Former US Vice President, Al Gore, has emerged as the world’s best known and greatest advocate for everyone doing their bit to use less energy including at home and/or buying carbon offsets particularly when they travel by aeroplane.
According to Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt, writing in today’s Sunday Mail**, Al Gore not only uses 20 time more power than the average American household at his 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, but, he buys his offsets through Generation Investment Management and the Chairman of Generation Investment Management is Al Gore.
Surely not!
———————————————–
** I can’t find the column online, it is entitled ‘Time That Gore Saw The Light’ (The Sunday Mail, pg 61, March 4).
Andrew Bolt has a popular blog here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen
I’ll log and see if he puts it up later.
But I’d like to say thanks for your enviro weblog.
I got to read a lot over the last year or so that gave me some perspective or a chance to get a grip on climate change.
All the best.
A bit precious, Jennifer! I would have thought that if the IPA stands for anything, it’s the individual entrepreneurial spirit. What material difference does it make? Maybe it’s a model for all of us to adopt – invest in our own carbon trading schemes. Think of the economy!
Slim,
The IPA would not support someone spruiking a ’cause’ to then make money out of it: http://www.t-g.com/story/1192095.html .
From the above link:
“Some have compared the purchase of carbon credits to the medieval practice of buying indulgences. It was a way that the rich had to pay off the church for all the sins they were committing. Martin Luther had a real problem with the purchase and sale of salvation, so much so that he brought about the Protestant Reformation.
Carbon credits are sort of a get-out-of-jail-free card for polluters, or eco-indulgencies. But according to a story published at Ecotality by former Tennessean reporter Bill Hobbs, Gore buys these credits from Generation Investment Management, a company he co-founded, and serves as chairman.
That’s right, Gore “buys” his “credits” [stocks in “green” companies] from himself, through a deal set up to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. For a fee, the firm invests other people’s money into these stocks as well.
By promoting the purchase of these “credits” along with all of his “the end is near” talk, it would appear that Gore is actually profiting from hyping the “global warming” crisis.”
“The IPA would not support someone spruiking a ’cause’ to then make money out of it..” So that would include the nuclear and mining lobbies?
Slim,
The IPA is a think tank not a lobby.
And do you see mining as only a ’cause’? Do you think we could do with out it?
I would suggest Al Gore’s ‘climate crisis’ is a bit different from mining. Mining is a real activity that produces real products of real benefit.
What business exactly is Al Gore into?
Slim,
without mining we would still be hunter gatherers living at the subsistence level.
Art, the humanities and all the other manisfestations of civilisation would not be possible since no one would have the time to spend on these distractions.
Jennifer to support that claim you need to explain the demarcation between “think tank” and “lobby” and describe clearly why IPA is not a lobby group. I smell hypocrisy. The IPA doesn’t attempt to influence issues that support its covertly funded political motives? The IPA and its staff never seeks to influence issues of political interest, influence policy, regulation or legislation and has never offered policy input to government? It doesn’t try to masquerade as a think-tank with a misleading academic sounding name despite its policy of not publishing references or evidence for its articles? The other one has bells on it.
Would you rather al gore invested in someone else’s GHG reduction scheme, not his own? Then you’d attack him for not having confidence in his own ventures. If you want to pretend that you sincerely object over business men supporting or promoting their own interests, then why start with and why limit it to gore? What of the IPA’s hidden donors, what do they get up to? A weak attempt to slag off al gore. also too late as his activities have delivered massive dividends and we’re all counting the days until you jump on the bandwagon too.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving/story/0,,2023839,00.html
“Al Gore is the latest green campaigner to be accused of being a hypocrite. But would the world really be better off if he’d stayed home with the lights off, asks Mark Lynas
Hands up anyone who isn’t a hypocrite. Come on, own up. Who out there actually lives by every one of the principles they profess to uphold? And why has it suddenly gone so quiet? When it comes to ourselves, it seems, we are quick to realise that life is full of grey areas and being pure and virtuous is never as easy – nor even as desirable – as it might appear. That does not stop us sitting in judgment of others, however, particularly those whose message we are unwilling to hear, and who, deep down, we would dearly love to see exposed as two-faced and, well, hypocritical.”
A RAISE OF HANDS!??
Is there a lobbyist in the room?
Louis, without agriculture “we would still be hunter gatherers living at the subsistence level”
Bit of a stretch to give all the credit to mining.
Is this definition of ‘Snake oil’ relevant: Any product with exaggerated marketing but questionable or unverifiable quality. In short, it refers to a product sold as one part of a hoax?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil
I have heard the boss of Channel Nine watches Channel Nine, that the head of Pura Milk buys Pura Milk, that the manager of Holden buys Holdens. Is that the point of the arugment?
Although Al Gore is utilizing hype on an issue, I don’t think his intentions are bad. Picking on him or supporting him doesn’t prove very much. He was wealthy and famous prior to jumping on the climate change bandwagon and whether he moves into a 1 room shack with a solar panel or stays where he is isn’t very important.
Jimmy Carter has been promoting Habitat for Humanity for a long time, and he doesn’t live in inner city bungalow built out of donated supplies and volunteer labor. IMO Mr. Carter has done a lot of good for the Habitat for Humanity cause over the last 23 years.
I’m not sure this is snake oil. I’d say it’s a mix of hypocrisy and outright lying.
As I understand it, when you buy a carbon offset, that money is just plain *gone.* So, for instance, if the carbon offset you buy gets a tree planted, you can’t turn around later and sell the tree for lumber and make a profit–it’s not *your tree.*
Not so with purchasing stocks. You buy a stock, even a “green” stock, that money isn’t gone. It’s still your stock, and you can sell it when the value goes up. In fact, that’s your intention when you buy it in the first place.
Here’s the real kicker: if the global CO2 crisis really gains traction and caps are imposed on CO2 emissions, what stocks would you most like to hold? Well, those stocks would be in companies with low CO2 emissions. The companies that wouldn’t be hurt by cap-and-trade schemes. You would also invest in stocks that *benefit* from cap-and-trade schemes, such as those related to solar and wind power, etc. You’d probably hold uranium mining stocks as well.
So, Al isn’t buying carbon offsets, he’s buying stock. And he isn’t just preaching “climate disaster,” he’s advocating policies which would directly contribute to the value of his stock portfolio.
“Generation’s strategy is to invest in long-only, global, public equities with a concentrated portfolio of 30-50 companies.” http://www.generationim.com/strategy/
Oops, I made a mistake. I uncritically assumed that the original report of Gore’s flambuoyant energy use was accurate.
“Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she [Kalee Krider, a spokeswoman for Gore] said.” From: “Group questions level of energy use at Gore home: High electric billing records show ‘green power’ also was purchased,” The Tennessean, Tuesday, 02/27/07,
http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382/1321/MTCN06
The firm makes no such investments. The stock portfolio of Generation Investment Management can be found in its holdings report filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, at
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1375534/000117266107000053/gen4q06.txt
The holdings include:
Aflac, a disability insurance company.
Autodesk, a computer automated design (CAD) equipment manufacturer
General Electric–which makes diesel locomotives and incandescent lightbulbs
Labcorp, a medical testing lab
Staples, an office supply company
Sysco, a restaurant supply firm
VCA Antech, a veterinary hospital franchise
Whole Foods Market, which sells organic food, is on the list. That’s greenie, but it’s a minor holding.
So, actually, Gore isn’t buying “green” stocks through Generation Investment Management, making his “climate catastrophe” message a bit more “pure.” On the other hand, he isn’t offsetting any carbon, either.
Robert sees this petty discussion for what it is re; Al Gore “I don’t think his intentions are bad. Picking on him or supporting him doesn’t prove very much” and Pinxi is also so right, we are all at it in terms of recourse exploitation and hiding our mess under the carpet.
However my curiosity about Robert got the better of me so I followed his link. After another quick glance I have to say we can grow a lot of “slime” not snake oil Jennifer.
Slime control was once a big issue in continuous web processing of cellulose tissue.
While this blog is hung up on ridiculous and petty double standards what ever, there is a whole world of real hard work still to be done on your behalf in harnessing some old practical experience on a few new projects.
Jen was cutting power consumption by having her site down for a while. Well, to post what I tried hours ago….
I may not be sinless enough to qualify for sainthood, but I have never, ever proposed that one could solve a “moral issue” like “global climate collapse” by investing in Aflac, Autodesk, General Electric, Labcorp, Staples, Sysco and similar stocks.
Evidently Al Gore thinks you can. Anyone who makes extraordinary moral claims should provide extraordinary moral proofs, and Gore, in proclaiming the virtue of his stock investment scheme, has utterly failed.
The silence here from neo-Marxists, born-again AGW anti-hedonists and others is deafening. The blogosphere is aswarm with denunciations of Gore and even there, the neo-Marxists and born-again AGW anti-hedonists are in hiding. They aren’t even *trying* to do damage control–it’s too embarrassing.
Luke, if no-one else, will remember when I said the greenies are in retreat. This is a *major* defeat on their road to major discreditation.
Those who oppose neo-Marxism should be prepared to shift their attentions elsewhere, as the “High Priest” of AGW goes down, and pulls down with himself the AGW initiative in an oh-so-public way.
Schiller, Generation Investment Management is an investment firm that sets aside 5% of profit for investment in The Generation Foundation, which is a registered charity that suppports development and research into global sustainablity.
Thats when thinks get murky http://blendedvalue.org/
Gore is a hypocrite, as vice President he refused to ratify Kyoto yet blames GWB.
Neo-Marxism – jeez you guys do go on with such twaddle. Having some reformed ex-boozer neo-con sending your kids to to some Middle Eastern hell hole for no reason is what you ought be worried about, or ex-military psychos like Tim McVeigh doing your own lot. Are you for real Schiller – do you know any normal nice people who aren’t right wing nazis.
The Gore business is simply theatre – you’ll notice how in the main RC have avoided it except for a critique of the science of the movie by the script. And the anti-AGW crowd now so utterly desperate as public opinion and business opinion turns are digging away full tilt to put the mocker on Gore. Well fair enough too if he is a greedy guts. And he an easy mark.
Look a bloody big goofy rabbit – let’s chase that.
But is this the main argument or some boutique backwater sideshow. It’s a sideshow.
The science effort ignores all the glitterati and proceeds at a steady pace.
Frankly I don’t care how much you dump on him – the atmosphere doesn’t give two hoots and public opinion slowly weighs up the bulk of evidence and what they see with their own eyes.
The commodity that you guys are selling is DOUBT. Keep sowing those seeds of doubt. Just keep on message day in and day out. Make people think the uncertainties are more than what they are. Pick on personalities not issues. The neo-Marxists could learn well from your propaganda style Schillsy.
Time to put a yank web site with the stars and stripes – and eagle – can talk about truth, liberty, justice and God. Don’t forget to wrap yourself in the flag.
As someone associated with the Middle East once said, you guys are neither strategists or tacticians.
Luke,
Look at yourself. You talk about a “crowd now so utterly desperate as public opinion and business opinion turns are digging away full tilt to put the mocker” on someone.
So then you say this: “twaddle,” “ex-boozer neo-con,”psychos like Tim McVeigh,” “right wing nazis,” “bloody big goofy rabbit,”boutique backwater sideshow,” “yank,” and “wrap yourself in the flag.”
And then you want to tie this to the “strategists or tacticians” in the Middle East? You’re getting as bad as Lamna, who can tie anything to anything else. Hmmm… Al Gore, CO2… Yes! We discussed this earlier, the CO2 emitted per round fired. And you were incensed that someone would suggest barbecuing shrimp might release CO2.
Luke, the smart opinions are going the other way. Investing in General Electric–which also builds submarines for the Pentagon–doesn’t look very green.
Neo-Marxists are going down *hard* on this one. Sorry, Hollywood. Sorry, Pinxi. Sorry, Luke. Not very sorry, Lamna. I trust you will all find a new high priest. You got “sold out.” But so it goes, with neo-Marxism.
So global warming is a moral issue, but let’s not worry about Al Gore’s morals?!
I’m really amazed by the comments from Gavin, Luke, SJT, Robert etcetera.
Luke, the problem with your critique is it is the AGW crowd who put all the emphasis on who says what, rather than what they say. It’s called “refereed publishing”.
Gore is currently one of the most cited “references” on Global Warming, so if reputation is more important than science, why shouldn’t people like Jennifer go after him.
Mind you, I don’ think the issue is who he buys his carbon credits from, but whether the source of carbon credits is reliable. I’m puzzled as to how this particular company qualifies as a source of credits at all. So that’s issue number one.
Issue number two is does he really need to live in a 20 room house with a heated swimming pool?
The reason Gandhi became a poster boy was because he walked the talk. I don’t begrudge Gore plane flights when it comes to spreading the message, but I do have a problem with him living an extravagant lifestyle outside of that.
Neo-bloody-marxists – WHERE ? Are they under your bed perhaps. Get real. Maaate.
BBQing shrimp – they’re prawns you prawn. I don’t care if BBQ your prawn(s). I cook mine on a solar stove or use dried kangaroo dung as fuel. But if you want to use gas that’s hot (not cool) but kewl by me. I should send you my chilli glaze recipe for them. I call it “Castro’s revenge”.
Yep get up Gore if you like – but what’s it have to do with serious AGW – it’s theatre.
The only reason you guys are banging on about this as you’ve swept away by the public opinion AGW tsunami – a problem in itself as pendulums can swing too far then over correct backwards.
Being the intellectually bankrupt lot the anti-AGW crowd are – you’ve had a pick at Mann, Schnieder, and Hansen. Pickedy pick pick pick.
Wanna talk about science – OH HELL NO – let’s just stick on the Who magazine gossip stuff.
Sickening and piss weak really.
Personally I’m more disturbed about Britney Spear’s new haircut – do you think she’s going nazi or maybe neo-marxist? Would shaving your head increase or decrease emissions? Is the lighter albedo of a shaved head a solution for global warming?
Luke,
Now you “[w]anna talk about science” when you formerly said it was a “moral issue?”
Where I come from, that’s called ‘waffling.’
And where I come from, the word “p*ss” is considered impolite and only worthy of those in low places. Where, judging from your command of the argot, you seem supremely comfortable.
Please correspond with Lamna about the connections between global warming, the Middle East, and Britney Spears’ haircut. While we discuss topics of importance, your interim report will amuse us greatly.
Obviously for some Gore continues to be a sensitive issue and could do with some more investigation. Gore is a political failure, he was unable to get one vote in the senate for his Kyoto bill and lost support in his own seat in Tennessee in 2000. He also presents a threat to the Hillary camp, no love lost there.
I’m unable to respond as I’d have to use impolite language. Learnt from Motty.
Interesting thought’s folks. It is a bit like the chicken and the egg is it not? Does the science drive public opinion and policy or does the public opinion drive the policy and impcat upon the science or does the policy drive the public opinion regardless of the science? and on and on and on and on etc etc………
Regardless of what is driving what AGW, like so many other environmental issues, is now so clouded with exagerations, innacuracies, and unwillingness to really debate the issues (e.g. uncertainties surrounding the data, the mechanisms that drive global warming, the reliability of proxy data to name just a few) that the politics, science and public opinion are each fast becoming mythical in themselves.
The folks over at real climate do some good research, but their responses to any questions about their methods and results are just so over the top that I just have to question what it is that they are doing.
Whilst over at climate audit the situation is not that much different.
As for the IPCC they have made obfuscation an art form. This is a political body, it is not a scientific body. Read up on its terms of reference. Have a look at its structures and you will see what I mean.
Is it then any wonder that any person who wants to increase their understanding of this issue is going to have a hard time of it if the so-called major playters do little else other than jeer at each other. When this occurs the science has been discarded and it has become politics pure and simple.
Cripes – an intelligent comment !
Peter on RC – do you mean their reponses are curt /smug or simply too complex.
On the IPCC you do have many serious scientists however trying to work within that framework of political oversight by bureaucrats. IMO though issues are hosed down if anything, more than jazzed up.
Also there is a huge amount of science plodding along as per a program design generally ignoring the political storm.
The science is settled. The oceans will rise a few inches. Winters will be less brutal. Migratory birds will expand their territories.
The question is whether this proves it’s time for neo-Marxism.
It’s funny that every problem that the Left conceives can only be solved by bigger government and higher taxes.
I think Jennifer can and should go after Gore for hypocrisy or whatever. And Tim Flannery as well.
However, i think this is a side debate, and has little bearing on the scientific debate, and will have negligible impact on the momentum that has gathered around the topic.
I think that everyone is kidding themselves if they think that Al Gore is very important in the grand scheme of things – a case of correlation confused with cause.
Gore’s green rise has coincided with the rise of climate change as a mainstream issue, but it isn’t the cause of it, though it might have contributed a bit.
Sceptics seem to want to convince themselves and everyone else that if it wasnt for the Stern report and “An Inconvenient Truth”, then climate change wouldn’t have become such a big thing.
I don’t think that’s true. Stern and Gore were simply happily timed for the tipping point where public debate broke through to a new level, but certainly not doing the heavy lifting. In a way, the celebrity they have garnered is a symptom of where the AGW debate is at, not the cause.
Debate about climate change on this blog preceded Al Gore by a couple of years, and debate of climate change amongs scientists and governments and many others preceded this blog by many years again.
Its naieve to think that a single ex-politician or a single report from Stern could have changed things so much. The momentum for action has built over decades, a slow drip drip from thousands of pieces of research, papers, speeches, conversations, arguments, news stories, thoughts.
An application of occam’s razor suggests that the most likely reason for what is happening is that the science supporting the theory of AGW, the need for action, and the urge for action, are all compelling and in need of a tangible risk mitigation response.
I think that in this day and age of mass media, the internet, and generations of people raised on TV and now computers, it is simply implausible that the majority of people in the world have been duped by bad science and celebrity charlatans. People are too good at seeing the double meanings, hidden messages and outright rubbish in what they read in the papers and see on TV that I don’t think such a level of collective hallucination is plausible. We are trained to see through BS from as soon as we are old enough to be sat in front of the TV.
So go ahead and attack Al Gore’s and Tim Flannery’s personal actions and messages and character and beliefs. It won’t make any substantial difference to the wider AGW discussion.
Sceptics have had plenty of time to combat this trend, and have not stopped it. Scepticism is crucial, but it only lets the good ideas through.
If celebrity excesses are killed off by scepticism and criticism, leaving just the toughened and compelling bones of the AGW argument, then we should all be happy.
We control the scientists now? When did that happen?
For those seeking an educational resource on the issue, many would be pleased to know that Channel 10 has issued a study guide to accompany their program Cool Aid screened 4 March. This program featured a carbon footprint audit, Al Gore Interview and comments form both the Federal Environemnt Minister and his shadow.
It is available on line at http://www.ten.com.au/ten/coolaid-teachers-students.html
The questions aimed at the year 5 to 7 students included simulations of a look at our cities after a 6m sea level rise. Immediately prior to the photo shopped photos was this gem of advice to our students:
“When you watch Cool Aid you will see a graphic showing the effects of a 6-metre rise in sea level from melting ice, and its impact on a number of Australian cities. This is only a guess, showing what might happen in the future, but it might not.
Scientists make predictions based on what they know, but that knowledge is changing all the time, and their predictions change often.
So what you will see is just one guess that some people make at this time based on what they know.
The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts a likely rise of 18-59cm in sea levels by 2099.”
Will the opera house or the gold coast be under water if we simulate a 18cm rise in sea levels?
Luke,
Regards RC comments, their responses are rude, treating anyone who dares to question “their” science with rudeness and contempt. Essentially they appear to be ill eqiped to consider other plausible alternatives to their own research. And before you tell me, Yes, I know that this sort of thing is common in acadaemia, frail ego’s and such things. It, however, does not make it excusable.
Or maybe the science is not settled. El Nino becomes the dominant Pacific mode wreaking drought conditions on Brazil, southern Africa and Australia. More intense hurricanes become the norm. The pine beetle munches its way through the North American conifer estate.
The question is it time to licence the red-necks not their guns.
It’s funny that every problem that the Right conceives involves increasing the military budget, invading somewhere and increasing executive salaries stratospherically supported by tax dodging (errr minimising) accountants.
Cinders thought the cool-aid program was too “nice” – like a telethon. Sea level stuff was crappy. Carbon foot print very interesting – OK. But their jet-setting lifestyles really increased their carbon footprints out of sight. Garrett’s tour of parliament greenhouse efficiency was pretty good. Program was misleading in that if everyone “did the right thing” all would be solved. Program discretely steered clear of nuclear power.
(Nope – just was just asking Peter)
Jennifer,
Surely the question is how much CO2 is produced not how much energy is consumed. The greenhouse doesn’t care how much electricity is generated only how much CO2 ends up in the atmosphere. Andrew Bolt may of somehow forgotten to mention that Gore buys all his electricity from TVA’s Green Power Switch where all the electricity is produced from renewable sources. Also Gore and his wife run their respective business from their home, and they both have staff. Gore also requires security personnel. So his consumption is for a home, two businesses and security personnel- all using green energy. Why is it hypocritical for Gore to purchase renewable energy?
For his other CO2 emissions he buys carbon offsets through his GIM business. Not from, but through. As others have pointed out GIM is an investment firm, it doesn’t sell offsets. Instead, GIM purchases offsets for all their operations. Why is it hypocritical for Al Gore to buy the offsets through his company?
Jennifer why have you taken Bolts column on face value? Why not treat it with a bit of scepticism?
Will you change the title and tone of your post to reflect the fact that Gore purchases renewable energy and carbon offsets . I think the title of “Al Gore Buys Carbon Offsets through, but not from, Al Gore?” mightn’t be as witty, but is closer to the truth.
SimonC;
The truth hurts in this blog, and those issues regarding the ‘home’ actually being 2 staffed offices running on green power has been mentioned time and time again already. i gave up reading the vitriole and bile on andrew bolts column – that kind of sensationalist fascist bigotry and hate mongering tends to wear you down a tad after a while. best leave the wing nuts to fester in their stye alone.
al gore may be one to tell us about global warming, but by the way some of the clowns on this website attack him, you’d think he WAS global warming.
“Green power”, is this TVA power 100% from renewables or is it a bit here and a bit there.
Hard to find out the %
http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm
Schiller,
You insights and links have been picked up by one of Australia’s most popular columnists: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gores_carbon_offsets_shares_in_a_vet_clinic/ .
Woo hoo – Jen are you comfortable with “Jennifer Marohasy’s blog confirms that Gore’s firm doesn’t invest in companies which directly offset his own greenhouse gasses” – confirms!?
Wouldn’t want this to backfire?
Luke,
Do some research prove Schiller and Andrew Bolt wrong.
I find it so hard to believe so much of the information at this thread … set us straight! I would like to believe Al Gore was more sincere than the information so far provided suggests.
PS I placed a “?” in the title of this post and began the main thrust of this post “According to Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt…”
Jennifer,
“So global warming is a moral issue, but let’s not worry about Al Gore’s morals?!
I’m really amazed by the comments from Gavin, Luke, SJT, Robert etcetera.”
My comment regarding Al Gore wasn’t about ignoring his morals, although I tend to only worry about my own.
The point was that a celebrity that is a bandwagon jumper and a energy glutton hypocrite actually brings more media attention to an issue like potential climate change than someone who is genuine like Dr. David Suzuki.
Sir Richard Branson is another one that although he is using climate change as another media hype for Virgin, it raises awareness in the average person.
It actually works better if they don’t walk the talk, because the media and the common folk gobble that up much more than someone that is actually trying to find a solution.
Come on Jennifer and Marohasystrokers, if you were more interesteed in getting to the truth, than sliming your enemies you will find that GE has done more to change public awareness on climate change than many:
Can Industry Spread Its Green Fever?
General Electric puts new focus on global warming
By Marianne Lavelle
Posted 5/29/05
General Electric’s new environmental push, dubbed “Ecomagination,” features a TV commercial showing an elephant so animated by the industrial giant’s clean technology he dances to “Singin’ in the Rain.” GE can claim some fancy footwork, indeed, since its high-profile plan to cut its own greenhouse-gas emissions and boost environmental technology spending, along with similar recent moves by key businesses, has begun to shift the political landscape in favor of action on climate change.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050606/6warm.htm
Looks like Al Gore’s offsets are leveraged to the maximum benefit of the planet.
That research took all one google enquiry.
Wadard,
I’ve never disputed that Al Gore and his companies might be good at the “public awareness” stuff … but I’m wondering if its likely to have any significant impact on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide?
Furthermore, his popular documentary has done a great disservice to science by cherry picking and fudging so many facts. Links to some of my opinion on the documentary can be found here
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/faq.php?id=15&category=18
Robert,
IMO Al Gore has done a great disservice to science through his documentary and his various rantings.
and I only bother to do the stuff I do because I care about science.
Jen – so therefore you’ll be about to get stuck into the NZ Climate Coalition and Lavoisier Society for their ongoing domestic cherry picking and porkies. Startling exposes must surely be near publication.
Also add Andrew Bolt for demonstrated porkies. He’s such a popular columnist (influential) too you’ve remarked (and he writes with such passion and conviction).
Wouldn’t want to knowingly and wantonly grossly mislead the Australian public now would we?
If not – why not?
Jennifer,
I don’t disagree with you regarding Al’s bad science or being annoyed at the hypocrisy. Although I am not rich or famous, you have to lump me in with Mr. Gore. I really wasn’t paying attention to the energy supply and potential climate change until recently. I own an old motor home camper with a big block Dodge engine that makes the fuel economy on an average SUV look like a Smart Car.
In researching clean energy solutions, I keep finding these twenty or thirty year old research documents that have some really good ideas on clean energy. There was funding and effort during the 1970’s OPEC driven “energy crisis” into solar energy, algae bio-fuels, geothermal, bio-mass, etc. The oil shortages ended and the public lost interest and most of this research was shelved.
If we would have kept focus on replacing fossil fuels, we would have been a lot farther along than we are now.
Robert, Appreciate your comment and you might be right.
All this hype but now, phew, there\’s nothing to worry about because Gore uses electricity and gets milk from his own goat. Glad we can stop worrying about climate change now we\’ve got that settled.
You dunno your CO2 offsetting sinks from your new renewable low GHG emitting energy sources from your arses (asses for the septic skeptics). I was gunna point that out early on but was happy to let you all get your lolling sceptical tongues in a big wet granny knot. Too much skepticism, insufficient scepticism, too much delusion.
Luke,
Lavoisier and the NZ group have a go and generate some useful material. If you want to post a critical review of their work then chances are I will post it here … when have I ever knocked back a guest post from you?
Better still, you send me something really critical of Al Gore?
Jen
the topic was if it was alright for Al Gore to use a lot of power. It was then claimed that he was buying green power. Then it was also claimed that his use of green power was only a pretense. So there are several things happening. I am happy to defend someone paying extra to obtain their power from renewable sources or carbon offsets, I am doing the same myself. If it’s his own company that provides those offsets, why not? If it’s a sham, then he is lying. It’s pretty simple. First of all I would just like to see that claim checked for it’s veracity.
Either way, if Al Gore is immoral, it’s not going to have any effect on what is the actual issue, which is global warming.
SJT,
I am not happy to defend someone paying extra to carbon offset. But I would happily pay more for nuclear power. 🙂
If you would like to investigate the allegations that its “a sham” or not … I’ll happily post your findings.
Jennifer,
You’re “wondering if its likely to have any significant impact on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide?”.
Some people wonder, others go out and do, the latter are those who turn awareness into action.
You’ve done nothing about reducing your carbon footprint, no doubt. And no doubt many of those who saw An Inconvenient Truth with an open mind have subsequently followed his suggestions, modified their lives and reduced their carbon footprints. It’s reasonable to assume he has saved hundreds and thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gass, and if you can’t see the global warming awareness tsunami building up to a critical mass, it’s because you have chosen to ignore it. GW is on Sunrise, in the SMH, Channel 10’s Cool Aid, the boody Oscars, into the cities of the world with the 40 hrs switch-off, in the finance papers with business begging for a carbon tax. Can’t you see the writing on the wall?
Gore did. 20 years ago – and that writing on the wall was Roger Revel’s scribblings on his blackboard. And then…. he did. With PowerPoint. Today his PowerPoint picks up it’s own Oscar.
While he did – people like you just wondered aloud. Which side of the emerging new economy – dictated by how efficient we are with energy – do you think Al Gore has come down on, and which side have you come down on?
If I may be so bold, I think that deep down inside you may be a little green yourself.
With envy.
Anyway – you don’t have to take my word for it. A worldwide poll says that most of the world’s citizens are willing to do what it takes to shoulder the burden of tackling and overcoming climate change: World Publics Willing to Bear Costs of Combating Climate Change
“Asked to choose the argument that comes closest to their opinion about global warming, only 17 percent of Americans agree that “until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs.”
In today’s world, history happens when the doers outnumber the perpetual wonderers.
Link for above quote:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/255.php?nid=&id=&pnt=255&lb=bte
Luke
“El Nino becomes the dominant Pacific mode wreaking drought conditions…”
This is not the first time you postulate specious El Nino doom and gloom. My recommendation: take a deep breath and ignore the peanut gallery and get back to what you do best and provide solid / supported information we all can learn from.
As a by the by…
El Nino is one of the least understood natural phenomena –but global warming, irrespective of whether it’s real or not, is not a factor. Why?
(1) El Nino / La Nina weather patterns arise as a consequence of the difference between the western and eastern Pacific Ocean SSTs – so “uniform” global warming will have no effect.
(2) The change in SSTs is driven from below – not above. Somehow the predominant cold Humboldt current along the west coast of South America “switches off” and allows a warm pool of water (typically propagated a Kelvin Wave) in from the west Pacific depths – deeper than the 100m (temperature) surface mixing layer.
(3) The increase in oceanic temperatures demands a phenomenal amount of energy – to put some numbers into context here: the increase in SST during January through July 1997 averaged over the equatorial Pacific (10S-10N, 150E-75W) was about the 1.62°C. Have a look at http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/en97/en97.html). This increase is calculated to be about 3.5e22 J – which is equivalent to 400,000 20-Megaton nuclear bombs – and this assumes the power of those bombs could be directed entirely to heating (i.e. not to moving) the water. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html#q3. So if you do your sums – solar heating on its own can not be a contributor.
(For those interested – the 2006/07 El Nino was propagated by a Kelvin Wave captured by NASA/French Jason-1 satellite: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17484)
And by the way it is accepted that the same El Nino was killed by a Rossby wave coming in from the other direction. http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/SAT/Rossby/Rossbyintro.html
And to get my two bits in – all these wonderful natural phenomena are NOT captured by the IPCC climate models (and don’t let me get started on the PDO!).
cheers
Arnost
Wadard,
“It’s reasonable to assume he has saved hundreds and thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gass”. How’s that?
I reckon he is a huge consumer of the same.
“I am not happy to defend someone paying extra to carbon offset. “???
It’s like buying indulgences!
http://www.t-g.com/story/1192095.html
I just can’t wait for “Climate Change, the Musical”.
And as for Gore’s green energy, this would be courtesy of the 70 year old Hydro system in the Tennesee valley, that has been doing its bit for conserving hydrocarbons for a long time.
But surely, as this is a pre-1990 generation capacity then it must be treated the same as my pre-1990 native forest that has been absorbing carbon for just as long. If I can’t get carbon credits for my pre-1990 investment (because it is business as usual, as Phluke calls it) then how come big Al and the TVA can qualify as “green energy”?
Oh, sorry, I forgot about the flesh crawling hypocrisy that passes for green politics these days.
By the way, did anyone notice Kevin Rudd tonight, defending his meetings with Burke by almost slipping into a direct imitation of Clinton’s Lewinsky denial, until he realised he was copying a liar and changed tack. It was a classic. “I did not do any deals with ..”
It’s like capitalism, those with the money can afford to pay for the things they want. That was the point of carbon trading, to create a market based solution.
Once again, producing CO2 is not evil, we do it when we breathe. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would be a lot colder.
The issue is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have to manage it so there is not too much.
One of doing this is to use a market, whereby those who use more can pay those who use less, or pay those who can remove it from the atmosphere. It’s management issue. If you don’t want to manage it, it’s a moral issue, if the management solution proposed is not fair to all, that’s just how markets work.
As usual, the rich with excess money get off litely, those with less money find it a struggle. That’s always been true of markets, though, why is it suddenly a problem?
Ian Mott, “Climate Change the Musical”…that’s great! Well, Al Gore has to do a lot of tap dancing and quick exits to avoid being pinned by skeptics.
The same people who fear global warming are the same ones who fight new power dams by the Tennessee Valley Authority and private industry. They claim to be worried about whatever rare water species of the moment that they can dredge up. Of course, they also caused the U.S. to give up building nuclear energy plants because of the delays and high costs of litigation that those folks created. And, a lot of the limousine liberals (U.S. left-wing liberals) don’t want those large, bird killing wind mills built where they have to look at them. So, no carbon, no nuclear, no wind…I guess that leaves us with solar, which is impractical and doesn’t work well at night.
We can quickly summarise Al Gore as a proven political failure so what is his link with “blended value?”
“Blended value” is the new cry of Emerson, the man who runs Gores’ The Generation Foundation and who is trying to bring in a New World Order. “Blended value” is anti capitalist, it is socialism all prettied up with value being a blend of environment, society, morals and money.
Gore wants power and he wants it anyway he can get it.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/10/28/pf/investing/emerson/
“Blended Value” is just a rebranding of old-fashioned “rent-seeking.”
“Rent seeking generally implies the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity, such as by gaining control of land and other pre-existing natural resources, or by imposing burdensome regulations or other government decisions that may affect consumers or businesses.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Sort of like capping CO2 and making people pay for it.
Roger
a conspiracy theory every bit as empty as the 9/11 conspriracists.
Buying carbon offsets is not like buying indulgences. When people bought indulgences, it was giving money to the church to assuage their own guilt with no *measurable* impact on the world resulting from their indulgence payment.
Buying carbon offsets is not simply paying money to alleviate guilt – although that may be a driving factor for some people. You pay to reduce emissions.
Carbon offsets cleverly (at least i imagine a free-market proponent like the IPA would think its clever) allow those who find it easy to reduce emissions to do so, while those who find it harder can pay others to do it for them, thus ensuring highest efficiency and least cost reductions, delivered with the market’s help.
Having said that, I personally avoid buying offsets from tree planting. As Ian has correctly observed (even if he draws unsupported and illogical conclusions from his observations) carbon accounting when it comes to trees is fraught with challenges. I avoid it, and go for offsets from purchase of accredited Green Power.
Incidently, the rules for Green Power in Australia are defined to promote new generation and not promote old generation.
—-
Sceptics might be entertaining themselves with attempts to smear decades of climate research, thought and action with an analogy to religion, but it just shows how hollow their arguments are that they need to resort to such analogies repeatedly to maintain a precarious handhold in the discussion.
When 96 percent of all atmospheric CO2 is not from fossil fuels, someone needs to explain why we need to pay for not freezing in the winter, etc.
That’s rent-seeking if I ever saw it.
Steve,
Thanks for some of your insightful comments above.
But on the issue of the connection between religon and global warming…
This thread began with reference to Al Gore who has repeatedly and loudly claimed global warming is a moral issue.
I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who wrote that religon is for morality?
(I’ve also heard morality described as a “strange reconstruction of our fears and aspirations”. But that wasn’t from Gould!)
So, I would suggest it is Al Gore himself — the grand master of global warming and carbon offsets — who insists on the connection with religion?
In contrast, I’ve suggested global warming is really a technological issue, not a moral issue (e.g. you may remember a Counterpoint column I wrote last year).
As regards the IPA, we are a think tank not a lobby group with different staff holding different views on different issues.
Alan is our energy specialist and an economist. I’ve done a quick search to see what Alan Moran has written on carbon offsets and I can’t find anything.
Nevertheless, much of the Australian business community find the concept compelling and the business council, from memory, have supported carbon trading? They are a lobby.
And would you benefit financially, Steve, from carbon trading and offset schemes?
If you dont believe that Gore is anti capitalism then read this;
… VALUE COMES NOT ONLY IN FINANCIAL TERMS BUT ALSO IN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL TERMS. THE INTERSECT OF THESE
THREE CONSTITUTES THE REAL VALUE POTENTIAL OF COMPANIES.
In Gores New World we alter our economies to pay for his “truths”
http://www.blendedvalue.org/media/pdf-capitalism-3point0.pdf
“And would you benefit financially, Steve, from carbon trading and offset schemes?”
hehehe spotlight on Steve!
no Jennifer. When i talk of buying offsets, i’m talking about buying Green Power for my own home and offsetting any flying i have done.
If you are interested, my supplier of choice at the moment is Climate Friendly (www.climatefriendly.com)
I do not buy/sell offsets aside from that, nor do i have any offsets to sell.
I’m trying to have a career in greenhouse/energy. However, the skills i’ve picked up could be used in a host of other fields, and I have worked outside of greenhouse/energy before, so if i get benefit, its through virtue of being able to find a job in my chosen field, not for financial gain. Correlation not cause. I comment here because of my interest in the topic, not to protect my interest.
I have never worked in carbon trading to date, though i’m sure i could.
Religion vs morality
———————
I consider myself moral but not religious. It should be obvious to all that they are different things. Having said that, good call on Al Gore. His appeal to morality is equally fraught with impulses away from clear-headed thinking and rational behaviour. But Al Gore isn’t the whole climate she-bang, he is just riding the wave.
Technological issue?
——————-
The market can pick better solutions than the govt – a premise that i think accords with IPA philosphy in general, and one which I believe alan moran used fairly often in criticising the Australian mandatory renewable energy target. I think this premise runs counter to your thinking that AGW is a technological issue. ‘Technology’ in the sense you are using it seems to imply handing out incentives to companies to come up with a technical fix like clean coal. A market-based approach is better than government trying to aim subsidies in the right direction.
The IPA
———-
I understand that the IPA is comprised of individuals with differing opinions, but it still has an overrarching philosophy. So I don’t think you should take it personally if i juxtapose my thinking on a market-based mechanism like emissions trading with the stated philosophy of the IPA in favour of free-markets.
With the exception of your ‘technological issue’ article, the IPA staff generally avoid writing/speaking on what should be done about global warming in favour of merely criticising any proposed actions and solutions. I think that approach is past its used by date.
“… VALUE COMES NOT ONLY IN FINANCIAL TERMS BUT ALSO IN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL TERMS.”
settle down rog – this is just triple bottom line accounting talk – many big companies are into it, and i wouldn’t regard any of them as anti-capitalist.
Many big companies are “into it” and they will suffer, you can play around all day with triple bottom lines but when it comes to paying the bills cash is the only currency.
More on triple bottom line lunacy;
“..In practice, a commitment to the 3BL approach means one of two things. Either it means that social and environmental concerns are going to be assigned dollar values – a controversial (though sometimes useful) practice that in effect means managing, again, just a single (though admittedly now richer) good-old-fashioned bottom line. Or, it means simply paying attention to – without attempting to derive anything like a real “bottom line” for – the social and environmental impacts of your business. In that case, the concept of a Triple Bottom Line in fact turns out to be a “Good old-fashioned Single Bottom Line plus Vague Commitments to Social and Environmental Concerns.”
Why should advocates of responsible business be worried about perpetuating the 3BL rhetoric? Because it allows just about any business to claim to believe in the Triple Bottom Line, and even the best forensic accountant will not be able to prove that they are morally bankrupt.”
Chris MacDonald, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Saint Mary ‘s University.
GE woes as profits tumble whilst chasing social good
http://tinyurl.com/2wllp3
Global atmosphere doesn’t recognise capitalism unfortunately. Doesn’t actually recognise anything but physics. You get what ya get. Sigh.
Steve,
So you are “moral but not religious”? How do you decide what is morally correct? What teachings guide your morality or do you just make it up as you go along? 🙂
And if you want to keep harping on about the IPA and what we should and shouldn’t do, I suggest it only fair you tell us which organisation you work for? 🙂
Luke wrote: “Global atmosphere doesn’t recognise capitalism unfortunately.”
See. That’s what I’ve been saying. Global warming is not the fault of business. Leave us alone.
Woody – you have noticed that the whole of our society, environment and your God “the economy” is embedded within the global atmosphere. Opting out isn’t simple unless you go to Mars (pls pls).
Climate already costs you heaps.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pacific-02g.html
Want some more?
Rog is jsut peddling the old defeatist mantra.
Smart companies will not only achieve the triple bottom line but show a net positive return on the balance sheet. That’s assuming they’re an innovative forward looking lot.
Society will actively discriminate against those that don’t measure up. It’s already happening. Adapt and innovate or perish.
Al Gore is not the ‘grandmaster’ of global warming. He’s just the pop-star. The IPCC is centre of AGW research and policy.
Who knew it was so easy to go “carbon neutral”?
From the Climate Friendly website, “In 5 minutes and for the cost of a cappuccino a week, you can go climate neutral now.”
I’m in.
http://www.climatefriendly.com/index.php
Wadard,
“It’s reasonable to assume he has saved hundreds and thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gass”. How’s that?
I reckon he is a huge consumer of the same.
===
It’s really not hard Jennifer – if Gore has exhorted hundreds of thousands of people to reduce their emissions by one tonne (and I know I am down by 2.5 tonnes this year) then that adds up to hundreds of thousands of tonnes.
Let’s do the maths – his movie has grossed Worldwide: $US46,233,850
Assuming the ave. ticket price is $US12.00, that means 3,852,820 have paid to see the movie – if 10% of these have saved one tonne of GHG per year, then Gore has majorly contributed to reducing close to four hundred thousand tonnes of GHG, on top of offsetting.
I’ve shown you mine – I would love to see how you can support your contention?
So logically if a big house is need to achieve this sort of reduction – maybe Al Gore needs a bigger house again – say double the current one – and we’d get even more reductions (globally)?
It’s not *that* easy Paul *smile*
I think it is quite justified to be sceptical of offsetters and you should do your research before picking one.
You can see where climate friendly’s offsets come from here:
http://www.climatefriendly.com/pop-up-about-products.htm
Its offsets are from wind power generation – if you have a thing against wind power, you might want to find a different product.
3BL = 3BS.
What extraordinarily blase discrimination/bigotry.
Shareholders/investors alone should accept a double burden – as well as meeting the imposition of AGW mitigation as individuals ( higher costs and/or increased taxation ) they should also accept a decrease in gross income to satisfy third party altruism!
Business should legally and ethically maximise profits and returns to investors.
Pursuing other ends leads to lost jobs , bankrupt creditors , diminution of competition and potentially jail terms for Directors.
If we are all in this together , then the burden should be shared as equitably as possible.
Jim, except in the cases where 3BL raises the company’s reputation and thereby results in a prouder and more productive workforce, and higher sales.
if a company goes for 3bl, you can be sure they are still thinking mainly of the economic bottom line.
Jim, also,
Shareholders are not the one’s standing in the way of triple bottom line accounting – they are the one’s driving it!
Check out the Carbon Disclosure Project:
http://www.cdproject.net/
“The CDP 5 information request was signed by more than 280 institutional investors with assets of more than $41 trillion and sent on 1st February 2007. The information request was sent to 2,400 companies.”
Investors want the world’s biggest companies to disclose their greenhouse emissions, because it represents a signficant item of risk for them.
Steve,
Agree that a business may attempt to use it’s green credentials for marketing purposes – Westpac is a classic example.
But the artificiality of it all makes me wince……
My guess is that the customers who will really make a difference will pursue their own economic ends – as we all do.
Not sure that I agree that an enhanced reputation for social responsibility creates a more productive workforce……
Luke says
*Global atmosphere doesn’t recognise capitalism unfortunately. Doesn’t actually recognise anything but physics.*
How wrong is Luke, never heard of the insurance industry?
read Warren Buffets latest letter;
“All that said, a confession about our 2006 gain is in order. Our most important business, insurance, benefited from a large dose of luck: Mother Nature, bless her heart, went on vacation. After
hammering us with hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 – storms that caused us to lose a bundle on super-cat insurance – she just vanished. Last year, the red ink from this activity turned black –very black.”
and more Buffett on climate and risks;
“Don’t think, however, that we have lost our taste for risk. We remain prepared to lose $6 billion in a single event, if we have been paid appropriately for assuming that risk. We are not willing, though, to take on even very small exposures at prices that don’t reflect our evaluation of loss probabilities.
Appropriate prices don’t guarantee profits in any given year, but inappropriate prices most certainly guarantee eventual losses.
Rates have recently fallen because a flood of capital has entered the super-cat field. We have therefore sharply reduced our wind exposures.
Our behavior here parallels that which we employ in financial markets: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful.”
Wadard,
So in your ‘church of the environment’ the personal contribution from the ‘high priest’ (Al Gore) is not important, it’s the extent of the sacrifice from his followers that counts?
I find the concept offensive.
Then again I was raised a Methodist. So, I have always assumed when it came to issues of ‘sacrifice’ and ‘morality’, that we each have a personal responsibility to do our bit and certainly there is no place for indulgences/offsets.
Don’t think there’s any morality for Rog’s world order – it’s simply maximise dividends for shareholders within the most liberal interpretation of the law.
But re the insurance industry – the global atmosphere doesn’t recognise that either. It’s just a risk management business (game?) or our own human making. The physics don’t care. And sometimes they win – sometime sthey don’t – they are shit scared though of being taken to the cleaners through a change in the risk probabilities – where’s Bazza when u need him?
The smarties are already on it Rog.
In terms of triple bottom lines – an innovative comapny will position itself to adapt to a changing business, as well as natural and social environments. The smarties already are. Get out of their way. Brands are also helped in the long term by perceptions of probity, responsibility and quality. Nobody wants a dead whale embarrasment in the PR department.
“that we each have a personal responsibility to do our bit and certainly there is no place for indulgences/offsets.”
Jennifer, how is paying out of your own pocket for emissions reductions not meeting your personal responsibility?
By your crazy logic, it is an indulgence to pay for your kids to be educated at school instead of educating them yourself.
I can think of a bunch of other analogies too. But why don’t you think about it instead?
I don’t think Rog has ever bought the argument that global warming is a “moral issue”. But you have, haven’t you, Luke?
Steve,
IF global warming is a moral issue, I don’t believe that you should be able to buy your way out of it.
And you still haven’t answered my earlier questions, in particular “How do you decide what is morally correct? What teachings guide your morality or do you just make it up as you go along?”
Jen – I thought about your comment and I’m not sure. I would have thought more logical. But do continue.
Jennifer
CO2 is not evil, we breathe the stuff out to live, without it, the world would be so cold it would be mostly uninhabitable. It’s just a matter of managing a problem.
STJ, Luke, Steve,
I am just trying to follow the logic of Al Gore’s argument.
Now, I know that Rog, Louis, Woody and Schiller don’t buy Al Gore’s arguement, they don’t see global warming as a moral issue. So let’s leave them alone for a bit.
I’ve written that its a technological issue, so leave me alone for a bit.
But it’s my understanding that Al Gore, Wadard and Steve consider global warming a moral issue.
Can I get confirmation that this is the case?
And also, Luke and STJ, do you consider global warming a moral issue?
Wadard,
So in your ‘church of the environment’ the personal contribution from the ‘high priest’ (Al Gore) is not important, it’s the extent of the sacrifice from his followers that counts?
I find the concept offensive.
Then again I was raised a Methodist. So, I have always assumed when it came to issues of ‘sacrifice’ and ‘morality’, that we each have a personal responsibility to do our bit and certainly there is no place for indulgences/offsets.
Posted by: Jennifer at March 6, 2007 05:30 PM
===
Sorry Jennifer, I’m agnostic. Nice try – but you have not a hope in hell of converting me to your god. You should try and develop the ability to look at the world through other constructs in addition to your methodist prism, so you don’t always see the surge of public sensitivity to the environment as something that competes with and threatens your faith.
So be it. Now I can see how you might see Al Gore as the some sort of anti-Christ, but that is no excuse for diminishing his 20 year dedication to his very lonely cause at first – the respect for energy (not “sacrifice”) he is asking for benefits the community, now, and down the road with interest, not just Gore’s highly-geared portfolio. Where’s the problem? I prefer this sort of externality of the benefits of emissions reductions to the externalities of the costs of pollution imposed on the community by the purveyors of cheap fossil-fuels.
And, astonishingly. The vast, vast majority of people WANT to make those “sacrifices”, as my above link to the international poll showed. It’s phenomenal. Probably something atavistic such as the instinct to defend our progeny from threat.
What would be immoral would be knowing it is a problem, and doing nothing about it, or actively working against preventing warming.
The grey area, (is there never one in moral issues), is what if you don’t want to know.
There are people who will never be convinced, but not because of the facts, but because of the consequences. There are any number of scientific theories that these people are completely indifferent to. It is only because they feel threatened by the consequences of the theory that all of a sudden they spring into action.
Where are the Lavoisier Societies deriding string theory? Evolution? Gravity even. We have no hard facts about why gravity works, only theoretical particles no-one has ever detected. String theory is still on very shaky ground, despite years of research.
I haven’t indicated that global warming is a moral issue.
In fact, i said above:
“Having said that, good call on Al Gore. His appeal to morality is equally fraught with impulses away from clear-headed thinking and rational behaviour.”
and earlier in this thread i also said:
“I think Jennifer can and should go after Gore for hypocrisy or whatever. And Tim Flannery as well.”
I’m fairly dismissive of climate celebrities on this blog i think, so settle.
But – and this is my main point – it won’t make much difference if you attack al gore or not, because Al Gore is just riding the wave, he is not responsible for it.
Wadard,
You are too quick to judge!
You are wrong. 😉
I’m am an atheist. But I was raised a Methodist.
For more information: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001810.html
And what are you?
So, can I conclude:
Wadard and SJT see ‘global warming’ as a moral issue?
Steve won’t commit one way or the other?
I’m not very familiar with this topic but the big headlines in Swedish papers and media today are ” Fiasco- trade in carbon offsets benefit not the environment, only big companies make profit”.
And yes, I think everyone on a personal level should make some improvements in lifestyle ….
Jennifer
nothing is ever that simple. The issue of whether the AGW is real or not is not a moral issue, it is a scientific one. Apart from the contrarians, it’s pretty well settled. I have read one description that it is the best founded scientific theory since gravity. Bear in mind we have no actual evidence of why gravity works, the gravitron is still a theoretical particle.
The response is a moral issue.
Environmentalism isn’t a religion.
It’s bigger than that.
Mind you, I can understand the threat to Methodism; it took 250ish years to get to their 75 million members worldwide.
(That’s fast)
But anthropological global warming awareness was just fermenting 25 years ago and so far we have in America:
“Thirty-seven percent think that the problem of global warming should be addressed but that “its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually.” The highest percentage (43%) says global warming is “a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.”
That’s 80% of 300 million, or 240 million Americans alone who are willing to stump-up.
And worldover, 92% of Aussies, or 19 million Aussies want to combat climate change, 67% of South Koreans call it a critical threat, or 37 million, 50% of Indians (.55 billion) and 83% of Chinese, a whopping great 1.11 billion.
1.76 billion people from a standing start in a tenth of the time it took Methodism to get to 75 million (What self respecting god wouldn’t want to give up their only right hand for the growth of a church like that?).
I see from a religions perspective global warming is a threat to you, but it is just science for me.
I understand that we live in a biosphere and it interacts acts with the cryosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, atmosphere and our solar system, and that a balance of interaction between all these spheres is of only a relatively narrow range to permit conditions for life. And the key to all life is a biosphere with a healthy carbon cycle.
There is no religion in that. Just a secular respect for all life driven by a scientific understanding.
Sorry, I missed your post about your being an atheist. Me too, ironically as a result of Jesuit schooling. We didn’t do indugences either, despite being Catholic. So there you go, the methodist didn’t have to grandstand and schism, they could have just ignored the Pope and his guilt trips and just not paid the indulgences 😉
By the way, you say you are atheist now, yet you found “indugences” offensive before. That’s a tad tricky.
“That’s a tad tricky”… but that I mean I felt a bit silly assuming you were religious, like I got tricked. I’m not accusing you of being tricky. In fact you are charming.
Luke wrote: “Opting out isn’t simple unless you go to Mars.”
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Nope. Maybe I need to go to Pluto to avoid global warming while you can keep you head up Uranus.
“Luke – do you consider global warming a moral issue” asks Jen.
Like the SJT – the science is an issue of science not morality in itself.
The reasonable defence of the science against scrurrilous attacks by vested interests is a moral issue and why I signed on here (camped out in fact).
Which Jen is where you and I differ – I wouldn’t be indulging the bullshit artists, shills and shonks are uncritically as you do. But you have made this the people’s choice forum have you not, and you have not denied me a guest post either I admit (although students of Viet Nam would know the effectiveness at times of calling fire down on your own position). If you’re going to use the fair and equal sceptic’s weapon of choice – the investigative Uzi – spray’em all. But if left to your devices we never see a headline “of contrarians caught in the light with pants down”. “Try-ons – an inconvenient Truth”. or “Shills shonked out”
It’s important to put the boot into Al Gore for the anti-AGW crowd. Oh the people’s poet – oh the greenies idol – has fallen – so climate change is dead. Well it might be in the Australian, the nation’s anti-science journal of choice and in Andrew Bolt’s black cynical heart but not in the atmosphere. The teensy weensy puny CO2 molecules are still bopping to the beat of the infrared.
So we’re gonna duke it out on the science as a matter of principle and therefore morality in search of the truth. We can do it nicely or rudely.
Having settled that, agreed on a “consensus”, a minimum standard of fundamentals, or having been done like a dinner and gone home to die we might move onto the social response.
The social response is a moral question – your kids and grandkids, how much of a greedy guts you are, how much of the pie do you want, what you’re prepared to do or not, economy first, Africa versus the footie, worrying about the mother of all droughts.
Here on what to do I’m probably as bad of the rest of you. Wrestling with the concepts of what it’s going to take. Are we up to it.
Offsets are a bit of a con. It’s a “not getting worse” measure. But is holding the line enough. We need to go backwards. So perhaps Big Al doesn’t need all that shit he’s accumulated – he’s got us now – his fans – that should carry him. So he might be a hypocrite in the margins but why would you bother trundling around the planet telling the story over and over and putting up with all that. Probably feels he’s on a mission – a moral crusade to spread the word. Be good to remake the movie with a few edits. “Revisiting the Truth?”.
And hey is it true that John Elliot rings Costello and Howard up all the time. How about they get off that shit and tell us what they might do for the nation including ourselves.
But anyway – yes in the final washup – if its happening (90% !) AGW is a moral issue so I’m gonna have to shape up or you’ll be checking my power bill and trash bin too eh?
Sun’s up in the US and Woody’s back. Yo Woody!
Did you read page 2 of your own link Woody.
What exactly is your solar driver – measured by what?? The hope-o-meter?
And http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Global warming on Mars?
last line of that link “There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth..”
So as always be careful what you wish for !
P.S. Good to see Woody has developed a taste for the Aussie vernacular.
Time to turn on the telly!
—————————-
Channel 4 Thursday 8 March at 9pm
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE
In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.
The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a ‘greenhouse effect’ of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.
Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun’s radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.
The film argues that the earth’s climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.
The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.
The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.
‘The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have’ says a respected climatology expert in the documentary. ‘They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up’.
In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. ‘So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.’
‘I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,’ says an emminent earth science expert. ‘Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.’
It doesnt matter which way you cut and dice it, the message put out by Al Gores conspicuous energy consumption is that he doesnt really believe excessive consumption is all that serious – he is like a rich catholic who sins all week and buys redemption from the church – in fact you wonder if he really believes his version of the truth.
THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE
In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.
====
Big deal. So what? Do we need any alternative explanations for gravity?
By the way Jennifer, I thought you should know that the guy who ‘exposed’ Gores electricity expenditure is ex Competitive Enterprise Institute
(who are offering people $US 10,000 a pop to attempt to debunk climate change). The ‘organisation’ he is the president of – does not exist, ie is not registered.
Just thought you should know what and who you are swallowing. And uncritically so.
And here is where he offsets:
http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/
Rog
they can measure where the CO2 comes from.
This whole lead/lag furphy needs to be put to rest, once and for all.
There are several influences on the earths climate, or forcings. The Milankovich being one of the most important, also the changes in history of the earths atmosphere through time, it wasn’t always composed of the gases it is now.
There have been times in the past when the earth has come out of an ice age that basically covered the whole planet, so there was no carbon cycle, or a very small one, in process as we know it today. As the earth warmed, due to the cycles, or the advances of organic life, then CO2 has lagged warming, then contributed to it.
However, that’s not the case at the moment. We aren’t coming out of an ice age, we have a carbon cycle chugging ahead at full speed. The sun isn’t changing that much in brightness. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouses are nice and warm when you walk into them. The effect is small, but it is significant. A change of just 1C is enough to cause changes in the natural world. Don’t blame me, it’s just a fact. 3C is going to cause massive changes.
As for the fascination with Al Gore, it’s a simple fallacy of poisoning the well.
The lag is about what you’d expect if you thought about what’s happening.
Speaking of deductive fallacies, did or did not Gore consume a disproportionate amount of energy?
That well’s just about topped out with poison now, rog.
The Channel 4 documentary isn’t being shown here is it Rog?
Will it ever be?
Can’t see either the ABC or SBS being non-conformist enough to do it , though after 10’s effort on Sunday night maybe it’ll get a run on the commercial stations?
I appreciate the comments on “morality” from Luke, SJT and Wadard, I was having trouble understanding what assumptions you were working from. (I’m still a bit confused in terms of Steve and how he makes such decisions.)
Following up on Luke’s comment…
So, in your opinion Luke, the moral thing to do is put the best solution in place to reduce emmission which in your view is an economic solution i.e. trading and offsets?
Well Rog – the capitalist free market consumption view (your religion) would say that he’s entitled to use a disproportionate amount if he can afford it wouldn’t they? In fact “disproportionate” is only when you can’t afford it. There are no limits to growth. So you should approve then – get a bloody big house and turn every darn light on = good.
I have decided to take the advice of the world’s most prominent leader on for advice on how to offset carbon to prevent climate catastrophe.
Therefore, I am buying stock in Aflac, Autodesk, General Electric, Labcorp, Staples, Sysco and VCA Antech.
Sysco is faring badly in the markets, so that’s my penance. See, http://finance.google.com/finance?q=SYY
But, wait! If I invest in the stock market to offset my carbon footprint, am I supposed to lose money, or make money?
I guess Luke would call this a “moral conflict.”
Jen – although if you believe in the consequences one may feel morally compelled to act, I doubt you’ll convince the western world to vote for austerity and major cuts. We can make some pruning with household efficiency drives but I think that leaves a major problem. How far can you push people before they buck up. Not that much IMO. At the moment I think many people have a “feel good” – “all I need to do is change my light bulbs” view. (OK I’ve changed mine – and now have more light and less watts!).
But get into major cuts of car use, air-conditioning, air travel – I don’t think you’ll get the public to do it. It’s simply all too pleasant and convenient. But OK let’s have a good go at doing what we can.
So here I’d go the works – clean coal & sequestration, nuclear power, solar. I think solar needs more government investment and is under-utilised..
I’m not convinced wind power will do heaps overall or whether the visual pollution is worth it to have enormous numbers. But I wouldn’t protest about a few systems – we need the experience.
Trading and offsets may help in the margin but really are a bit of a fiddle. They may help transitions to newer technologies but not an overall panacea. And too easy to rort.
Tree planting – I’m really marginal for this in the Australian context – how much effect on catchment hydrology, albedo and long term stability of the carbon resource, auditability are all issues.
But overall we are going to cop it. We will have to adapt. That requires good climate science and wise risk management applications of that science (including El Nino type forecasts). If you believe that then CSIRO and BoM need to be encouraged to get on with it – and downstream users like agriculturalists, foresters, and business need to work out how to factor this science into their activities.
Improving water efficiency, water supply security and water infrastructure is also part of the need.
So your question – trading and offsets – I frown.
Not totally happy.
Luke,
You say, “We will have to adapt.” Adapt to climate change, I am assuming. So will we have to adapt, or must we force each other to adapt–*before* some speculative event which may not occur?
Or, more importantly, must we simply adapt ourselves to the government instead of the climate?
To be sure, as a species we’ve been forged in the cruel crucible of Nature. She is said to care only for those who are fittest, and the penalty is death for the rest.
We’ve made our way ahead because of our abilities to adapt our environment to our needs; as naked apes, with bad teeth and nearly useless fingernails, we have no other choice.
Depriving us is not something to be taken lightly, and cold, more than heat, has been our enemy for millennia.
We’re looking at a return to the Medieval Optimum. Are we instead to adapt ourselves to government, rather than climate?
Gore muddies the waters by consuming like a big fat capitalist (as does his comrades Arnie and Laurie David who use planes and SUVs without restraint) and then “blends” in invisible offsets paid by himself to himself.
All smoke and mirrors.
Well Schillsy – I tend to get pre-occupied with drought you see. And we’re on the receiving end of El Nino in Australia. Australia also has among the highest climate variation in the world. It’s a very on/off environment – droughts and flooding rains our famous poets say
http://www.bushpoetry.com.au/masterpoets/MasterPoetsHome/MacKellarDorothea/tabid/699/Default.aspx
(note the poem starts out with an allusion to a more benign European climate – USA too perhaps?)
Since 1976 we’ve had more El Ninos than not. Back to back events. Plus funny things happening with the southern hemisphere circulation maybe adding to the drought and/or more drought variation in the 500 year coral cores than we’ve experienced as Europeans down here.
Don’t really want any more of it. But if we did you yankees are better off (as we’re all cussing heathens down here that say impolite words like “piss” etc and worse. God probably is a WASP North American wheat farmer !!) You have better soils – younger and more fertile unlike our old stuff (in general). Some extra temperature would help you up the photosynthetic optimum for cereals. The CO2 fertilisation would help as you probably get the rain in El Nino years to use it.
The climate change projections without El Nino are for more sub-tropical droughts and drying trends for Australia. (Yep needs much more work for sure).
So we’re not at the Medieval Optimum now at all – we now have 6 billion people on Earth. Many exposed to every drought, flood, hurricane and heat wave event there is. 30 days global food security. Highly interlinked financial system. Energy security issues and tight supply. Pick Africa, Asia, South America – lot of people at stake.
So what’s the morality of these people not adapting i.e. not surviving from climate extremes.
So it’s not 1-3 degrees C that’s the problem. It’s the frequency of extreme events – that’s what is gonna get ya. Or non-linear switches to over stable states – like a semi-permanent El Nino or “El nino-like mean state” – not yet confirmed confidently of course.
So when people say “oh well the climate’s changed before and the Earth is still here” – well not with 6 billion humans it ain’t and not without a few mass extinction events for good measure. The rocks are still here though.
Yep a big freeze would be just as bad too. You guys would be under an ice sheet. At least you get some good soils when its over though 🙂
If people really paid attention to the air, they’d discover that nearly all of the increase in CO2 is not from fossil fuels.
About 96 percent of the CO2 is all-natural.
So, if people are “really concerned” about CO2 in the air, they’d go for the main culprit–nature.
But nature doesn’t pay taxes or confer political power–so the result is, go after the four percent that will get you the money and the power.
Sorry, Luke, I still don’t see the “morality.”
And your argument about “itty bitty” and plutonium doesn’t cut it. CO2 is not a poisonous gas.
I bought some shares in an insurance company today, so I’m carbon-neutral and you can’t touch me.
Schiller
Looking forward to life as a naked ape. It’s tough, but I like it. Puts hair on your chest.
When did anyone say CO2 was a poisonous gas. The repeated claim is that a small amount of something cannot have a powerful effect. That is demonstrably untrue, I can provide numerous examples till the cows come home.
Schiller – well you wouldn’t see the morlaity coz you’re probably a wheat farming WASP North American. And if your CO2 slug causes our drought well we might be a bit ornery about that.
Re the 4% – yep and I don’t care whether you take the 4% it out of the natural 96%, or the fossil fuel 4%, or 2% from each, or 1% from one and 3% from the other. Capice? Just keep it at about 350 ppm total will do.
Yes of cause CO2 is not poisonous in small quantities. But the logical stupidity still holds – how can a speck of plutonium kill you – it’s soooooo smmaaaallll .. .. ..teensy weensy in fact. It’s simply what does the physics of CO2 do to the radiation balance maths and we know with CO2 what it does. QED.
Carbon neutral is for pussies – real men are carbon negative.
SJT,
If CO2 is all that bad, and most of it comes from natural sources, it makes the most sense (with 96 percent confidence) to blame where most of it (96 percent) comes from.
And if you worry about a “small amount of something,” doesn’t it make you want to worry more about a *big* amount of something?
Geesh. Figure it out! If you’re afraid of CO2, do you worry about 4 percent, or 96 percent?
If you’re afraid of heights, do you worry more about 4 feet than 96 feet? If you’re afraid of water, are you more afraid of a swimming pool, or a tsunami?
No it’s the last 4% – if the lake is just too deep and I can’t stand up. It’s the last 4% over my head that will get me not the 96%.
Anyway – essentially the background CO2 doesn’t “come from” anywhere – it just goes round in a cycle. It comes from and goes to.
Schiller
if the atmosphere was all CO2, or even 50%, there would be big problems. If we didn’t have any CO2, we’d have big problems, the world would be too cold.
Instead of relying on analogies, look at the science.
“If CO2 is all that bad, and most of it comes from natural sources, it makes the most sense (with 96 percent confidence) to blame where most of it (96 percent) comes from.
And if you worry about a “small amount of something,” doesn’t it make you want to worry more about a *big* amount of something?
Geesh. Figure it out! If you’re afraid of CO2, do you worry about 4 percent, or 96 percent?”
what a flawed logic
if we have no control over the 96%, then we have no control and no worry. if the 4% is affected by us, and even though its only 4% it has the ability to tip the balance beyond equilibrium etc – are you saying that we shouldnt do anything because its only 4%?? i really dont understand your argument.
nice analogy with the tsunami and the pool – i wonder which has claimed the lives of more people in australia?
Another apocalyptic scenario crashes to the ground – peak oil.
““Yes, there are finite resources in the ground, but you never get to that point,” Jeff Hatlen, an engineer with Chevron, said on a recent tour of the field.
In 1978, when he started his career here, operators believed the field would be abandoned within 15 years. “That’s why peak oil is a moving target,” Mr. Hatlen said. “Oil is always a function of price and technology.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Well of course you’ll get technological improvement but the increasing demand is relentless. And you won’t actually know it has peaked until some time after it has. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Has the USA peaked regardless of technological change?
Who do you believe – hard to tell because of vested interests? Do we really have independent data.
Jennifer, to the degree I am informed by morality it’s “do unto others as you would they do unto you”, and I extend the golden rule into the future.
But I am more interested in methodology than morality. Luke pretty much covered off the ways we can achieve emssions reductions and carbon sinks. I think the key is diversifying energy sources. And better efficiency.
i think that it might be worthwhile reading this post from the New Scientist environment blog kids:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/02/gore-v-think-tank-power-consumption-dig.html
it seems that a skeptical journalist from AP did a little digging.
Seill in denial Luke?
*There is still a minority view, held largely by a small band of retired petroleum geologists and some members of Congress, that oil production has peaked, but the theory has been fading.*
Julian,
I think you’re seeing the light, when you point out “if we have no control over the 96%, then we have no control and no worry.”
Well, since 96 percent of the CO2 is from natural sources–which, by the way, accounts for nearly *all* of the increase in CO2, that means we should assign a 96 percent confidence rating to not needing to worry.
Or do you prefer to use Luke’s “itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny” theory and make the 4 percent the “plutonium of the atmosphere?”
Oh dear, it seems that offsetting your carbon footprint is a game for the rich only;
“Investors in Carbon Credits Partnerships are generally likely to be persons with substantial income or capital gains that they wish to shelter from tax – Premiership footballers, investment bankers and directors of the top 100 companies are prime candidates. The potential savings in any example are calculated on the taxpayer being liable at the 40% tax rate.”
http://articles.taxationweb.co.uk/index.php?id=66
Rog
take a look at the US. Oil peaked there many years ago, no question about it.
As to whether we have peak oil yet, there is a lot of more expensive oil out there, but the days of cheap oil do seem to be over. That’s an indication of what is happening.
Rog
the carbon trading is meant to work as a market, so the rich will find it easier. That’s the way capitalism has always worked, why get so uptight about it now?
Thats not true, the definition of capitalism is not that “the rich will find it easier”
You need to read the details, it is a taxpayer funded rort for the wealthy
“A member of a trading partnership which incurs a loss would usually be able to relieve his share of the trading losses against his income or capital gains.
Expenditure in the first year will almost inevitably give rise to losses which will be, with most partnerships, close to 100% of the investor’s subscription.”
I bet you cant claim 100% of “green power” as a tax deduction!
I didn’t say the definition of capitalism is that the rich find it easier, it’s just one of the consequences.
As for tax rorts, it’s all about negative gearing, which is a rort that is way past it’s due for reform. If you took away negative gearing, half the accountants would be out of business.
Negative gearing is where the interest repayments made towards a loan on an investment (usually a rental property) do not cover the income from that investment and incur a tax deduction.
This is not the case for this particular carbon credit scheme where the entire contribution becomes a loss and therefore a tax deduction.
Tax schemes like this have been running for years, and a recent attempt to stop them was overruled.
I tire of the misunderstandings of capitalism here.
Capitalism is the system of social cooperation based on individuals deciding or choosing what to, or not, what to do.
Socialism is its opposite here individuals must do what the State decides.
Profittering and monopoly are state sanctioned activies, monopoly originally being the benefit bestowed on someone by edit of the State.
“Tax schemes like this have been running for years” can not refer to negative gearing.
Only in the MIS, religion and charities are contributions 100% tax deductable. And now carbon offsets, Al Gores fund is registered as a charity.
*The Generation Foundation is a tax exempt, grant making public charity working to help revitalize the Notheast economy.*
Blend those values!
http://www.generationfoundation.org/