 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« In the Mail: Wikinomics | Main | Governor Offered Millions for Toyota But Can't Cut Your Food Tax » February 28, 2007The Profit of DoomAs the controversy over global warming doomsayer Al Gore's voracious energy-eater mansion rolls on, there's an angle I think merits deeper investigation than it is currently getting. While much of the focus has been on whether or not Gore is an environmental hypocrite, the story has raised the profile of the role of "carbon offsets" in achieving a "greener," more environmentally friendly world. In its original story, 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." Wikipedia goes on to explain that "a wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common. Renewable energy and energy conservation offsets are also popular, including emissions trading credits." So far, so good. But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. 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. Wikipedia again: 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.Did you get that? Carbon offsets are an "alternative to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption" and yet "the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation." One way to misrepresent things: Tell a newspaper your stock purchases are really purchases of "carbon offsets." 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' money in. (You can see a list of Generation Investment Management's holdings here, courtesy of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.) As one commenter posting here and on other blogs has noted: Hmmm. The Goracle is chairman and a founding partner of Generation Investment Management LLP, a boutique international investment firm that invests other peoples' money, for a fee, into the stocks of 'green' companies. ... So when Al beats the drum for possible future global warming, he's also drumming up business.And profiting from hyping the "global warming" crisis. In a nutshell, Gore consumes large amounts of carbon-based electricity while he trumpets a growing "global warming" crisis that drives up the value of "green" companies like the ones in which he A primary rule of good investigative journalism is, "Follow the money." The media - and perhaps the SEC - ought to take a deeper look at Gore, Generation Investment Management and his Asides: He could have instead voted by mailing in an absentee ballot. Also... Pajamas Media has photos of Gore's energy-devouring Nashville home. And while some bloggers have likened "carbon offsets" to the "indulgences" the pre-Reformation Catholic Church sold to the wealthy so they could continue to sin, ithe blogger at The Virginian says carbon offsets are more like the "sumptuary laws" of medieval times, laws that regulated and reinforced social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures. In the Late Middle Ages sumptuary laws were instated as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the up-and-coming bourgeoisie of medieval cities. ... The danger is that the use of "carbon offsets" will create two things that re morally monstrous: a de-facto sumptuary law and the impoverishments of the poor and powerless of this planet. The creation of an aristocratic elite that differentiates itself from the hoi polloi by its ability to buy "carbon offsets" while the rest of the planet is forced by environmental laws into a smaller and smaller carbon straightjacket is not so far fetched.Read the whole thing. And then mosey on over to Jim Treacher's house of bloggage The Daily Gut for this: It's great that he's using solar panels and all that, but notice he's not disputing how huge his electric bill still is. What the hell is he doing in there? Is he a Terminator from the future and requires constant recharging? (That would explain pretty much everything.)Hat tip: Tim Blair via Ed Driscoll, both of whom have more good stuff on the Goracle's energy hoggishness. Updates follow... Update: The Economist - not exaclty a right-wing rag - calls Gore's response to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's original report on his huge energy consumption "flatly silly." The piece has an excellent discussion of why "carbon offsets" are a shell game that may not actually do anything to help reduce carbon emissions. Update: Via the blog on the website of carbon offsets marketer TerraPass I found a recent New York Times story that is skeptical of carbon offsets. Some carbon-offset firms have begun to acknowledge that certain investments like tree-planting may be ineffective, and they are shifting their focus to what they say is reliable activity, like wind turbines, cleaner burning stoves, or buying up credits that otherwise would allow companies to pollute.The words "snake oil" come to mind... Too bad that $110 million that well-intentioned but gullible folks spent on "carbon offsets" couldn't have been invested in developing hydrogen fuel-cell technology closer to the point that it can replace the internal combustion engine. That's a "carbon offset" that actually would make a difference. Update: A commenter at the TerraPass blog foresaw the Al Gore hypocrisy controversy, posting the following comment on Feb. 20, nearly a week before the Tennessee Center for Policy research put the spotlight on Gore's energy usage: The criticism [of carbon offsets] is so persistent because everyone likes to rail against perceived hypocrisy - it's easier than engaging the merits of a policy. (The Times article tries to address the merits, in EXTREMELY ANECDOTAL fashion.)Um, actually, the environmentalists and the left rushed to defend Gore's hypocrisy, not to attack it. And it was all of the media - the liberal networks as well as Fox - which covered the Gore story. Post Script: Just for grins I checked my own electric bills to see how many kilowatts of power I use per month on average. The answer: 2,327. At that rate, it would take me nearly eight years of electrical usage to equal what Gore used in one year. In hot August 2006, when Gore's home consumed 22,619 kilowatts of power, my home consumed 4,090. Of course, his house is thrice as large as mine, and also has a guest house and a heated pool, but, still, he used more than five times the electricity I used. And he doesn't have two little kids who generate mountains of dirty laundry... FINAL UPDATE: A version of this post is posted at the Ecotality blog, and has been doing big business in comments and discussion. I welcome you to check it out at this link. Here at BillHobbs.com, I also have written a few additional posts subsequent to this one: Nobody's Perfect My posts on this topic prior to this one were: Posted in Environmentalism
Comments
Thank you for this. When I wrote a while back about Gore and his presumptive win for the Nobel Peace Prize I pointed out that he's the answer to the great Cui Buono of the Green Movement. People mocked me, saying they thought he had only happy sunny thoughts driving his engine of change. I'm glad to see others pointing out his profit motive. Posted by: Katherine Coble at February 28, 2007 10:55 AMSuperb post here. I knew those "carbon offsets" were bunk and meant to check into it but time constraints prevented that. Posted by: martin kennedy at February 28, 2007 12:21 PMIn Gore's latest rebuttal to the criticisms of his personal home energy usage, he (his spokesman) noted: "... Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch ..." Per this site, Green Power Switch charges an extra $4 per 150kW block of power signed up for. It indicates you can "buy" as many blocks as you want via your electric distributor, which is Nashville Electric Service. So, I doubt even this assertion. I doubt Al, the guy who, with an income of $198k in 1997 (1998?), donated a measly $353 to charity, would cough up paying an extra $490/month to TVA. Ask Al Gore to produce a 2006 electric bill where it shows he is even close to buying 120 Green Power blocks per month at $4 per block, which would amount to the estimate of electric usage in the Tennessee Policy story. I hope he would prove me wrong, but he has to do so. I can't take him at his word any more. Posted by: Dusty at February 28, 2007 1:07 PMExcellent post, Bill. Gore's "investment" caught my eye when I read about it. I'd like to know more about the possible "recycling" aspects of that. In any event, the purchase of "carbon offsets" does not cancel out damage done by personal (over)consumption. Posted by: Donna Locke at February 28, 2007 3:16 PMBill, this might be the greatest blog post of all time. Posted by: Glen Dean at February 28, 2007 7:30 PMIt's really good to see all the concern the right wing is beginning to give to the need to reduce our energy consumption and combat global warming. Bless you all for getting out the message. Perhaps now Dick Cheney will follow your lead and fly commercial. Posted by: Dick Tuck at March 1, 2007 10:53 AMGreat research. I'm forwarding your URL to my friends. Posted by: Rittenhouse at March 1, 2007 11:00 AMLooks like you made it to OpinionJournal.com today. Been shopping this post everywhere I can think of (Rush, Acton.org/blog, etc). Good work! Posted by: Don (evangelicalecologist.com) at March 1, 2007 2:08 PMWhat a crock!! Hypocrisy plus. The man has zero credibility. Common sense and logic? Not observed. Posted by: Jim Sessoms at March 1, 2007 2:43 PMWell, I used 1092 kwh during the hottest month last summer. We have a family of 5, and live in a 2,400 square foot home. And, I work at home too. But see, I'm like the people the Democratic party supposedly represents: I "work for a living" and can't spare the extra dough for special electricity. I guess that means Gore is more virtuous than I am. Bummer. Well, if Sam Fox gives me $50,000 then I could send some of it to Gore's "green energy" company. Would that make it all better? Nick Kasoff I sent your site to Instapundit. If he picks it up, brace yourself. And thank you for all the research. Posted by: Janet from Tucson at March 1, 2007 5:01 PMGreat research. Gore is everything he rails against. He's greedy,he doesn't give much money to those less fortunate and he's a huge - and I mean huge - hypocrite. Thanks for bringing this to light even as the MSM drags its heels on covering an excellent investigative journalism story. If Gore was a conservative, this story would have broken long ago. But now that our press has less reporters and more liberal advocates, it takes a blogger like you to reveal the truth. Posted by: Bobby G. at March 1, 2007 5:02 PMKen Lay and Enron were also big pushers of Kyoto. Nobody doubts their motives were mercinary. "It's really good to see all the concern the right wing is beginning to give to the need to ..yada yada" Uh the point is that Gore preaches the rest of us should turn down our thermostat and keep warm with a hair shirt, Cheney doesn't. I don't give a crap how much energy Gore uses in and of itself. It's about credibility. He must know the movie is a piece of overwrought propoganda, since he produced it, it just shows that he doen't take it all that seriously himself. Posted by: moptop at March 1, 2007 6:36 PMMy goodness Don. You do get around :) Bill: Glad to see you up on Opinion Journal too! Great work, though my personal best Hobbs post was on the buses in New Orleans. I keep this photo handy. Whether it's Al Bore full of hot air, or buses flooded in New Orleans, lefties talk about action, but the truth is something altogether different. Results do matter. Posted by: Mike's America at March 1, 2007 7:04 PMGreat Blog. Most carbon credits don't reduce what you put in the environment. Posted by: Bob at March 1, 2007 8:48 PMCarbon coupons- green certificates--whatever-- are really "energy sharecropping" -- you live cheap while I live rich--chbpod Posted by: clark h. billimgs at March 1, 2007 9:12 PMCall me paranoid but would some one please tell me how much of a carbon footprint was wasted making his little film , promoting it and for all the award shows he has gone to because of this . I fell that a person has to do what he talks about or he is two faced . Posted by: David Crabtree at March 1, 2007 9:19 PMMy father, who is a visiting scientist at the University of Michigan geology department, was recently told by a U of M geology professor that, given the abundance of trees in the US, the US actually *absorbs* more CO2 than it discharges into the atmosphere, and that this was the reason President Bush rejected the Kyoto Treaty. Interesting, eh? Posted by: Bruce P. at March 1, 2007 9:50 PMYou may not understand your accounting, but there is a vast difference between Gore writing a check to his company for services, and Gore buying stock in that company. I think you should correct that. Unless you have his accounting records and an audit of the company, I think you are making an inaccurate and malicious charge. Posted by: jerry at March 1, 2007 9:56 PMTry applying your same extraordinary investigative abilties in pointing out the energy consumption and total pollution expoused by your republican buddies..(who debunk global warming despite overwhelming scientific evidence....oh and by the way happen to be major stake holders in the fossil fuel industry). To attack Gores credibilty on the grounds of his consuming the same amount as every other rich person on the planet is pretty weak. I Couldnt care less about American political nay saying....it all just seems a little short sighted, and ultimately pointless to attack Gore instead of the problem at hand. Posted by: evan at March 1, 2007 10:09 PMGeneration Investment Management is this the predecessor company called GOREN owned by the fictional company owned by Al Gore in Futurama? Posted by: Robert O at March 1, 2007 11:11 PMUh, If he is buying stock in his own company which invests in green technologies, just how is it that he is hurting anything and how is this somehow duplicitous? He is funding his own company? How in the world is this objectionable? I think the people who don't have credibility are all the people who own stock in oil companies and whine and complain about global warming coverage. Hmmmm, I wonder who has a real stake in keeping things as they are. Oh, wait, you have a volvo ad on your blog...woops.... Posted by: Glenn at March 1, 2007 11:28 PMYour arguments have huge holes and assumptions in them. First, you state that all he is doing is buying stocks in his own company. First show me the evidence, as in paper, that this is the case, because you use the term "presumably" and then make a huge leap to "carbon offsets" = stocks with no supporting evidence. A link to the company's holdings isn't proof of your argument, it is just a link to the company's holdings. Links aren't evidence people. I have seen these numbers flying around about his house's electricity bills. It is my understanding that he uses solar power at his house. When you have combined solar and grid power, your power bill shows ALL your used power. However, I notice none of the numbers parse that out...strange...and convenient for the gotcha media. Natural gas, the last time I checked was much cleaner than carbon based electricity (coal, fuel oil). It is true it is probably not sustainable over a long period, but it is a big step in the right direction. Your arguments are misdirecting. It isn't about energy consumption, it is about energy consumption that is not renewable or sustainable. If he is using solar, low emission natural gas, flies commercial (not burning tankloads of gas on a private plane but sharing costs with you and me when we fly), and then using his own money to invest in companies that produce green products, then it seems that he is doing exactly what he should be doing. I thought all you free enterprise guys would be happy that a new industry is rising up. Oh wait, but you don't have THOSE stocks... Puhlease... Posted by: Glenn at March 2, 2007 12:09 AMSomeone else may have already noted this, but if you go to the website of Gore's "carbon offset" company, you'll find the following article: http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-ft-08-11-04.pdf The most interesting quote, from the company's CEO: "Mr Blood rejects any suggestion that the firm is concerned with "green" investing. Sustainability is distinct, he says, because it combines the principles of economic growth, environmental stewardship and social accountability. The approach, he adds earnestly, is primarily about delivering superior returns to clients." OK, great, glad he cleared that up and made the point that Gore's statement about "carbon offsets" is a load of you-know-what. Posted by: Steve C. at March 2, 2007 7:21 AMGoodness me...all that anger and time spent on Al Gore - what a waste! You could refocus your energy on something more positive, such as donating some time to help out the homeless in your area or planting some trees. You mind find yourself sleeping better at night having made a direct, positive impact. Posted by: will at March 2, 2007 7:52 AMGlenn, you haven't read the Tennessean story closely enough. Gore spokesperson Kalee Krider is quoted: "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." This statement clearly implies that Gore is buying carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management. In fact, that's exactly what Krider said, and yet... Generation Investment Management does NOT sell carbon offsets. It is a privately-owned investment managment firm based in London. Al Gore is one of the original founders and is a stockholder. (Google it if you doubt me.) Further, Generation Investment Management does not invest directly in green projects; it buys stock in publicly held companies. In layman's terms, it's a privately-held mutual fund that invests in "green" companies. I say green in quotes because the current portfolio lists several companies that have little to do with CO2, such as UBS, AFLAC, Staples, Aquantive (an ISP provider), Sysco, and Nuveen Investments (a mutual fund, I think). You can verify this for yourself. Follow the link in Hobbs' story to see the link to Edgar financial files for a list of stocks in their portfolio. Nowhere on their website does Generation Investment Management even mention buying carbon offsets. Posted by: Grady at March 2, 2007 7:59 AMThe inconvinent truth is that Gore is a HYPOCRITE and you DENIERS must defend his HYPROCISY. This is sad. Posted by: Mikee at March 2, 2007 8:33 AMDon't forget that the first energy to claim to be green and promoted by AL's buddy Bill Clinton was Enron. When I first saw Bill introduce Lay as a example of an environmentally friendly I looked up the company on the internet I always thought there was something fishy about the man. As the old saying goes "if it sounds to good to be true, It's not." I could care less about Gore's monthly bills or global warming. My only comments here are the lack of a solid argument, and frankly the irresponsible nature of it. It is clear that many people follow your suggestions closely and base their opinions on them. Please do a better job. P.S. when your most credible source is wikipedia, you might actually need to do research. Posted by: Common Sense at March 2, 2007 9:07 AMI'm certainly no Al Gore fanboy. There are PLENTY of proponents of sustainable living and renewable energy who talk the talk AND walk the walk. Of course, anyone in the public eye as much as a former vice-president will be considered a hypocrite on this issue unless they are living completely off-grid and producing all of their own energy through renewable resources. The fact that he isn't, however, does not mean that we can simply go on ignoring the problem of global warming. Posted by: Brad at March 2, 2007 11:06 AMI read comments from people like 'will' and shake my head. Will, old boy, I went to your web-site. Very nice, but I do not think you are a rich guy or a huge earner. Al Gore is promoting ideas and legislation that will cut your income in half. Gore and the green lads deny this and say it's affordable and it won't be so bad. But Gore seems to be a liar. Oh dear. So you going to like living on one half of what you've got now? Gore won't mind, he's got lots. The Chinese and Indians and French and Germans and Taiwanese and...and... will laugh their heads off because they ain't changing nothing, they're just pretending. The oil you're not using? Oil prices will fall, Chinese / Indian oil consumption will go up. The law of supply and demand is like the law of gravity - the US congress cannot repeal or amend it. Me, I do not want to give half of my life and income to the Chinese, Mr. Gore or anyone else. That's why I'm angry. Anger, by the way, is an evolutionary adaptation designed to gear us up to fight when someone is trying to steal from us or kill us. Did I forget to mention that when income drops by 50% lots of people will die? Because they will. Old people without resources, sick people, the poor, premature babies. Will, whatever your health care budget is, cut it in half. Do the same for your elderly mother and father. And your children. Will, what I just cannot figure, is the evolutionary reason for stupidity. You go plant a tree and be happy. Us angry folk will keep trying to protect your ass. Posted by: BlacquesJacquesShellacques at March 2, 2007 11:09 AMIt's no wonder his manager denies investing green--there's nothing green whatever about that portfolio. They own GE and Johnson Controls, companies that at a stretch might be researching devices to limit energy usage, but this would be a drop in the barrel to GE and JCI. I fail to see any other investment that could even remotely be thought of as green. If it's true that Gore and his friends are using that portfolio as some sort of offset to their emissions, I think we're being bamboozled. What's more, it's a pretty thin effort. There's smart and then there's thinking you're so smart everybody else is a fool. Posted by: spongeworthy at March 2, 2007 11:34 AMOne of three ways to look at this. Great post!!! I linked to it! Posted by: CajunTiger at March 2, 2007 2:45 PMAlgore is just another liberal hypocrite trying to get more "power" by the Chicken Little approach that most uber-libs use. Read Dr. Roy Spencer who was a NASA atmospheric scientist and his view of "global warming." It AIN'T happening folks. 30 years ago they were saying that by this year we would be out of food because of, THAT'S RIGHT, "GLOBAL COOLING!" Posted by: ken price at March 2, 2007 2:54 PMSo it's ALL about MONEY for Big Al! The Big phony tells all the 'little people' how we should live while he scams the environment with BS 'carbon credits' and his internal money laundering scam! When you pay your UN mandated 'international carbon tax' on everything you buy, remember wealthy Al! Don't you left-wingers feel stupid? No, I don't imagine you do. Posted by: T. Amos Moses at March 2, 2007 6:24 PMLet's see .... Gore's plantation is a huge energy hog. His conspicuous consumption goes against Gore's message that we should all accept less to protect Mother Earth. So Gore buys "carbon offsets" through a company he founded that, really, looks more like a mutual fund than an entity making a difference re: reducing greenhouse gases. Why? Simple; it's public relations for his fans, insurance against his critics (he knows his fans will buy the "offset" story hook, line & sinker) ... and besides, it gives him an opportunity to make money for himself. Of course, it doesn't hurt that his environmental scaremongering, if successful, will have the effect of bidding up the price of companies like Al's. All the while he's telling us we should accept the reduction in our standard of living & opportunities which he's too good for himself. And how does it work out in the end? Why, that's simple: people like Al who can buy their way out of the life restrictions his enviro-religion would impose on the rest of us will continue to do so. As for those of us who can't afford to buy our way out - tough. Posted by: BD at March 2, 2007 9:00 PM Even if Al Gore is a hypocrite (I don't buy that, but, for the sake of my point, I'll accept it), are you intelligent, thinking people (who cares if "Liberal", "Conservative", "Right-Wing". "Left-Wing") saying that therefore what Gore warns us is nothing to worry about? Are you joining Bush and Cheney in insisting that the Arctic and Antarctic ice is NOT melting, that the seas are NOT rising, that the polar bears are NOT soon to be extinct? Julian, I never said the globe wasn't getting warmer, and never said the story of Gore's energy bills meant we don't have to worry about what he is warning us about. The story says basically two things: And after I made those points I turned the discussion to the issue of carbon offsets and whether or not they are effective at reducing carbon pollution or are just a way for people to make themselves feel less bad about burning gasoline and using electricity made from burning coal. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 2, 2007 10:52 PMThe person that let the cat out of the bag on Generation Investment Management LLP was a guy defending Mr. Hannity on 2/21/07 on the news hound web site in reply to the carbon hog blog. blogger ddt poked a lot of holes in Global warming and Al Gore's Integrity Al the regular bloggers on that site could do was come back at him with insults to his lack of grammer and spelling abilities Posted by: John at March 3, 2007 2:20 AMGlen Al and his family have owened stock in Occidental Petroleum Corporation since at least the 60's not to mention the zinc Oh by the way the company that poluted the love canal was owned by Occidental Petroleum Corporation that Gore claimed to descover until he was forced to recant Oh ya he also claimed to invent the internet until he got caught lying about that too. Should I go on there's a lot more Armand Hammer, His dad ran the coal portion for Occidental Petroleum Corporation I could go on til I run out of space it's quite clear the investment company was started and the movie was a scare tactic to drum up bis. Posted by: john at March 3, 2007 2:55 AMGlobal Warming is a natural event , but if you feel like making guys like Al rich it's your money but do it on your own. Lay off the laws and stay out of my pockets. I work hard for my money - last I checked I am all ready getting way over taxed on my energy so you want to charge me for it going out now too. Posted by: john at March 3, 2007 3:11 AM"insisting that the seas are NOT rising" Yep, the seas are rising. Just like they have for the last 10,000+ years. If you're worried though, the solution is simple: Ask Santa Claus to make global warming go away. It's perfect. One fairy tale solving another. I'm guessing the next discovery will be that man is responsible for gravity, the rain. Posted by: Kevin at March 3, 2007 3:23 AMIf you really want to know who, why and where this whole thing got started do a search on Maurice Strong, considered by many to be the author of the Kyoto Protocol, involved in many world governments and a plethora of environmental groups. Also was on the board of the World Bank the leading financial group enlisted to manage the money generated from the world carbon credits. Currently lives in China.
Strong organized the UN first-world environmental summit in Stockholm in 1972 and has never stopped pressing for a world where UN resolutions would be enforced as law all over the Earth. Strong went on to chair the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio and to become senior adviser to Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary general Only rich Republicans can afford to live on the coast (yes, some Hollywood types, too, but far fewer). When the oceans rise from melting ice, their properties will be flooded. What goes around... Posted by: joey big time at March 3, 2007 8:20 AMJohn, with all due respect the guy who "let the cat out of the bag" on Generation Investment Management was me, on this blog and near-simultaneously on the Ecotality blog (www.ecotality.com/blog), based on a single comment in a story in the Tennessean by Gore's spokesman asserting he bought "carbon offsets" from GIM. Any appearances of it in the news or on the web since then stems from my work. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 3, 2007 8:52 AMOutstanding work. Having thought about this a while, junk bonds and Michael Milken came to mind. Milken controlled the market for most junk bonds just as Gore perhaps aspires to make the market for "carbon offsets." I started researching - and sure enough - there are some intriguing ties between Gore and Milken. It's enough to make you go 'hmmmmmmmmmm'. To date here is what 'science' is telling us: ""During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere."" Now removing all the hysterics and fear-mongering, do you man-made global warming religious fanatics really believe that a dynamic planet with 75% of its surface water and an atmosphere really should hold its average temperature under 1.1 degree variance for 100 years, ESPECAILLY now that science is admitting that increased sun activity has been warming Mars too? (hint for the intelligence-challenged Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, Mars is 142 million miles (that's FARTHER) The thermostat in my house has a 1 degree plus or minus fer crissakes! No one is saying 'pollute more' or that it’s good. The US has done more to clean up after itself than any industrialized nation on earth. The former Soviet Union used nuclear devices in excavation fer cryin' out loud! Most EU rivers are STILL running open sewers and their air has been eating away their buildings for decades, so let's be a little more objective in this 'gorebal warming' panic. Oh and since Algore and RFK Jr. like to blame Bush, conservatives, Christians, anyone and everyone BUT themselves, did you know that before the beginning of left-wing time (January 20, 2001) the DEMOCRATS refused Kyoto in 1997 under Oh-So-Wonderful Bill, for their union constituency? No, I didn't think you did. Look for yourself: Job Advocacy Group Applauds the DNC for Opposing the Kyoto Protocol; Calls for U.S. Senate to Reject WASHINGTON, July 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Today United for Jobs (UFJ) applauded the Democratic Party for dropping their endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming in the party's 2004 platform, and called on the U.S. Senate to reject a domestic version of Kyoto proposed by Senators McCain and Lieberman. "We congratulate the national Democratic Party for realizing what most of us already knew -- that the Kyoto Protocol was based on flawed science and would have cost this country hundreds of thousands of jobs, declared Harry Alford, co-chair of United for Jobs and President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Heck, I'm beginning to believe in the 'New Ice Age' science told us was coming back in 1974! It's entirely possible that Gore has stepped afoul of SEC regulations between the promotion of the carbon offsets/global warming and his investment in same. It would not be very hard to make a case that he's doing the reverse of a "pump and dump" scheme where a group of people invest in a thinly traded stock, then issue press releases and message board posts touting that stock. Unsuspecting people rush into the stock, it inflates in value, and the original buyers sell. A lot more sophisticated schemes than this have ended up with the SEC/DOJ levying fines or even jail time. Posted by: Chicago2016 at March 3, 2007 11:29 AMThe facts, everybody, just the facts.... Posted by: Bette at March 3, 2007 12:01 PMYo joey! Stop with the 'rich republican' whine. It's old and incorrect. Wealthiest Representatives: 1. Jane Harmon (D) CA Coming in at number 9. Nancy Pelosi Six of the top 10 wealthiest Senators are Democrats including Kennedy, Kerry, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Lautenberg and number 1, Kohl. Hillary is number 14 (without counting Bill's $40 million.) These people are the one's who promise to 'feel your pain' while they pick your pocket. Speaking of picking pockets, if you think "free" universal healthcare is gonna be expensive just wait till you pay your UN-mandated "carbon tax" on everything you buy and our current congress isn't going to do anything to stop the UN. Those guys got voted out. Posted by: T. Amos Moses at March 3, 2007 12:04 PMIf you really want to get the proper perspective of Gore's money laundering, pretend he's a REPUBLICAN! As it is, the lamestream media will let this quietly play out and Big Al will collect his 'NoBull Piece Price' to set on the mantle next to his Oscar while we eagerly await the next thrilling episode of Anna Nichole vs Britney. Whadda difference a (D) makes, eh? Posted by: T. Amos Moses at March 3, 2007 12:12 PMThank you Mr. Hobbs for exposing this farce. We could use a thousand more like you! T. Posted by: T. Amos Moses at March 3, 2007 12:17 PMEarlier, I posted that Generation Investment Management wasn't a carbon offset company but a private investment management company. There seems to be some confusion about how these companies work. I'm a former Registered Investment Advisor and Registered Principle, so I have some knowledge of this area. A private investment management company can only work with pension funds or wealthy individuals with a very high net worth and/or annual income. These companies are not allowed to advertise per SEC regulations. They make money by charging a fee to manage assets held for their clients. The monies that they manage continue to belong to their clients. Fees vary depending on how much money is placed with them. For example, a private investment management company might require a minimum investment of $1 million, with an annual management fee of one percent plus a performance bonus if they exceed a specified rate of return. The performance bonus is usually a percentage of the appreciation above a predesignated rate of annual return. If Al Gore's spokeswoman didn't misspeak, then when she says he "pays" GIM, he is most likely adding to his own investment portfolio that GIM manages for him. It's a bit like you or me adding to our mutual fund holdings. There are no tax benefits to Gore for doing this. I would assume that as owner/founder of GIM, Gore's annual management fees are most likely waived. None of this violates any SEC rules that I'm aware of. Gore's spokesperson mentioning this company doesn't violate any rules either. It's of course incorrect to say that "he and others pay for offsets" through GIM, but that's an issue truthfulness or a misstatement by his spokeswoman. Just wanted to clear up some apparent misunderstandings here and ask a question. Personally, I'm a bit peeved to see GIM get all this free publicity. Remember, private investment companies are not allowed to advertise. Notice that even on their own website, they are very careful not to solicit new clients, for example. If Gore isn't buying carbon offsets through GIM, then what company is he using? Some enterprising reporter should ask. You fail to understand what a carbon offset is. First of all, most of the electricity Gore consumes comes from green power. Second of all, for what carbon-emitting power he does consume, he takes independent actions to take that amount of carbon back *out* of the atmosphere. He is putting NO NET carbon into the atmosphere, far more than almost all of your commenters are doing. Justin, you are just flat wrong. First, you write, "Most of the electricity Gore consumes comes from green power." That is actually untrue and provably untrue. Gore buys his power from Nashville Electric Service, which gets it from TVA. TVA says less than 1 percent of its power is "green," - about 7 percent if you count TVA's hydro power. 90 percent of TVA power is generated generated by burning coal (60 percent) and by nuclear plants (30 percent). It also burns natural gas to generate power during times of high demand. (Details here Neither NES nor TVA has the capability of directing only "Green" electrons down the wires to Gore's home, so, on average, less than 1 percent of the power he purchases is "green," or less than 7 percent if you county hydro power as "green." Then you allude to Gore buying carbon offsets, but his spokesman says he buys them through GIM, and GIM doesn't sell carbon offsets. So it is entirely unclear that he really does buy carbon offsets. What he does through GIM is invest in stock in companies like Staples, GE and Johnson Controls. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 3, 2007 4:43 PMBottom line, Gore is polluting MORE than most citizens and his "groupies" feel good about it. Just wait till you see how much "international carbon tax" is added to everything you buy (imagine how much "carbon" it takes to produce grains, vegetables, fowl, fish and meat food products). Of course we "rich and E-VIL Americans" will have to pay the most even though we produce most of the world's food and defend those who can't or won't defend themselves. This "man made" global warming will be the largest redistribution of other people's wealth the world has ever seen. The US won't be defeated by bombs, it will be by world welfare "carbon credits" driving us to equitable poverty. The sad thing? There are those who call themselves Americans that cannot wait for this to happen. Posted by: T. Amos Moses at March 3, 2007 5:12 PMFOR SALE. CARBON OFFSETS. In operation of my cattle farm, I sometimes clear wooded land to plant pasture grass. For a reasonable price, I will NOT clear 40 acres of woodland thereby making carbon offsets available in the form of mature trees which actually exist. Further offsets are available from the fuel that I will Not burn in the clearing process. Even more offsets will be offered by Not purchasing methane producing cows to populate the new pasture. And just prove that I am in this for the long term, I will, in the near future, be offering carbon offsets derived from the absence of methane which would have been produced by the cows I will NOT purchase. It just keeps on giving. Posted by: W.L. Chisholm at March 4, 2007 4:36 AMBill Hobbs, you are wrong. ThinkProgress actually called Gore's office and found that he purchases 100% green power through Green Power Switch (http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/). The additional capacity that powers GPS customers was specifically built to be green, based on the participation of customers like Gore. It does not matter that it gets sent down the same line--it's the generation process that is important. And green power like GPS puts no carbon into the atmosphere. Gore's hedge fund invests in green energy sources, which is the practical way in which a carbon offset gets exercised. These also put no carbon into the atmosphere. You need to do a little better research, Bill, and understand exactly what a carbon offset is. ThinkProgress LINK Posted by: Justin at March 4, 2007 8:44 AMNice try Justin, but only 1 percent of the power that TVA produces is from green sources, according to TVA. It is simply impossible to claim that Gore's power is "100 percent green" when he buys it from a TVA distributor. As for Gore's hedge fund, I looked at their portfolio and the company does not invest in "green energy sources" unless you think Staples, the office products retailer, is a green energy source. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 4, 2007 9:36 AMThis is an edit to my post above. The last sentence should be modified to read:".......have been produced by the offspring of the cows that I did NOT purchas in the first place." And of course for all future generations of those cows. It just keeps on giving. Posted by: W.L. Chisholm at March 4, 2007 10:27 AMKeep 'em honest, Bill! Way to go. Like I said the Gore Groupies cheer Al's polluting! Posted by: T. Amos Moses at March 4, 2007 11:05 AMIt is emphatically *not* true that "The [Generation Investment Management] firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe..." The firm makes no such investments. The stock portfolio of Generation Investment Management can be found in its holdings report filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, at this link. You find insurance, software, medical, food service and other companies. No alternative energy stocks at all. So Gore isn't buying carbon offsets, he's buying stocks. Period. Posted by: William Grinder at March 4, 2007 12:56 PM@W.L. Chisholm at March 4, 2007 04:36 AM LOL! Well done, WL. I'm planning a similar scheme myself, as I have about 20 Southeastern live oaks in my yard and a very low "carbon footprint" on my house. However, I'm planning to RENT my carbon offsets instead of selling them... I want to keep personal control of the assets :). Posted by: mamapajamas at March 4, 2007 4:41 PMLeonardo DiCaprio call your office. Posted by: Mic Lawler at March 4, 2007 7:47 PMNeither in your post, nor in any newspaper publications, nor in the actual quotations from the Gore "reponse" does Gore or any of "his people" claim that he is buying his carbon offsets via the private investment fund in London. Zip. None. Nil. Null. Void. There is no material anywhere to support the bold statement that Gore or his representatives made that claim, or any statements mentioning GIM. In the verbatim extract from "his people" his investment company is not mentioned, which would obviously have been a gross error on their part if they had said any such thing, but would also have been the obvious quote to pick out, if such a quote existed. It doesn't. So, while the discussion about carbon off-sets - a cute money making concept, but nothing more - is valid, I don't see any claim from Gore or statements from his camp about his private investment company and the purchase of carbon offsets. Any inferences that have been drawn to allow that conclusion has no evidence. The Tennessean, from which you provide the specific quote, very notably offers no hint as to the source of the statement - there is no hint of attribution, most especially no hint or direct attribution to Gore. Indeed, there is no source anywhere that references to GIM in relation to this matter. I agree entirley with the point that Gore should be doing as he says, instead of wanting to make only others do as he says, but the other guff is fabricaton - unless someone can produce the necessary evidence, via verbatim quotes. Ck, you are just wrong about that. Here is the paragraph from the Tennessean's original story. It followed a quote from Gore's spokesman and is reported to be information provided by her: 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. Here it is in context: Every family has a different carbon footprint," said Kalee Krider, a spokeswoman for Gore. The Gores' 10,000-square-foot house on Lynnwood Boulevard has a large one.I have seen no evidence that GIM invests the money in solar, wind and other "green" energy projects. The firm's investment portfolio contains no such companies. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 5, 2007 8:28 AM It appears that 'science' can no longer keep a straight face on the 'man-made global warming' scam:
'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Set to Rock Climate Debate... Maybe we have Al to thank for the sudden reversal! And don't forget the 'new congress' promised to tax us to poverty to clear up a 'myth'. Posted by: T.Amos Moses at March 5, 2007 11:52 AM Oh where, oh where do I start? Okay, I'm laughing here because I have just started reading the comments. It is amazing how many people are applauding his great research. You can watch the powerful, British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Google video here: At the end of the day, Al Gore's solution to global warming is a global tax (for only the citizens of wealthy countries to pay). How is a global tax going to help the environment? Unless we're going to de-industrialize, we'll simply pay the tax and nothing will actually change. Therefore, the global tax does nothing but make the UN very wealthy and serves as yet another control mechanism. Once you connect the dots between the Global Warming Swindle movie (showing there is no such thing as man-made global warming) and Gore's attempt to promote his own business, and the attempt by the globalists to enforce a global tax on the people of the world, it's clear we need to fear these fake environmentalists like Gore. Lastly, all of the pro-war people should note that we've spent over $400 billion now on Iraq war profiteers. That same amount could have been used to build windmills in the US (new jobs) that could have provided 100% of the US' energy needs. Details and links are found here: Admin wrote: Wrong. Like all taxes, a global carbon tax will discourage certain behaviors and encourage others. In particular, it will encourage energy conservation among profligate energy users like the U.S. (particularly, fossil fuel energy), and will lead to less carbon entering the atmosphere. This will, in turn, help to hold down global temperatures. Larry wrote: Placing citations in a movie would have been distracting and interfere with the message. Citations are the reason Gore wrote his book, the one of the same title. Have you read it? David, No, I haven't read the book yet. My wife and I just rented the movie two weeks ago. We've already changed our house to compact florescents, and have given out about 80 bulbs to friends already. For me, it isn't just about Al Gore's integrity in the matter. He's pointed out some things that will make the U.S. more green and energy efficient. I'm in! We'll be buying the book soon. Luckily, Al Gore speaks at the University of Buffalo in a month, and we've got tickets. The link for me didn't work. >>How is a global tax going to help the environment? First, I agree with David's assertion that a tax will help. Plus, I'm not one to stand idly by as our rain forests disappear, our icebergs shrink, and our deserts expand. Please don't get me wrong, if Pajama Media photographed my house they'd certainly find that it isn't remotely green... today. But it is getting better everyday, and that's the point. Larry Posted by: LarryPiegza at March 16, 2007 7:31 AMsince Al Gore lives like a Saudi prince, please find out where he gets his money. Obviously had a large income before the movie came out. thanks Posted by: loren anderson at March 24, 2007 6:29 PMGore's London-based employee-owned company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide (CO2) offsets. GIM is strictly an investment firm that considers how eco-friendly corporations are in assessing long-term sustainability. Gore's company invests in projects to reduce energy consumption around the world. The company does not invest in any activity of carbon offset. They are a fund management business that does sustainability research. GIM pays to offset the energy use of its operations and the personal emissions of its 23 employees, including Gore. So, the firm will cover the cost to offset the energy use at Gore's home, or his global jet travel, as it would the offset cost of any other employee. Posted by: brewski at April 13, 2007 9:43 PM |
|||||||||||
