babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Al Gore's (Personal) "Inconvenient Truth"

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Al Gore's (Personal) "Inconvenient Truth"
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 08:00 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gore spent about $30,000 last year on electricity and natural gas to heat and cool his mansion in Tennessee.

Wasn't he the guy who just won an Oscar for a documentary about human consumption contributing to...global warming? Oh, never mind.

What a fucking hypocrite...


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 08:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You got him! And Kerry was a coward. You lot are a bunch of geniuses, you are.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 February 2007 08:08 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But if we burn him at the stake, should we buy some carbon offset credits? Before or after?
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 27 February 2007 08:11 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, and too, Gore also flew around in that jet to all those places in the film so that he could give his Inconvenient Truth lecture.

Fucking hypocrite...

Why didn't he just stay home in Tennessee where the cotton blooms and blows.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 February 2007 08:15 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

quote:
Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of ”green power” for an extra $4 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources.

Johnson said it’s unclear whether global warming is caused by humans, and he said the threat outlined in Gore’s documentary is exaggerated.

... Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But electric company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information.

Boston Herald


Gosh, that took about .065 seconds of Googling to dig out.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 08:17 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Other than telling others what they should be doing to save the earth from global warming, what does Al Gore personally sacrifice?

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 February 2007 08:18 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you are not going to address your initial post, its source, and how the claim has already been debunked, and the source been shown to lie?

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 08:21 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
So you are not going to address your initial post, its source, and how the claim has been debunked?

You're saying the Gore doesn't spend nearly $30,000 per year heating and cooling his 10,000 square foot mansion and his 4,000 square foot house in Arlington and his other home in Tennessee?

Or, are you saying he doesn't live in those places but that, instead, he lives in a modest 2,000 square foot, energy-efficient home?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 08:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So writer, the utility company says that they never disclosed any information to Sven's source?

Interesting. Do you think Jed and Jethrow just drove up outside his house, and took a look

"Golly gee that place is big, I bet it cost 20,000 a year in electricity every year," said Jethrow.

"More like thirty," Jed said in reply, firing up the engine of his Hummer.

And a legend was born!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 February 2007 08:24 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your source for the first link lies, and is blindingly biased. That's what I'm saying. So, what it claims Gore does or doesn't do can't hold any weight as a result.

Edited to add: Yes, Cueball, it sure does look that way. And because he didn't have a sea of windmills behind his massive sprawling rich-man's pad, they seem to be indicating Gore must have under-aged gerbils mining dirty raw coal for his own secret earth-destroying hypocritical power plant. You heard it here first!

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 08:28 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
Your source for the first link lies, and is blindingly biased. That's what I'm saying. So, what it claims Gore does or doesn't do can't hold any weight as a result.

Great. You don't like the source. Fine.

Are you claiming he doesn't live in a 10,000 square foot mansion, owns a 4,000 square foot house in Arlington, VA, and has a third home in Tennessee?

Ah, yes. A man who really seems concerned about over consumption. Like the USA Today article said, if everyone lived like Al Gore did, we'd all be doomed.

Like I said, he's a fucking hypocrite...


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 08:31 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Al Gore is the Jimmy Swaggert/Jimmy Baker of global warming.

Global warming is a serious issue. Why does the lead spokesperson act so diametrically opposed to what he's preaching???


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 08:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And you don't feel like a dupe whose been taken in by a cheap shot media smear, and a bit of a clown for trying to stay on the battlefield? Take a page from George Washington's book on how to retreat gracefully over the river under the cover of night and fog.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 08:34 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Writer, I'm sure you care about the issue of global warming. My question is this: Why the knee-jerk defense of a guy with 18,000 square feet of living space...for two people??
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 February 2007 08:37 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am a journalist. I'll try to make this simple. It's not about "liking" a source. It's about whether that source is credible.

I have not visited Mr. Gore. Nor do I really care what sized house he lives in. I know it's probably too big for my taste. I also know a lot of earth-loving celebrities have more than one abode, sometimes in more than one country.

Why, I even know Mr. Gore used Porter Air here in Toronto, which I bet miffed a lot of people, including our mayor, who sees it as an environmental menace.

But, whatever sized house Mr. Gore has in Tennessee, the point is, he pays for the equivalent in *alternative energy* for whatever he consumes.

And the point is, you've smacked up a pathetic smear job without doing a moment or two of double checking. And you don't seem to get it - this now reflects on your credibility on the subject.

But keep on railing. I'm sure all those other millionaires who are doing shit for the environment but exploiting it will thank you for it with some kind of reward, some day.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 08:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 08:41 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
I have not visited Mr. Gore. Nor do I really care what sized house he lives in.

But, if he's asking people to make material sacrifices to live more modest lives, doesn't that go to his credibility?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 08:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 08:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The first thing one must remember when "remembering the Alamo," is that it was in Mexico.

Now there is an inconvenient truth.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 February 2007 08:49 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look, your first post links to a piece of shit. Whatever your second post links to, I don't know. I haven't looked. And, now that you've insisted to not bother to reflect on the fact that your first source is worthless, I'll make a greater effort not to bother, either.

Because you don't see the need to check into things yourself, before flying off, ready to do the dirty work for reactionaries in the name of environmental purity.

Once I've seen that a source is worthless, I figure there's no need to go further down a fool's road.


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 08:50 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought that this was "funny" from The Atlantic (yes, yes, I know---just another right-wing rag, right Writer??) about one of the producers of Gore's flick (I'd link it but it's a for-fee site):

"Needless to say, Hollywood offers nearly limitless opportunities for anyone seeking to expose hypocrisy in the lifestyles of the rich and progressive. Laurie David, who dedicates herself to fighting for improved fuel-economy standards and reviles the owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable: a private plane. (She's not just a limousine liberal; she's a Gulfstream liberal.)"

But, because folks like David are "progressive", they're just okey dokey, right?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 February 2007 08:55 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because folks like you don't bother with the truth - inconvenient or otherwise - I'm gonna say goodnight.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 08:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I thought was funny, was the fact that your first piece was a smear job. based on unreliable sourcing, and that your second piece, also started out as a smear job filled with lies that had to be corrected by USA today, I guess to prevent the inevitable libel suit. From the article, lead:

quote:
Correction: In this column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.

But of course, all those papers went out with that tasty headline, and all the morons trying to yank Gores chain are still shamelessly clinging to the scraps that are left.

Geeze, amd I don't even like Al Gore.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 08:57 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When dick-wads like Jerry Falwell are raked over the coals (correctly) as being hypocrites, progressives love it. But, when these über-consumers in Hollywood prance around as "progressives" who are concerned about the environment, they get a pass.

What am I missing? Why the leap to the immediate defense of Gore and his pals?

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 08:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As i said, I don't like Al Gore. However, I am fond of the truth.

As for your polemic, I have seen better. And you have nought but polemic left, as it has been denuded of truth, with fair speed I might add.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 09:00 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
I'm gonna say goodnight.

Good night, writer.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 09:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wimp.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 09:06 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Writer, if you happen to swing back through this thread, I do take your point seriously about the source of the first link. Although I don't think it undermines the entire criticism of Gore because the fact remains that Gore does consume many multiples of what the average Jane or Joe consumes. I just don't know how that can be legitimately defended.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 09:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What about the second, also found to stuffed with false "facts"? You are fully prepared to defend and promote these position taken up by people who are on the one hand proven liars and in the second, at best, bad researchers.

In fact, the only fact about Gore, as far as the second diatribe is concerned, other than the size of Gore's house, is the issue of the Zinc mine, which is, as USA Today noted, false.

You would think that you might question the overall arguements made by such duplicituous and or careless people. But no, you will continue to embarrass yourself.

"In General, our Generals were outgeneralled."

John Adams, after the Battle of Long Island.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 February 2007 09:33 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some inconvenient truths about Al Gore
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 February 2007 09:54 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Some inconvenient truths about Al Gore

Thanks, as usual, for the link, M. Spector.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 10:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.


Flame Warriors


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 27 February 2007 11:22 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those are always more funny after a real life example.

quote:
But, if he's asking people to make material sacrifices to live more modest lives, doesn't that go to his credibility?

What you go out of your way not to understand is that Al Gore's credibility isn't relevant. He's just a mouthpiece. The message of his presentation isn't something he dreamed up with personal research. If it was, then maybe you could puncture it by puncturing him, but it ain't. The credibility comes from the scientific community who did the necessary work that good ol' Al just compiled into a nifty show. Who cares who he is or what he does. It doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of what he's promoting. You're trying to kill the message by shooting the messenger, but it doesn't work that way, and that's why this story has no legs.

Our reckless energy consumption is killing us. Of course Al Gore is part of the problem. We're all part of the problem, but instead of admitting this and making serious efforts about it, you're flailing about for someone to attack and discredit. Anything so that you don't have to hear the truth. Any excuse will do. While the world burns, you'll be whining that Melissa Ethridge doesn't ride a bicycle. The changes that are needed are huge and far-reaching and much bigger than any one person. This is the same reason I find it silly to rail on about SUV's. Yes, SUV's aren't good, but replacing them all with Honda civics isn't going to solve anything. Car culture is the problem, and picking at leaves won't fell the tree.

Hey, we're not so different. I find it irritating when Leonardo DiCaprio pats Gore on the back and calls him a great man, when he was a key player in the Clinton administration and complicit in all its crimes. I roll my eyes when the oscars say they've "gone green", knowing full well that that room full of well-heeled jet-setters will pump out more emissions in the next week than my whole neighbourhood. But really, faced with a problem of this magnitude, is it the best use of my time and energy to run around attacking them, when one piece of crucial legislation could do more to save our habitat than shipping all these self-absorbed stars off to live in the desert (as entertaining as that might be)?

We don't have the luxury of such childish vendettas. The fact is that the vast majority of people, from the absurdly wealthy to the miserably poor, are unlikely to change anything voluntarily. We need political action and hard legislation, and we need it about three decades ago. Stop looking for someone to discredit and start being part of the solution. You're part of the Conservative party, right? Get in there and pressure your party to take some real steps, and if you want to think about personal lifestyle choices, remove the log in your own eye first.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 28 February 2007 06:56 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excellent post, JTT.

quote:
Look, hypocrisy abounds, and it knows no surely ideological bounds among us majorly imperfect humans. Even beyond that, I'm happy to concede that in the arena of American politics, there are certain areas where hypocrisy rules the day.

On the liberal side -- painful as it is to admit -- it can look pretty darned silly sometimes when the advocates for fighting poverty or environmental frugality are all filthy rich millionaires like Gore or Kerry or John Edwards. On the conservative side, the prophets of moral purity can't keep their flies unzipped any better than the rest of us, as Haggard or Newt Gingrich could tell you.

So...it really shouldn't be about this. And because hypocrisy abounds, both sides probably play the hypocrisy card more than they should. but in recent years (and feel free to try to prove me wrong about this) that has become the only card in the right-wing deckl, while liberals seem more worked up about...actual problems.

Right now, I'm looking at Daily Kos, a pretty good bellweather of what the American left is thinking. The most recent diaries posted there (this will likely change by the time you read this) are about Nancy Pelosi's latest comments on Iraq, responses to the attack on Gore, what you can do to reduce emissions, climate change policy in the state of Florida, and urging Democrats to do more on Iraq. Not a single, silly anti-GOP "gotcha" among them.

Breaking news: Al Gore uses electricity, and other Great Moments in right-wing issue avoidance



From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 February 2007 07:55 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An Inconveniently Easy Headline: Gore’s Electric Bills Spark Debate

- snip -

It remains unclear at this point why there would be two contradictory sets of numbers floating around — even if both sets do show Mr. Gore’s mansion to be a bit of an energy hog.

For their part, Mr. Gore’s representatives do not deny that the house is exactly that. They simply argue that energy conservation is about establishing life balances. From The A.P. today:
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said: “Sometimes when people don’t like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it’s convenient to attack the messenger.”

Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity use.

Gore, who owns homes in Carthage, Tenn., and in the Washington area, has said he leads a “carbon-neutral lifestyle.” To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 28 February 2007 08:30 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't remember the name of the guy, but I remember this quote.... something about

quote:
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 February 2007 08:39 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The actual quote is:
quote:
He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.

The grammatically correct way to shorten this quote would be : Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 February 2007 09:17 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's the full text:

Jesus saw a crowd chasing down a woman to stone her and approached them. "What's going on here, anyway?" he asked.

"This woman was found committing adultery and the law says we should stone her!" one of the crowd responded.

"Wait," yelled Jesus, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Suddenly, a stone was thrown out from the sky, and knocked the woman on the side of her head.

"Aw, c'mon, God ... " Jesus cried, "I'm trying to make a point here!"


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 28 February 2007 09:18 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
God's a hypocrite. I don't remember him marrying Mary...
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 28 February 2007 09:48 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And to think he could do that to a nice Catholic girl...
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Drinkmore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7371

posted 28 February 2007 09:54 AM      Profile for Drinkmore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
God's a hypocrite. I don't remember him marrying Mary...

I do it was a wonderful ceremony and plenty of wine afterwards. Alas there was no media - they weren't invited.


From: the oyster to the eagle, from the swine to the tiger | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 28 February 2007 10:09 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, considering Matthew and Mark both work for Fox News, I wouldn't want them there either.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 February 2007 10:20 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven, the originator of this thread, is simply spreading disinformation which originates in the Republican smear machine.

Gore, a previous vice president of the United States, has electronic security systems at his home which are monitored by the US Secret Service.

Those systems use electricity.

An honest approach would be to see what other US Presidents and Vice Presidents use, and compare.

But this method, of just saying Gore's electricity use is "too high" is based on ignorance of reality.

Go away Sven, fools and liars don't add anything to Babble.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2007 11:07 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven's sources suck. Sven's annoying and right-wing and he gets up my nose too.

Okay, that's out of the way now, so let's talk about the issue of filthy rich people with three mansions telling us proles how to live.

There IS a class issue and an environmental issue here, and I think Sven has a point (although his sources suck majorly) about how if everyone on the earth were to live like Gore, we'd all be dead in a year.

Let's look at the class issues involved in the idea that it's okay for Gore to consume as much energy and resources as he likes, as long as he uses alternative energy and buys carbon offsets.

Buying carbon offsets basically means that you're paying someone else to foot the bill for your overconsumption. Can we agree on that? So, if I decide that I'm going to fly to Florida to go to Disney World this year, and I buy enough carbon offsets to pay for the flight, the hotel air conditioning, etc., then what I'm doing is, I'm donating money to a program that will help make OTHER people switch to green energy sources, right?

Or, if, say, I win the lottery tomorrow and I decide, hey, I want to buy three mansions in various areas of the GTA, with acreages on the Oak Ridges Moraine - but hey, that's okay, because I'm gonna buy offsets that will help villagers in Atlantislavistan buy enough flourescent lights to "offset" my overconsumption! And I'm going to put three windmills on my property to generate enough power for an entire town, but I'm going to use all of that energy myself, because I'm rich and I can!

There is a problem with this.

No, I don't like it when right-wing dumbfuck Republican hypocrites who don't give two fucks about overconsumption, don't give three fucks about poor people, don't give four fucks about class differences, and will always defend free market rich white asshole capitalists in everything, and then turn around and criticize those who are trying to do SOMETHING progressive for not being progressive enough. I understand the frustration with that kind of right-wing hypocrisy, I really do. And I hate it that right-wing assholes attempt to attack progressives for organizing in the only effective way possible which, unfortunately, in this capitalistic society, means you have to travel to different places and have enough money and influence to get media attention.

BUT...despite the fact that this charge is being levelled at Gore by the right-wing swiftboat smear machine, for those of us on the left who care about environmental issues and care about class issues - I think there is room to say to the capitalist, white, rich, male, overconsuming leaders of the environmentalist movement that overconsuming and then buying offsets so the rest of the world can pay for your overconsumption is not the answer. Spending a village-worth of electricity is not okay, even if you produce much of it through alternative means. I mean, isn't this the reason why many of us on babble like the (somewhat) class-conscious, environmentalist NDP better than we like the eco-capitalist Tory-with-a-composter Green Party?

The first R is "REDUCE". It's "reduce" for a reason.

[Edited to make clear that I was referring to the swiftboat Republicans in the US in my profanity-laced paragraph above, not Sven. Sorry if that was unclear. I was referring to Sven in my first paragraph, where I called him by name. ]

[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 February 2007 11:22 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I like to think Gore is on the right track, but I share the dismay over his rich surroundings. However, from the link I provided, is this excerpt:

"Yes, he uses more electricity than you or me, but the house of this former Vice President and his wife has offices and staffers and security needs that we don't have either. His car today is an SUV, but it's also a hybrid."

And, I saw another link that indicated the Gore's are trying to convert that old mansion into something more energy efficient. I think his heart is in the right place.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 28 February 2007 11:24 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, there is a discussion to be had.

But you've got carbon offsets wrong. From what I understand, they mostly invest in developing alternatives for everyone, or for specific projects to benefit specific populations (like getting clean water to an area in Ethiopia).

quote:
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. 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.

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.

Wikipedia


Yes, they are problematic ...


Do carbon offsets live up to their promise?

Why it's harder than you think to pay for a carbon guilt trip

Carbon offsets: what would Gandhi do?

... But they are more than what many disgustingly rich people are doing with their money.

I'd be surprised if a good many disgustingly rich folks don't fall into the category of "astoundingly self-satisfied and sure they are somehow superior, know-it-alls convinced they deserve / earned their extreme privilege, willing to share their wisdom when asked (likely for a pricey fee)".

Gosh, Donald Trump is coming to The Learning Annex, even!

As for inequitable distribution of wealth: yeah let's end that stupid, inefficient, wasteful practice.

Who's free tomorrow for the revolution to begin?

Sven?

[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2007 11:34 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure, his heart's in the right place. He wants to be an environmentalist but he doesn't want to give up his overconsuming lifestyle to do it.

I get the idea that his place also has offices and staff. (Probably a few of whom are housecleaning and cooking and catering type staff, which is a direct consequence of their overconsuming lifestyle, right? Do you need housekeeping staff with offices and workspaces if you don't have a sprawling mansion?) But they have THREE houses. Who needs three houses, no matter how rich you are? Why is it acceptable for "important people" to get a pass on living conspicuous consumption lifestyles?

I'm probably being overly-idealistic here. But the fact is, it's NOT okay for North Americans to consume like that. No matter how many offsets we buy and how much alternative energy we create, Al Gore's lifestyle is not sustainable.

The Green Party ideology is one that gets debated here often, and Gore is very typical of that sort of ideology. The Green Party is full of great ideas like taxing energy so high that only the rich can afford to overconsume, and the poor go without. This is eco-capitalism, not environmental justice. The idea being that only the rich deserve resources - the idea that since there isn't enough to go around, and we just couldn't possibly be so unrealistic as to demand that rich people stop overconsuming, and that the solution is for rich people to become like Al Gore, overconsume at will, and assuage their consciences by making movies telling the rest of us to stop consuming a tenth of what he and his "staff" consume.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2007 11:44 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think I understand carbon offsets. I just didn't say what I meant clearly. If I've got it right, I can buy carbon offsets that will fund programs in various places that replace high-energy consuming infrastructure with greener solutions. And yes, that helps us all.

But my point is as you say - for those of us rich enough to not only pay for a cruise to the Bahamas but to also pay for the offsets, we basically ARE saying that we can overconsume as long as we pay other people to cut back on their consumption by the same amount. Right?

But the question becomes - when does Al Gore become the person who underconsumes? When does it become time for Al Gore to say, "You know what would be even better than paying other people to underconsume by the same amount that I'm overconsuming? It would be even better for me to stop overconsuming AND pay other people to stop overconsuming too, since I have lots of money, and I'll be saving a whole heck of a lot of money by not maintaining three houses!"

I know this can be a slippery slope argument and I don't want people to think I'm trying to start a race to the bottom. I don't think Al Gore should live in a grass hut with no indoor plumbing. I'm just saying that it's a discussion worth having when our environmental movement leaders and heroes start including extremely rich people who obscenely overconsume, even if they try to do it with alternative energy sources.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 28 February 2007 11:50 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You hit on a good point Michelle,

The difference between the Green Party eco capitalists and someone who is a true environementalist is that the 'Green's' want to commoditize the environment so they can 'tax', 'trade', and 'profit' from the environment.

Where as true social and environmental progressives are trying to reverse the commoditization of everything, or at least the things that are fundamental to humans basic survival.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 28 February 2007 11:51 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agree 100%, Michelle. I think we all react to Sven based less on his message than an assumption of his motives. We know he's no fan of climate change action, or at least never has been before, based on past posts on the subject. If Spector had started this thread with his link, the conversation would have been very different.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 28 February 2007 11:59 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
we basically ARE saying that we can overconsume as long as we pay other people to cut back on their consumption by the same amount. Right?

I'd say that capitalism has done a fine job with allowing some to overconsume while others go without - with NO compensation.

The issue isn't carbon offsetting.

And your description still doesn't get at what carbon offsetting is about. It's actually *not* asking others to cut back.

... Which isn't to say that it is a working model.


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 February 2007 12:25 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would we all be better off if rich-guy Gore had not reached millions of people worldwide with his movie which awakened many to the global crisis of climate change?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2007 12:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe I'm not understanding it, then. My understanding is that when I want to do something like take a flight, then I buy enough carbon offsets so that it will pay for the replacing of a high energy-using system with a more energy-efficient system. So basically, I'm paying for my wasted energy by paying to have some other place reduce their energy usage somehow. So that if I'm planning to waste x units of energy, and I pay enough in carbon offsets to save x units of energy elsewhere, then I'm basically paying someone else (or some other system) to save the same amount that I'm wasting. Is this incorrect? This is the impression I have from reading your links, but I'm open to the possibility that I might be having a major mental block here.

That said, writer, I agree with you totally, that at least Gore is doing as much as he is, which is more than you can say for most rich capitalists. It's quite telling when people who defend rich capitalists at every turn who do nothing to offset their overconsumption then turn around and attack those rich capitalists who are at least making an effort. And attack them for not being environmentally-friendly enough! That gets up my nose too.

[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 February 2007 12:33 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
so let's talk about the issue of filthy rich people with three mansions telling us proles how to live.

I guess you'll vote for the fella who was born in a long cabin, then.

Unfortunately, being born poor does not give anyone any particular ability to "tell us how to live" either.

So, the smartest thing is to ignore the ad hominem stuff and decide whether the policies make sense, even if the person speaking them is a rich guy like John Kennedy or Al Gore, or George Bush, or Ronald Reagan, or even Pierre Trudeau.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2007 12:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What does this have to do with how I'll vote?

I wasn't under the impression that we were talking about voting for or against Al Gore. I don't think most of us on babble have that opportunity anyhow, since a) he's not running for anything, and b) we're not American citizens.

What are you talking about?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 28 February 2007 01:02 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see why expressing discomfort at the idea of rich white men lecturing the great unwashed on climate change negates the essential message. The fact is, Gore's proselytization is problematic. I "vote" NDP, but that doesn't stop me from criticizing their policies, or the context from which they deliver their policy.

China poses a similar problem. Their environmental record is abysmal, and from what I understand (from an admittedly Western perspective that could be wrong) climate change is not on the radar of the Chinese to the extent it is in North America. Yet, how can we, the West, presume to tell China how to develop, how to industrialize, how to consume, when we, as Westerners, have already enjoyed the fruits of two centuries of exploitation? America is powerful precisely because it placed no limits on consumption, and now we expect China to do the same "because we know better." It's true, the planet cannot survive another superpower's no-holds barred industrialization, but how do we have the moral authority to speak this truth?


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 28 February 2007 01:29 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
China poses a similar problem. Their environmental record is abysmal, and from what I understand (from an admittedly Western perspective that could be wrong) climate change is not on the radar of the Chinese to the extent it is in North America. Yet, how can we, the West, presume to tell China how to develop, how to industrialize, how to consume, when we, as Westerners, have already enjoyed the fruits of two centuries of exploitation? America is powerful precisely because it placed no limits on consumption, and now we expect China to do the same "because we know better." It's true, the planet cannot survive another superpower's no-holds barred industrialization, but how do we have the moral authority to speak this truth?

This is exactly the problem with Kyoto. The only way to implement it is to bribe the developing nations not to develop.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 February 2007 01:46 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
China still isn't the world's number one polluter. Their CO2 emission standards for cars are stricter than in the U.S.

Canada is a net exporter of energy to the U.S. And every country is looking to Canada to help the U.S. curb its voracious appetite for Canadian energy. Can our puppets do it ?. Are they capable of saying no to big business ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 February 2007 02:20 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
China still isn't the world's number one polluter. Their CO2 emission standards for cars are stricter than in the U.S.

Yes, I've read this before, and I'm still amazed every time I read it. I think the reality is that the Big Three make huge profits of their big gas hogs (big SUVs and trucks) and don't see any incentive to stop making them. However, that doesn't explain why China has stricter emissions standards - the US carmakers have the technology to adapt their products to stricter regulation of emissions. It, must, therefore, be a political problem.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 28 February 2007 02:51 PM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post
Thank you Michelle for posting what you did. The point is that we have to Reduce. Al Gore isn't doing that.

Kyoto, even if fully implemented and fully adhered to would not make enough of a difference either, even if the US was a compliant signatory. China, India, etc. need to reduce as well. Feeling guilty about our two centuries of exploitation and pollution will do squat in slowing rising sea levels. We need to reduce our energy consumption.

Do you eat fresh tropical fruit during the winter? Do you fly in jetliner? Those are both unsustainable activities. You can purchase all the carbon offsets you want, but emission-free airplane technology is not even on the horizon. If you believe in global warming, every time you fly you are contributing to this.

Michelle, your posts did cause me to reconsider my support for the green party, I have to say.


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 28 February 2007 05:32 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I guess it depends on what you mean by "cutting back." The Guardian piece has an example showing a man who on several levels has gained by receiving the fruits of carbon offsets, though he consumes less energy. But the piece also illustrates how problematic offsets can be:

quote:
In South Africa, I visited the Kuyasa carbon offset project in Khayelitsha, a township of 1.3m people on the edge of Cape Town. At the G8 summit at Gleneagles in 2005, the British government heralded it as a "gold standard" scheme which would offset the environmental cost of ferrying world leaders to and from Scotland.

I met Qwili, a 68-year-old whose two-room shack in Kuyasa has a low-energy light bulb, ceiling insulation and a rooftop solar panel. He proudly displays the dirty old paraffin stove he no longer has to use, replaced by a cleaner electric model.

The scheme works. Qwili now spends just R20 (£1.40) a month on electricity compared with R50 (£3.50) before the energy-saving measures, yet his home is warmer in winter and cooler in summer.

But there's a reason why his home is popular with his neighbours. It's the only one on the street that has been fitted out. In total, just 10 homes have been equipped in this way, despite a summit promise of £100,000 in cash.

The Kuyasa scheme was expected to save 6,580 tonnes of carbon emissions each year. Around 2,300 households were supposed to be converted, but with work halted amid bureaucratic wrangling, it hardly inspires confidence in carbon offsetting.

So how can you be sure you're not a victim of "greenwash"? Welland says: "It's a virtual buy, so it's quite right to query where the money is really going." She says every offset payment is audited by KPMG to ensure it is matched up against an offset project.


I don't disagree that Gore has too much, and his way of living is unsustainable. As a socialist, I feel that way about all rich people. However, as an environmentalist, I'd say pretty well all Canadians, with some rare exceptions, are living unsustainable lives. Not all of us can do much about it. This is a big problem.

And here I am, using a computer on the grid to make this statement. Without contributing to any carbon offsets, even. So.

I just don't think this attack on Gore's energy consumption has anything to do with any interest in subverting the order that actively supports and defends gross material privilege and voracious consumption for the few.

Capitalism depends on some having a lot and most having a little, and on the earth continually forfeiting its raw materials for our latest geegaws.

Those with a lot will continue to want this imbalance maintained and defended. And they have the power to fight by sending others to their death for it (see Iraq).

Which isn't all Al's fault.

I'd like to be a part of changing this imbalance. I don't think Sven and his sources share that interest. And I don't think such a change will be advanced by joining a distorted, malicious, lying right-wing slime campaign against someone who is at least trying to address his gross consumption to some degree.

At the same time, in no way am I interested in defending Gore's way of life. But I won't be silent while it's being misrepresented by those who would like the issues of climate change and profound global privation of the majority to go away. So they can continue to hog everything.

This isn't about one greedy green guy. It's about a whole class of greedy folks consuming everybody else's future. And about a structure we all contribute to and depend on that is, it seems, hurtling towards the environmental abyss.

Which is to say that, for me, it is all about class, consumption and capitalism.

But focusing on one rich so-called hypocrite is meant to allow the others to get away with it, all the while claiming that the problem isn't really a problem, anyway.

Gore isn't a hypocrite. He's doing what he preaches. I do think that what he preaches is limited at best. But again, that's another discussion.

[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2007 05:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That sounds about right to me. At the risk of sounding like I'm speaking for both of us, I think we are on the same page mostly. I agree that the smears against Gore by the right are motivated by not wanting to do anything about the environment at all, and wanting to protect capitalist overconsumption patterns by the well-off and very rich.

I would also say that right-wingers are attacking Gore because he's one of their own (class-wise) who is trying to make a difference by doing what they refuse to do. So, they pull out the poseur card. Basically, attacking him for refusing to be like them and live by overconsuming to the max instead of trying to be restrained, and trying to make up for it. Telling everyone that he's no better than they are because he's rich too. I agree that he's better than they are. Much, much better. I also agree that in this capitalist world, in order to get media attention, we have to have rich allies.

I think I did acknowledge that earlier (about the right-wing smear machine), and you have acknowledged my point that there is still a major class issue. Thus, agreement, I think.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 28 February 2007 05:59 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Michelle! While I didn't use the word class, I did mention Gore's being rich and Sven acting on behalf of millionaires last night! You did not need to wrestle me into admitting that class is an issue!

Darling!

quote:
I have not visited Mr. Gore. Nor do I really care what sized house he lives in. I know it's probably too big for my taste. I also know a lot of earth-loving celebrities have more than one abode, sometimes in more than one country.


... But keep on railing. I'm sure all those other millionaires who are doing shit for the environment but exploiting it will thank you for it with some kind of reward, some day.


[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 February 2007 06:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why shouldn't she wrestle with you on this point?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2007 06:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry. I didn't mean that I wrestled it out of you. I think we were both saying both things all along. I just felt like Gore's privilege could stand to be examined, despite the tone of the thread set by Sven. Like Jacob Two-Two, I think the thread would have gone differently had it started with, say, M. Spector's link. I think that's kind of what I was trying to capture. You called Sven on the swiftboating, and I think my idea when I entered the thread was to carry on the class and environmental justice discussion without the swiftboating. Does that make sense? I don't think I was disagreeing with you when I entered the thread, really, I was just sort of trying to address the subject of ecocapitalism vs. environmental justice when it comes to celebrity environmentalism. I felt that it was related.

[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 February 2007 06:13 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Carbon offsets are the modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly carbon conscious public to absolve their climate sins. Scratch the surface, however, and a disturbing picture emerges, where creative accountancy and elaborate shell games cover up the impossibility of verifying genuine climate change benefits, and where communities in the South often have little choice as offset projects are inflicted on them.

The Carbon Neutral Myth* argues that offsets place disproportionate emphasis on individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change. Promoting more effective and empowering approaches involves moving away from the marketing gimmicks, celebrity endorsements, technological quick fixes, and the North/South exploitation that the carbon offsets industry embodies.


Carbon Trade Watch

----------
* The Carbon Neutral Myth is an 80-page booklet you can download and read. (Warning for dialup babblers: it's a 4.3 MB .pdf file.)
----------

quote:
Criticisms of pollution trading, some empirical and some theoretical, challenge the growing support for emissions trading as a universal policy cure for environmental ills. Pollution trading, as practiced in Los Angeles, has produced immoral, unjust, and ineffective outcomes. These are inherent characteristics that flow from emissions trading theory and practice. In an ideal world, one that has perfect information and is free from market distortions, pollution trading might succeed. However, the necessary conditions for pollution trading's success appear to be politically unacceptable to the large industrial polluters who seem to embrace trading as indefinite regulatory relief.

What once was a wrong - polluting - is now a 'right'. The immorality of pollution trading lies in its treatment of a public resource, pollution-free air, as a private commodity. Instead of people having the right to breathe free, businesses have the right to pollute as much as they can afford. Furthermore, pollution trading unfairly harms minority and low income people by unfairly concentrating emissions in toxic hot-spots. Therefore, pollution trading conflicts with environmental justice. Should this call for moral and just pollution policy remain unheeded, then, at least the ineffectiveness of pollution trading policies must receive close attention. In Los Angeles, the emissions trading strategy has weakened meaningful commitments to reduce air pollution; it has delivered more promises than environmental progress.
Pollution Trading and Environmental Injustice
---------

quote:
Companies such as Future Forests sell branded carbon offset products to promote so-called CarbonNeutral™ living. They offer a consumer the possibility to take CarbonNeutral™ flights, go CarbonNeutral™ driving, live in CarbonNeutral™ homes, and be a CarbonNeutral™ citizen, by planting trees which theoretically absorb carbon from the atmosphere. The gathering of global business elites, the World Economic Forum, promotes their events as CarbonNeutral™ with the aid of these self-styled “offset” businesses. The allure of offset culture is understandable. Corporations, ever conscious of cost and image, seek quick-fix solutions that do not require radical changes to fundamental business practice.

However, there are many problems with this approach. Offset schemes typically do not challenge the destructive consumption ethic, which literally drives the fossil fuel economy. These initiatives provide “moral cover” for consumers of fossil fuels. The fundamental changes that are urgently necessary, if we are to achieve a more sustainable future, can then be ideologically redefined or dismissed altogether as pipe dreams. Furthermore, land is commandeered in the South for largescale monoculture plantations which act as an occupying force in impoverished rural communities dependent on these lands for survival. The Kyoto Protocol allows industrialized countries access to a parcel of land roughly the size of one small Southern nation – or upwards of 10 million hectares – every year for the generation of CDM carbon sink credits. Responsibility for over-consumptive lifestyles of those in richer nations is pushed onto the poor, as the South becomes a carbon dump for the industrialized world.


Climate Fraud and Carbon Colonialism: The New Trade in Greenhouse Gases (.pdf)

[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2007 06:40 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is kind of what I was getting at with my points about carbon offsets. If I'm rich, I can do as much environmentally-unfriendly stuff as I want. Then I just pay for as many offsets as I need, and blammo - some impoverished village in a developing country gets to be environmentally-friendly for me.

That to me is not environmental justice. (And I know this is a bit of a drifty thing, but then again, not really, since the subject is basically about how well-off western environmentalists deal with their overconsumption.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 28 February 2007 07:31 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for the OP -- O Gawd, we been there before. Truly, the years fly by like decades.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 01 March 2007 09:20 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
This is kind of what I was getting at with my points about carbon offsets. If I'm rich, I can do as much environmentally-unfriendly stuff as I want. Then I just pay for as many offsets as I need, and blammo - some impoverished village in a developing country gets to be environmentally-friendly for me.

That to me is not environmental justice. (And I know this is a bit of a drifty thing, but then again, not really, since the subject is basically about how well-off western environmentalists deal with their overconsumption.)


I agree with you. But then, if I can get some rich folks to buy offsets they wouldn't otherwise buy, then we are all better off. Because until we change a lot of other things, we aren't going to change the behaviour of rich people.

And we just don't have time to get all the justice issues dealt with before we address climate change. Right now we have about 5 years to get our shit together - if stuff hasn't happened, we lose and our kids will live in a very different, very sad world.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 March 2007 09:26 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't assume we can artificially separate climate change issues and justice issues.

The structural problems built into the capitalst system ensure that the climate change issue cannot be adequately addressed. Nothing short of socialism can save us from climate disaster.

To ignore the justice issues is to condemn ourselves to having both a ruined planet and a failed economic and political system.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 March 2007 10:35 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't socialism already have a chance to show whether it was environmentally friendly?

I mean, I used to read all the time that under socialism, there was no incentive to eject pollutants because there would be no competitive advantage to doing so.

The basic argument:

Capitalists create externalities such as pollution because they can lower costs below that of the competitor, who treate the pollution to minimize it, but at a cost.

But then we discovered that pollution in the USSR was a disaster. China too.

It seems to me that neither capitalism or socialism guarantees environmental sustainability.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 01 March 2007 10:41 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, well, the guy got to you!
He jetted all over the world to make his movie more real. He helped get US submarine records of how quickly the artic sea ice is thinning declasified.
Was he paid big bux to diliver his slideshow for the last 6 or 7 years?
I doubt it.
Sounds like volunteering to me.
I mean, the way you tell it, you would think he did all that stuff to get the award and the glory.
I see a different motivation. He did the slideshow because he wants his kids to have a decent life on a hospitable planet.
Hopefully the guy will get the next nobel peace prize.
Or why not have a nobel education prize?
I mean, he has educated more people about global climate change than anyone previously.
By the way, if you buy the inconvenient truth, there is about 20 minutes of new scientific information added on.
About icequakes in greenland, plagues of giant jellyfish off of japan. (CO2 acidifies the oceans and gives jellyfish a boost and ordinary fish and shellfish get pummeled by the acidity).
Lots of other new stuff too.
Al Gore got a medal at war but republican media successfully discredited the medal.
Now it looks like they continue to discredit the man in any way they see possible.

quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Gore spent about $30,000 last year on electricity and natural gas to heat and cool his mansion in Tennessee.

Wasn't he the guy who just won an Oscar for a documentary about human consumption contributing to...global warming? Oh, never mind.

What a fucking hypocrite...



From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 01 March 2007 10:43 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who said anything about guarantees?

Some of us don't see those particular forms of Communism as the beginning and the end of socialism. And some of us want a future where people actually have the power when we think of socialism. And half of those people would be, I dunno, something like women.

To talk about China and the USSR, we'd also need to discuss the influence of reactions to their revolutions, the Cold War, and the arms race.

And - as far as Communism goes - you forgot about Cuba. Has it shown itself to be an environmental disaster since the Eastern Bloc collapsed?

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 March 2007 03:16 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And - as far as Communism goes - you forgot about Cuba. Has it shown itself to be an environmental disaster since the Eastern Bloc collapsed?

No, that'll probably come when Cuba collapses.

A friend of mine used to work in the Cuban Ministry of Mines as an engineer. (He was about number five in the Ministry).

He told me that: 1) Cuban mining uses all sorts of substances banned elsewhere, and

2) No legal mechanism exists whereby the Cuban people, or anyone else not "cleared", can have access to the list.

So, the answer to the question is basically the same as the answer to the question about the USSR: we won't know until their society opens up.

Of course, it's true that Cuba has little industry, and so has little industrial polution, few cars and so little air pollution. The cars and industry it does have are way behind in terms of modern devices limiting pollution though.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 01 March 2007 03:41 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:

To ignore the justice issues is to condemn ourselves to having both a ruined planet and a failed economic and political system.



Of course we can't artificially separate them. But if a prerequisite for action on climate change is that we have to build a socialist utopia first, we're all doomed.

Ditto if we can't work on social justice issues unless they are environmentally perfect.

They are linked, but they are not the same. And we MUST NOT let the perfect be the enemy of the possible. Right now it's possible to create a market of carbon offsets through which governments and individuals can reduce and/or mitigate their impact on the environment. So let's do it, because we can.

It doesn't mean we can't do more later, or work on justice issues as well. But I don't think we can afford to wait until somebody comes up with a politically feasible, economically possible, progressively perfect solution to global emissions. We just won't live long enough.

And failing to act will hurt the billions of people living in poverty in the South and in developing countries far more than it will hurt us. And that is not progressive either.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2007 03:55 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

No, that'll probably come when Cuba collapses.


Yes, after the U.S. gets rid of its openly fascist regime in exchange for a more centrist one, perhaps a little more free trade will be practiced with Cuba instead of this dated cold war nonsense.

The CIA reports to the shadow feds that although the extra-territorial trade embargo is tightened, Cubans continue to go to work every day - cars and buses continue to fill up with gasoline - tourism continues to fluorish with visitors whose governments do not restrict personal freedom to travel to Cuba - and Cubans continue to celebrate all hours on weekends.

It's president Dubya who has been running the U.S. like a banana republic, Jeff. All that socialism for the rich is unsustainable, and everyone knows it.

Cuban economy projcted to expand by ten percent n 2007

When was the last time Canada's economy grew at 10% besides never, Jeff ?.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2007 04:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

A friend of mine used to work in the Cuban Ministry of Mines as an engineer. (He was about number five in the Ministry).


Jeff, do you realize how much it's cost taxpayers in the west to clean up toxic spills, cycanide-laced settling ponds left behind near ghost mining towns, barges full of PCB's on river bottoms ?.An estimated 16000 Canadians die of lung ailments every year exacerbated by industrial pollution. North America has the highest incidences of cancer in the world. The people in Bhopal India didn't even rate an apology from Union Carbide.
And we've got fish and wildlife around the Great Lakes being hatched with weird birth defects. It's a clear sign that capitalism isn't compatible with life in general.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 March 2007 04:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What does that have to do with Cuba?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2007 04:24 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's just Jeff funnin' w'us again.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 March 2007 04:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sigh. The question was, has Cuba shown itself to be an environmental disaster. Jeff answered that Cuba is a closed society, and they keep environmental stuff secret so there's no way of knowing until the society opens up again.

And then you went off on some tangent about Union Carbide. I'm just trying to figure out what that has to do with anything whatsoever.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 March 2007 04:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
A friend of mine used to work in the Cuban Ministry of Mines as an engineer. (He was about number five in the Ministry).

I see protecting peoples anoniminty is not your strong suit.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 March 2007 04:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why would he need to? Cuba is a free and open society with no government retaliation against dissidents. Just ask Fidel. He'll tell you.

[Edited because I can't manage to write two lines without a typo!]

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 01 March 2007 04:54 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of open and free, where is Sven, anyway? Guess because he didn't get his way with us in this thread, he's off in a huff somewhere, hatching another plot to get grubby leftists to see the light.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2007 04:59 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

And then you went off on some tangent about Union Carbide. I'm just trying to figure out what that has to do with anything whatsoever.


You're Canadian. You're free to travel to Cuba at anytime without fear of reprisal/being fined for it by Ottawa or even Warshington. Just don't ask for a tour of Guantanamo Bay's gulag hotels. Because except for the more than 600 people detained their and human rights denied, Gitmo's closed up tighter than a nun's legs on Sunday and off limits to everybody.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 March 2007 05:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are Cubans free to come visit me?

ARGH. Never mind. Don't bother answering that. This is such major thread drift and I'm contributing to it. I'm sorry. We can take it to another thread if we want to continue.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 March 2007 05:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Why would he need to? Cuba is a free and open society with no government retaliation against dissidents. Just ask Fidel. He'll tell you.

[Edited because I can't manage to write two lines without a typo!]

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


Even in open and free societies gossip can have implications. For instance, I have and inside track on some poltical organization, yet I don't leave an overt trail that could be followed by someone in the know.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2007 05:15 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Are Cubans free to come visit me?

Yes they are. Cuban's send more physicians and aid workers around the world every year than any other western country. All Cuban's can apply for travel visas. Keep in mind, travel costs no matter what country you live in.

The families of the Five Cuban's incarcerated in the U.S., the nation with the largest gulag population in the world currently, have been denied family visits in violation of basic human rights.

And some things never change. The U.S. currently incarcerates black people at six times the rate of the most openly racist nation of the last century, South Africa.

I think the U.S. is becoming a more closed society with its gated and drawbridge communities, private security forces etc. The 9-11 crisis made way for restrictions on American civil liberties. And it's been advantageous for corporate America too. Besides friends of the Republican Party's no-bid contracts on Iraq re-construction, FOI requests from private citizens are denied citing frivolous waste of federal resources while a state of insecurity exists. Polluters and human rights violators in the corporate American workplace have had a field day since 9-11.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 01 March 2007 05:18 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why is Babble talking about Cuba again, why aren't we talking about the millions of Mexican dissidents who risk their lives and liberty trying to escape their Maquiladora zone nightmare Every year!

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2007 05:22 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ya, how about MetalClad and their right to build a toxic waste disposal in Mexico ?. Shouldn't MetalClad's right to profiteer trump a town's right to safe drinking water ?. Oh ya, it was pragmatists in Clinton's outfit who signed NAFTA.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 March 2007 05:34 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

- snip -

All Cuban's can apply for travel visas. Keep in mind, travel costs no matter what country you live in.


So it's just "travel costs" that compel all those Cubans to row to Florida in those rubber tube rafts instead of flying first or second class? I've always wondered why that was.

ETA: don't mind me, I'm feeling crappy tonight.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2007 05:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

So it's just "travel costs" that compel all those Cubans to row to Florida in those rubber tube rafts instead of flying first or second class? I've always wondered why that was.


It's actually easier to obtain a travel permit if Cubans applying for them are unskilled non-essential workers. By the same token, how many Canadians and Americans can't afford to travel to the next province or state let alone another country ?. I'm sure there are just a few people lacking the means in St John's, Toronto, Vancouver, Nunuvut, or even Kashechewan Ontario who would really enjoy a week on Varadero Beach.

Cuban aid workers and physicians are coming and going from Havana all the time. And sometimes there are terrorist alerts and planes have to be grounded. Miami-based terrorism has been a problem for Cubans.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 March 2007 05:48 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How the hell can the US justify continuing to block Cuba all this time? I wish Russia and China would send an armada of supply ships to Cuba with an armed escort and dare the US to do anything. Enough is enough.

ETA: CUBA VS BLOCKADE

ETA: sorry for the thread drift!

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 01 March 2007 05:53 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, to be fair Fidel, our vast corporate welfare state, funded by our high levels of military Keynesianism (Canada was number six in the world in arms sales, last I heard, the US numbero uno by a Texas mile) and shielded by protectionist trade policies towards any independent competition, is bound to attract a lot of landless labour. Even with one of the world's largest walls between them and all the two dollar an hour jobs.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 01 March 2007 09:59 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom: sorry for the thread drift![/QB]
Oh, but it's not drift at all. It is the destiny of all threads on Babble to eventually turn to the topic of Cuban Democracy. Insofar as they do not, they deviate from the ideal, and stand as sad testaments to the power that the Prescott Bush crime family is still able to wield through its mob tactics.

Viva Sandino! Viva Zapata! Viva Farabundo Marti! Arise, ye pris'ners of starvation, etc.!

The historical inevitability of socialism is the REAL inconvenient truth....


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 02 March 2007 05:01 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are there any stand-alone Cuba threads? Maybe we should start one...?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 March 2007 05:18 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hee. Well, I let it go last night because the thread was getting long and would be closed soon, and I felt that the opening post had been dealt with. So why not.

But you're right. I'll close this, and folks can carry on their conversation about Cuba in another thread.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca