RRC Archives

charlie, what is your take on this?

Heh. That this discussion in this medium is not worth my time?

L K Day wrote:His justification:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

Like I said, that's some funny shit.

Under Gore's plan the rich can spew CO2 into the atmosphere at a profligate rate, and as long as they purchase "offsets" they're guilt free. Meanwhile the po folks can just turn down the heat. I'm sure this plan is just fine with John "Two Americas" Edwards.

"offsets" have been a giant component to modern environmental legislation and we ALL benefit from them. An example that comes to mind is The Clean Air Act; one of the only environmental successes of recent history. Offsets allow companies (such as oil refineries in the Midwest) to buy credits for pollutants, such as sulfur, when infrastructure investment costs to reduce pollutants are too high. This allows reduction to occur where it is most economically feasible.
It is MARKET BASED REGULATION and the amendment was passed by a republican congress! Pollutants are drastically down, as a whole, in the US and the plan is proven to work.

So my point is: if you think the idea of “offsetsâ€

I'm not saying that carbon offsets couldn't work. Let's just say that I'm somewhat skeptical because the potential for corruption is much greater than huge.

Second, no matter how Gore's people try to spin this story, he's a damned hypocrite. He's living the size extra large lifestyle, a lifestyle fueled by gigantic sums of fossil fuels, while pretending to ecological sainthood. Even if his use of carbon offsets truly brings his impact to zero, a claim which I seriously doubt by the way, why doesn't he live a somewhat modest lifestyle, let's say consume only TEN TIMES the electricity and natural gas of average americans, purchase the same offsets, and reduce his CO2 impact into the negative range? That would be doing something about the problem. Instead, he burns fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow while he preaches down to us.

By his actions, Gore proves that, for him, global warming is more an opportunity than a problem. It's an opportunity to cash in on liberal guilt while bashing his political enemies at the same time. Beauty, no?

sure, Gore could certainly use less energy. but the fact of the matter is that the carbon output for his entire family is a big 0. and he did cut another $30,000 check to offset that big utility bill. Is this hypocritical? thats up to you.
but whatever it costs to fly around the world in a jet, Gore pays double. What it costs to heat his bijillion dollar homes, Gore pays double. To operate his car, Gore pays double.

Maybe he is just doing this because the money he is making from the books and films "offsets" the costs of "offsetting" his fossil fuel energy consumption and he is just in it for the $$$. i dont know his 'true' motivation; but i do know that, in the land of excess, Gore his is a millionaire whose total carbon output is 0.

"Gore his is a millionaire whose total carbon output is 0"

I don't believe that for one second.

How can you say that Gore is a hypocrite for “buying offâ€

Yep, I do think people are watching and when It's real quiet I can hear the shouts from here.

Let me get this right, so he (Gore) can pay a fine (offset) that allows him to burn as much as he wants, but because he paid his fee, it should be o.k.

So based on that, If say I was to litter, and littering is fineable, if I pay an offset I can litter as much as I want and it's o.k.? please explain???

Is it like going to Kings Island?? One price and I can ride all day or is it like a Chinese Buffet, one price, eat all I want???