Shocker!: The wingnuts have bascially run out of anything substantive to say

C

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
This was so funny to me, I had to re-post it.

Some giddy NeoCon at fullpolitics posted this, implying that they had "busted" Al Gore in some evil scheme, involving the dreaded liberal hypocrisy:



-FP Wingnut: "Gore is Chairman of company he buys carbon offsets through"

LOL

Gore buys his offsets through Generation Investment Management
Basically, he buys stock in his own company in order to offset his carbon footprint. Got give him some credit. He knows his followers will say nothing.

http://www.generationim.com/about/mission.html



Good work, Sherlock Holmes!

Gore buys products from a company that he partially owns!


Oh, the horror!!!!!!!
 
What is a 'carbon offset'? Is that some new way liberals can justify continuing to pollute our atmosphere with their private jets and stuff?

Hey, if you Cons worked a little harder maybe you all could afford private jets and stuff like us liberals!
 
Anyold, I am confused, form what I see liberals and cons seems to be reversed in attitudes between GB and USA ???
This is not just related to this thread...
 
Anyold, I am confused, form what I see liberals and cons seems to be reversed in attitudes between GB and USA ???

How do you mean mate? Both liberals and Conservatives in the UK are an octave to the left of their counterparts in the US.

Especially the cons. Cons in the UK wouldn't dream of (or dare) touch something like the NHS for example....
 
AnyOldIron said:
What is a 'carbon offset'? Is that some new way liberals can justify continuing to pollute our atmosphere with their private jets and stuff?

Hey, if you Cons worked a little harder maybe you all could afford private jets and stuff like us liberals!
Click to expand...
Liar, you have no private jet.
 
Personally, I think if he truly cared about the environment, he would continue planting trees (or whatever method of carbon offset he is using) and REDUCE his extravagant usages of energy. That way, instead of being neutral, he would be having a positive effect.

But it is tough admittedly for the wealthy and spoiled to squeeze into anything less than 10,000 square feet. :D
 
and REDUCE his extravagant usages of energy.


Why would he do that? He uses green energy to power his house, and in doing so is helping to create a viable commerical market for green energy by using that power. That's exactly what "free marketers" should be applauding.

Gore's point is to reduce carbon emissions -- not to reduce energy consumption by going back to candle lights and lanterns.


Gore is walking the walk, that he talks. Its the rightwing that's floundering trying to cook up phony and lame examples of "liberal hypocrisy"


;)
 
And all those picking on gore about his big house are living the "green" life I am sure :rolleyes:
Just more hypocracy, for the most part. There might be a handfull of his critics living the "green" life, but only a handful.
 
"And all those picking on gore about his big house are living the "green" life I am sure "

Nope... I have been burning one barrell of oil after another.... I am sick of the friggin cold weather in Denver. Coldest winter in a long long time.... damn global cooling.
 
Bring it. A friend down the way a bit even has a landing strip you could put your private jet down on...

I'm waiting....

Right, just got to crank this lever at the front and I'll be there....
 
"Why would he do that? He uses green energy to power his house, and in doing so is helping to create a viable commerical market for green energy by using that power. That's exactly what "free marketers" should be applauding. "

So you are saying that currently green energy has a limitless supply? That it is currently produced in quantities that are impossible to consume in their entirety year in year out?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Bring it. A friend down the way a bit even has a landing strip you could put your private jet down on...

I'm waiting....

Right, just got to crank this lever at the front and I'll be there....
Click to expand...
lol. Pedal faster!
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
"Why would he do that? He uses green energy to power his house, and in doing so is helping to create a viable commerical market for green energy by using that power. That's exactly what "free marketers" should be applauding. "

So you are saying that currently green energy has a limitless supply? That it is currently produced in quantities that are impossible to consume in their entirety year in year out?
Click to expand...


So you are saying that currently green energy has a limitless supply?

Effectively, yes. Solar, wind, and biomass are either limitless in supply, or renewable. The only "green" source that Gore's utility company uses that isn't renewable is methane. But, Gore's retrofitting his house with photovolatic solar cells, so that may not be an issue.

Don't you want commercial demand for clean, low-emission, green energy to grow? Why would you ask people to REDUCE their demand for clean, green energy? Aren't we supposed to be growing that industry so that we're not slaves to the saudis?
 
Superfreak said:
Personally, I think if he truly cared about the environment, he would continue planting trees (or whatever method of carbon offset he is using) and REDUCE his extravagant usages of energy. That way, instead of being neutral, he would be having a positive effect.

But it is tough admittedly for the wealthy and spoiled to squeeze into anything less than 10,000 square feet. :D
Click to expand...
Generally, I agree. A big part of environmentalism over the next century will be to get people to stop living such extravagant lifestyles. No one really needs a residence that big: sorry, but I just don't see it.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are a lot of people on whom I would pick long before Al Gore. Given the size of his place he's actually doing well. And he's done more for raising public awareness than all but a tiny handful of people. He, personally, gets a pass from me. Hell, I'm not perfect myself. No, really: I'm not. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

Still, buying offsets isn't too much more than a "feel good" measure. Right now they do help with getting some expensive infrastructure up and running but that's not going to last long.
 
Ornot... I agree, there are a lot in line ahead of Gore when being critical, but because he is very much out in the public eye on this issue... he gets to take the first criticisms.

Cypress... no, I do encourage the use of green energy and do applaud Gore for trying to be carbon neutral. However, while green energy is renewable it is in no way limitless at this time. If it were, then we would simply switch everyone over to it. Currently we do not have enough wind farms, enough solar power etc... to power everyone should they all be able to afford it.

So when people like Gore live in large homes and burn through large amounts of energy (green or not) they are wasteful. It is not necessary to burn through that energy. He could live in a home 25% the size of his current one and funnel that green energy to those that cannot afford it. But he doesn't do this. His goal is for people to be carbon neutral, but most cannot afford to do so. So why doesn't he install the same number of solar cells etc... on a home 25% of the size of his current one? He could then push that energy back through the system to those who cannot afford it. Then he would be creating a POSITIVE effect rather than a neutral one.

Buying carbon offsets simply means you are not harming (theoretically) the environment. I am saying take the next step and do something POSITIVE?
 
S-freak,

If you want Gore to move from his big house, into a two-bedroom condominium, fair enough.

I've never heard any liberal demand that Oprah Winfrey or Bill Gates sell their houses and move into small condos.


Frankly, it sounds like the rightwing is just desparately flailing about trying to find something -- anything -- that they can "nail" Gore on for hypocrisy.
 
Cypress, I think anyone that lives in a home twenty times the size of what they need is being wasteful. It is certainly not just Gore. However, HE is the one taking the forefront on global warming, living carbon neutral etc...

Again, he does a better job than most. But why is it so bad to suggest he have a positive effect on the environment rather than simply a neutral one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top