but we're skeptical about the same thing Gore should be - if we're already going to charge companies for the clean-up and recycling of all that petroleum waste, is it legal to then sell "carbob offsets" to individuals, "offsets" that would amount to double or triple profits for that company?

Right now, it might actually be "technically legal," and that's why the "carbon offsets" industry is projected to grow to over $65 Billion/year by 2010.

But it could be a problem...one I'd like to avoid down the road, as I don't want to retire from a job I love now, to jump into a venture that may well be short-lived and somewhat problematic.

The problem I have is the double standard. While I'm almost certain that my expertise in Hazardous Materials and environmental clean-up is far superior to someone like Gore, I feel that I'd be held to a pernicious double standard should these investigations ultimately determine that the "offsets" practice is "rife with fraud."

I honestly think that folks like you (DBK) might support the likes of me being held to a different standard than an Al Gore...and that's not fair.

I think the likes of Gore would get undeserved "do-gooder" points, while someone like myself would be considered, by many, a "disreputable businessman," when in reality, we'd merely be "birds of a feather"....or at least, "squirrels of a feather," - just a couple of squirrels trying to get a nut, that's how I'd put it.

GODDAMIT!!!!

There go those dreams of retirement and sugar plum profits to boot!

Industry Caught in Carbon ‘Smokescreen’

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

"Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

"A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

"Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway. (Yeah, that WOULD'VE and SHOULD'VE BEEN MEEE! Who asked the Financial Times to investigate anything anyway?!)

"The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming...."


Today I am bitter.

I'm convinced that these naive dipshit do-good ruined a pretty sweet scam.

I saw this scam as "my ship coming in," now it looks like it's sunk in the harbor.

Thanks Al....for being so damned obvious about it.

JMK,
The circle jerk continues, I see. "Possibly criminal enterprise". Ooooh, that's sweet. Didja cum when you wrote it? No evidence, no facts, no nothing to write about, but you do 8,000 words about Al Gore based on nothing at all. Your article, I notice, is spare as hell on facts about Gore. An industry to which he is connected in being investigated and you gen that up into "he maybe might have founded a criminal enterprise". Yeah, Al Gore is really one of those characters Dick Tracey always used to fight. Nice. Also, empty of anything real.

JMK started touching himself the minute he saw the headline of that article, I would bet.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT20070307a.html

Whoops! Better not let a fact get in the way. Better not look any further than what the Washington Times has to say about it.

BTW, that brings up an interesting question. When the Washington Times disagrees with CNS news service, which one is right-wing, neocon bullshit? An interesting conundrum for the progressive blogger.

For my part, I've never alleged any criminal wrongdoing in the carbon offsets market in general or Gore's involvement in particular. I suppose one could argue there's some basis for a fraud investigation in at least some of the offsets market, but it seems like caveat emptor should apply here. If you're stupid enough to spend your own money on a carbon offset, you're welcome to do so, as far as I'm concerned. We've seen what they're worth.

The Financial Times is even a more established news source than is CNS, DBK.

It appears that Gore's own "carbon offsets" amount to stock purchases in his own company and that's being investigated - the Tennessean is doing a great series on that.

"Carbon offset" do not appear to be real at this point.

Most are "investments" in companies doing various "clean-up services" - that is services they've already been contracted to do.

As I said I FAVOR "carbon offsets" as a scam (so long as I can get in on it). Who doesn't?!

Again, I don't know where you get me wishing Al Gore any ill....there is NOTHING in any of most posts that would seem to indicate that, as I said very clearly, "I have a very vested interest in Gore's venture and I wish him well..."

I DO think that the Al Gore's of the world tend to ruin "a good thing" (like this "carbon offset" scam) by bringing unwanted attention to detail to such things.

That's not being "overly critical, is it?

And both the FT and the Tennesean investigating the carbon offsets "industry" and Gore's "investments" as "carbon offsets," respectively isn't unwarranted, is it?

If so, please explain why gthat would be?

All this carbon crap is junk science, promoted by Chief Hypocrite Algore.

The warming cycle is normal. The sky is not falling. The United States is not destroying the earth.

By the way, one of the most laughable complaints about Gore at this point is that he made money by buying his carbon offsets from firms in which his company invested. I love the way pundits and other geniuses have been pushing that notion. By that "logic", the CEO of GM is a hypocrite for driving a Chevy.

"The Financial Times is even a more established news source than is CNS, DBK."

When you read something that dismisses your claim, dismiss the source rather than the information. There's yet another of your "logical" arguments, I see.

The Tennesseean? Okay. Here's the most recent article from the Tennesseean on Gore and electricity. Nothing hypocritical there, though I expect if he received any discount for adding the solar panels I will hear a "Gore is a hypocrite" charge or something equally as asinine.

Let's see. Carbon offsets in the Tennesseean. I just searched with the Google and then I searched the Tennesseean archives for "carbon offsets" and then for "Gore". Nothing that says what you claim. Got a reference for that?

"Again, I don't know where you get me wishing Al Gore any ill....there is NOTHING in any of most posts that would seem to indicate that, as I said very clearly, "I have a very vested interest in Gore's venture and I wish him well...""

Except that Barry is not remiss in posting criticisms of Gore and you are always right there to say "Me too". As I wrote, you enjoy the circle jerk. That isn't the same as "wishing ill", but hey, misread away. You do that often enough in subtle and not so subtle ways, so what else is new?

And I notice that, for all your love of your typically overlong response, you never do address what I wrote in the main, i.e., your little backhanded smear that Gore "possibly founded a criminal enterprise", which turns out to be not so there. Where's this Tennesseean article? Got a reference?

As I said, you're just playing with yourself and your playmates.

"As I said I FAVOR "carbon offsets" as a scam (so long as I can get in on it). Who doesn't?!"

And I guess that pretty much says it all about you and your integrity. Just can't wait to get in on a scam. Who doesn't? I don't. But then, I have integrity and don't steal.

Clearly we've touched a nerve here. ;-)

Not so much that, B. I was just amused by the "Al Gore Circle Jerk", but then another form of jerk came up. He has to have an answer, and it has to be a loooooong answer, for everything. Some people are just the world's foremost experts on everything imaginable and can't contain themselves.

Whoa, DBK!

"Scams" aren't necessarily "stealing."

In fact, most aren't.

You have deliver the goods, even if what you're delivering is merely "making people feel good."

That's all that entertainment does!

Bottom-line, those who'd buy "carbon offsets" are like those who'd put up $1,000 good faith money to hold a found wallet - now that's a lowlife scam (as opposed to a "high brow scam" like carbon offsets).

If the guy who puts up (and loses) that $1,000 didn't have larceny on his mind, he couldn't have been taken in by that scam.

Same here, if the "guilt ridden high energy user" didn't want to simply pay others to do his sacrificing for him, this scam wouldn't work either.

Think about it.

It's not "illegitimate," it's merely "the way of the world."

So, Gore lives in a huge mansion and his family made a lot of money from their invovlement in Occidental Petroleum.

So friggin' what?!

The ONLY problem I have with a relative dimwit like Al Gore, is that he now feels qualified to micro-manage other people's lives....in fact everyone else's life.

Where does he get such qualifications???

He lost two debates rather BADLY to the current President, whom most Gore supporters consider to be a "moron."

Believe me, I have no problem with negative assessments of G W Bush, but I do have a huge problem with people then over-rating an equally fatuous, bumbling and even less grounded in reality Gore.

Moreover, you have to cut Conservatives and even Republicans some slack....morally, that is.

Conservatives, for the most part, support Capitalism (yeah, the pirate-ship, rip your face off Capitalism that's revered on Wall Street), so they're not hypocrites when they profit off the very thing they endorse.

I mean, after all, they told you they were going to set thing sup so that smart people would take advantage of both the weak and the strong and make tons of money off both!

Again, it's you DBK, who came into this with snarky comments you couldn't back up.

I proved to you that I never assailed Al Gore's sca-uh-business dealings at all. Lots of people are currently looking into that kind of venture.

I merely feel strongly that he shouldn't be given preference (if illegality is shown in that field) due to his polirical connections and public gravitas...he didn't invent carbon offsets, after all.

All I did was show you why you were off the mark in your initial judgment and carefully explained why.

From Dictionary.com

scam /skæm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skam] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, scammed, scam·ming.
–noun
1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for making a quick profit; swindle.
–verb (used with object)
2. to cheat or defraud with a scam.

Not the same as stealing with a gun, but stealing in a more generalized sense. What color is the sky in your world as you somehow spin "scamming people" into "providing entertainment"? That definition of yours sounds like a con. And isn't surprising at all. I wouldn't be surprised if everything you've written here is a con, given your apparent fondness for con games and "getting in" on them.

Also, first you call it a "possibly criminal enterprise" and then you write about how you want to get in on it. Yeah, you have oodles of character. You're a right trustworthy old feller, aren't you?

I don't understand your basic objection DBK.

Certain "scams" are hallowed in America.

Virtually EVERY retail business in America uses some variation of the famed and old "bait & switch" because it works....the goal is to "get as many potential customer into the store as possible."

Thus, so far as "carbon offsets" go, I have no problem with the fact that, it seems, for the most part, that they are ruses or shams.

That, to me, is immaterial.

If I were paid to defend someone like Al Gore, or anyone else in that venture, I'd argue that the perceived value in these "offsets" was the "positive feelings" of the purchaser, NOT any end results or net impact, as those were always left vague. In other words, "They didn't technically reneg on any promise, so they didn't breach any contract."

In other words, the purchaser in this case, "got what he/she paid for," which was good feelings and the eradication of a useless emotion - "guilt."

For that reason, I think a prosecutor would have a very tough time making the case for actual law-breaking in most of these cases.

I think those people who provide even "fraudulent" carbon offsets, are still providing the purchasers with a value - "ease of conscience," or a good feeling, without any self-sacrifice.

That's a very real value.

It's the same value that the entertainment industry sells and pretty much the same value escort services sell as well.

It is only technically a "scam," in that most of these offsets actually DO little or nothing of value for the environment, at least not anything that those companies weren't already contracted and paid to do - like recycling waste oil, etc.

You seem to be holding me to a double standard that I've already said I strenuously object to - you question my "integrity" and "trustworthiness," while giving Gore, who is actively and currently engaged in this venture, a free pass.

It sort of undermines your basic argument, if you see what I mean.

The contentions around Gore's so-called "carbon offsets, DBK, are that he's "purchased" them through a company he helped found - Generation Investment Management, Inc.

The Tennesaen has reported that, "Gore's spokesperson said Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

"And it is not clear at all that Gore's stock purchases - excuse me, "carbon offsets" purchases - actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all, while the gas lanterns and other carbon-based energy burners at his house continue to burn carbon-based fuels and pump carbon emissions - a/k/a/ "greenhouse gases" - into the atmosphere.

"Gore's people tout his purchase of "carbon offsets" as evidence that he lives a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle, but the truth is Gore's home uses electricity that is, for the most part, derived from the burning of carbon fuels. His house gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which gets its from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces most of its power from coal-burning power plants. Which means most of the power being consumed at the Gore mansion comes from carbon-emitting power sources."

The claim from the Tennesean is that Gore's "carbon offsets" amount to stock purchases in Generation Investment Management.

Come on!

Couldn't he have "invested" that money in a local recycling center or something???

If I were to go in with a guy I know in a petroleum product recycling business, that business would be legit and it would do what it says...the carbon offsets sold from that would be "investments" by people who'd like to take "carbon credits" to justify their large use of energy.

I feel their pain!

I own two houses and travel almost 60 miles (each way) to work.

Fortunately for me, I don't even know what "guilt" means. I've nver felt it...in my defense, I'd have to say that I've probably been too busy working my ass off for the benefit of all those people with all that the free time to feel such useless emotions.

Now you really are making a pretense of what you said originally. You weren't saying you wanted to be in on a "scam to get more customers into the store".

Stop being such a liar. Or don't. I think you revealed a little too much of yourself today, pally. You've essentially told us that you think committing fraud is okay if it makes you money, so I think we all know where you stand now, and thank you very much for finally being honest enough to admit it before you tried to make believe that you didn't.

"Thus, so far as "carbon offsets" go, I have no problem with the fact that, it seems, for the most part, that they are ruses or shams."

On the one hand you say that this is the fraud you approve, but at the same time you try to excuse fraud with "door-buster" schemes, which, curiously enough, are not frauds and, when they are, are prosecutable. You really don't know what to say next to make it seem like your admiration for crime is somehow perfectly acceptable, do you?

Keep trying to play the eel, but your words are there for all to see. You want to "get in on" what you think is a fraud and a "possibly criminal enterprise". Oh, but it's okay because stores sometimes use door-buster adverts. Yeah, pull the other one. It's got bells on.

I've explained it all very carefully DBK, but you apparently still misunderstand.

It's really not even all that nuanced.

I believe the sale of carbon offsets is, for the most part, a sham, in that they do little or nothing to actually improve the environment or reduce CO2 emmissions.

I did NOT say they're worthless, nor that all of them are "scams." They hold "some value," at least some "perceived value" in that they ease the guilt that some have over their high energy demand lifestyles.

That is an actual value - ease of consience.

If you're arguing in favor of some kind of "truth in advertising" for these offsets, then your biggest problem should be with Al Gore, and not me. Moreover, such "truth" might well undermine these offsets and reduce their "perceived value," to potential customers.

Gore's own spokesperson said Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management, and so it would seem that the Tennesean reporters are right in claiming that Gore's "carbon offsets" appear to be stock purchases in Generation Investment Management.

Now THAT would appear to be "a criminal enterprise," given that Generation Investment Management is an investment company and not an environmental company.

As I said, I do NOT wish Al Gore ill and further, I never said anything that should be construed as such.

I've known many "good people" who've found themselves on the wrong side of the law for a variety of reasons....mostly commercial and tax reasons.

In my view, we've over-criminalized human life. Yes, some people are "takers," yes, some people are smart enough to separate gullible and "caring people" (a/k/a "fools") from their money, but in a free society, it should be "caveat emptor" - let the buyer beware. The law should not be used to "save dumb people from their dumb mistakes." Like the guy who got taken by putting up $1,000 "good faith money" in hopes of sharing a found wallet - he learned a valuable lesson, "If it sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is."

All I've taken issue with is the apparent double standard here. You continue to gloss over Gore's actual culpability in what appears to be a questionable activity and rail against my intended (but as yet unrealized) same. Does that irony actually escape you?

Why would a Gore have such gravitas with you?

Why wouldn't I have even more?

Seriosuly, I doubt Gore could match either my enthusiasm for the environment - I LOVE trees and a love to hunt and fish, or my dedication to both humanity and the earth - I've spent the past thirty months of a nearly 22 year career in a Hazmat Unit - "tending to the earth," if you will.

I've said this forever, almost ALL politicians are scum (God love'm they really are) and that's to be expected, at least to a large extent.

The biggest conflicts I've had around here are with those naive folks who want to inanely believe that one Party (yes, generally they believe it's the Dems) are better on the issues, when if anything, they're worse.

They're not any more or less "scum," on a personal level mind you, but they are, more often than not, worse on the major issues, like taxes, regulation, the borders, domestic security, the environment, etc.

Yadda yadda yadda. Yeah, we got it. You wish you could take part in a profitable con game. Very admirable.

Again, you're not picking up on the very obvious nuance.

Al Gore's buying stock in Generation Investment Management (as alleged by the Tennesseean) would appear to be an overt fraud, if those allegations are indeed true.

That's not necessarily true for someone who "invests" in a company that actually recycles waste oils or develops wind turbines, etc.

While the latter may not actually be "offsets" as those companies "invested in," where already contracted to do that work, it does indeed provide a perceived value to the consumer and IS an "investment" in some environmental friendly enterprise, as opposed to say, buying stock in an "investment company," you helped found.

There's a big difference.

Beyond that, I really resent the double standard, mostly because it's so damned dangerous...and I'm sure you'll agree.

I've long said, that if Liberals insist on inculcating these sorts of double standards (ie. the Abramoff scandal was bad, but Pelosi's exempting a major contributor, Starkist Tuna, from the minimum wage hike, by exempting Guam was no big deal)...Conservatives WILL NOT engage in like tactics and Liberal ideals will ultimately triumph despite their having been proven failures that have inevitably led to mass murder throughout the last century.

I'm hoping you share my abject horror at that prospect - failed Liberal ideals winning the day by both chicanery and default.