More:
Here are a few questions Gore should answer:
1. You are a partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiner-Perkins and a co-founder of the United Kingdom-based investment firm of Generation Investment Management, each of which stands to gain financially from greenhouse gas regulation. Please describe any other financial interests that you have in any other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation.
2. In October 2008, the New York Times Magazine featured a cover story on how Kleiner Perkins had invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations. What will be your share of any profits from these ventures?
3. How much of your own money have you contributed to Kleiner-Perkins, Generation Investment Management and other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation? If you have not contributed significant amounts of your own capital to these businesses, what, then, is your role in them? Are you a lobbyist? Are you the face of their public relations efforts? Is your job to run around scaring politicians and the public into enacting greenhouse gas regulation?
4. Is Kleiner-Perkins’ business plan to have you press for legislation and regulation favorable to its clients in order to make them more attractive and available for sale to the public, at which time Kleiner-Perkins would cash out, leaving the public invested in not-ready-for-prime-time companies that have dubious financial prospects and that are dependent on taxpayer subsidies?
5. Your co-founder with Generation Investment Management is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood. Goldman Sachs is lobbying for global warming legislation and is a part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap-and-trade legislation would be traded. Do you or Generation Investment Management stand to benefit in anyway from these relationships?
6. Generation Investment Management’s web site says the firm provides investment advice to clients. Who are Generation Investment Management’s clients and how do they stand to profit from upcoming environmental and energy legislation and regulation? Will these clients share their profits with you and/or Generation Investment Management?
7. When you left public service in January 2001, your personal net worth was perhaps $2 million. In 2007, your personal net worth was reported to be on the order of $100 million. How much of this fortune is related, directly or indirectly, to your advocacy of legislation to reduce “global warming”?
8. When you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, why did you not disclose to the Committee and to the public your relationships with Kleiner-Perkins and Generation Investment Management? Generation Investment Management’s web site says, “Integrity and honesty are the bedrock of our business. We demand the highest ethical standards in our work and in our personal lives.” In light of this statement, how to you explain your failure to inform the Senate Committee of your financial conflicts of interest?
9. You travel all over the world in jets and limos, own a houseboat, use 20 times more electricity than the average American, and stand to make a fortune that most millionaires would envy. Yet you tell Americans to downsize their lives, such as by limiting their travel, using less heat and air conditioning, and drying their clothes outside on a clothesline. Describe for us, in detail, your personal “carbon footprint.”
10. If you are wrong about humans causing catastrophic global warming, will you give all the money you “earned” from your alarmism back?
by Steven Milloy http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=31584
Mr. Milloy is the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com, co-founder of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, and co-director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. His columns and op-ed pieces have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Financial Times, and Los Angeles Times. He is the author of “ Green Hell,” a new book from Regnery Publishing.
I sent this info below out to my email lists 1 year ago on May 4, 2009:
The cost of President Obama’s climate flimflam has now been projected to exceed $2 trillion. In 2001, then Senator Obama took a $1.1 million grant from the radical Joyce Foundation to set up the Chicago Climate Exchange which will be heavily involved in the cap and trade scam.
Paula DiPerna, who was president of the Joyce Foundation when the grants were paid out, is now executive vice-president of the exchange. Most economists say that this cap and trade tax fiasco is an enormous tax on businesses and Americans at a time when both are in recession and will kill any economic recovery. 5
Global Warming Scam estimated to cost each U.S. Family $6,400 per year, more for other countries.
May 4, 2009 | Dr. Robert M. Carter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2244367/posts
Some Recent Estimates Of The Costs Associated With Green Power And Emissions Trading Legislation. OVERALL COST-BENEFIT — WILL THERE BE ANY? Mr Ed Milliband, the British Minister for Energy and Climate Change, recently released an updated Impact Assesssement of the U.K. Climate Change Act, asserting that “I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options”. Here, I compare the original costs:benefits estimated when the Act was tabled.
Some Recent Estimates Of The Costs Associated With Green Power And Emissions Trading Legislation. . . .
•A. OVERSEAS
1. Compensation is being demanded by China/India of 1% of the developed world’s GDP (more than $300 billion for Group of 7 countries): it is estimated that this will cost each US family US $1,900/yr (Wall St. Journal, April 3:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871985916184973.html?mod=googlenews_wsjgooglenews_wsj ).
2. President Obama’s intended carbon dioxide cap and trade bill is now estimated to now cost $1.9 trillion (up from $646 billion): this is an additional US $4,500 extra costs/family/yr. (The Washington Times, March 18:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/).
3. In the U.K., the range of estimated costs of their new Climate Change Bill is GBP 324-404 billion: this is GBP 16,000-20,000/family/yr. (Peter Lilley, U.K. MP, Letter to the U.K. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, at:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/04/letter-to-secretary-of-state-for-energy-and-climate-change/
4. Spanish study shows that since 2000, each job created in the alternative energy industry has been accompanied by the loss of 2.2 other jobs, and cost US $774,000 to create. (Bloomberg, March 27: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0)
•B. AUSTRALIA
Assuming a BAU usage of 560 Mt of carbon dioxide emissions in the first year after the introduction of an ETS, an Australian population of 22 million persons, and a carbon dioxide tax level of $30/t of carbon dioxide on introduction, and of $250/t later when the “floating price” (Garnaut) is reached, then the following costs can be calculated will be imposed on the taxpayer:
1. For $30/t - an amount of $3,054/family/yr; rising progressively to
2. For $250/t - an amount of $25,455/family/yr
Other increased indirect costs associated with emissions trading include unemployment caused by replacing coal-fired with wind power, transitional economic costs (estimated in the U.K. as roughly 1% of GNP), contributions towards the huge aid sums now being demanded by 3rd world countries (another 1% of GNP) and the economic growth foregone because of the whole exercise (Australian treasury estimate, 1.8% of GNP). These will result in an overall cost to the Australian community of more than double the direct charge levied upon carbon dioxide emissions.
C. CLIMATIC BENEFIT
DICE (dynamic integrated model of climate and the economy) modelling for the U.K. indicates that a reduction in emission of ~1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030, as targeted by British climate policy, might result in a reduction in temperature by 2100 of 0.00038 deg. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4849167.ece)
The U.K.’s share of global fossil fuel emissions in 2007 was ~1.7% of the total; Australia’s is ~1.2%
(CDIAC: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html).
Therefore, the possible effect of Australia cutting even all of its emissions is a theoretical reduction of global temperature of about 2/10,000 of a degree.
•D. OVERALL COST-BENEFIT — WILL THERE BE ANY?
Mr Ed Milliband, the British Minister for Energy and Climate Change, recently released an updated Impact Assesssement of the U.K. Climate Change Act, asserting that “I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options”.
Here, I compare the original costs:benefits estimated when the Act was tabled, and the new estimates just released by Mr Milliband which apply to the Act as amended.
1. TABLED - 60% reduction by 2050: Costs GBP 205 billion; Benefits $110 billion
2. AMENDED - 80% reduction by 2050: Costs GBP 404 billion; Benefits GBP 1.024 billion
Thus an initial benefit of roughly 50 p for every 100 p invested, has changed to a benefit of more than 200 p for every 100 p invested. The “benefits” calculated in the revised Impact Assessment mainly represent the avoided imputed damages that would be caused by allowing carbon dioxide to increase on a BAU path. Instead, the MARKAL model used assumes emissions limitation to no more than 450 ppm globally.
The many flaws in the U.K. Impact Assessment have been discussed by Dr. Roger Pielke (Jr.), who estimates that even using the most benefit-favourable estimates, the likely benefit: cost ratio to the British taxpayer of the Climate Change Act is 0.06 and that even that tiny and doubtful benefit is dependent upon the world (and not the UK alone) achieving a 450 ppm emissions stabilisation scenario. See: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-uk-climate-change-committee-illustrates-how-not-to-do-cost-benefit-analysis-of-climate-policies-5118.
Finally, it should be noted that the new British Impact Assessment estimates appear to exclude transitional costs (which could amount to 1% of GDP up to 2020), ignore the cost of driving British firms overseas, and assume that all businesses identify and immediately apply the most carbon efficient technology available. ..
About Dr. Robert M. Carter
Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.
Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways).
Bob Carter’s current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181.
Bob’s research has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC). He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments. Bob strives to provide critical and dispassionate analysis based upon scientific principles, demonstrated facts and a knowledge of the scientific literature.
Dr. Carter’s biography and links to articles may be found on:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/