Marie Antoinette: Let them buy carbon-offsets

BillHobbs.com – Grassroots journalism from Nashville. — Since Hollywood’s poster boy was found to be burning through energy like a drunk through Muscatel he made the rather odd claim that he is carbon-neutral since he buys “carbon offsets.” A few bloggers have discovered that he owns the carbon offset trading company. Cripes. This sort of thing is worthy of Marie Antoinette.

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 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…

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.

Let’s be real here and skip all this. The entire carbon-offset business is an out-and-out scam. Give me a break.



  1. Peter says:

    Carbon offset credits, like the energy trading market created by Enron, is a “scam” of sorts, yes. However, it’s actually a semi-good way of getting someone from “developing countries” to reduce their emissions, since they’d be getting a relatively large sum of money for it. ‘course, it also allows the richer individuals/companies to almost totally disregard the amount of carbon dioxide they produce, which at best maintains, and at worst worsens, the immediate vicinity that person/company is in.

  2. Jägermeister says:

    I agree with John on that the carbon emission rights industry is just a scam. Noble idea, but it’s not what we need. It’s up to us as individuals to decrease our use of dirty energy. It’s a shame that the biggest poster child for environmentalism is a hypocrite. Shame on you Gore!

  3. Frank IBC says:

    Didn’t Martin Luther start the Reformation over something like this?

  4. tcc3 says:

    To be fair they do claim to buy electricity using the green power switch program

    This does not excuse his hippocritical energy waste – but its not as bad as the above either.

  5. Thomas says:

    Actually Gore needs do nothing to offset his energy usage . . . The Bush administration sucks so bad they defecate charcoal briquettes. But what do I know I’m a huge asshole.

  6. Improbus says:

    A politician that is a hypocrite. I am soooooooooooooo shocked … not. I really expected better of him though.

  7. TheGlobalWarmer says:

    Boys and girls, can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

    I can hardly wait for the apologists to come out one this one.

  8. lou says:

    Agree with Jagermeister. Shame on Mr. Gore. It’s not always easy, or even possible, but one must try to walk the walk, if one want to talk the talk. For example, I can understand the point that Gore taking private planes will allow him to speak more often to help the environmental movement, and thus, overall, have a positive benefit on things. But energy usage in our homes is easy to control and limit, especially if one has the resources of Mr. Gore. In other words, no excuse, Al.

    That being said, market based controls on things like pollution and energy usage can work, but in general, they must be backed by government set limits and enforcement.

  9. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    I don’t see many rich folk moving into 1200-sq ft huts covered with solar arrays and don’t expect to. At least he’s doing something. Apparently every other limousine liberal from Martha’s Vineyard to Pacific Palisades gets a pass on their electric usage – yet I don’t see them even trying to match Gore’s effort…

    And speaking of Gore, how many people with his money, Repug or Dem, are willing to, as he did, turn themselves in to the EPA for a toxic-waste site on their own land? And then cough up $16M for cleanup?

  10. JT says:

    American leaders are hypocrites? I’m shocked!

  11. Mick Meyers says:

    This is all you have to say about Gore and all the positive things he’s done about the issue of global warming? Cripes… John you sound like an old douche bag to me. Here’s someone who’s invested years trying to get brain dead/corrupt politicians (not Bush, after all he is just a sox puppet) to even acknowledge there is global warming. John why not stuff another twinkie in your pie hole and shut the fuck up. But that’s just my opinion.

  12. noname_nu says:

    Gore maybe a hypocrite, but not for trying to be carbon-neutral and buying “carbon offsets”. What are the real hypocrites here doing??

    Mr Dvorak, is like a little girly and her doll, putting make up on a picture of Gore, Cripes!!!! This sort of thing is worthy of Marie Antoinette when she was playing with dolls.

  13. bs says:

    #7… See #13. I think this qualifies.

    PS> What a hypocrite Gore is, I’m rich, I can spend, consume and pollute all I want, but the working classes should suck it up, but tiny cars and CF light bulbs, and maybe we can pass legislation to make these same people buy carbon credits from me (with the help of Nancy I’m sure).

  14. bs says:

    Correction:

    Comment was meant for #12, but #13 qualifies as well.

  15. TJGeezer says:

    Right-wing tactic No 2, or is it 3: If information comes out that you wanted to stay hidden away, don’t challenge the information, attack the source. This is a classic example. I wonder how the neo-cons and their flacks like Rush would compare – don’t see anything about that. Since it’s Attack Wealthy Politicians season, how about all those Bush family compounds – converted to hydrogen and wind power already, right?

    9 and 11 are right. At least Gore is doing something. Neo-cons, go look to your own houses while you bribe marginal scientists with $10,000 rewards for papers attacking global warming research. Oh, and #7, this isn’t a defense of Gore, who is just another wealthy politician. It’s an expression of disgust at yet another example of people with hidden agendas trying to derail serious discussion by attacking the source of unpleasant information – and getting away with it.

    This “revelation” about Gore stinks of political b.s. and I’m surprised at the normally bright people who seem to be falling for it on this blog.

  16. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    A_B’s commentary there might be a trifle strong (Hah! That’s rich, coming from me, innit?…), but I can’t help but notice, John C, that I don’t believe I’ve read so far where you address that unfortunate thing regarding scientific consensus…

    I mean, creationists, young-Earthers, IDers, IQ-heritability-deniers, they all defy the consensus of the scientific community – and they’re all ideology-blinded loonies. The GW-deniers live in terror of not reaping the trillions of dollars that continuing their pollution will net them, so they’re not loonies, just blinded by plutocrat-corporatist greed.

    So with which group have you signed on?

  17. Simple says:

    Offsets are just bribes to foreign sovereigns that impoverish the standard of living of average folk. If I lived in a developing country, and some Western power told me to accept $1000 in lieu of buying my first car or motorcycle, I would laugh (not that the average person would ever see that money, it would go to their leader)! Imagine some alphahotel in their SUV paying me off so that they can continue to drive a 15 MPG car, or heat their 4000 sqrft house?

    Population reduction is currently the only viable means of carbon-emission reduction. Controlled fusion power generation is a possible future means.

  18. Consensus isn’t science, lab-partner.

  19. Proud Alien says:

    Bitch all you want, Gore-haters, but thanks to him the general public awareness of the issue has been raised to a point where a difference will be made sooner rather than later. And not only in the “global warming” area, but also in the related fields such as resource management, garbage recycle, etc.

  20. bs says:

    #20 yes, I guess you are right, and I should make out the check to … what was the name of Gores company again????

    I am just glad that such a pure global crusader for environmental right isn’t just trying to line his own pocke… oh wait nevermind.

  21. Jim says:

    “The entire carbon-offset business is an out-and-out scam.”
    The Google ads are pitching them. I’ll bet the ads burn more carbon to run online than they save.

  22. J says:

    Most of you people are so mis-informed that it is down right sad.

  23. bs says:

    #23 Care to elaborate?

  24. noname says:

    #23 is right. #24 How do you explain ignorance to the dumb?

  25. ECA says:

    i wonder what it would take,
    to start up a company IN your back yard, and get Carbon Offsets’, THEN sell those Offsets’ to corps that NEED them…And sence you Have no Carbon manufactouring, you dont REALLY’ need them…

  26. malren says:

    To answer the original question as to why this isn’t news?

    Because Gore is a media darling and a Democrat. It doesn’t make sense or dollars to question him unless there is absolutely no other choice, i.e. Fox News does it first and the populace responds negatively against Gore – then it’s OK to say negative things about him because he means ratings.

    Call me names for saying it, but that;s the 100% truth of this matter.

    As for the whole issue of who is to blame and what we should do – If the US adopts every stupid fly-by-night theory on how to reduce global warming – every one – and India and China don’t, then we are literally pissing in a hurricane, and no, that isn’t worth doing on any level. You may make yourself feel better and think you’re doing something, but all your toil and change and sacrifice will eman absolutely nothing if India ramps up efforts on getting air conditioning to even 25 or 30% of the country. China is already polluting at a rate that far exceeds most of the rest of the world combined for many of the things that contribute to global warming.

    Call me when a real, workable solution is presented.

  27. bs says:

    #27 And yet we all continue to go to walmart and buy this crap…

    Stop global warming, sure, stop shopping.

  28. J says:

    Once again Malren comes along to distort the facts.

    CO2 emissions

    China is ranked 18th in per capita emission. India is 20th. Guess where the US is in Per capita? 1st Wow that is good for our pride at least we are first in something. We output 7 times the amount of China per capita and 18 times that of India per capita. I would say we have a little room for reduction don’t ya think?

    Hopefully you understand per capita because that really is an important issue when trying to negotiate emission levels from a given country.

    Now as far as over all CO2 emissions. China is second. India is 5th Guess who is first? that’s right. USA! USA! USA!
    We output 1.5 time the amount as China and 5.3 time that of India in total emissions. Still a little room for improvement NO?

    Trying to push the focus onto third world nations doesn’t negate the fact that we are still the #1 pollution nation in the world no matter what way you measure it.

    Now for those of you who just shoot off your mouth and don’t really understand the point or function of carbon-offset. Don’t bother to read about it or educate yourself about it. Just let the right wing pundits give you your position and go ahead and look stupid. As far as that goes did any of you bother to ask yourselves “How many people work and live at the Gore residence?” No I bet not. Secret Service? Assistants? Employees of the business office he runs from his home? How much electricity do they consume while they are there? All of a sudden that ~$1300 bill doesn’t seem all that much does it? I won’t even go into the fact that ~$300-400 of which is premium and used to contribute to the environment or used so that the power is from renewable sources. But once again don’t let the facts get in your way. Let the right wing pundits give you your position and you can spout off about it and look foolish

  29. jjoker says:

    #30 J…. you are such a gore suck up. I’ll bet you wear “I love gore” underwear.

    You are taking this way too seriously. Go get some friends and drive around in your SUV and stop feeling guilty.

  30. Odyssey67 says:

    Al Gore must be scaring the GOP – or Hillary – shitless right now. He’s not even in the primaries and yet these pretty obvious hit pieces are already coming out of the woodwork. What’s less obvious is why JCD seems so susceptable to them. Oh well – lets take a few points, just for the exercise:

    “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.”

    Funny how the Right has no problem with profit making endeavors when their own side is doing it. I guess, now that they’ve established it as a bad thing with Gore, every stock option issued to every CEO/founder/board member/employee of every publically traded company in America will have to be returned now.

    Next.

    “And it is not clear at all that Gore’s … “carbon offsets” purchases – actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all …”

    This is a classic distortion tactic. The author is intentionally conflating all ‘green’ strategies as one – specifically, the reduction of energy use. However, the strategy of using carbon offsets is not designed to reduce energy use, per se. It is designed to minimize – or “offset” – the carbon impact of the use of fossil fuels as energy. In other words, you theoretically can be as energy intensive as you want, even using fossil fuels to do it, but if you offset the emissions you create by planting enough trees (as one example of the method), which biochemically ‘eat’ carbon in order to live and produce useful oxygen as a byproduct, then your net carbon footprint is zero. No harm, no foul – unless you don’t like trees for some reason. Or oxygen.

    Next.

    “… 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.”

    Gas lanterns? Is this guy being serious? Tennesee must be more backward than we thought. Anyway, my previous comment addresses most of this FUD – the rest can be easily swatted by the fact that Gore – like many Americans – has arranged to purchase renewable energy through his utility. At a premium, I might add, which also helps explain the high dollar amount of his bills.

    Next.

    “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.”

    None of this follows, logically. Gore’s house using electricity from Nashville Electric, which gets most of its power from coal, in no way indicates most of Gore’s power is coming from carbon emitting resources.

    A] Not all of N.E.’s power generation comes from coal.
    B] Some of N.E.’s power comes from renewable resources (check their website).
    C] N.E. has a program that allows customers to specify that their amount of billable energy use be generated by said renewable sources.
    D] Gore subscribes to that program.

    So, unless N.E. is lying to their customers about what they are charging them for, Gore gets his electricty from non-fossil fuel generation. And if he isn’t, then it isn’t his fault.

    Next.

    From John: “Let’s be real here and skip all this. The entire carbon-offset business is an out-and-out scam. Give me a break.”

    I’d like to. Unfortunately, our environement and/or our country’s geo-political situation won’t let this issue be ‘skipped’.

    I’d also offer the observation that you may be confusing two different ‘carbon businesses’. Carbon offsets have a lot of use. The mechanisms behind how they work is well understood and it is a strategy that is fairly easy to impliment. You don’t need a company like Gore’s to do it, but it certainly is easier for an organization with deep pockets to leverage the ‘economies of scale’ that the carbon emitting industries have at their back.

    Carbon trading, on the other hand, IS a scam. Basically, this entails assigning a (highly subjective) value for carbon emissions, then creating a layer of bureaucracy/brokerages that will take their pound of flesh as the gatekeepers of implimenting it, and finally what you are left with is the same companies polluting. Yes, it will cost them some money, but no not enough to actually get them to stop – they’ll just factor it into the price of whatever it is they sell. Meanwhile, what do you think this carbon trading ‘industry’, once established and entrenched, is going to do if – by some miracle – carbon use begins dropping off enough to threaten their livelihood? Why, they’ll spend tens of millions a year lobbying Congress to protect themselves! Why the hell do you think its so hard to get our health care system under control in this country? There are people running a billion dollar industry off that inefficiency, and they aren’t going down without a fight. Legislating a carbon trading market into existence will simply recreate the same type of corporate//parasitical problem, just in yet another area.

    Frankly, I’m surprised at you John. I would have thought you, of all people, would have a better handle on these things. Your reaction here is so obviously knee-jerk that it baffles me. Then again, you seem preturnaturally hostile to the iPhone too. I guess nobody is perfect.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 4471 access attempts in the last 7 days.