Just a note. Those 2 previous quotes were not mine. Perhaps a glitch in the system of some sort.
Just a note. Those 2 previous quotes were not mine. Perhaps a glitch in the system of some sort.
qoayr wrote:
Do you know why he pays 20k per month? Because he is paying a premium to get his energy from RENEWABLE sources. You know, like wind power etc. Sources like that cost more money. Don't make it sound like he has a coal furnace in his backyard.
That's wrong.
Gore's voracious appetite for power consumed 221,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in a year and paid a total of $16,308, that means he pays a rate of 7.38 cents per KWH.
But wait, have you ever checked YOUR electric bill? Who pays 7.38 cents/KWH for power? Almost no one. I pay almost 20 cents per KWH. The TVA is built and subsidized by the Federal government.
Welfare for the obscenely wasteful.
Gore says he's "carbon neutral" doesn't he? Let's get past the absurdity of the term and get right down to what it's all about.
Do you know where Gore gets his "carbon credits"? He gets them from Generation Investment Management LLC, AN INVESTMENT FIRM, which Gore just happens to be Chairman of this limited partnership. Another of his partners was his longtime chief of staff, Peter S Knight, who was also Clintons 1996 campaign manager. Hmmmm.
GIM only does one thing, it invests in stocks. Al Gore buys stock in companies from the firm which he heads, and pats himself on the back and calls them "carbon offsets."
How ridiculous!
Al Gore takes money from people who live extravagant lifestyles then offsets their sins with carbon credits from the company that Al Gore manages. Doesn't sould like there's a conflict of interest in that?
To Conscience Offsets,
On a board populated by a number of noteworthy idiots you've really accomplished something with this string: you've identified yourself as the biggest idiot on this board. Congratulations.
I've got one word for you - additionally. There's a lot of organic material in the world. It all absorbs carbon. This establishes a baseline of carbon absorbsion worldwide. There are millions of sources of carbon emission in the world. When an additional emission of carbon occurs, call it one ton from say, your car or the power plant which gives your home electricity, you can plant enough organic material to absorb that additional ton. You end up at zero net emissions from that “transaction”. That's how carbon offsets work. Right now, we (everyone on the earth) are emitting carbon at a much higher rate than the earth’s organic material is absorbing it but, contrary to you're assertion, doesn't mean we can't over the next 20 years, turn that equation around. To do so, we must create economic value in the preferred outcomes ie absorbtion of carbon or never emitting carbon. A cap and trade, with offsets, sets up the boundaries in which a carbon market can operate and flourish. To argue against this solution is to argue against the free market and against the experience of every regulatory market established over the last 50 years, sulfur dioxide being the most prominent.
Here's the weird thing: I can't figure out if your a particularly dumb college republican who's a happy cog in the far right wing effort launched yesterday in coordination with Gore's appearance on capitol hill today or if you're just a particularly dumb ultra liberal who's trying to advance some anti-market argument. Either way, you're against a market solution which means you're for the heavy hand of government telling businesses what to do. So, if you're the dumb college republican, good luck with that when you go to the circle jerk tonight. If you're the dumb ultra liberal, wake up - you've already lost, markets work. Either way always remember, you're the biggest idiot on LetsRun.com.
Read then write wrote:
To Conscience Offsets,
On a board populated by a number of noteworthy idiots you've really accomplished something with this string: you've identified yourself as the biggest idiot on this board. Congratulations.
I've got one word for you - additionally. There's a lot of organic material in the world. It all absorbs carbon. This establishes a baseline of carbon absorbsion worldwide. There are millions of sources of carbon emission in the world. When an additional emission of carbon occurs, call it one ton from say, your car or the power plant which gives your home electricity, you can plant enough organic material to absorb that additional ton. You end up at zero net emissions from that “transaction”. That's how carbon offsets work. Right now, we (everyone on the earth) are emitting carbon at a much higher rate than the earth’s organic material is absorbing it but, contrary to you're assertion, doesn't mean we can't over the next 20 years, turn that equation around. To do so, we must create economic value in the preferred outcomes ie absorbtion of carbon or never emitting carbon. A cap and trade, with offsets, sets up the boundaries in which a carbon market can operate and flourish. To argue against this solution is to argue against the free market and against the experience of every regulatory market established over the last 50 years, sulfur dioxide being the most prominent.
Here's the weird thing: I can't figure out if your a particularly dumb college republican who's a happy cog in the far right wing effort launched yesterday in coordination with Gore's appearance on capitol hill today or if you're just a particularly dumb ultra liberal who's trying to advance some anti-market argument. Either way, you're against a market solution which means you're for the heavy hand of government telling businesses what to do. So, if you're the dumb college republican, good luck with that when you go to the circle jerk tonight. If you're the dumb ultra liberal, wake up - you've already lost, markets work. Either way always remember, you're the biggest idiot on LetsRun.com.
Post of the month.
Al Gore claims that his outrageous personal consumption is actually carbon neutral because he purchases “carbon offsets.” From where? From himself, of course. With a straight face, Al Gore claims “carbon offsets,” an entirely undefined, unregulated and unaccountable cottage industry, that he “purchases” in the form of investments in an Investment firm that Gore is the chairman of, negates his outrageous consumption of energy. One could only imagine how we might apply Gore’s Ponzi scheme to other parts of our daily lives?
The basic premise of the scheme is that by participating in approved Al gore investments, and for pennies on the dollar, you are actually not using any energy at all, and therefore, none of the CO2 that you put in the air actually happened in the first place. This has great appeal to pious liberals who do nothing but consume, consume, consume. It’s better than a confessional.
The average American family puts 59 tons of CO2 in the air each year. 12.4t from household (electrical, heating, etc), 11.7t from automobile/gas, and 35 t from ‘indirect’ emissions (commercial, industrial, transportation). What does Al Gore’s family belch into the air every year? Lets start with household contributions. We know that he consumes 20x the energy that the average household does, so lets give him 240t on household usage. For automobile usage, he surely uses more than the average American, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say 15 tons. For ‘indirect’ he is after all, one of the most conspicuous consumers in the entire country, therefore he would have a disproportionate share of ‘indirect. Plus his air travel far exceeds that of an average household, lets give Gore the benefit of doubt again and say his family only belched 70 tons of indirect carbon into the atmosphere. That totals up to a very conservative 325 tons of CO2 that the pious Al Gore unleashes into the atmosphere!
One of the approved carbon offset invest schemes that are touted so heavily by Gore and his ilk is tree planting. It seems logical, plant a tree and the tree will take CO2 out of the air, therefore the carbon I put in the air never existed in the first place. Simple!
Depending on species and age, trees fix anywhere from 3 to 15 pounds of CO2 per year. Lets just assume the upper end, 15 pounds. For the average American to wash there consciences of the 59 tons of carbon emitted they’d have to plant 7,866 trees (about 20 acres) EVERY YEAR to “offset” their carbon footprint. For the most wasteful Americans, Al Gore and his Hollywood friends, they’d have to plant 43,000 trees (about 108 acres) to “offset” their ridiculous consumption. That being conservative on Gores energy usage and liberal on the amount of CO2 a tree will consume in a year. In reality trees will consume less than 10 pounds per year, meaning Gore had better do a hell of a lot more planting.
Where are all of these acres available for planting? Not on logged land. For over 60 years all logged lands must be replanted within 5 years. Is Al Gore investing in timber companies and claiming that he’s responsible for reforestation projects that have been taking place for decades? Where are they planting that 108 acres of trees every year so that Al Gore doesn't have to cut back his extravagant and wasteful lifestyle? Nowhere. It’s not happening. Outside of the forest industry there are no large-scale tree planting projects.
Carbon credits are a scam of epic proportions.
The only way to reduce man's tiny contribution to CO2 emissions is to reduce consumption, and the buck starts and stops at Al Gores big mouth.
In order for this to work, there has to be a cap on the amount of carbon produced. Caps will never be implemented since China and India need energy.
Excellent job pasting the same anti-free market talking points issued yesterday by the RNC. Way to go chubby! Keep it up and you'll be the director of FEMA one day.
I believe you drank the Kool-Aid
Now you must be lacing your purple Nikes!