I actually laughed reading this Chicago Sun-Times article about Al Gore’s “carbon offsets”. Especially this paragraph, which gets to the very real and very hypocritical core of Al Gore’s mammoth “carbon footprint”:
So Al can buy his carbon offsets from himself. Better yet, he can buy them with the money he gets from his long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum. See how easy it is to be carbon-neutral? All you have do is own a gazillion stocks in Big Oil, start an eco-stockbroking firm to make eco-friendly investments, use a small portion of your oil company’s profits to buy some tax-deductible carbon offsets from your own investment firm, and you too can save the planet while making money and leaving a carbon footprint roughly the size of Godzilla’s at the start of the movie when they’re all standing around in the little toe wondering what the strange depression in the landscape is.
One interesting factoid that isn’t well covered in the press is that the Bush ranch is one of the mose ‘green’ working ranches in the world.
The buildings are designed to minimize energy useage and enviromental impact. The 4000 square foot home uses geo-thermal heat, rainwater collection to a 25,000 gallon cistern,, gray water recycling, massive insulation. The home is 100 % handicaped accessable.
Clintons, Edwards, Gore and their Hollywood fellow-travelers live in extravigant mansions that suck power off the grid like a giant Monica.
It’s very illustrative of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are big talkers, and big about commanding you proles to live as they say, not as they do.
Republicans don’t run around claiming to be saints, but when it comes to actually doing something, its the Republicans who are the doers.
Jim,
I think it’s fair to judge the conservation acheivements of the Leader of the Free World with a more relevant yardstick than whether he has an Energy Star refrigerator or uses compact fluorescent lights in his rec room. Let’s not damn President Bush with the soft bigotry of low expectations.
After September 11 there was a wide consensus regarding the desire to reduce the influence of the petroleum rich nations in the Middle East- what was the President’s response? An Apollo Project for alternative energy research? Raising the minimum gas milage for the automakers? Simply forcing SUV to comply to gas milage laws used for other passenger vehicles? None of that as I recall.
Once again it appears that the ‘decider’ was not the doer…
And yet two of the biggest things that Republicans would like to do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil — drilling for our own oil in Alaska and building nuclear power plants — are vehmently opposed by the left.
Totally without reason, right?
First, of all the amount of oil in the Arctic Wildlife Preserve isn’t tremendous. But if President Bush had taken the unity after September 11 and combined increased fuel economy standards with increased drilling is there any doubt it would have been accepted by the Senate? That’s the leadership we missed after the terrorist attacks.
Second, nuclear energy is only viable with huge subsidies from the government. That’s not to say it’s off the table though. In any case opposition is by no means partisan: take a look at Nevada- voted for Bush twice yet opposes nuclear waste storage by two to one.
Even if Bush’s favored options faced opposition why were there not second options for one of the key issues in both our domestic and foreign policies? Perhaps because this administration has been adamant that it is not a national priority:
“Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.” –April 30, 2001
Incidentally, citing opposition to nuclear power is a straw man in the argument about petroleum imports: petroleum accounts for 3% of electricity production- less than 1/6 of nuclear.
Aren’t we going to hear why you think green energy is somehow flawed? It does afterall undermine your whole criticism of Gore’s energy consumption. (As the use of carbon offsets… As does the differing demands of a house in TN compared to, say, TX. As does the likelihood that he uses his home as an office…)
I’ll tell you why “green energy” is flawed. This “carbon offset” concept is a joke. Each nation has a number of “credits” to “spend”, and if one nation… oh, let’s say the United States for instance, exceeds their credits, they simply give money to a nation that has “credits” to “spare” to buy more. Now, the United States is using the same amount of energy they would have used before, and so is… let’s say, hmmm… France. Greenland. Whatever. All that changed is that nation A had to give money to nation B. That isn’t environmentalism. That is socialism. Nothing changed in regard to energy usage or pollutants. The only thing that changes was that one nation had to give money to another nation. This is 100% wealth redistribution.
That, my friends is what “environmentalism” really is. It is a Trojan Horse filled with anti-capitalists. Can we at least be honest about it?
I don’t think you know what Green Energy is, Josh.
Thanks for your opinion on that other topic though.