Carbon offsets: A “green gold rush” Updated

posted at 9:55 am on April 26, 2007 by Bryan

Big news from the Financial Times: Al Gore’s centerpiece strategy for letting the rich live rich while buying a soothed conscience is nothing but a scam.

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

Read the whole thing. For those of us who remain “deniers” on man-made global warming (in my case, in spite of 8 years at NASA and a year or so working directly with one of the earth science sections) and who see the carbon offsets movement as a 21st Century version of papal indulgences, the whole article is heartwarming. It’s short, but full of things like this:

Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.

That’s not environmentalism. It’s double-dipping.

(on a tip from Chris)

Update (AP): Actually, the FT has a full spread today about offsets. Here’s the other lead article in the package. Title: “Beware the carbon offsetting cowboys.” A taste:

Unlike the Kyoto and EU markets, the voluntary [offsets] market is unregulated, with no legally binding standards, giving rise to several potential problems:

● The risk of fraud, such as sale of credits from carbon reduction projects that do not exist. It is often difficult for buyers and brokers to verify the existence and effectiveness of projects as many are in remote areas.

● Funding of carbon reductions that could have happened anyway. In the jargon, they would not be “additional”. Under the Kyoto protocol, qualifying projects must be “additional” meaning, in most cases, that they would not be economically viable without carbon credits. The FT has, however, uncovered examples where carbon credits have merely provided another source of revenue to projects that would have happened anyway (see the story below).

● The risk of companies selling the same credits several times over. Under the Kyoto mechanism, carbon credits are tracked through the UN’s International Transaction Log, which records every purchase or sale. When companies are buying credits for offset, the credits should be “retired” and not used again. But on the voluntary market, there is no central register, so unscrupulous companies could “double count” or sell the same credits more than once.

There was a story making the rounds a few weeks ago, possibly with a Gore connection, about a firm that had perpetrated exactly the type of scam described in the second bullet point, but I’ll be damned if I can find it now. Anyone remember what I’m talking about? Please send the link if so.

Update (AP): Ah, that’s what I’m talking ’bout. Thanks to Tim Fischer.

Update (BP): Kent in Georgia says–

Georgia Power has this voluntary green energy program where they want us to pay more so that we can feel better about ourselves. It’s not like they’re going to switch our power grid over to a renewable energy source once we pay our dues (an extra $4.50 per month plus tax for 100 kwh). They just want us to invest in their ability to go green sometime in the future. How many customers are being scammed here? Where is the accountability?

Accountability? This is orthodox liberalism we’re talking about here. Accountability’s got nothing to do with it. It’s all about dropping a little cash and making yourself feel less guilty for living in the greatest country in history.

Update: Who knew that the Washington Times was so environmentally friendly?

“Biodegradable pixels…” Sounds like a good name for a band.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

the whole Democratic, modern liberal, post-modern man needs a reformation on the scale of Luthers’

jp on April 26, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Question for Bryan:

Did you see the ABC special a few nights ago about conservation? Diane Sawyer hosted and it was actually a pretty apolitical look at how each person can do a little to contribute to energy conservation and protection against global warming, if it is indeed occurring. Things like cutting one minute off one’s shower time, buying the CFC lightbulbs, houses with solar and wind energy solutions, etc.

It was a pretty good show and in my opinion a responsible look at how people can help conserve as well as save themselves money.

Bradky on April 26, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Pyramid scheme.

Niko on April 26, 2007 at 10:03 AM

If that isn’t evidence that Gore is full of it, I don’t know what is.

j_ehman on April 26, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Conservation’s great. Environmental totalitarianism based on a fraud…not so much.

My take on global warming: It’s real. So is global cooling. It’s mostly tied to the Sun’s energy output. The Sun being a variable star and our only heat source, its output can and does cause warming and cooling. The earth has gone through countless cycles of both warming and cooling in its past and will continue to do so in its future, and there isn’t much if anything we can or should do about it.

Bryan on April 26, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Ponzi would be proud.

hillbillyjim on April 26, 2007 at 10:09 AM

It’s a version of a part of the Kyoto Treaty.

Emission Trading.

That’s why it’s a scam. A wealth redistribution scam.

Mazztek on April 26, 2007 at 10:11 AM

Liberal Guilt!

budorob on April 26, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Plus it is a foot in the door for across the board taxation on this fake issue.
The Dems cannot help themselves, anything to get into our pockets is OK by them.

bbz123 on April 26, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Bryan on April 26, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Makes sense but a non-environmental reason to conserve is the goal of making the country more energy independent, particularly in relation to oil. The next house I live in will likely have solar/wind energy sources.

Bradky on April 26, 2007 at 10:14 AM

No, it’s not that one. I’m thinking of something else. It was some company that had already reduced emissions as part of an efficiency initiative, but then started accepting offset payments even though it wasn’t doing any extra reducing.

Allahpundit on April 26, 2007 at 10:19 AM

The next house I live in will likely have solar/wind energy sources.

That’s really cool. My dad used to fiddle with that stuff when I was a kid. It was too early in the technology development so we never really got anywhere with it, but it’s a great idea and its time has probably come now.

And anything that lets be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil is seriously overdue.

Bryan on April 26, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Big question #1: Will the left-stream media report this?

Big question #2: Even if they do, will the liberals even care?

I’m guessing “no” and “no.”

JinxMcHue on April 26, 2007 at 10:21 AM

And anything that lets be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil is seriously overdue.

Bryan on April 26, 2007 at 10:21 AM

technically we don’t use Middle East oil, just dependent on its free flow to Europe/Asia to keep world prices down.

That said, I’m not so sure Oil isn’t a renewable resource and not a fossil fuel. The Gold, “deep hot biosphere” theory….just makes sense to me. Oil is by far the best economic source for energy for the near future(especially if greens are stopped and allow more drilling), if they ever find an alternative that will work economically by the time it gets implemented most of what is about to go down in Middle east will have already gone down, imo.

jp on April 26, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Ya know the technology has really come of age to where, not for the liberal self absorbed “I am going to save the world” attitude. but for the I wanna be self sufficient, and help my country attitude. you CAN use solar / wind / hydrogen, etc.
My garage runs off solar (for the most part) and I did it myself. there are ways to produce your own hydrogen safely too. you just have to look theres a whole internet out there waiting folks. I am a political junky just like everbody here but try this. use you favorite search engine and look up: “stirling power systems”
I think you all will be surprised.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on April 26, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Big surprise there. I’d like to see the Goracle’s face when he reads this.

WisCon on April 26, 2007 at 10:33 AM

“I’m shocked, shocked to find that fraud is going on here!”
“Your winnings, Mr. Gore.”

Oxybeles on April 26, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Gore will NEVER EVER read this, he is too greedy and committed to making money off the morons who buy into it.

But I’ll drink a big jug of carbon dioxide for a few grand! We can hide it in my belly!

benrand on April 26, 2007 at 10:43 AM

In Cali, they recently passed a bill that, starting in 2010 (I think), every new home built will have solar panels installed.

But, I also believe that it will be an option, though.

They should expand it. Every house that Gets A New Roof should also get a solar panel installed. Thing is, tho, the panels cost about $25 – $50 grand completely installed, one that is not only big enough to run your house but also feed excess power back into the grid.

Mazztek on April 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM

in my case, in spite of 8 years at NASA and a year or so working directly with one of the earth science sections

I had no idea you had a scientific background.

That certainly makes your global warming opinions more … interesting. I have yet to meet a global warming zealot who can even remember their 10th grade chemistry, never mind having any actual experience in any scientific field.

Not that science really matters all that much here, I suppose.

The idea of carbon offsets is so ludicrous and laughable on its face that anyone believing it is either semi-retarded, intentionally self-delusional, or thoroughly brainwashed.

In fact, its so dumb, such an obvious lie (and frankly, since its an indulgence for the rich, so very anti-liberal!) that I’m not sure liberals actually believe in it at all. Liberals can be obtuse, but to fall for this requires willful, active, impressive stupidity.

I think many of them know how bad it is – but also know it might work politically.

Bryan, as someone with an actual science background – it must drive you insane listening to liberals follow the global warming dogma without giving it a thought …

Professor Blather on April 26, 2007 at 10:51 AM

You ask for a Martin Luther, I give you Barney the dinosaur. His clean up song could be the doxology of the green church.

Clean up, clean up
Everybody, everywhere
Clean up, clean up
Everybody do your share

No carbon offsets, personal responsibility for everyone. Gore is Tetzel, Barney is Luther.

windbag on April 26, 2007 at 10:54 AM

So much for Gore’08 I HOPE

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 26, 2007 at 11:00 AM

AP –

a little dated, but maybe you were thinking about?:

http://newsbusters.org/node/11496

This one is more about an Offset company buying offsets to resell, it looks like. Those emission reductions they purchased, however, we part of a project that had been in the planning stages long before:

All six other project developers selling offsets to TerraPass that BusinessWeek was able to contact said they were pleased with the extra cash. But five of the six said the offsets hadn’t played a significant role in their decision to cut emissions. “It’s just icing on the cake,” says Barry Edwards, director of utilities and engineering at Catawba County, N.C., which installed a system in 1998 to turn landfill gas into electricity to power 944 homes. “We would have done this project anyway.”

Fisch on April 26, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Allah,

I remember that. Is this it?

Something in there about dairy farmers and a landfill already converting methane to electricty and Terra Pass selling that as a carbon offset.

Krydor on April 26, 2007 at 11:09 AM

I’m glad this has finnally been shed light on… Ponzi would be proud indeed!

liquidflorian on April 26, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Well, I’ve been beaten to the punch. I really have to refresh before posting.

Krydor on April 26, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Bryan, as someone with an actual science background – it must drive you insane listening to liberals follow the global warming dogma without giving it a thought …

Indeed it does.

Bryan on April 26, 2007 at 11:14 AM

The problem with solar panels is that, at least as far as I’ve seen, it takes quite a long time to break even. As in 30 years or so to save as much money as you spend on the panels and setup. That’s fine if you have your dream job guaranteed for as long as you want it and you NEVER plan on moving, but that is not a very likely situation.

I used to work for a Congressperson in NY and at one point we attended an event at a local HS that had received a grant from the state to make the school more energy efficient. It sounded good to me in theory until I found out that it would take 30 years for them to save as much as they had spent on all of their new equipment. Considering I live in an area that is growing fairly quickly, it’s entirely possible that the school district will outgrow that building before those 30 years are over.

Shivv on April 26, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Heck if you can’t beat them . . .

We are in the process of setting up a carbon offset company. We are signing up land-owners here in my part of the country to plant fast-growing trees on open land in order to bind carbon produced by regular folks in their day to day activities.

We’ve already got our domain registered, are developing the web site now and will soon start selling monthly off-set subscriptions. For just $9.95 per month, you too can have the excess carbon your lifestyle produces bound up in beautiful fast-growing trees.

You’ll beautify our country, support an oxygen producing and air cleaning biomass of majestic proportions and reduce your carbon footprint to nearly zero. Be a part of the solution, live carbon free, assuage your guilt all for the price of just 1 Starbuck’s coffee every 2-weeks!

Coming soon! ; )

Fatal on April 26, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Some poster over at Lucianne said it well, money laundering.

Also, if a manufacturer of light bulbs uses five times the material and energy to produce one CF bulb versus a regular incandescent bulb, plus the waste material of a CF requires additional waste facilities, and adds things like plastics to the garbage that incandecent bulbs don’t, how are mass-produced CF bulbs better for the environment?
They consume more glass, plus plastic, plus computer chips which require a different manufacturing input, and thus includes higher transport energy consumption to bring all these parts together for final assembly.
An incandecent bulb has glass (less than CF bulbs) and metal. Both are very easily recycled, and if not, an incandescent bulb crushes very small and has no toxic components.
To make it worse, anyone else apart form me discovering that the years more claims of CF bulbs are not panning out?

naliaka on April 26, 2007 at 11:17 AM

I forgot to include the gazillions of tons of rigid, heavy duty plastic packaging that the CF bulbs are sold in. Incandecent bulbs are still being sold in paper cartons.

naliaka on April 26, 2007 at 11:20 AM

It’s a religion.

PRCalDude on April 26, 2007 at 11:21 AM

You want to put an end to carbon offset nonsense? Set up a company that brokers the carbon offsets of aborted babies. And African AIDS victims who die before the age of 20. You can’t get a smaller carbon footprint that dead.

BelchSpeak on April 26, 2007 at 11:24 AM

This may be the only thing that folks at The Nation and Hot Air agree on – idiot liberal guilt dabblers indulging in effort-free practices.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/thompson_moles

BJ* on April 26, 2007 at 11:32 AM

BelchSpeak,

Great, now you’ve given Terrapass an idea. They already sell offsets for existing projects, so why not dead people? Just think, you could buy a person and all their potential pollution and still fly all over the place in your private jet.

I think that you have stumbled on to something that is coming our way, should this hysteria continue unquestioned.

Krydor on April 26, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Mazztek on April 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM

That is good news about the solar panels. When we lived in Nebraska there were tax breaks for people who bought the high efficiency gas furnaces and A/C units. If the same is done for solar panels, it is likely more people will purchase them making the price fall further as the market expands.

naliaka on April 26, 2007 at 11:17 AM

CFC bulbs were one example of several low pain – high gain measures that if adopted by many people would reduce the energy consumption. If you are right about the CFC bulbs, fine I am willing to look at any proof.
However, there is a tendency of some who disagree with the global warming theorists to go to the other extreme and poo pah any conservation measures. If people are not willing to help reduce consumption then we are doomed to have big government dictate how we will do it. I doubt that is what you would like to see either.

Bradky on April 26, 2007 at 11:42 AM

The problem with solar panels… Shivv on April 26, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Well, most new homes sold will be owned for 30 years, and the cost will be included in the home. And they will stay with the home, sorta like a 75-year ceramic tile roof.

Anyway, here in So Cal, a new home is about $500K. If you have that much money, $25-50K doesn’t matter that much.

Mazztek on April 26, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Question. Has anyone noticed how far left libs tend to accuse Republicans of using scare tactics in regards to terrorism and Iraq, but then actually use scare tactics when it comes to their own pet projects, i.e., global warming, gun control, et. al.?

j_ehman on April 26, 2007 at 11:47 AM

At a cost to business and individuals of $5 per ton of “carbon” ‘neutralized’ per year (say they want to “eliminate” all of their tons emitted per year, up to 100,000) what’s the cheapest tree to plant with the best absorption rate, per “carbon” ton, to get into this indulgent “indulgence” market? ;)

And tree with a lot of “suckers” would probably be perfect.

Perhaps the “False Acacia”?

profitsbeard on April 26, 2007 at 11:48 AM

The global-warming crowd ares socalists and anti-capitalists. You have to appreciate the irony of people trying to make money off the whole global warming scare.

Mallard T. Drake on April 26, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Perhaps the “False Acacia”?

profitsbeard on April 26, 2007 at 11:48 AM

I’ve heard that prairie grass is tops on the list, not trees. The roots go very deep.
Stick some buffalo on it and looks nice. But, you have to burn it every two years and the huge fire will frighten the neighbors … and well, you’ll need quite the fence for the buffalo …

naliaka on April 26, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Al Gore’s centerpiece strategy for letting the rich live rich while buying a soothed conscience is nothing but a scam.

… you’re kidding, right?

P.S. Dear environmentalists, for sale: bridge, excellent condition. Cash only, unmarked bills please.

thirteen28 on April 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM

And just in case there’s any misconception, I’m fully in favor of the selling of “carbon offets”, as I am fully in favor of fleecing hypocritical, rich liberals of every dime they are willing to throw away on something like this.

thirteen28 on April 26, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Anybody know that fluorescent bulbs contain mercury? I haven’t seen anything about the CFC bulbs, but half the lights in my house are on dimmers, and can’t use the fluorescents anyway.

SicSemperTyrannus on April 26, 2007 at 1:14 PM

I live in a passive solar heated home that we built in 1980. So I have some expertise on this subject.

I get 55% of my annual heat supplied by the sun, as well as preheating my hot water to 85 degrees before it gets to the hot-water heater. The rest of my heat comes from a conventional natural gas and a forced air furnace. The solar system paid for itself within 3 years, not 30. True, it helped that in 1980 that there was a tax credit up to $4000, but the savings were immediate and the sun is like Rosie: a “gift that keeps on giving.”

Solar voltaic generated electricity does take many more years to pay back the investment at today’s state of the art, this is true. There are breakthroughs, though, coming from research being done in Canada that have the potential to lower costs to that approaching wind power. Using today’s technology, the cost to generate enough electricity to run my house during daytime is about $45,000 — which is much more than I am willing to pay.

For what it is worth, GE is selling roof “shingles” that are really low-efficiency photovoltaic cells that eliminate the need for ugly panels.

When I first looked at wind generation of electricity, I took advantage of a federally funded program that required the electric companies to do an audit of alternate energy sources for any specific home. The audit included calculations using insulation values (R38 walls, R57 ceilings in my home) and heat loss through windows as well as whole-house air exchanges. It was really rather thorough.

In my case, the required wind generator, tower, batteries, and inverter for my house and local wind velocity values, necessary for me to become a zero net KwH customer of the power company, would have been paid for in 15 years, which was the expected life of the equipment. That was in 1981. Today, the payback is between 5 and 7 years, depending on if the new rate increase is rolled back as the legislature is considering.

I did not build this house because I am “green” or an eco-freak, but because in 1979-80, the Khomeini were screwing America by cutting off our oil and you didn’t need a fortune teller to see that the cheap energy we enjoyed until then was a thing of the past. It was a good decision that continues to cut my costs in a home that I have lived in for 27 years now.

I would do it again in a heartbeat.

georgej on April 26, 2007 at 1:25 PM

I put carbon fiber accesories on my car, is that considered and offset?

americaslaststand on April 26, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Mazztek, why not tack on an extra 5 grand on any car purchase to buy land and plant trees.

Most cars cost 20-40 grand, and if you have that kind of money, what is an extra 5 grand right? Sure, we’re going to have to charge this on all resellers, and some cars might be cheaper; but we’re just trying to find a way to force people to do thing the way we want them done.

And if forcing people to do things my way even if it is more expensive is wrong… well how could it be wrong, I’ve got good intentions while forcing you to conform to my ideals. Right?

I’m always concerned when I read a “everyone should have to…” idea. If its a good enough idea, persuade people to do it. If it isn’t a good enough idea, why are you trying to force it?

I’ve never seen a brilliant idea that required the government to force compliance.

gekkobear on April 26, 2007 at 3:26 PM

I did not build this house because I am “green” or an eco-freak, but because in 1979-80, the Khomeini were screwing America by cutting off our oil and you didn’t need a fortune teller to see that the cheap energy we enjoyed until then was a thing of the past. It was a good decision that continues to cut my costs in a home that I have lived in for 27 years now.

I would do it again in a heartbeat.

georgej on April 26, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Hey, I think that’s cool. Really do.

I have nothing against environmentalism, and as a conservative libertarian type, I love the idea of being able to (mostly, or even partly) power my home all by myself.

We’ve been watching that show “Jericho” (post-nuclear attack America) and I keep wondering why nobody in the whole town had a set-up like yours. I think its sweet.

Conservation, environmentalism … they aren’t the problem.

It’s the wacky fundamentalist cult that’s been built up around it that’s the problem. If more environmentalists would just shut up and do what you’re doing (whatever your motives), they’d accomplish a hell of a lot more.

As it is, I’m tempted to buy another SUV, just to be ornery.

Kind of funny that you’re a conservative, but you’re doing what Al Gore isn’t even coming close to ….

Professor Blather on April 26, 2007 at 3:39 PM

We are in the process of setting up a carbon offset company. We are signing up land-owners here in my part of the country to plant fast-growing trees on open land in order to bind carbon produced by regular folks in their day to day activities.

And then make more money when you sell the wood or paper. A win-win scenario, unless you are the poor schmuk paying for the carbon credit.

pedestrian on April 26, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Carbon offsets and governmental mandates are going to make the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement look like a husband and wife spat soothed over with flowers and a box of candy. It’s the next beeeg extortion racket.

daveintexas on April 26, 2007 at 5:33 PM

I watched “V for Vendetta” the other day. In the movie, a terrorist attack is used to get people to comply with draconian restrictions on there life and make a certain drug company very rich. AlGore’s scheme is earily close to that, except that while this Global Warm-mongering is going on the left is duped into blaming the right for trying to take over.

pedestrian on April 26, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Instead of crying, whining, throwing a temper tantrum and grabbing the load in your adult diaper and throwing it on the wall, like an insane adult baby (in diapers), DEBATE THE FACTS. Why not add to the solution instead of just whine and cry “Liberals, waaaaa”, “Dems – waaaaaa”, “Gore, waaaaa”. Shut up.

Reduce Green house gas = Goodness (ALL AGREE?)

OK How are we going to do this with the MOST commons sense, least impact on economy and lifestyle and make it in Americas favor, while all nations take the full and equal brunt of the responsibility. The problem is China is an emerging super power and they WANT energy. LOTS OF IT. What are we going to say, sorry no you can’t become a first world nation, back to the dark ages. Its a tough problem but rocket scientist on this thread and the ones in the white house are definitely not going to solve it. At LEAST Gore has some ideas. The carbon credit thing sounds stupid. I think cleaning-up all the super dirty coal power plants around the world would have a huge impact. Nuke power plants as well. Most of the Greens have come around to saying Nuke power is part of the solution. Its like the Evangelicals and Republicans that are anti abortion rights but don’t want birth control even mentioned. Its an idiotic position.

Hummmmmmmmmmm COME ON SMART GUYS. Lets hear your idea about this global world plan you have. Right, you have nothing, no new ideas but just stuff in you diaper. Typical of conservatives and republicans, no ideas or any thing constructive to contribute. The GOP plan is to do nothing and make fun of Gore or just SUCK the tit of the OIL companies and get that mother freaking OIL check contribution. The republicans should be ashamed of their special interest pandering self.

gmcjetpilot on April 26, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Reduce Green house gas = Goodness (ALL AGREE?)

No, its

Reduce Green house gas = waste of resources that could be spent on actually saving lives

The C02 level has doubled and there has been a tiny increase in temperature, which is explained by increased solar output and the impact of solar output on cloud formation.

In the meantime, expensive energy sources such as solar are being foisted on third world countries that need to bootstrap there economies in order to provide adequate food, medicine, etc.

If you think we need to reduce pollution, that’s fine, but CO2 is a plant nutrient, not a pollutant.

pedestrian on April 26, 2007 at 6:52 PM

There’s…. no…. controlling…. authority….

bloviator on April 26, 2007 at 7:39 PM

Al Gore = Snake oil salesman! Oh, and an extortionist, too. He must be taking lessons from Jessie Jackson.

Woody

woodcdi on April 26, 2007 at 7:39 PM

gekkobear on April 26, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Read it again, it’s optional. And keep that quiet, they may just do it.
I also just found out that the state will help subsidize the cost, too. Oh, and make that 2017, too.

Mazztek on April 26, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Reduce Green house gas = Goodness (ALL AGREE?)

gmcjetpilot on April 26, 2007 at 6:30 PM

If the real scientists can’t agree whether it makes any difference or not on normal, cyclical planetary temperature fluctations, why should we? The dinosuars reached tremendous size in warmer temperatures and higher atmospheric pressure than we have now, not to mention the incredible plant life that used to exists in those warmer epochs. All we’ve got to go on is computer modellings that are only as rational as the programmer plugging numebrs into them.
If real scientists have to be threatened by politicians to agree with things they haven’t been able to test, what’s really going on?
The United States is already one of the cleanest countries on the planet right now, so why isn’t Gore in India yelling at them or in Russia or China? Need a facemask in December in Inidan cities ’cause they have coal-fired electrical plants and crematoriums blowing out black soot all day long and the inversion layer just holds the icky grey cloud at just above head-height.

There ought to be a Godwin’s corrollary: when the “if you don’t think so or if you believe that, you’re an infant” card is played.

naliaka on April 26, 2007 at 8:58 PM

letting the rich live rich while buying a soothed conscience

Gorebalism on the rise

normsrevenge on April 27, 2007 at 12:51 AM

I always knew that whole carbon offset was a farce.

Why are so many people so gullible? I smell snake oil asap it seems.

Highrise on April 27, 2007 at 2:31 AM