Earth Sciences Forum Forum Index Earth Sciences Forum
This site is dedicated to the Earth Sciences. We are here for you to discuss issues regarding any aspect of the Earth sciences, at all levels of knowledge. Questions are welcomed, as are open scientific debates. Enjoy!!!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Carbon Neutral Concerns

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Earth Sciences Forum Forum Index -> Additional, miscellaneous Earth and Planetary topics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Latecommer



Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 45
Location: Central California

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:44 pm    Post subject: Carbon Neutral Concerns Reply with quote

One of the fast growing "green" industries profiting off alarmist views of climate change is the Carbon Neutral industry.
Carbon offsets are sold by an orginization that is deemed green, (producing less GHG's than others) to companies producing more GHG.

This smacks of the indulgence policy of the Catholic church in the middle ages. As pointed out in a new book "The Carbon Neutral MYth" the church capitalized on the supposed purity of the priesthood, relative to the general public, by selling part of that excessive "holiness" to those who were rich enough to buy, and not inclined to change their ways.
The same seems to be the SOP of the new priesthood of climate alarmists.

Why is this not a hypocritical farce? In selling these indulgences, is there any reduction in the supposed danger to man-kind from carbon dioxide? Or does this in fact allow a stasis in the production of this GHG, provided of course that the off-set truely "off-sets."

I have often heard that Al Gore is an owner, or has interest in, a Carbon Neutral company. Does any member here have information to collaborate, or refute, what I have heard?



_________________
If you don't know where you are going, any road will lead you there
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
scpg02



Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 221
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes Al Gore has ownership or interests in such a company. And to offset his carbon use of a private jet to push his carbon credit plan he buys carbon credits from his own company.

It gets worse. I've been trying to tell people how this whole AGW scam works in the financial and political world but few understand it or are willing to look I guess.

My friend Mark did a bunch of research on it and sunk it all into a nice post in a conversation about the California energy crisis. He used the MTBE fiasco as his example of how the game works and talks about the carbon credit scam in one paragraph. It's a long read but if you can get around the feeling of coming into the middle of a conversation it's very informative.

Pick your environmental concern, the game and players are the same!

The italics is quoted text from the post he is answering.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999451/posts?page=67#67

Quote:
These people are energy investors who use federal money and their own tax-exempt "charitable" donations to fund lawsuits that manipulate access to resources, control processing of energy feedstocks, and set attainment targets in a manner preferential to their own investments. ALL of the resulting capital gains in their trusts are tax-exempt. You may be surprised to find the Hewlett and Packard fortunes listed as energy investors, but they just gave over 130 million to Stanford to research extraction of methane hydrates and are directly tied in with Exxon/Mobil in that effort. Keeping it in the family they've put Lynn Orr, who is married to Susan Packard, in charge of the global energy project. The idea is that they can use the energy revenues and the carbon credits for removing a principal source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. They need Kyoto or this will be a big loser of an investment. Curiously, if they disturb those nodules foolishly, they may end up releasing a great deal of methane to the surface which would release the gases into the atmosphere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andre



Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 298
Location: Germany - The Nederlands

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Maggie,

I'm afraid that Global Warming is turned into a multi billion industry. So, what would happen if the balloon is pinched? That's a real cause of concern but then again what if it doesn't and we have to find out the hard way during the next solar minimum chill.

Mind that is very necesary starting to convert to a natural oil independent society. The known reserves seem not to be growing faster anymore than the production. We may have only 30 years more to go.

But if we do it with global warming as reason then we end up putting carbon in the soil, launching satellites to dim the sun, killing all the rain forest for bio fuel and perhaps some other counter productive things.

What to do?
_________________
Moderator of http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/

"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia."

Charley Brown
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
scpg02



Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 221
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andre wrote:
We may have only 30 years more to go.


A lot can happen in 30 years. The answers will come from the market as they always do. Killing the market with regulations and fake solution treaties is not the answer. Ask yourself why then are some pushing for them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andre



Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 298
Location: Germany - The Nederlands

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scpg02 wrote:
Andre wrote:
We may have only 30 years more to go.


A lot can happen in 30 years. The answers will come from the market as they always do. Killing the market with regulations and fake solution treaties is not the answer. Ask yourself why then are some pushing for them?


If indeed the market was the main mechanism, then we all would have been on nuclear power for decades. Engineers can show that this would have been the most cost effective energy source.

But fear reigns, not reality. So easy to manipulate people, playing with their fears, which has led to the cancellation of many promissing projects.

Kernwasser wunderland fun park:



was to supposed be an immense nuclear power supplier. Billions has been investigated. It was just about finished when it got cancelled by fear.

That's not a fun park at all.
_________________
Moderator of http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/

"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia."

Charley Brown
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
billiards
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 81
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For a moment there I thought they wanted to build a theme park on the site of a nuclear power plant!! But no, it turns out that the site was originally intended for a nuclear plant, but the idea was scrapped and the site was sold on to someone who decided to turn it into a theme park.

"Carbon offsetting" is very dubious, it has been widely attacked as a nonsensical policy. Personally I believe it is a misnoma, paying money to be allowed to pump out more is hardly the same thing as actually not pumping the stuff out in the first place - even if there is some self-professed good guy with a wind farm, dumping iron scrapings in the ocean and planting trees in the background.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Latecommer



Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 45
Location: Central California

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anyone know the name of the concern that Al Gore is involved with?

In local debates with earth science teachers at the highschool and Jr. College level, I am reticent to point this out without the actual name of the company or brokerage he has invested in.
_________________
If you don't know where you are going, any road will lead you there
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
scpg02



Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 221
Location: Sacramento

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Al Gore's Inconvenient Loot

Quote:
Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

As Bill Hobbs first pointed out, Gore supposedly pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management (GIM) - and if you're looking to go green, and have your wallet go along with Gore, think again - average people are too insignificant to play - verifiable from this pdf.

    Generation is based in London, with its U.S. offices in Washington, DC. The firm will manage the assets of institutional investors such as pension funds, foundations and endowments, as well as those of select high net worth individuals.* Generation expects to make extensive use of long-term performance based fees. Generation will begin its investment management business in early 2005.


* like Al Gore

Gore's company, GIM was specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming. The Global Warming crowd has told us that just recently new science emerged confirming the alleged fact that Global Warming is man made. So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004? Is it possible Gore knew what the science would say before it was out? And even if not, can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be trusted as an honest broker on that topic? Talk about giving the fox the keys to the hen penthouse.

Even if Global Warming did exist, in principle, what's the difference between war profiteering and this? One could justifiably argue that Gore is taking advantage of, in his opinion, a catastrophic situation to clean up - and I don't mean the environment.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Earth Sciences Forum Forum Index -> Additional, miscellaneous Earth and Planetary topics All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Sport Betting Bonuses|Television News|Article directory