Al Gore's Inconvenient Loot

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.

Here's a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore's control. And, as you'll see below, Gore's selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.

AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC

According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns. If we borrow John Edward's so-called two Americas concept for a second, this all means higher prices and taxes with more regulation and an altered standard of living for people like you and me, while Al Gore sits ensconced in his other America reaping profits from each new government mandate for us, business and even government itself. It's win win, alright, but mostly for Al.

To add insult to injury, Gore chose Peter S. Knight, an old friend and colleague some are sure to recall, as the US President of GIM.

Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton's successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.

This would be him:   Reno Rejects Inquiry Into a Clinton Aide

Atty Gen Janet Reno decides against any further investigation of Peter Knight, Pres Clinton's 1996 campaign manager in connection with office building development in nation's capital; such an investigation could have led to naming independent counsel to look further into activities of Knight, who is also former top assistant to Vice Pres Al Gore.

Yes, thanks to Janet Reno, no one ever found out how $20,000 in stock turned up in an account for Knight's then 13 year old child.

Dispute over Democratic Party campaign-financing shifts to Zachary Knight, 13-year-old son of Peter S Knight, Clinton-Gore campaign chairman in 1996, who was given $20,000 in stock by William Haney 3d, chairman of Molten Metal Technology Inc; Republicans believe gift, which came after father was named chairman of campaign, was really payment to Knight, who had worked as $7,000-per-month lobbyist for company; Knight denies involvement in any impropriety; photo

If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in? And given the history of Gore and Knight, are these people we should trust to drive a re-vamping of the world economy at the same time they're lining their pockets because of our much smaller carbon footprints?

If Al Gore is successful with this latest scheme, Gore and his cronies are going to be much more $green$ than most of the earth. And the only green in this for you and me is the kind that accompanies envy as Gore trucks around on private jets putting dollars to offset his extravagance into a cash machine generating profits on the backs of the middle class with misrepresented science that doesn't deserve to be called science at all.

Mr. Gore starts out, ironically enough, asserting the importance of peer-reviewed science. I call this ironic because the misrepresentation that follows (a) hasn’t been peer reviewed, and (b) the peer-reviewed literature contradicts the misrepresentation.

From the Center For Public Integrity: one of the issues involving both Knight and carbon friendly Al was the installation of a hot tub and steam shower in the Master Bedroom of the VP's house. How Green is that?

Here's what the Center found about some of the most generous contributors to the foundation: Peter S. Knight...

Peter S. Knight, Gore's former chief of staff, managed Gore's first bid for the presidency in 1988. In 1989, he began lobbying for the firm Wunder, Diefendorfer, Cannon and Thelan. Given his closeness to Gore and the rest of the Clinton administration, corporations now pay Knight upward of $10,000 a month to wield his influence with Gore. With the help of his new clients, Knight soon cemented a new role for himself as Gore's "chief of fund raising."

Since 1996, Knight's various lobbying and fund-raising activity has been the subject of a Federal Election Commission investigation, a Justice Department inquiry and two House Commerce Committee probes.

Gore chose Knight to act as chairman of the foundation during Gore's first vice presidential term. Three of Knight's clients - millionaire publishing magnate Vance Opperman, Bell Atlantic and Fluor Corporation — showered the foundation with $10,000 each.

Knight also solicited $10,000 contributions from foundations run by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), Coca-Cola Company, MCI Communications (now MCI WorldCom, Inc.), Time Warner Inc. and Microsoft Corporation (Chairman Bill Gates also contributed a $30,000 glass sculpture). Under Gore's supervision, the foundation pledged to take corporate money only through their foundations, not from corporations directly. The $10,000 paid by the Coca-Cola Company, however, came out of the corporate account.

Comments

[Thomas McCord]

So, Boris. Can you find a Global Warming model that was demonstrably proven by observed data?

[Gary Maxwell]

Thomas

Save your bits and bites, these two or three morons are the choir right behind Rev Al. They think even if he is an energy glutton that its ok cuz he is putting the issue on the agenda. It would matter not one whit to them if he belched large plumes of acrid, soot-filled smoke into the air from every chimney and every tailpipe of his small fleet, Even all at the same time. Rev Al is speaking "truth to power". If if its not really the truth but a gross exaggeration. And busily filling every pocket he can find with the moron's guilty lib friends moo la.

Point out the global cooling New Ice Age dire predictions only a short time ago, they don't remember( and wont Google to find out either, inconvenient I think). Point out how the theory on CFC making the ozone hole not seeming to match up with current reality, ie 2006 the largest ever and CFC s in the atmosphere to have peaked in about 99 or 2000 and have been declining since then, and they will tell you about China. Huh?

Since the only proffered "response" to Global Warming that I am aware of is the Kyoto Protocol, which exempts China and India, how does China being responsible for the enlarging Ozone Hole, bode for the success of Kyoto? Consistency in argument does not have much perceived benefit.

Watch for straw man argument, they are pretty good at these so that they can rhetorically tear the straw man down and declare themselves the winner of the debate! For example they will say " what do want to do , NOTHING?" Of course no one has said do nothing, but it wont stop them.

Many here I am sure think there are enough other good reasons to reduce our energy dependence, and probably have done so in their own personal lives. I know I have and will continue to watch for other opportunities. That we don't want to sign on to a Non consensus and throw the country into a recession seems quite logical to me. Especially since the last several warnings of impending calamity have not turned out exactly as billed. But then logic has not be an often used tool of the left now has it.

[Gary Maxwell]

Read this off GIM website and see if you think they are even capable of genrerating a carbon offset for Al:

While we are still a small firm with only 23 employees, Generation is committed to reducing the energy use of operations, both direct and indirect. We do this by minimizing non-essential air travel and by managing our building operations (lighting, recycling, and procurement). We have also had conversations with suppliers about energy efficiency. For the remainder of our carbon footprint, we work with two offset providers (The Chicago Climate Exchange and the CarbonNeutral Company) to ensure our London and Washington D.C. offices are fully carbon neutral. In addition, Generation has sponsored a full energy efficiency audit for each employee's residence, including suggestions for ways they can make home energy improvements.

Sounds like to me they are buying offsets themselves from two more companies and doing an energy audit only on employees houses. Anybody read it differently?

[Buzzy]

This reminds me of visits to the USSR back in the late 70's and early 80's where you would see huge lines of common people waiting to buy crappy SovBloc merchandise while the political elite had their own stores with western goods. Communism was right for the common people but never good enough for the Soviet Elite.

I'm still waiting for proof that any of these "offset" corporations actually own (or even have leases for 100+ years) the vast amounts of land required to plant these trees that offset Al Gore's carbon footprints. How about proof that they've even planted any trees?

[Zuzu]

Buzzy -

Uh, are tree plantings on their own land the only offsets offered by carbon exchanges?

You can look at some of the links I posted earlier to see a pretty extensive description of the variety of offset projects most exchanges invest in. For instance, like many other consumer-oriented corporations, that uh, "not first-tier" corporation, TerraPass, invests in a diverse range of carbon reduction projects:

http://www.terrapass.com/projects/index.html

And any reputable exchange will provide an audited verification of the company's operations as well as the carbon-reduction impact of the projects in which it invests. For instance:

http://www.terrapass.com/projects/verification.html

[Boris]

Gary,

Odd you mention the straw man argument as it seems to be your tactic of choice. For instance, the global cooling canard. You claim global warming is the same as global cooling. Now, did the National Academies of Science issue a statement warning of the threat of global cooling? Becasue they have for AGW. What about the American Geophysical Union? The EPA? The Royal Society, NOAA, AMS? All have issued statements in support of the AGW theory. None did so for global cooling. A publication in Newsweek is not a consensus.

What's your problem with CFC's as a catalyst for Ozone depletion? It's basic Chemistry. 101 stuff--at least that's where I learned it. Recovery (or non-recovery) of the Ozone hole is not expected to be statistically significant until 2024.

Thomas,
Are you not familiar with Hansen's 1988 paper? Or perhaps the hindcasting that's been done?

[Gary Maxwell]

Canard ( ke nard ) N A false rumor, hoax

Well you can choose to put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and hmmm "la la la" if you wish. That does not make it any less truthful that the 70s were filled with stories of impending do to a new Ice Age.

And except for your now reliance on a appeal to authority I see not much else but the willing to deny what clearly happened.

As to CFCs, is it you deny that they peaked in the atmosphere around 99 and yet we still have the largest observed ozone hole 2006 or what? Does that not suggest to you that the certitude for which CFCs were the cause was a bit simplistic? After all if its "basic" chemistry then why are we now casting about for a further explanation? Is it a bit more complicated than all the experts led us to believe or what. Enlighten us. I am not expecting the hole to close or recover quickly so dont misunderstand me or mispresent me. Specifically why if CFCs have been declining from a 99 peak, that after almost a decade we have the largest hole ever observed.

Science and scientific method has a lot of theories. The difference between that an a scientific law are well known to any who knows the basics as you so derisesively put it.

[Boris]

Gary,

"As to CFCs, is it you deny that they peaked in the atmosphere around 99 and yet we still have the largest observed ozone hole 2006 or what?"

I don't deny that at all.

"Does that not suggest to you that the certitude for which CFCs were the cause was a bit simplistic?"

Gary you have to read beyond the headlines:

"The temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones. The NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) provided analyses of satellite and balloon stratospheric temperature observations. The temperature readings from NOAA satellites and balloons during late-September 2006 showed the lower stratosphere at the rim of Antarctica was approximately nine degrees Fahrenheit colder than average."

and

"As a result of this slow decline, the ozone hole is estimated to annually very slowly decrease in area by about 0.1 to 0.2 percent for the next five to 10 years. This slow decrease is masked by large year-to-year variations caused by Antarctic stratosphere weather fluctuations."

http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/1024/2/

[Dion]

"Carbon offset" is just another nonsensical leftie platitude soon to appear on a bumper sticker near you. It is way for rich liberals to buy absolution for their excessive lifestyles and deflect accusations of hypocrisy. The Goracle hasn't done anything tangible to curb pollution, quite the opposite. You will never see any wind farms next to his little mansion on the hill. Nor will you ever see his Gulfstream jet run on batteries and bio-diesel.

[Gary Maxwell]

Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes,

It was a bit of a trap and maybe I should be ashamed for setting one, but you did fall right in like I expected. Can you think of another argument that we have also been discussing which does not seem to reconcile very well, well oh ok its in direct conflict. Hint World. Second hint heating up. third and last hin Colder than average temperatures.

Wait for the British documentary which takes dead aim at Al Gore and his theories. It will air March 8. Think it will be up for an Oscar, it is a documentary and about climate change, so it should qualify. No I think hell and earth will freeze over first.

[Boris]

Yes, Gary, and guess what? Those computer models that predict global warming alos predict Stratospheric cooling. Computer models predicted it and it was found.

Global warming means global average temps.

[Gary Maxwell]

Oh I get it, didn't the pig in Orwell's Animal House warn us about this. Words can mean anything or something along those lines. So warming means cooling.

And shove your crap about modeling. I already know that the climate models we have cant even begin to factor in clouds and their effect. The models just are not very good right now. So if the model sucks, how likely is the output going to be to accurate?

[Boris]

Gary,

I'm sorry things are not as simple as you would like them to be. If you can't tell the difference between the terms "global warming" and "stratospheric cooling" you can't understand the scientific issues. The important thing is that models predicted the cooling before it was seen. Skeptics such as yourself used this as evidence that the models "sucked," But then cooling in the stratosphere was discovered and the skeptics moved on to something else without batting an eye. It's very easy to do op-ed science from the sidelines. Real research is a lot more difficult.

Oh, and I think you've demonstrated that you are not capable of evaluating climate models.

[Gary Maxwell]

Well there is one they we agree on, that we each think the other is not capable of rational thought. Stay with your religion, it probably keeps you hanging on. Good day.

[Roy]

"Off sets" have been around quite a while, used in settings different than the war on Global Warming. In the U.S. Civil War the nation instituted the military draft to fill its Army with able bodied men, but prospective draftees were allowed to "off set" their contribution by paying a substitute to take his place in the Army; using another citizens "foot prints" in a fighting regiment, allowing those who can afford to buy a substitute from getting their dainty little hands dirty & bloody from the sordid little affair. Apparenlty, this is the same method that Al intends to use in fighting the war on Global Warming. How convenient.

[Kel]

Some of you seem to have your panties in a bunch because only rich people are making out from this GIM situation. Did anyone ever stop to bitch about the fact that the middle class is being pushed down to poverty levels in this country? And do NOT tell me that the economy is stronger than its ever been blah blah blah. I was once middle class, I work two jobs , take out astronomical student loans to attend two schools all so that I can be poor. There are hardly any jobs in my area (and its not rural) , my father was laid off from his whopping 14 hr. job recently and his only prospect after fifteen years with a company is the local mc'ds. Housing is unaffordable, and you can only receive assistance if you make like 2,000/ a year for a family of four. Basically you all seem to be forgetting one very important factor, what this president has done to this majority of tax payers in this country. He has driven us to suicides, to outstanding credit card debts so we can buy groceries for our children , has driven us to hopelessness. I can tell you though, my sister in law, who is insanely rich , is very happy to stay with a republican administration, you see she has been receiving some MAJOR tax breaks since GW took office...with Clinton, well she was actually paying tax on her income. Poor thing.
Just keep in mind that this is a country of actual , honest to god, REAL people. And most of us are dwindling economically. This is why most of us cannot afford invest in anything...stock what's that? Gee let me see, shall I buy some stock this week or make sure there is some peanut butter, jelly and bread in the cabinet for my 6 year old to eat.
Some of you are just self righteous bastards. You want to stand up on your pedastal and preach about how great your king is , my guess is because he is a good ol' christian boy, but in all actuality I bet that man would sell his soul for a little bit of profit (I might even go as far as to say he already has). GW has done NOTHING for the majority of this country except chew us up and spit us out. Go ahead , try and disagree with me, hell try and disagree with anyone who lives the same way most of us do and we'll tell you straight up that this man has done absolutely nothing for health care, education , job growth etc...in this country. All he has done is started a war based on lies, neglected an ENTIRE devastated area (yeah, um hello, how easily we all forget Katrina) on and on and on down the list. We should all be so lucky that our only problem to worry about is Al Gore making a little money off a GOOD thing.

[Bryce]

Roy: So what you're saying is, paying somebody to put up solar panels rather than doing it yourself is the same as paying a poor person to go to war, fight, and die, rather than doing it yourself?

Look, carbon offsets are simple, basic economics. Atmospheric CO2 is infinitely substitutable. Mama Gaia doesn't care if a particle of carbon dioxide was emitted by a Hummer headed off to shoot spotted owls or by the dying breath of a starving child. Its effect on the atmosphere -- and on climate -- is exactly the same. So when you're looking for ways to put a dent in global warming, the question shouldn't be, "How can I reduce the number of molecules coming out of my specific tailpipe and out of the smokestack of the plant that powers my specific house?" It should be, "How can I keep as many molecules out of the atmosphere as possible?"

That's where carbon credits come in. It's a simple economic fact that some people are in a better position to reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 than others. Imagine that there were two proposals for knocking out 500 tons of CO2. The first is to have me pay $5000 to upgrade the insulation on my house. The second is to use higher quality insulation in a house that's scheduled to be built (cost, $500). Now, if my entire goal is to take 500 tons out of the atmosphere (that is, I'm not looking for a warmer house or lower heating bills), then why pay $5000 for the result when I could pay $500 for it?

Of course, my example is easily abused. Any developer could simply drop the R-value of the insulation they propose to use, and make money being paid to bring it back up to the value they'd actually intended to use from the beginning. But I don't consider the problem insurmountable.

I've seen so many people claim that carbon credits are tantamount to indulgences. Such comparisons overlook a critical point: the biggest problem with indulgences wasn't that they were unequally available across the wealth distribution spectrum; it was that they didn't work. Buying an indulgence did nothing to undo any damage the sinner might have caused; all it did was assuage his guilt. But if "sin" were a real, harmful physical substance, and purchasing indulgences actually removed it, then being "sin-neutral" would actually be a useful thing.

One accusation I've seen kicked around is that carbon offsets are illusory, because many of the projects that generate them would be economical without them (and therefore would have been done anyways). That sounds reasonable on the surface. But you can argue against this reasoning by invoking the free market. If a project is viable without carbon credits, that's the same as saying that the project is producing credits at zero cost. This both drives down the price of credits, and encourages similar projects. Less efficient schemes for pulling CO2 will be priced out of the market. Credits will also take marginal programs and make them more viable.

You may think, "Gee, isn't that *distorting* the free market?" Quite the contrary. As it stands, CO2 represents a huge market failure, because those who benefit from CO2 production aren't forced to incur the costs brought about by their pollution. Americans produce a quarter of the world's emissions, but our wealth means that we will probably suffer less than people in far less culpable nations. Folks on either side of the red/blue divide should recognize that correcting externalities is important, and that often the government is uniquely equipped to correct them.

In this case, the government might have a role in regulating carbon trading companies, but their primary function would be to stimulate demand. For example, they could work carbon credits into local building codes, or provide tax incentives to companies that demonstrate commitment to carbon neutrality.

If an offset program meets the all important criterion of verifiability (CO2 is being reduced in the amounts claimed) then I see no reason they shouldn't work as advertised. These programs also place some very real limits on how directly the government must regulate in order to achieve its goals. Estimates of carbon pollution, prevention, and sequestration all have to bear at least passing resemblance to reality. Rather than telling specific industries to adopt specific mitigation techniques, or banning specific products, governments can simply reorient the incentive structure, and let the market find the best way to accomplish the goals.

[nokneejerking]

It's funny how people will talk about President George Bush in the negative, as though they have all the agencies and intelligence networking, world leaders, industry leaders, etc. speaking to them and thereby are able to actually arrive at a reasonable conclusion about George Bush, and what truly makes it laughable is such things usually occur with ad hominem or other character insinuations.

One would think at some point they would realize that the same greed factor they assume of one party is prevalent and consistent throughout mankind, meaning that their pedestalized demagogues, such as Al Gore who screams and cries over the .55% (max human contribution to Co2 gases) yet with full intention of selling carbon offsets (meaning a "pay as you go" justification for exhausting Co2) because reality is that the earth puts out the other 99.45% of Co2 anually, and that scientifically as a matter of fact per the data collected by the environmentally educated (Phds for and against Co2 caused Global Warming), there is no way other than interrupting nature to actually lower the Co2 output significantly. Now keep in mind that the Co2 output by nature hasn't been rising dramatically, meaning that the Al Gore theory suggests .10% (thats 1/10th of one percent) change in Co2 is able to destroy the planet. At our lowest recorded point man made Co2 output was .45% of the total planetary Co2 output annually, max was .55% and currently it is lower than it's maximum and has been since the 1940s. It it at all obvious that the Earth isn't so fragile that 1/10th of one percent of Co2 output will not destroy the planet? However such is as unprovable as the existence of UFOs or God as to prove the point would be to destroy the planet to show the threshold when such would not have occurred.

Be that as it may Apparently Mars polar caps melting has no significant influence on looking at the warming that is occurring as a solar event, likely a common solar cycle as has been often suggested by the geophysicists who actually look at the history of the earth based on core samples, a history that reflects the solar cycles which we really haven't paid much attention to even when discussing global warming, very odd indeed.

It truly is funny how reason and science are thrown out the window in favor of emotional manipulations (using the disappointment factor of so many who hate George Bush and wanted Al Gore to win, seriously exploiting half the population of the United States) perpetrated by such persons as Al Gore and this blind following (the same who tend to generally find Christains as having "blind faith") who have chosen their christ (so to speak, I mean he is "prophesying gloom and doom if man doesn't change his ways") in Al Gore yet, again oddly, not out of understanding the science or bringing Mr. Gore to reject the profit motive of his global warming promotion (evident from his carbon credit fund) but instead these individuals embrace the theory without even the slightest unemotional review. Maybe it was the Hollywood Special effects and embellishments of science, even misuse of data and misrepresentations of date by bar graphs (the correlative of Co2 and global temperatures in fact shows the Co2 gas output FOLLOWING AND NOT LEADING globaly temperature fluctuations by 600 years) that, along with emotionally charging the issue, made some feel they had an opportunity to be a Han Solo and join Luke Skywalker Gore to protect the planet and our people using the force, the "light sabre" of persuasion through misrepresentation and downright lies for the sake of Gore's apparent god, the "Almighty Dollar."

And to those who might suggest some sort of numbers of scientists in their need to find support for the concept irrespective of the impropriety of their demagogue Al, sorry but the facts are not determined by agreement but instead by the objective measurements through instruments, measurements that are not disputed by the pro or con Co2 produces global warming camps. Those facts happen to be the .55% manmade versus 99.45% natural of 100% of the Worldwide Co2 ouput annually. I seriously you followers of the elite lawyer Al Gore whose carbon credit fund provides polluters with a justifiable means to pollute (we have that now but not for specific gases) because the cost of purchasing carbon credits is less than the government fines can get over yourselves and needing to put down those who bring up the facts of Al Gore's motis operande, that you instead can "take the high road" and recognize this financial objective brought up by Riehl IS Al Gore's genuine "Inconvenient Truth."

Cheers

[urwn niktpes]

ewhzu krsomxb gojz byfrnsx buwhklyzx voshgprw mwcotk

[Someone]

U all are evil and stupid, global warming will kill us all if we don't do anything

[Kevin]

Get Al Gore the hell out our country NOW!!

[Kevin]

This Socialist Al Gore should be sent to prison. What a dumb ass! Pack up your'e shit and get the hell out of our country, go the hell to China you idiot. What an idiot!!!