Gore’s policies would hurt us, badly. Gas prices are already ridiculously high. I can’t afford a nice new vehicle—this 1985 Impala is all I have. And the only job I can find is 30 miles away. And Gore wants to make me spend even more on gas, because it would be “better for the environment”—but he flies all over in a big jet and has plenty of money so he can afford it but he wants ME to not be able to afford to drive 2 hours to see my mom once a month.

A point. Still is he picking the projects directly or is he giving money to a fund? Because the problem with a carbon market is that it almost has to be corrupt. Also, funding reductions elsewhere is great, but ultimately we have start cutting in the first world. Even if every poor nation became carbon neutral rich nation about alone is disasterous. There really is not that much room for emissions trading. Ultimately just about everyone has to cut. I think you are going to have use a combination of regulations, public works and green taxes if you want to make significnant cuts. Emssion trading even at its best would make a marginal contribution. And emission trading as it is likely to happen in the real world is more likely to slow or prevent emission reductions. Bad money drives out good. Bad carbon credits will drive out good in the carbon markets – which in turn will discourage innovation.

Funding the provision of solar panels in Indian villages to replace kerosene generators—one of the projects that Gore is funding as an offset—is slightly different.

But without letting this be the main point, it is an important secondary point that buying offsets is pretty damn useless.

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002245.html

>Suppose you run a scrap steel furnace in a poor nation – an old fashioned Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) that has finally worn out. It won’t pay to do one more rebuild. You have cheap coal power in your neighborhood, so you decide to buy an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) which will pay back the difference between it and another BOF very quickly indeed.

>But you know, the coal burned to make electricity for your new furnace puts a lot less pollution (including carbon) in the air than your old direct coal burning BOF. Isn’t there some way to get paid for this? Why yes, indeedy. Pay a consultant certified by a major carbon market a hefty fee. He will produce a thorough and convincing report certifying that you could have gotten another ten years out of that old BOF; only carbon credits convinced you to switch to an EOF. The carbon market will certainly believe it, and they will issue a certificate. Voila! You created a new annual source of bouncing baby offsets to soothe the guilt liberal rock stars would otherwise feel as they travel in jet airlines and diesel buses.

>“Mommy, where do carbon offsets come from?”

>“Well, you see honey, when a major polluter and a consultant love money very much they express that love together in a special way. And nine months later the consultant produces an extremely long piece of paper.”

Links for in depth info on this can be found at:

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002246.html

Actually, Willie Nelson has been touring for years in a biodiesel bus. Gore could concievably do something similar to help lower his contribution to the emissions of the world but, do they have biodiesel everywhere he’s going? prfobably not and carrying it aorund with hi would be prohibitively expensive…

Of course, the whole argument is a back handed way of saying Gore should stay home and shut the fuck up.

“Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution?

• Republicans (35 votes)

Yes 23 percent
No 77 percent

***

“The Earth is warming—that much is certain. What is not certain, however, is the role of man versus nature. The press has made up its mind and is taking the side of extreme environmentalists.”

“Even if temperatures are rising, a dubious proposition in itself, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that it has anything to do with man. Remember, there was a Medieval Warm Period that lasted from about the 10th to the 14th centuries, followed by the Little Ice Age. We could be going through something similar, if indeed we are going through anything.”

“Respected scientists from both sides of the issue have presented convincing evidence. However, proponents of the ‘global warming as a result of man-made pollution’ theory have failed to prove that the fluctuations we are seeing are not the natural fluctuations we know have occurred over the course of history, well preceding the planet’s population by humans.”

“But there is a preponderance of evidence in this direction.”

” ‘Political science’ is a misnomer and so would be ‘judicial science.’ Mistrial declared.”

“There’s no question that man has an effect on the environment. But what that actually amounts to, nobody is certain. Liberals and environmentalists point to every other weather system as an example of man-caused climate change: If it’s too hot, that’s evidence of ‘global warming.’ If it’s too cold, that’s more evidence of ‘global warming.’ We need more research and less demagoguery.”

• Democrats (42 votes)

Yes 98 percent
No 2 percent

*Yes

“Yes, beyond the shadow of a doubt. All major scientific bodies of the world agree that humans are changing the climate and that we must take immediate action to avoid dire consequences.”

“There have been 868 studies, peer-reviewed, and not a single one doubts it; there is no controversy.”

“There is no other proof available. Besides, the way we have treated this planet, what else can we expect?”

“There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the Earth is warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gases. The only ‘scientists’ who disagree are those whose ‘research’ is funded by the oil companies, who were appointed to a federal commission by George Bush, or who believe in ‘intelligent design.’ ”

So here’s the question: who was the 2 percent in the no column for the Dems? Joseph Lieberman?

I’m not sure how much of this is ressentiment and how much is a cynical attempt to direct people’s envy of those richer than themselves against politically convenient targets.

Check out the web site, http://www.ClimateCrisis.net to learn more and take action with NativeEnergy, or visit http://www.NativeEnergy.com/climatecrisis

Thanks for your interest and the opportunity to help you be more accurate.

The converse seems to me to be quite contrived. It would mean that no one who wants any sort of change can use the existing social mechanisms to change things. Rather limiting and bad policy. We want people to use existing structures to create new one —(unless we are revolutionaries who wish to topple everything.) Say you don’t like the powers a legislature has given itself. So under the murray argument, that means that you can’t go to that same legislature and argue to it that it has made a mistake, short-sghted policy etc etc.

It would suggest that can only take part in the social structure as we find it if you agree with everything about it. Bad idea.