A carbon-free lifestyle?! It's an oxymoron. I love when a guy who has been scolding us for almost 2 decades about our ignorance of science says something so blatantly absurd. If he were "carbon-free," he would not exist as a living physical entity.
I know the claim is something like "carbon neutral." All his carbon emissions are, he claims, "offset." You'll just have to take his word for that and back off, climate deniers.
Here's an article in Scientific American, "Can People Really Have Carbon-Neutral Lives?/Learn how you can work toward having zero climate impact."
ADDED: Transcript:
TAPPER: President Trump has gone after you directly when talking about this issue of climate change. I want you to -- I want to give you an opportunity to respond to something he said:
TRUMP [on video]: Al Gore wants to eliminate the combustion engine, essentially, and flies around the world on jets and pushes plans that would help create China, make it stronger.
TAPPER: This is a criticism we hear from conservatives all the time when talking about people like you or Elon Musk or Leonardo DiCaprio, that you, yourself, have a large carbon footprint.
GORE: Yes. Well, I don't have a private jet. And what carbon emissions come from my trips on Southwest Airlines are offset. I live a carbon-free lifestyle, to the maximum extent possible.
पोस्ट्स
१३५ टिप्पण्या:
Gore's sell-by date precedes Hillary's, but not by much.
So... the Pope granted himself unlimited indulgences... therefore his sins never happened?
Gore looks like an inflatable dummy on TV.
A news program talked with Al Gore? Must've *really* wanted to avoid the important issues.
He owns his own 737. Sometimes seen parked at the Jackson Hole airport.
I'm sure the private 737 runs on polar bear.
Yes, Gore buys carbon offsets. From his own company.
Lying, self-righteous hypocrite.
History will have proven Al Gore right. Those who tore him down, if they are remembered, will be judged as not loving our earth or those who came after and had to live with the consequences of Trump supporters selfishness.
We all exhale part carbon dioxide. What we need is a tax on our expired breath. It's only fair.
You first, Al.
Every time that Algore flushes one of his nine toilets in his California mansion, that carbon shit goes right down the toilet. Fake win.
It's misdirection. Nobody cares what they do. The problem is that there's no adult peer review in climate science.
It's made up crisis to benefit the people running the scam.
We really dodged a bullet there.
Bullshit.
What a fake! A few million dollars from the sale of a worthless cable TV network to oil-state-supported al-Jazeera can buy enough worthless carbon offsets to make you look like a saint to the AGW crowd.
I didn't see the CNN movie-plug interview, but I saw the Fox News Sunday one with Chris Wallace. There, Gore used the same talking words ("treating the sky like an open sewer"; "the evening news is like a walk through the book of Revelation", etc.).
Did Gore go "Full Ginsberg" (should be updated to "Full Susan Rice") and do all five Sunday morning political gabfests today?
There's a tradition that losing presidential candidates go insane, starting with Gore.
I'd luv to see an audit of his carbon footprint. Is the offset a bunch of trees planted where they're not needed or wanted, sucking up ground water and nutrients in some ag area in a poor country?
You Althouse a Hillbillies can lie and slander Al Gore all you want. But it is you who are condemning your children and your grandchildren and generations to come to ecological and economic struggle.
"Off-set" by what? Purchasing worthless, symbolic carbon credits from some company he probably owns? Tapper could have pressed home but didn't. Inaccuracies and data manipulation from his first movie. The stupid hurricane coming out of the smoke stack to push his agenda and panic post Katrina.
Even Tipper could take this guy's hypocrisy anymore. You have to give him some credit though. I think Al Gore really believes his own bullshit.
Al Gore said that. How could you prove him wrong? He has control of all the data.
I don't believe him.
I think he is a liar, even more that President Trump. In fact, I think he is ten times more of a liar than President Trump.
Prove me wrong.
I like how he dodged the use of private jets - I don't own one - and made sure we know he checks the box to buy carbon offsets when he flies Southwest.
And of course there was no follow-up from Tapper.
Good Christians would take seriously that humankind has dominion of the earth and treat it with reverence.
Remember one thing, Once..., and don't you forget it. I'm not a Hillbilly, I'm a Knuckledragger. Read my profile. Oh, and fuck off.
I call BS. Gore is too arrogant for the Southwest Airline cattle call. CNN could easily debunk that lie, but journalism at CNN is dead. Oh well. We know he's lying.
No questions about how much money he made peddling the climate agenda.
"He owns his own 737."
He said he did not have a private jet. We figured he rents private jets, but he does make references to flying Southwest.
Allen S, why do you hate your grandchildren and want to see them suffer due to your selfishness?
"It's made up crisis to benefit the people running the scam."
Yes, I was surprised at how many CEOs, billionaires, tech business leaders, and guys like bloomberg (who says he'll get $15 billion for the Paris Accords) were angry as hell over Trump's actions regarding the Paris Agreement.
Am I honestly supposed to believe all these business leaders and rich guys are only concerned about "Climate Change"?
Haha. There's billions of $$$ involved & lots of people were looking forward to getting a piece of it.
Gore's statement is of course absurd, but the ur-absurdity is calling carbon a pollutant, rather than the basis of almost all life on Earth (I say "almost" because I understand that there are a few life forms in remote parts of the Earth that are not carbon-based. There are also some non-carbon-based life forms among the Althouse.com commentariat).
But trading in carbon credits has made him a very rich liar.
You Althouse a Hillbillies can lie and slander Al Gore all you want. But it is you who are condemning your children and your grandchildren and generations to come to ecological and economic struggle.
Unless, of course, it's we who are proved right in the end, and you who winds up joining Al Gore on the trash heap of history.
Gordon has it right. Gore is a millionaire from selling carbon credit. Scam.
This year is once again on track to being recorded as the hottest in recorded history.
When you're a wealthy green extortionist, hiding behind giving an actual shit about the earth or the environment, you get to say stupid things like "I live a carbon-free lifestyle."
Insert dire prediction.. "science!" ... "denier!" and pass the collection plate. *burp*
*zooms away in private 737*
I don't see the relevance of how hot 2017 might be to Gore's hypocrisy.
I actually clicked on the Scientific American link. They published this whopper:
"CO2 makes up some 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, but five others—nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and methane—also contribute."
In actuality, water vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas - its contribution is far greater than that of CO2. Yet the utter falsehood above gets published in a supposedly scientific publication?
This is propaganda pure and simple. I don't know how you can publish such obvious tripe and not expect to instantly squander your credibility.
Despite my nom de plume, a few of us morons on the right do have actual science degrees from real colleges.
There is more economic activity and wealth to be created by embracing future clean energy technology. But you Althouse Hillbillies fall every time for demigods like Trump who appeal to your prejudices and fear of the future.
I see Once is back with his "Althouse Hillbillies" nonsense again. Didn't that get him banned this morning on another thread? I think it did.
Just in case you missed it, he said that many here that disagree with him, or something, are hillbillies that Althouse dog whistles to with racist innuendo.
That seems kind of insulting to me, both to Althouse and to the commenters who disagree with him. I don't know where this racist thing comes from, but I think it's his default insult because he isn't very smart and doesn't seem to have good social skills.
You Althouse a Hillbillies can lie and slander Al Gore all you want
Thanks, but we don't need your permission. Incidentally, Al Gore is from Tennessee, so who's the Hillbilly ?
Because of Trump supporters this country will further lag in the competition of the new economy. Smart business leaders recognize that and that is why they are appalled by Trump and the Republican's Know-nothingism.
That depends on what you mean by "recorded." Since the British Navy instituted a program of measuring temperatures across the world and keeping written records, perhaps yes, since the program was instituted when the "Little Ice Age" was still on.
In "nature's record" as established by the various sciences doing real studies, hell no. Even in this interglacial, the previous peak high temperatures of the 1,000 year cycles have been warmer.
A client told me he sometimes parks his private jet in Jackson Hole. Perhaps I have bad information. Perhaps Al Gore does not own his own private jet. He certainly is wealthy enough to do so.
The earth has had five major ice ages. In between each ice age, the earth warmed. All without the benefit or interference of modern man.
We just don't have that much power, despite the hubris of kvetching liberals.
Tapper seems to have more patience with Gore than Tipper did. Maybe Tapper should learn from Tipper and discard Gore. Around here, they pick up the trash on Tuesday. Should he go in the recycling bag or the normal trash? They'll sort it out at the transfer station.
and never mind the global temperatures in non-ice age periods!
Southwest flies to Davos? Who knew?
With Trump and his supporters the more damage they can wreck on God's green earth, the better they feel about themselves. It is nothing short of demonic.
Pillage Idiot,
Despite my nom de plume, a few of us morons on the right do have actual science degrees from real colleges.
Yeah. Mech. E. '88 from UC/Berkeley here. Got into Princeton, Stanford, and MIT as well, but UCB was the one that gave me the full scholarship. Just another Hillbilly per Once written, though. (I'll grant him the hills; Salem is packed with them, and there's literally no place I can go that isn't actually "uphill both ways." But then I'm so very, very carbon-conscious that I haven't driven in about thirty years, while my husband drives a Tesla. What more do you want, Once? That we turn off the AC that's a worse threat than ISIS? Well, that was only the jayvee team anyway ...)
Demonic--
I like the sound of that. It's a sort of "Night on Bald Mountain" thing. Wild, passionate, Byronic--true 19th century romanticism. "He worked with demonic fervor to despoil the earth and gain all its treasures and pleasures for himself!" And the slogan potential: "More demonic than TRUMP!"
I think that has real potential.
There is more economic activity and wealth to be created by embracing future clean energy technology.
Chris Wallace brought out this howler this morning. He failed to mention how many "Green jobs" are funded by taxpayer subsidies.
Stop the subsidies and let's see how well clean energy technology does.
Except, of course, nuclear which all lefties reject.
The biggest fraud in the history of the universe is "Carbon Offsets".
For example, there's an outfit called ClimateCare that pretends to offset carbon emissions by making farmers in India pump irrigation water with foot pumps.
Let's do the math. A 10 horsepower diesel pump will burn about a half gallon per hour or about a dollar's worth of diesel.
A strong human can produce about a tenth horsepower if he works very hard. So to do the work of a 10 HP pump, 100 Indians need to work like slaves for an hour. This saves one half gallon. If 200 Indians work for an hour, they "offset" one gallon and earn a penny each.
Now imagine Al Gore or Nancy Pelosi take a Gulfstream IV cross country. The jet will burn 2,000 gallons each way. To "offset" the 2,000 gallons Al or Nancy burn up in their flying palace, 200 Indians will have to work 2,000 hours each or for about a year of 50 hour weeks.
Alternatively, you could multiply the workforce by 400 to keep up with the Gulfstream's fuel burn. That means for every hour the Gulfstream flies, 80,000 people have to man treadle pumps to "offset" the fuel consumption of 400 gph.
No wonder people in India hate the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade.
No word on whether or not the well paid staff of ClimateCare carries water up to their air-conditioned offices in buckets but I'm betting they don't.
It's a fraud. All of it.
I went to Oberlin.
"There's a tradition that losing presidential candidates go insane, starting with Gore."
Starting with Carter. But skipping GHWB. And we never really heard from Dukakis again, did we? He might be OK.
With Trump and his supporters the more damage they can wreck on God's green earth, the better they feel about themselves.
I think the word you want is "wreak."
Gore is a breeder. No breeder with four children, especially an Amerikan, can be "carbon neutral." But that's beside the point: it is the breeders, and only the breeders, who are responsible for the yuge negative environmental footprint of the future that promises extinction of coral and other animal species throughout the world.
I have a 15w solar panel in the sideyard -- indeed I moved it just yesterday to scythe the lawn in its swaths -- that I've never gotten more than 8w out of, even with MPPT tracking.
But it does its job, keeping a 12v battery in the basement charged; a battery that gets used to qualify for "e" class participation in the ARRL field day.
Emergency power, not fossil derived.
Otherwise you have to unqualifying stations which is too much trouble.
Actually it's just insteresting, the MPPT tracking particularly.
If Lefties cared about our grandchildren, they'd kill themselves today.
Rumor has it Gore is a silicon-based life form, but the science isn't yet settled.
The smug virtue around climate change is really getting annoying. Even organized medicine has gotten into the act. A couple of weeks ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an article on health effects of climate change and how important it is for physicians to advocate for policies to combat global warming. Last week, the Journal of the American Medical Association followed suit. I believe we need to be good stewards of the earth, but we have to base our decisions on sound science, and our policies have to be designed so they do no harm. But, honestly, I am getting sick of all this self righteousness.
1490: Papal indulgences
2017: Carbon offsets
Have I been banned yet?
A little less than 20 years ago, scientists proved that carbon dioxide levels are a lagging indicator of warming. Therefore warming can't be caused by carbon dioxide levels. An increase only shows that warming has occurred.
Greg, I think you've been shadow-banned.
Mmmm...I don't see a lot of anger here. Mockery, yes. Anger? I don't see it.
If you want to see anger, stop by Democratic Underground or Daily Kos. Those are not happy people.
Even the lefties around here seem like happy people. I think a dinner party with ARM, Inga, Toothless, etc. would be a gas. Freder would be a bit gloomy, but that goes with the territory. Chuck is in a class by himself, although he isn't a leftie at all; he just has no use for Trump.
So, Once, cheer up. The sun will rise tomorrow, and if the Sweet Meteor of Death is coming for us, there is nothing we can do about it...although I might have managed my retirement fund differently if I had known about it.
Bill R,
You forget the "carbon" it takes to fuel those Indians. Digestion is slow combustion.
Likewise Michael K's point about the government subsidies for "alternative" energies. No one knows what the real cost of these are at present.
Noted a statement from Pittsburgh's mayor the other day proudly stating how Pittsburgh have re-made itself from a smokestack industrial city to "green" employment in educational centers and solar energy; IOW, they have conned the rest of Pennsylvania ( and the country) into subsidizing them with tax money.
Blogger Gordon said..."Yes, Gore buys carbon offsets. From his own company."
How stupid do you have to be to buy his self-serving bullshit?
> Well, I don't have a private jet.
Well, it all depends on the meaning of "have".
Democrats think Federal and State moneies are made in Heaven.
Elon Musk is supposed to be worth something north of $15B. End federal subsidies for electric cars tomorrow, and he's broke by Saturday.
All his carbon emissions are, he claims, "offset."
You mean, he can afford to pay to have the proles pick up his share of the carbon burden, while enjoying a pleasant and convenient carbon-indulgent lifestyle.
Kinda like you used to be able to pay somebody else to fulfill your military service. Or the apocryphal whipping boys. Or sin eaters.
Asshole.
Democrats think Federal and State moneies are made in Heaven.
Or come from Scrooge McDuck's vault.
OWT said: "You Althouse a Hillbillies can lie and slander Al Gore all you want. But it is you who are condemning your children and your grandchildren and generations to come to ecological and economic struggle."
I am willing to take that chance. Let me tell you why. When the "climate-is-going-to-toast-us" crowd starts behaving like it's a crisis, then I might sit up and take notice.
They know it's a money making fraud. We know it's a money making fraud. The only ones that don't know are lemmings like you.
Fortune Cookie say:
When the ice returns, those who have panicked on sunny days and mild winters will be seen for fools.
Is that a cultural appropriation?
So he doesn't exhale?
What does carbon free or carbon neutral even mean?
When did carbon become a problem? I thought it was carbon dioxide that was the problem?
Am I missing something?
John Henry
Poor people cannot afford "carbon offsets."
Gore gets a yacht, a mansion, and jets around the globe.
You, kulak, get public transport, and as for living space, be grateful for your nine square meters.
"If he were "carbon-free," he would not exist as a living physical entity."
If only .....
More nuclear power. Then we can talk.
"History will have proven Al Gore right."
Every, single one of Gore's alarmist predictions have been wrong.
Every. One.
But, yeah. History will change that.
Follow the money. Al Gore and his family are very wealthy. His father made a lot of money in Libyan oil. The family carbon footprint over the years probably exceeds that several American states.
Gore's prophecy was based on pseudo science (e.g. inference, liberal assumptions/assertions) and self-reinforcing evidence, including: social consensus, expert appeals, quasi-religious indoctrination. Also, circular reasoning, including: hypothesis (e.g. climate model) as evidence for another hypothesis, "catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling", "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming", "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change", and its politically convenient label: climate change. The so-called radiative "greenhouse" effect was characterized in isolation, then through extrapolation tuned to represent a general effect in the wild. The models are unskilled in hindcast and cannot predict the future. The system and processes are chaotic (i.e. nonlinear, incompletely/insufficiently characterized, and unwieldy). The Earth system cannot be statistically modeled or forecast/estimated beyond a limited frame of reference (the so-called scientific logical domain).
CO2 in air @0.037% 370ppm
Argon in air @0.93% 9,300ppm
Nitrogen in air @78% 780,000ppm
John Henry
Not so sure about Onesie, I think he's going parody of the ignorantly arrogant liberals who were stunned America didn't elect Hillary.
At least that's how I'm reading Onesie these days. It's quite amusing if you read him from that perspective.
When did carbon become a problem? I thought it was carbon dioxide that was the problem?
Gore is Pro-Choice (e.g. population control). He revealed his true character in an undisciplined moment. The consensus has also relabeled catastrophic anthropogenic whatever to simply climate change. How do you disprove a state of reality?
Gore and his family are very wealthy. His father made a lot of money in Libyan oil.
I wonder if this is related to Obama's elective war/regime change and subsequent refugee crisis in Libya.
Gore's father made the family pile in politics.
And an incredibly nasty zinc mine in Tennessee
John Henry
Blogger Paul from Decatur, GA said...
Follow the money. Al Gore and his family are very wealthy. His father made a lot of money in Libyan oil.
NY Times "greenie" columnist Thomas Friedman mowed down an acre or two of Maryland forest to build a 14,000 square foot mansion. He claims to be carbon neutral because he bought offsets. One of the saddest things I've seen is a picture showing Friedman planting a tiny nursery-bought tree on the lot he cleared for his house. To show his green bona fides!
Friedman's money comes from his wife. Her family made a mint financing suburban shopping malls in the 1960s.
The rest of us will spend the next two decades playing minor roles in the psychodramas of liberal boomers.
"But yeah, History will change that"
I think Onesi's threat is that his kind will edit History.
Winston Smiths all the way dowm. "We have always been at war with EastAsia."
Even if we pretend that CO2 offsets are real: Wouldn't Gore achieve more, if he purchased the offsets AND cut his gluttonous consumption of fossil fuel?
If Gore put 10% of his earnings into offsets and lived a modest lifestyle,I still would not believe in immanent climate crisis but I would think Gore was sincere in his belief.
All evidence at this point is that Al Gore is a flimflam man.
How many carbon offsets can you buy with a chakra?
Darrell said...
If Lefties cared about our grandchildren, they'd kill themselves today.
True. I'd say that Once Written is probably late for Carrousel.
"Renew! Renew! Renew!" BZZZZZZT! "Oh, dang!"
Maybe Tipper Gore should remarry Jake Tapper?
Then she'd be Tipper Tapper!
Gore's statement is of course absurd, but the ur-absurdity is calling carbon a pollutant, rather than the basis of almost all life on Earth (I say "almost" because I understand that there are a few life forms in remote parts of the Earth that are not carbon-based. There are also some non-carbon-based life forms among the Althouse.com commentariat).
Incorrect. All life is carbon (and nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and a little sulphur) based. What is true is that there are some bacteria that don't depend on organic carbon for energy. They still use carbon compounds to build their cells. Much like plants make organic carbon out that heinous poison CO2 and water, using energy from light.
I know plenty of hard-core Warmists who do walk the walk. I may not agree with their fervor on the topic, but I do respect their commitment to practicing what they preach.
Personally, I try to be efficient in my economic decisions, not because of Glow-Ball Worming, but because gas, oil and electricity cost money, and I was raised by my parents to be frugal and not take more than I need. I could afford a much bigger house than I have, but I don't really need it, and I don't need my kids to grow up spoiled.
So pardon the fuck out of me for reacting rather badly when I see that fat fuck Gore, who owns multiple mansions and travels in a convoy of SUVS, lecturing ordinary Americans about his fake Gaia God while "offsetting" his opulent lifestyle by paying Carbon Indulgences to HIS OWN BLOODY COMPANY!
Average Americans don't mind seeing rich folks enjoy themselves - look at the success of shows like "Cribs" and "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". But we will not tolerate ultra-rich gluttons like Gore and Tom Steyer lecturing US about our lifestyles and carbon emissions. That's a bridge too far for even the most tolerant American.
Don't you just love it when some rich bastard lectures you on your lavish lifestyle and tells you that your kids are not going to be able to enjoy the luxurious lifestyle that you enjoy? No single family home, one car per family (if that), no trips on jet airplanes to vacation or visit distant friends and family. And, of course, it just makes sense, for efficiency's sake, that your children be assigned a level of education and a career. That's the only way to make sure our scarce resources are fairly distributed.
but if 400 indians work 40 hours a week surely,they are breathing.
Than they exhale CO2..
where's the savings?
I might believe if Al would act as he says WE should, but that ain't agonna happen.
"I use a hell of a lot of carbon, but there's this guy who doesn't use a lot, and wouldn't use a lot no matter what I do, and he agrees that I could use his share too. So I'm not adding any carbon to the atmosphere by flying everywhere."
Blogger Sam L. said...
I might believe if Al would act as he says WE should, but that ain't agonna happen.
That's the Moralist's "We".
It means "you".
Hagar,
Yes. You are exactly correct. And there is the carbon cost to produce and distribute 80,000 treadle pumps. And the carbon cost of the bureaucracy to co-ordinate 80,000 people.
It's such a transparent scam. It's too bad that journalists are innumerate. Almost to a man.
Bill
History will have proven Al Gore right
So far, history has proven him to be either a fool or a grifter.
1) The Earth is currently in an ice age called the Quaternary that began 2.5 million years ago.
2) The Earth is also in the middle of an interglacial (a period of global warming during an ice age) called the Holocene that began 12,000 - 10,000 years ago.
3) Modern man first appeared 200,000 years ago. All of our existence has occurred during an ice age.
4) For the first 195,000 or so years of our existence we wandered around in small bands of hunter-gatherers.
5) As the Holocene warmed the Earth, man discovered agriculture around 6,000 years ago. Agriculture led to surplus, surplus led to specialization, specialization led to civilization, civilization led to history. All of human civilization and history has occurred during global warming.
6) The coldest parts of Earth have few or no humans. The warmest parts of Earth have large human populations.
7) The Earth currently has a record high of humans living on it, with record lows in hunger and absolute poverty.
Global warming began long before humans could have possibly effected it, and is in fact good for humanity. There was once a pile of ice a mile high on top of Chicago, and one day there will be again.
This year is once again on track to being recorded as the hottest in recorded history.
Fake news. Last year was supposedly "The hottest year on record" by .01 degrees according to a study with a .1 degree margin of error.
The earth has had five major ice ages.
The Earth is currently in an ice age...called the Quaternary. It began about 2.5 million years ago.
In between each ice age, the earth warmed.
It also warms during the ice ages. Right now we are in interglacial, a period of global warming within an ice age, called the Holocene that began around 10 thousand years ago.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
With Trump and his supporters the more damage they can wreck on God's green earth, the better they feel about themselves.
I think the word you want is "wreak."
Works either way, and is wrong either way.
"He owns his own 737." He said he did not have a private jet. We figured he rents private jets, but he does make references to flying Southwest.
Gore is playing fast and loose with the truth, as usual.
Few individuals actually own private jets, including many airlines. It's much more practical to lease them.
"Althouse a Hillbillies"
I like that very much.
Once written:
"There is more economic activity and wealth to be created by embracing future clean energy technology."
Ignore the fact this is a sentence fragment. Concentrate on the fact that if this were true no government intervention would be necessary. Why would so many evil, greedy businesses forego the huge profits Once written has promised?
To put a finer point on it, this is ridiculous on its face, in a free market. This only makes sense when coercion and force are exerted by a strong, centralized government such as that advocated by Leftists.
Because of Trump supporters this country will further lag in the competition of the new economy. Smart business leaders recognize that and that is why they are appalled by Trump and the Republican's Know-nothingism.
How does what Trump did with respect to Paris prohibit a business from participating in the new Economy?
@John Henry, 409 ppm now, not 370. You'll never see 400 ppm again.
It's the same as if Al paid someone to wipe his ass then claim he cleans up after himself.
Anyone who uses "climate change" instead of "man-made global warming" is a con-artist trying to confuse and instill fear to extract money.
Anyone who uses "carbon" instead of carbon-dioxide is a con-artist trying to make you think of dirty coal dust and extract money from you.
CO2 has way more oxygen in it than carbon so if you were to characterize it, you should call it "oxygen". Unfortunately, no one would ever be fooled by claims to reduce oxygen.
@ MadisonMan
"You'll never see" is likely accurate, of course. It's likely John Henry (spoiler alert) will not live forever.
Yet, on the Earth's time scale, would you be so blithe?
Once written:
There is more economic activity and wealth to be created by embracing future clean energy technology.
And for some reason leftists can never quite figuring out how every time they take power and tell everyone what to do everyone runs out of food and toilet paper.
Venezuela was just bad luck. It will work next time.
Drooling idiots...
No mention of Al Gore's father should ever be made without pointing out that he filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
Which, given the leftist mythology that all Democrat racists suddenly switched to the Republican party, means the Gores should have become Republican. As should have Robert Byrd and dozens of other segregationists. But nope, the Gores never saw a reason to switch parties. Wonder how come?
Once written..."There is more economic activity and wealth to be created by embracing future clean energy technology."
Then why does it need to be so heavily subsidized by the government?
Well, Thought Leaders are super important and so they don't have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. I've even heard that some can turn off the telescreen. But I dont believe it.
Ritmo are you plagiarizing the work of others? Because the intelligence behind your analysis (even though it's still wrong) is vastly superior to your childish insults. It simply does not match up.
Coal is more subsidized by the government and the public. Much of it is on public land that is being leased way below the market rate. The pollution is an externality that is also pushed off on everyone else.
"The pollution is an externality that is also pushed off on everyone else."
Kind of like the costs of treating AIDS? And drug addiction?
Once written:
There is more economic activity and wealth to be created by embracing future clean energy technology.
And yet it has to be heavily subsidized! Holy cow, that's weird. You would think that when you wanted to hand capitalists buckets of money, you wouldn't have to bribe the capitalists to take them. It's a market failure!
Blogger Once written, twice... said...
Coal is ... on public land that is being leased way below the market rate.
Market rate? I thought there was no market for coal!
Public land? Why does USG own half of Wyoming or wherever? Why are those lands in public hands? So EPA can dump cyanide into it like the Animas River disaster? Talk about pollution externalities!
Blogger MadisonMan said...
@John Henry, 409 ppm now, not 370. You'll never see 400 ppm again.
OK, so it is 409/1,000,000 not 370/1,000,000
We're going to argue about 39/1,000,000 now?
Three thousandths of a percentage point?
Yeah, OK.
You worry. I'm not going to.
John Henry
Yeah, Lewis, Onesie talking about markets. He keeps on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Onesie, stick to what you know, which is fellating animals. Tell us how you get more satisfaction blowing goats, but dogs are easier to find. We'll believe you without any proof, which is what you seek.
JH, more like four thousandths. 😜
There is nothing in the world preventing an American from finding an undervalued public company, or a company building a new technology, investing their own money it, and making money. Warren Buffet got rich that way. Hundreds of thousands of small investors make money that way.
So what is it with people, with no skin in the game, and who are unwilling to put skin in the game, and who say things like "educating urban youth has a gigantic return on investment! Someone is gonna make a mint doing that!" Or "Alternative fuels are undervalued! Lots of billionaires are going to be made from alternative fuels!"
I don't understand them. They aren't talking business, or economics. They are gusty windbags. They are saying nothing useful, nothing can be learned from them.
Yeah, BL, my bad in the rounding.
Shit I had not realized it was so much. NOW I'm gonna start worrying.
Naah.
John Henry
"Coal is more subsidized by the government and the public."
Bullshit.
I am definitely working towards zero climate impact. All of my ancestors have already achieved this. In about 10-15 years I should arrive at the objective.
"Coal is more subsidized by the government and the public."
Coal works.
The only way to have zero climate impact is to not only be dead but also fully decomposed. Everything associated with living has some impact on not only climate but also ecosystems - whether that's the CO2 exhaled, the energy and resources spent on the food we eat, the things we flush into the rivers and oceans, the comforts of life, or anything else that is produced.
Meanwhile, Gore is obviously not having as minimal an impact as he could. If that were true he'd be living in a 500 square foot home on a small piece of land, driving a miniature car, and never jetting anywhere.
However, if he wants to tweak the hypocrites, perhaps Trump can propose a $10,000 per flight tax on private jets and use that to fund some worthy environmental efforts.
"Coal is more subsidized by the government and the public. Much of it is on public land that is being leased way below the market rate. The pollution is an externality that is also pushed off on everyone else."
Pure BS. The "subsidies" are the supposed difference between market and lease rates. But the reality is that eastern coal (which is where the jobs were mostly lost) may have once, many decades ago, been on public lands, but it was converted to private, mostly before we were born. Much of the western coal is on federal land, and the lease rates set by the Feds. But the actual value of the land itself, excluding the coal, is close to zero. But the biggest deception there is that "subsidies" claim is based on (alleged - see above) cumulative or total values, and not on a per megawatt rate. Alternate energy is far more highly subsidized on a per megawatt basis, and it gets even worse when you figure in indirect subsidies like mandatory power buy backs at above market rates by utility companies, the cost of backing up wind and solar by more stable sources of power, and the actual (fairly low) availability of these alternate forms of energy and high costs of maintenance. To clarify this latter point - in order to compare apples to apples, you have to look at the actual delivered megawatts, and not the rated megawatts, and shouldn't give full credit even there, thanks to the requirement of backing up solar and wind. Also, typically not included on the alternative energy side of subsidies is the indirect subsidy of paying above market rates for alternative energy due to required (by govt) percentages of such in utilities' power source mix. In short, BS through bogus comparisons, comparing absolute numbers instead of relative ones, adding in bogus costs on one side, and ignoring them on the other.
"Public land? Why does USG own half of Wyoming or wherever? Why are those lands in public hands? So EPA can dump cyanide into it like the Animas River disaster? Talk about pollution externalities!"
What is probably the fastest way to kill alternative energy? By starting to enforce the Endangered Species Act, and related statutes. For example, there is a specific exemption for the killing of eagles by wind turbines. Do it any other way possible, and it Is a federal felony. But, by executive order, doing it with a wind turbine is just fine. Those huge wind turbines kill millions of birds a year, some endangered, some our national bird, and it is just fine. Protecting the environment by killing it. And solar panels? They too kill endangered species, esp out in the desert where the sun is the best.
The reason that much of Wyoming is public land is first because it is some of the most god forsaken, desolate, land in this country. Parts of NM and NV are maybe almost as bad. Most western coal land has no other real viable use than mineral extraction. Maybe a little cattle and sheep eanching, but then you get into the problem faced with the Bundys in NV, where ranches have to be thousands of acres (far bigger than you could ever homestead) to support single families. This carried over into western mineral extraction. The amount of land you could acquire through mining claims wouldn't support the sizes of mining operations required to make it economically viable. Besides, at some point, Congress decided that leasing was better for the federal govt than essentially just giving the land away, in mining claims, which had been the case, at least in the case of oil, gas, and coal. The problem is that the value of that land is only in retrospect, after coal (etc) has been discovered there in productive quantities. So, what might look like excessively low lease rates, when the mines are open, and the reserves are proven up, looked very different when the leases were signed for these parcels out of the millions of acres managed (mostly) by the BLM.
Finally, in fairness, that EPA cleanup screwup was in SW CO, and polluted the river that flowed through the 4 Corners states. We aren't talking a federal lease here, but rather a federal cleanup of old mines and the like on old style mining claims, probably from the 19th Century. That land is marginally better than the WY coal land, and, at least, has Indian casinos relatively close by.
Discussion at dinner tonight was:
Her: Do you know why talking to plants makes them grow better?
Me: No
Her: Do you want to know why?
Me: No
Her: Are you sure that you don't want to know why?
Me (knowing that she will keep hounding me until I ask): Ok, why do plants do better when you talk to them?
Her: Because you breath CO2 at them when you talk to them, and the CO2 helps them grow and thrive! (The latter, of course is well documented)
Me: Ok
Her: I didn't hear that.
Me: Ok, thank you again for telling me something again that I didn't know (and typically didn't care about) again, as usual. (Being a technophile, I have, of course recorded that line on my phone to make this sort of forced acknowledgement easier and more efficient, but she has threatened to destroy my phone if I try that with her again)
"When did carbon become a problem? I thought it was carbon dioxide that was the problem"
And CO2 is not really a problem either. The planet has done just fine with much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it is essential for the circle/cycle of life, where it is used to create sugar through photosynthesis, which is, ultimately, the source of energy for plant and animal life on this planet. And, as I noted above, it is well documented that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases this process for many/most plants, as does heat (from the claimed AGW). Which means more food, which correspondingly means less starvation. This all, while well documented and understood, is routinely ignored by avid AGW alarmists (or even panickers).
No - the real problem for them is not CO2 itself, but the use of hydrocarbon energy sources. CO2 is just the convenient vehicle they use to attack hydrocarbon energy production (because it is a natural byproduct of burning hydrocarbons). I am not sure why though they want to stop our use of hydrocarbons to generate electricity. Except, that the goal seems to be to reduce our cumulative energy use, as indicated by many of the same people tending to also opposing nuclear and hydro power. Maybe it is some sort of Malthusian obsession, or, maybe, for the very rich, like AlGore, it is an attempt to distinguish and distance themselves, through their wealth, from the masses, by driving up energy costs, which they can easily afford, but most cannot (as well as a lot of virtue signaling).
>>Perhaps Al Gore does not own his own private jet.
I recall John Kerry saying he didn't "own" a Suburban. Later, he had to backtrack and say he did in fact have one, but it was "the family's" and thus not technically his.
I suspect Comrade Al is doing the same thing here.... he leases it, or his company owns one, or some such.
And he probably flew Southwest once, just so he could say he flies Southwest, implying that he does it all the time....
Hey Al, here's the deal:
We don't care how rich you are. Your ability to buy carbon indulgences is irrelevant.
Either you live a low carbon use lifestyle, or you STFU about our lifestyles.
"Low carbon lifestyle" does not give you any credit for "carbon offsets". There's not "net" in there. Live in a small house, drive a small car, or take mass transit, and fly no more than once a year, in coach.
You won't do that? Then you have nothing to say. Because that's the life you'er pushing on the rest of us
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा