Gore buys carbon credits from himself

nuke's news and views ^ | 2/28/07 | nuke gingrich

[SoCal Pubbie]

Are they only good for agriculture? How long is the credit good for? Who checks to verify if the terms are complied with, or if the credits were sold twice for the same land, or if in fact no plants were harvested from the land? What is the carbon output to process the credits and their regulation? Does the credit equal the loss in revenues from not selling the crop, plus taxes? What happens if the buyer's carbon output increases during the term of the credit?

[Old Professer]

There are a number of schemes and the list is likely growing, but in each case the tradeoff is based on one party using less of a fossil fuel while others use more in order to ostensibly strike a balance.

[SoCal Pubbie]

"The regulatory market is overseen by the United Nations, which uses a complex methodology to ensure that emissions reductions genuinely occur from any projects which it endorses. But this process is slow and bureaucratic, and produces a limited number of “certified emissions reductions”."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0ad8de40-a657-11db-937f-0000779e2340.html

That worked so well for the oil for food program.

[Old Professer]

This link is illustrative as much for what it doesn't say as for what it barely clarifies; it seems that the dream of the Environmentalists has been largely achieved in the sense that they are both at the forefront of advocating for a global reduction in consumption while serving as arbiters for regulations forcing cutbacks in production.

What isn't clear here and seems to be based on the impossible dream is the age-old dilemma of having one's cake and eating it as well.

None of this will remove one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere we now all share.

What the Greens celebrate is, at most, the fascination for which they are famous with otherwise more wise people who are apparently overwhelmed by the tide of emotion that has come to play such a dominant role.

Rather like a wheel within a wheel all whirring wildly without end, going nowhere.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

That's what I figured. Sort of like indulgences in the Middle Ages or paying a draftee replacement during the Civil War. But how is it SUPPOSED to work?

You pay someone to plant trees. The trees absorb CO₂ . . . viola! You are credited with the CO₂ absorbed to offset the JP4 you oxidized in your private jet.

Unless of course a termite or a forrest fire eventually oxidizes the tree you planted . . .

[supercat]

If you have a farm and agree to plant, but not harvest, an acre of qualifying plants or grass you can get paid for 3/4 of a metric tonne of carbon dioxide you didn't emit;

A field on which crops are grown but not harvested is not going to be much of a CO2 sink. A far better CO2 sink would be a tree farm where tress are grown and then hopefully turned into something that won't be burned for awhile.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Strange you would say that because ManBearPig owns quite a bit of forest land.

As a matter of fact, he uses this (already existing) forest as part of his offset bank.

[mickey finn]

Algore is milking this scam that he has promoted for all it is worth. He is one of the most pathetic piece of human excrement ever to wander the earth.

[ncdrumr]

What an inconvenient truth for Algore.

[45semi]

"Gore buys carbon offsets"

"That actually means he pays other folk to use less dirty power themselves"

"It's a bit like paying someone to starve so you can gorge."

Al Gorge


What a bloated gas-bag this guy is...

[grey_whiskers]

You might be interested in my vanity on Al Gore.

Cheers!

[DeFault User]

The Breck Girl's mansion is 3 times the size of Gore's and when questioned he stammered that he would be buying carbon credits. I'm sure he will be another happy Gore customer.

I'm starting to agree with Edwards. There are two Americas. I'm on the side that doesn't buy "credits". Gore's scheme is better than Jim Bakker's Pass The Loot Club.