No shit. According to the Financial Times of London the carbon credit scam is a great money making opportunity and not much else. It appears to be a way for rich people to continue their glutenous use of energy and not feel guilty about all the CO2 they leave behind. Looks like it's time for the eco-warriors to put their jet set lifestyle behind them because the carbon offsets don't offset an extra square of toilet paper let alone a heated indoor pool. The earth is in trouble, the time to act is now...right?
Via Ace who added:
Please, please, please don't tell me that Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David will actually be forced to make genuine lifestyle sacrifices, not with sham "carbon offsets" but with actual, verifiable reductions in the amount of travel they take and the square footage of the homes they own and heat (not to mention all the property they own)!
It just doesn't seem fair that they should have to give up an iota of glamor and convenience. They're the lucky ones — Life's Winners.
I just don't think I can go on living if these people have to actually live as if they were merely lower upper class rather than upper upper class.
The Ramifications: All this time Al Gore has been telling us we must act now — and act dramatically — to save the Earth.
His idea of acting dramatically to reduce CO2 output was to spend a couple of grand a year to offset all the serious carbon dioxide produced by jet setting everywhere, driving everywhere in SUV's, maintaining a home that uses 20x the energy of the average American home (not to mention his villas, pied a terres, and use of other swanky friends' vacation homes, all the while his own houses were still being heated).
So, if I'm to understand this, one cannot live like a multimillionaire — and a particularly carbon intensive multimillionaire at that — and counter all the horrible damage being done to the world by ponying up a mere $2000 or $3000 a year?
Really?
Baffling.
I'm shocked. Are you shocked?
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
I just don't think I can go on living if these people have to actually live as if they were merely lower upper class rather than upper upper class.
Scratch a wingnut and find a rich-hating monbat. Wow.
So, let's see. Rather than continue to consume about a quarter of the world's oil, Ace is saying that the US should only consume their fair share because being rich just doesn't cut it?
Commie.
There's some of that in other businesses as well. Let's get rid of them all!
Or, I dunno, fix the problem. Oh wait, that won't give the conservatives something to whine about.
That's not right. Maybe if the practiced what they preached more people might listen to them. Since they don't the only way they can get what is through tyranny.
They're the commies. Not Ace.
As I've said before, if someone is using lots of energy but funding lots of projects that make them carbon neutral, who cares?
Oh, those suffering from Gore Derangement Syndrome. Never mind, carry on.
Right.
Well, it would certainly make it harder to criticize them. Lucky for us they make it so damn easy.
That would suggest you rely on observable reality and a social-political conscience that points true. After your reaction to Bush/Cheney lo these many years, that's really no longer believable.
If Gore, Crow and every liberal elite in Hollywood and the East Coast gave up their jet skis (BTW, I hear that John Kerry windsurfs - cool, huh?) it wouldn't affect a gaddamned thing. It will require sacrifice from all of us - as if.
Instead of pissing and moaning about only liberal elite lifestyles (Bush and Cheney each probably burn more fossil fuel on one trip through red country than Sheryl Crow does all year), when you tuck your kids into bed tonight, just tell the that you're very, very sorry about what we all did to their future.
Answer: Enough to fuel Al Gore's house for 1 billion years.
When we had a problem with raccoons and possums, we didn't kill them or call an exterminator. We trapped them in a humane trap and Dean released them in the woods. We aren't prefect but we are trying, even though, we are skeptical about the Global Warming hysteria. Why? Because being skeptical isn't a good enough reason not to do something, better safe than sorry. We are always reading about ways we can do more. I just hate being preached at by hypocrites.
No one likes that. It’s one of the obnoxious facets (in a rather target-rich environment) of Republican politics.
First off, how is Gore "preaching at" you that makes him a hypocrite? Describing the science of global warming?
Second, you’re a hypocrite (or worse) by carping about Gore. I’m happy that you’re making your own personal effort to keep a relatively small environmental footprint (Gore would do well to follow your example). But, again, your own behavior, by itself, won’t matter very much. That was one of the excuses the Bush Administration used to avoid advancing what little cooperative, international movement on the problem, vis-à-vis Kyoto, that developing countries wouldn’t contribute.
And that’s the nub. Gore is attempting to advance a mass movement buttressed by sane public policies. That’s the only thing that stands any chance of making any meaningful difference.
By participating in the smear campaign against Gore (not to mention supporting Republicans in general), designed for the express purpose of undermining his credibility, his argument and the advancement of those policies, you are doing far more harm than Gore’s fossil fuel use, or that which is outweighed by your own eco-friendly conduct.
He is a hysteric on the subject yet he doesn't do what he tells us to do. Telling someone that they should do something is a bit preachy. I get plenty of that every Sunday.
He isn't just talking about the science he is droning on about extremes.
Saying that we should all do things that he himself isn't doing is hypocritical.
I'm a hypocrite for being a Republican? I've been called worse, although I will say again that I voted a straight Dem ticket in November because I, personally, believed that the Repubs deserved to get fired. I always do what I say I will do. To you that makes me a hypocrite, to me that makes me honest. C'est la vie.
Kyoto was crap and they were right.
Like I said, for you to call Al Gore a hypocrite with a straight face is simply ridiculous. You and your fellow obstructionists will be the main cause of mankind’s end. If you’re lucky, you’ll die with your partisan beliefs in tact - the realization of what you have contributed to our collective demise will be intolerantly painful, assuming that you love your children (which I do).
Actually Tim, my best guess (and it’s only a guess) is that it will be upon us before the deniers and the otherwise clueless get their heads out of their own asses (way before 50 years). Look for a crash of the global food chain – the plankton, followed by what eats the plankton, etc., etc. Or something that elegantly simple; stupid humans won’t figure it out until it’s already beyond repair (just look at how pathetic we have always been at understanding the infinitely complex natural world around us).
Sorry, that’s my prediction. God willing, I’m wrong or, at least, dead before it happens.
People expect politicians to lie -- so calling someone a hypocrite is like saying dog bites man. Why bother with something that boring and mundane?
Dig deeper:
Instead of saying that what the candidate does is at odds with what he says, you could suggest that what the candidate does is particularly heinous whether he lied about it or not.
In short, watch what they do, not what they say.
For example, if you bring down a president for lying under oath about getting a blow job it's different than a president breaking his oath of office to oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.
How so? Both lied; but the respective acts behind the lies are hugely different in practice and in outcome.
Bottom line: if Gore's bills are too high and you discount everything else he says because of it -- well, I'm not impressed.
But if Bush lives a passive solar home but lights the cigars of his oil cronies with genuine Treasury bills -- well, that's news! Why? Because the consequences of an oil company executive owning the president of the united lock stock and barrel are, well, pretty huge.
I'm just saying.
Because the consequences of an oil company executive owning the president of the united states lock, stock, and barrel are, well, pretty huge.
Well, Tim, I hate be the one to break it to you but the percentage of your fellow countrymen who believe that story now stands at 28% (at least), or roughly 84 million Americans.
If that number sounds familiar, it’s for good reason. Apparently, these people believe whatever they’re told to believe.
You are so full of shit. I'll bet you a year's salary that more people believe Noah's Ark happened than support Bush. Not all your fellow Dems are Godless heathens. Jeez, most of the poor go to church and believe the Dems will save them. If that isn't people believing a fantasy...
Rosemary,
I said, "at least". Some polls show that as much as 61% of the public believes the story of Noah is literal. Clearly, not that many people support Bush (thank God).
And all kinds of people, including Democrats, believe all kinds of silly things (tell me you’re not a Bible literalist).
Nevertheless, there is a strong, if not striking, correlation between Bible true believers and authoritarian followers, i.e., “the (Republican) base”. Among those who support Bush, you would likely find strong Bible belief. Like I said, they are driven to believe what their authority figures say they should.
You must have heard something about Christian Evangelical support of Republicans, no? Considering that it precludes any party leader who reflects your more socially liberal attitudes towards gays, and that to pander to this politically contrived hatred of homosexuality they will literally try to make gays permanent, Constitutionally segmented, second-class citizens, doesn’t that bother you in the slightest?