Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
David Roberts shows Your media at work:
People magazine reports that Al Gore's daughter Sarah just got married, revealing in the course of the article that Chilean sea bass was served at the rehearsal dinner.
In the Daily Telegraph, Australian Humane Society Rebecca Keeble writes that "only one week after Live Earth, Al Gore's green credentials slipped." Why? Because Chilean sea bass is endangered.
ABC politics columnist Jake Tapper, smelling the kind of vapid, gimmicky story upon which his profession thrives, asks, "could this be seen as the environmentalist version of Sen. David Vitter's public sanctimony/private enjoyment of love with a red-lit glow?"
Blogger Digby points out, "Unless somebody at the wedding was schtupping the fish wearing a diaper, I'm not sure I see the analogy."
Sierra Club's Pat Joseph traces the fallout:
It doesn't take long for Tapper's readers to remind him that: a) the groom's family throws the rehearsal dinner, not the bride's; b) while sea bass is indeed a fishery of serious environmental concern, some of the fish are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council; and c) Jake Tapper is a two-bit hack.
Also:
But the fish enjoyed by the Gores were not endangered or illegally caught.
Rather, the restaurant later confirmed, they had come from one of the world's few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations.
Allow me to connect some dots here. How did the story get from People into an Australian tabloid? And how did it get from there to Jake Tapper?
I did a Factiva search and found that this was the first time that the Daily Telegraph had ever printed an opinion piece from the Humane Society International, so I called Rebecca Keeble and asked her about the genesis of the piece. It seems that the first she heard about the matter was when she was contacted by the Daily Telegraph, told that Gore had served Chilean sea bass, and was invited to write an opinion piece. She didn't want to tell me who it was who commissioned the piece, but it's not hard to figure out. You see, the opinion editor of the Daily Telegraph is Gore-hater Tim Blair. He first blogged about the story here. Then he contacted Keeble and put her opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph. Next he put up a post linking to Keeble's piece. Then it was picked by Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge who can be relied upon to run with any anti-Gore story they come across. Once Drudge had linked it, Tapper knew it was OK for him to run with the story. And that's how it's done.
This isn't the first time that Blair has used his position as opinion editor at the Daily Telegraph to advance his own personal agenda. See this post from Irfan Yusuf, on how Blair told Yusuf that the Telegraph would no longer publish him because Blair felt that he had been criticised on Yusuf's blog.
Comments
Presumably Gore made an innocent mistake, but I think the most important thing is it doesn't matter - conservatives want nothing more than to shift discussions from science to Al Gore, because they're children who are more interested in the behavior of the messenger than the truth value of what he's saying.
Posted by: jeffk | July 19, 2007 9:58 AM
I wish Al Gore would just come out and say that he is not actually an environmentalist himself. It would save a lot of confusion.
Anyways, he is doing more good than any single environmentalist could by spreading the message effectively.
Posted by: Ben | July 19, 2007 11:17 AM
JeffK and Ben, I think you missed one of the main points - Gore did nothing wrong.
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | July 19, 2007 11:23 AM
You're saying that that witless opinionated twat who runs timblair.net actually edits part of a newspaper?
I must confess that I have sometimes wondered why you give so much publicity to nobodies, but I see I did you an injustice. Next we'll learn that Jason Soon is a State Premier. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: David | July 19, 2007 11:27 AM
This kind of breakdown of media manipulation is very helpful in terms of combating the effects of propaganda in the public sphere. Thanks for going the public such a great service...
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | July 19, 2007 11:40 AM
a real one-man-band in the right wing noise machine isn't he!
Maybe you need to substitute your traditional piñata pic with one like this Tim. I think there's even some resemblance!
Posted by: z-dog | July 19, 2007 12:17 PM
The really important news is Sarah Gore, marrying Bill Lee, is also taking his name.
Nobody doesn't like Sarah Lee.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | July 19, 2007 12:45 PM
If we didn't have you, we'd need to invent a faux libertarian like you to poke fun at.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 19, 2007 1:11 PM
«Anyways, he is doing more good than any single environmentalist could by spreading the message effectively.»
Like what, spreading the anthropogenic nature of global warming gospel.
Replacing religion by religion, nice!
Posted by: FDM | July 19, 2007 1:12 PM
JeffK and Ben, I think you missed one of the main points - Gore did nothing wrong.
This is why stories like this work so well; they insinuate false "facts" into the audience, who then spread them without thinking. As Darwin said back in 1871, "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long".
Posted by: QrazyQat | July 19, 2007 1:24 PM
Good job Tim, thanks for your efforts.
Posted by: matthew | July 19, 2007 1:34 PM
Or, more accurately, spreading the well-supported -by-the-evidence yet staunchly-resisted-by-the-loonosphere message of human-caused climate change.
Anyone making further references to "gospel" will risk having Blake's Law invoked on your ass.
Posted by: jre | July 19, 2007 3:18 PM
jeffk and Ben,
Did you actually read this post before commenting?
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | July 19, 2007 3:39 PM
Somebody needs to do the calculations to see if the amount of CO2 produced by Gore while digesting his toothfish is actually more CO2 than the toothfish would have produced if allowed to live out its natural life. He just has to be hypocritical somehow!!!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 19, 2007 4:14 PM
Take a look at this badly-formatted FAQ from the U.S. Department of State, regarding Chilean sea bass: http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2002/8989.htm
In other words, Gore did it right, according to Department of State standards.
Which is more than can be said about Tim Blair and Glenn Reynolds, eh? Tabloid journalists go for the flash, fluff and fog -- to hell with the facts.
Which is why we should avoid tabloid journalism.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 19, 2007 4:25 PM
jre, from your link:
Except, I guess, the surface data (http://www.surfacestations.org), that is.
It seems that some of the rechecking would reveal that temps of asphalt parking lots, rooftops, and brick walls were being measured.
Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | July 19, 2007 4:28 PM
In fact, if the fish is in danger, Gore not only did wrong, but did quite right by supporting a sustainable product over some mass market commercial fisher.
Posted by: anon | July 19, 2007 4:33 PM
Jeb, a better question would be, "Can jeffk or Ben pass the Turing test?"
Posted by: Robster, FCD | July 19, 2007 4:34 PM
This characteristic is shared all across the political spectrum.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | July 19, 2007 4:54 PM
Let's see if I have the logic of the charge against Gore correct. Some people have endangered species for dinner. Al Gore ate dinner. Therefore Al Gore ate endangered species.
Posted by: Another PS | July 19, 2007 4:55 PM
NGS tries the "surface station" appraoch to GW denial. This ignores how the data is given -- and especially ignores the way some (read: the web site he links to) cherrypick weather stations to show only a few out of the ... I think it's about 1500 in the US and Canada alone. Also ignores that study has shown the heat island effect doesn't really make that big a diff to GW, as it turns out (surprised a lot of people, that).
That denialist argument also ignores that the surface station temp data is consistent with the data from a variety of different gathering methods, including (as pointed out in Grist):
Satellite measurements of the upper and lower troposphere Weather balloons show very similar warming Borehole analysis Glacial melt observations Declining arctic sea ice Sea level rise Proxy Reconstructions Rising ocean temperature
How having a couple weather stations on pavement changes temperature readings from the ocean may seem like a mystery, but that's the wild, whacky world of denialism for you> Then there's this: let's say you've got a temp-monitoring station on pavement and over time it shows an increase in temp. For NGS's denialist argument to make any sense, this would mean that the pavement got more reflective over time, rather than the temp in that area getting hotter over time -- which sounds more likely to you?
Posted by: QrazyQat | July 19, 2007 5:09 PM
QrazyQat, you are forgetting that, in NGS world, a single kiddie with a camera can bring down the entire edifice of climate science. And then everyone gets a pony!
Posted by: jre | July 19, 2007 6:14 PM
nags buffooned:
It seems that some of the rechecking would reveal that temps of asphalt parking lots, rooftops, and brick walls were being measured.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
As if that crew were measuring temps!
Good one.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | July 19, 2007 6:43 PM
Shorter version:
Al Gore ate dinner. Therefore Al Gore is fat.
Posted by: David | July 19, 2007 7:12 PM
Having observed Blair's site over the last few weeks I could see the build-up of stupid going on. Well and truly overdue for a piñata.
Posted by: Bill O'Slatter | July 19, 2007 7:54 PM
It's hilarious that Blair who carries on so much about the Bush "Fake Turkey" thing has himself created a fake food smear. Good job.
Posted by: Amanda | July 19, 2007 8:37 PM
Not hard to figure out, eh? Well, I didn't contact Ms Keeble, with whom I've never had any contact at all. You might want to fix that.
Posted by: tim | July 19, 2007 9:46 PM
Blair,
Are you going to issue a correction?
Posted by: Alex | July 19, 2007 10:03 PM
"Rather, the restaurant later confirmed, they had come from one of the world's few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations."
Yea right, the restaurant would of course know that the fish they're serving: 1. come from a well managed, sustainable populations of toothfish:
Yep. I could imagine the head chef at any top restaurant looking through all that certification before accepting his twice weekly fish supplies.
Was that also side barred on the menu?
Anyone got any proof of this little piece of hindsight backside protection?
If it's Al we're talking about, he ate the sea bass... possibly two or three. They're delicious by the way.
Another point:
Who would actually believe Al knew sea bass stocks were running low?
Posted by: jc | July 19, 2007 10:48 PM
jc, does that pass for a rational argument in your house?
Posted by: rmp | July 20, 2007 12:54 AM
Yep. I could imagine the head chef at any top restaurant looking through all that certification before accepting his twice weekly fish supplies.
If they don't know where their product's coming from or can't trust their suppliers, they're not a top restaurant. Simple as that.
Posted by: anthony | July 20, 2007 1:21 AM
So Tim B, you are not disputing anything else in my account?
Can we conclude that someone from the Terror contacted Keeble on your behalf?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 20, 2007 1:46 AM
tim, It's more interesting what you don't deny. Did you ask someone to contact Ms Keeble? Were you chatting to someone in your office who said "What about the HSI?" to which you replied "Good idea - give someone there a call!". There's a lot of ways in which you yourself could deliberately pull the HSI into this story in the Tele without being the guy on the phone to Ms Keeble.
Posted by: Patrick C | July 20, 2007 1:49 AM
Yep, right Anthony.
Convseration between chef and supplier
"hi John, where do these fish come from?"
"from Chile, Pete, 5 degrees north of the 3rd longitude".
"Do you have the documents showing they come from a well managed, sustainable rain forrest documented with marine stewardship council regulations?"
"Sure Pete, let me just open the two brief cases containing the pile of docs.".
"Where's the lettuce from? "
This is too funny. Anthony people have to eat. Big Al made a mistake the wedding wasn't evirnomentally friendly, but it's no big deal. I forgive him. I always do for his frequent omissions and errors of judgement.
Posted by: jc | July 20, 2007 1:56 AM
"You are not disputing anything else in my account?"
I would, were this a serious matter. But it's just a Lambert post filled with your usual inaccurate assumptions. Do carry on.
Posted by: tim | July 20, 2007 2:07 AM
Err, JC, people want to eat sea bass that is from a sustainable fishery, and not illegally caught. You don't think that the market can do this? You don't believe in free markets?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 20, 2007 2:09 AM
Stock identification and traceability is at the heart of industry QA programs. But I see you have an imaginary conversation to support your claim.
Posted by: anthony | July 20, 2007 2:23 AM
Don't let's feed the troll. The restaurant is a high-end one in Beverly Hills. The thought of the chef not being particular and environmentally friendly is ridiculous, but folks whose idea of fancy is putting onion rings in a burger wouldn't know that.
Posted by: pough | July 20, 2007 2:23 AM
tim,
Your reply to Tim Lambert is extraordinary. He's accused you of manufacturing a dustup in the Tele opinion pages; were TimL's statement substantially false you'd have a good argument that he's defamed you, by implying that you're the sort of editor who manufactures stories where none exist.
And you don't consider that a serious matter?
Posted by: Patrick C | July 20, 2007 2:43 AM
JC's a funny guy...
Anyone familiar with the high-end restaurant business would say "yes, of course they would". Same with decent grocery chains such as New Seasons here in Portland. They verify the source of all their stuff, and pay particular attention to seafood. Consumers are willing to pay more.
And Nanny Gov't Sucks sure does fit the libertarian profile, doesn't he?
A buncha science-illiterate goons walking around with cameras are going to outdo the statistics folk who subject the data to intense analysis designed to compensate for siting issues, broken instruments, etc.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 20, 2007 3:30 AM
Jc is obviously unaware of the fact that there is a large amount of work going on in many industries to ensure the environmentally sustainable products are traceable.
Apparently also he is unaware of the possibility that those little "dolphin safe" stickers you see on some tins of tuna might possibly be part of a broader world of environmental certification processes. A suitcase of documents my arse.
But this is a little pointer at Jc`s real feelings. Here we have an example of how free markets can work for environmental improvement, the very thing libertarians supposedly love, and he immediately heaps scorn on it. I think his problem may not be so much an ideological commitment to free markets as a naked terror of anything which might have even the slightest hint of a basis in compassion rather than manly lust for profit and meat.
Posted by: SG | July 20, 2007 3:44 AM
"He just has to be hypocritical somehow!!!"
Nah, not as long as he's still fat.
Posted by: Ian Gould | July 20, 2007 4:13 AM
Actually jc is probably correct that the chef won't have pored over that documentation.
That's the restaurant manager's job.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 20, 2007 4:19 AM
Tim
The market can do anything.... however we're not really talking about that. When was the last time you went down the Sydney fish markets and bought a bag of fish knowing their origin or in this case their provenance (it's French....to make it sound more intellectual).
Sure they tell you the fish are from the various states in Oz, farm raised or the prawn prawns (shrimp to our American cousins) from Vietman.
Have you or anyone else at this site asked if the flounder (oz flounder is superior as it's like dover sole and not anything like the American variety)is from depleted fisheries?
You couldn't get a bigger greenie head than my wife and she never asks although I planted this silly idea in her head by merely raising the question earlier. (Thanks guys)
Pough indignantly says: "Don't let's feed the troll (or the fish)".
Err, we're talking about fish here, pough and people shamelessly eating ( in Al case wolfing down) endangered species. We're not talking about trolls.
Dude, disagreeing with people is not trolling, ok.
Posted by: jc | July 20, 2007 6:22 AM
"Jc is obviously unaware of the fact that there is a large amount of work going on in many industries to ensure the environmentally sustainable products are traceable."
Really? Do the local dailies talk about anything else? TV? You guys? They're even talking about environmentally friendly sustainable sex these days... I kid you not. What barren desert are you living in, SG?
"Apparently also he is unaware of the possibility that those little "dolphin safe" stickers you see on some tins of tuna might possibly be part of a broader world of environmental certification processes."
So Al was scoffing down tinned tuna at his gals wedding? Bull! I don't believe that for a second.
Most probably it's a gimmick because quite honestly I can't quite see how you can stop Flipper from getting caught in a net or munching on a hooked line.
"A suitcase of documents my arse."
Pleazzzee. No one in his or her right mind would go near that thing.
"But this is a little pointer at Jc`s real feelings. Here we have an example of how free markets can work for environmental improvement, the very thing libertarians supposedly love, and he immediately heaps scorn on it."
No, you're twisting this up in knots and dare I say you're off subject. I threads about Al and the possibility he ate the entire species at one sitting. It's not about markets delivering superior products and services. As an aside, I actually think farm raised seafood will eventually be the way to go.
"I think his problem may not be so much an ideological commitment to free markets as a naked terror of anything which might have even the slightest hint of a basis in compassion rather than manly lust for profit and meat."
Free markets are terrible to make money in. You want rigged markets to make real dollars. Look at the mullah Kerry Packer was able to make with a rigged media market. I would love to be at that dinner table with my bib on :-)
Which is why all rigging and market meddling should stop.
Posted by: jc | July 20, 2007 6:40 AM
Tim Blair:Not hard to figure out, eh? Well, I didn't contact Ms Keeble, with whom I've never had any contact at all. You might want to fix that.
So, let me get this straight. Timmy's the opinion editor of the Telegraph. A piece appeared on the opinion pages of the Telegraph. And he says he never had any contact at all with the author? Not really doing his job, then, is he?
Posted by: ajay | July 20, 2007 6:49 AM
Of course if one were interested in facts (i.e. if one were not JC) one could visit the Marine Stewardship Council's website read their detailed criteria for certification and look at their list of certified suppliers. (Of course, the restaurant where this dinner was held wouldn't do that. The reason is of course "Because". Just ask JC. Or it might be "stalin", that's another favorite.)
Now it is of course possible that the restaurant or their supplier were risking their entire business for no good reason.
Then too its possible that JC's look butcher grinds up pups for mince. Cute little dalmatian pups at that.
So maybe Al is a hypocrite - and by the same logic Jc's a puppy-eater.
Posted by: Ian Gould | July 20, 2007 7:05 AM
Forgot the link:
http://www.msc.org/html/content_561.htm
Posted by: Ian Gould | July 20, 2007 7:07 AM
See Ian , you too have a sense of humor ...........in deep cover somewhere.
Yes of course The Rain forest and Marine Stewardship Council's website is the most traversed website in all of the Western world. Because of sheer demand it is now published in 178 languages including 25 varieties of new Guinean.
Note to diary.
Remember to check RF&MSC website next time I wanna take down a mud crab. You are fast becoming a funny guy.
Posted by: jc | July 20, 2007 7:29 AM
This is the stupidest argument I've seen all week. jc, your contention is that: no one cares if their fish is gathered in an environmentally friendly way, if they do care they don't check, if they do check they have no way to find out, if you do get the information it's not verified by anyone, if it is verified someone's lying?
And this is all based on your wife's shopping habits and, apparently, never working in an industry of any kind or eating at a restaurant with entrees over the price point of $12.
Posted by: Fox1 | July 20, 2007 7:52 AM
Ok Boys
This haunt is one of the best Restaurants in New York. West Coast digs don't really count as they like Sydney's; the food is really average slop in comparison. (Al, please note next time do it in NYC).
The food at Le Cirque is exquisite.... better than sex when they have Italian truffles in season. It's owned by one of NYC most well known owner chefs- Marco Maccioni and his family who have been in the trade for eons.
Here is the place: http://www.lecirque.com/index2.htm
This is the menu: http://www.lecirque.com/pdf/dinner.pdf
Scroll down past the tuna roll on the starters( note no yellow tag, SG) and get to the main courses. What a surprise, they have Bass on the menu
Paupiette of Black Sea Bass wrapped in crispy potatoes on a bed of braised leeks and Barolo wine sauce
Ian, SG. Please tell me where the bass was caught and why it's not displayed on the menu?
Shall I book dinner for the three of us including TimL of course?
Posted by: jc | July 20, 2007 7:56 AM
So, Al Gore attended a tasting menu dinner, with 75 other people, that Al did not, as far as is confirmed or traditional, arrange or pay for, where he he may have eaten a species of fish that is often harvested in an ecologically destructive way, except that the fish served wasn't, but Al might not have known that beforehand.
So, if we make the assumption that neither Al nor anyone Al knew asked about the fish, and the menu wasn't marked, then... Al ate a fish and global warming is a hoax.
Posted by: Fox1 | July 20, 2007 8:16 AM
I see, so now JC's argument is since a restaurant that Gore did NOT eat at doesn't mention the provenance (a French word!) of their black sea bass, then clearly the restaurant that Gore DID eat at doesn't, either!
Impeccable logic.
My grocer color-codes seafood, green to red, based on sustainability criteria published by conservation organizations here in the United States.
Makes it easy.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 20, 2007 8:50 AM
response to people who replied to my earlier post:
I think I didn't get my point across very well. My opinion of Gore is that he does a great job as a messenger, but he doesn't really live the life of an environmentalist. It is hard to do this if you have to fly all over the world doing lectures.
I realize he does carbon trading for his emissions, and buys green energy, but I think there are people who expect him to live like a farmer in an eco village. It is not really realistic to expect this of him, so he should explain that he is not that kind of person to those who don't find it obvious and can't stop pointing out the fact.
Sorry if I rattled any nerves.
Posted by: Ben | July 20, 2007 9:01 AM
Don't be silly Dehoza. The point i was making was to show some earlier commenters that not every expensive restaurant and their patrons may not know the latitude and longitude of their seafood supplies. Some people were silly enought to suggest that.
So i picked an old fav, took a look at the menu and went from there.
It's laughable to even suggest such a thing.
Posted by: Jc | July 20, 2007 10:13 AM
Let me see if I understand the chain of publication. An Op-Ed piece is published in one of the UK's major national dailies. Despite its unseemly origins, Drudge and Instapundit pick it up. With the blogosphere's certification, it finally makes it into an ABC New blog.
Isn't this media analysis kind of backwards? The usual complaint is that sketchy stories work themselves up the media food chain, not down or sideways.
Posted by: Ragout | July 20, 2007 10:50 AM
Is he the only editor for the opinion pages? Is that like a Highlander thing where there can only be one?
Mind you, it would be just as easy for him to say "I didn't commission that piece" as "I didn't contact Ms Keeble", but he said the ambiguous latter and can proclaim a Humpty-Dumpty-like "there's Glory for you!" to his fan.
Posted by: pough | July 20, 2007 11:37 AM
See here's the thing... you guys would still defend gore even if, in his huge mansion, he had 48 ovens running, for no particular reason, at full blast with the doors open, and 73 air conditioners to counter the ovens, provided he "offset his carbon."
And that's the problem I had with his old mansion/energy use. Not even a tiny attempt to USE LESS like the rest of us will have to in order to "save the planet" and deal with the "most important environmental spiritual blah blah" of the century. Good grief.
Yeah, the sea bass thing is dumb.
Posted by: ben | July 20, 2007 12:10 PM
JC,
Black sea bass is not a threatened species. The restaurant probably uses black sea bass as a means of approximates the flavor and texture of chilean sea bass. Your example actually points to an attempt at being an environmentally friendly business, and supporting a regional fishing industry.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | July 20, 2007 12:37 PM
Of course, Ben, but Gore isn't doing that. He has reduced, and is reducing his emissions, far more than the vast majority of the public. His point isn't that we should live in trees, but that there are things that can be done to reduce emissions and offset the rest.
Posted by: cce | July 20, 2007 2:49 PM
JC, there are at least two seafood markets within a few miles of my home that list the origin of every fish they sell, as well as whether it's from sustainable stocks/fisheries.
Certainly even a small-time caterer is going to know whether their fish is caught in the wild or farm/fishery raised. I don't know of many restaurants that don't list that information right on the menu.
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | July 20, 2007 4:24 PM
"He has reduced, and is reducing his emissions, far more than the vast majority of the public."
In overall terms, or as a percentage of his total use? It's easy to reduce your consumption of hot dogs more than the average person if you eat 100 hot dogs per day and the average doofus only eats 2.
Posted by: ben | July 20, 2007 4:49 PM
But isn't Gore's strategy to offset his carbon footprint basically stock investments that his company, Generation Investment Management ( http://www.generationim.com/ ), manages?
I'm not sure I get it. How is the supposed amount of carbon offset through these investments quantified? Doesn't his carbon offset loss become his investment company's gain? Is he receiving compensation for his position as chairman?
Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | July 20, 2007 6:37 PM
An Inconvenient Truth (movie and book) was offset using Native Energy. For the rest, it doesn't matter if he uses his own company for the offset or someone else assuming it meets the criteria of a true offset. If you are directly investing in companies that reduce carbon, Gore is actually closer to the reduction than someone who pays someone else to do it for them. People talk about how offsets are like "buying favors" but if Gore owns part of these companies, he's doing the offset himself.
And as far as his own energy use is concerned, I suppose part of the difference is that his home is also a business, complete with a staff. It is a large, old, inefficient house, and that's why it's being renovated. He doesn't have to buy green power and he doesn't have to install solar. He can spend all the money he wants on this stuff.
Posted by: cce | July 20, 2007 7:38 PM
nannygovtsucks,
If you actually care how carbon credits are quantified, and you're not just trolling, go read something written by people who work in the industry -- like TerraPass's TerraBlog.
They're entrepreneurs pioneering a new industry. You fake libertarians should love them.
Posted by: theo | July 20, 2007 9:26 PM
Let's squash the other anti-Gore smear that's been posted.
Despite what the right wing blogs say, Gore doesn't profit from the carbon credits his company purchases.
Here's how it actually works:
Al Gore owns part of Generation Investment Management.
Generation Investment Management buys carbon credits to offset its employees' activities, including Gore's personal and business activities.
This decreases Generation Investment Management's profits, which costs Gore money.
Even if what the wingnuts were saying was true, and Gore were buying carbon credits from a company he owned, he would still be making back only a fraction of what he spent. It would be as if he bought a share of McDonalds, and then bought 1000 hamburgers for his daughter's wedding. Even though profits theoretically accrue to the shareholders, he would still be out $1000.
The smear never made any sense; there's no way anyone with functional critical thinking abilities could have bought it. The media spreading it, including Investor's Business Daily, certainly have no interest in telling the truth. Needless to say, it reflects poorly on their readership.
Posted by: theo | July 20, 2007 9:42 PM
Much as I despise the Cons and recognize that for them to call Gore a hypocrite is akin to the US criticizing Iran for going nuclear, one must admit that they have a point.
Profits or doesn't profit - for Gore to consume 20x as much as the average guy and then to justify that by saying "offsets", is a bit too convenient to be credible. Is that really all his "global warming" campaign is about? Go ahead and emit, just don't forget to offset?
Posted by: Sortition | July 20, 2007 10:24 PM
That's what I was thinking, Sortition. I don't mind if he's making profits, that's great. What I mind is that he says:
...and then burns up the fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow, excusing his behavior because he buys "carbon offsets." Now if it really was the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced. and he truly believed his own BS, then I'd expect a little more sacrifice from the guy. Instead, it's do as I say, not as I do, and he looks like he's full of crap.Remember, it's the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.!!
Posted by: ben | July 20, 2007 11:27 PM
Do you guys even know what credits and offsets are? You keep using the terms, but your following points don't seem to show any evidence that you comprehend how the whole thing even works.
Since Gore has the publicity and the money to travel and really bring attention to the issue, inspire entire audiences and communities to reduce emissions instead of just individuals and maybe even affect government policies, that is far and away the most important thing for him to be doing, even if it requires him to fly in a plane regularly, or whatever.
How, precisely, would him selling his possessions to live in a solar-heated yurt with no phone be better for the environment than what he's doing? This is a man who has done a good bit to reduce his carbon footprint, even if it's not a perfect attempt, and is trying to encourage others to do the same and these "hypocrisy" charges are nothing but hollow ad hominems that do nothing to challenge Gore's overall message, just Gore himself.
Perhaps these charges of hypocrisy would have more teeth if Gore had ever claimed to be perfect, or declared that no one could speak to this issue unless they lived their life to the highest environmental standard possible, but he didn't. He wants everyone to what they can because of what is demonstrably true. That's why this all reeks of people whose true goal is to slyly (so they think) discredit Gore's message by smearing Gore.
Posted by: Fox1 | July 21, 2007 1:39 AM
That's all JC seems to have, an ad hom ... well, I think it was meant to be an ad hom. He can't seem to do a good job at much of anything, as ad homs go, that's innocuous.
People have pointed out that he runs his business out of his home.
So do I - freelance software engineering and photography. I have two home offices. I have servers, a large-format printer, and until digital matured a darkroom. My home energy consumption is undoubtably significantly higher than a typical single person's as my house is large (those two offices take space), etc.
However, the alternative is to:
Lease a 750 sq ft office and move my work-related energy consumption from my house to my office and ...
Drive there.
The logic some show on this thread would label me as being "more green" if I did so.
Stupid.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 21, 2007 2:44 AM
Fox1 - I'm not talking about any carbon he emits while traveling to in order to increase awareness to the global warming problem. Those are justified by the importance of the message and the positive effects of his activism.
I'm also not suggesting that his household should consume dramatically less than the average US household (2x less would probably be a good start).
I'm talking about the fact that when it was publicized that his home consumes ~20x more power than the average US household, his response was that it's ok because he buys offsets. He is discrediting his own message with this behavior.
If all that is needed is buying offsets, just leave us alone and create a cheap government program that buys offsets for all of us. With a few hundred dollars a year per household, this program would cost a few tens of billions of dollars a year. A drop in a $2000 billion budget. This does not sit well with his high flying rhetoric.
Regrading the effectiveness of offsets: As far as I know, reductions in energy consumption - especially in the US - will be necessary to achieve the reductions in emissions that are necessary in order to reverse the global warming trend. Do you have any data to support the position (implied by Gore's behav