Polyester Gore, or, a Snake-Oil Convenient Lie

[jbg]

Last night, I went to a synagogue screening of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. I must first-off say that the movie was very well produced, and fully deserving of an Oscar, though perhaps not in the “documentary” category. There were certainly enough unrelated facts and factoids thrown together to make a very impressive presentation.

Gore does not, and cannot say that there have not been previous melts and/or freezes of the Arctic and Antarctic regions previously. The reason he cannot say there have not been is that clearly, both regions were, for extensive periods, quite warm. Uncontroverted fossil evidence shows that warm-weather animals inhabited these regions. Certainly, the large oil deposits at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, Fort Macmurray, Alberta and near Tuktuyotok, NWT belie any contention that these areas have always been cold. Ditto the North Sea. The Medieval Optimum and Maunder Minimum are given conveniently short shrift.

Gore’s juxtaposition of CO2 graphs with pictures of Katrina draws a convincing, but fraudulent, cause and effect supposition. Gore carefully avoided representing that any of the steps that he recommends would change a single temperature on a single day at a single place, since he knows that to make such a promise would expose him to ridicule.

Finally, he lambasts the United States and Australia for being the only First World countries not to ratify Kyoto. He carefully omits to discuss that the selection of 1990 as the Kyoto "base year" from which to measure GHG reductions was hardly arbitrary. He also does not discuss the fact that he was supposedly negotiating on the US’s behalf at Kyoto in 1997, and either was asleep at the switch or willfully sabotaging his own countries’ well being.

1990 is a baseline year that is grievously unfair to the US, Canada and Australia, since that was a recession year for us. By contrast, Europe was at a peak, and immediately after end of 1990 Germany was re-unified, closing many factories in the former East Germany. Similarly, without subsidies, many factories in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic closed, placing Europe immediately well under the 1990 baseline. Also, some countries have base years other than 1990. Countries with base-years other than 1990 are Hungary (average 1985-1987), Poland (1988) and Slovenia (1986) (link). I cannot believe that those variations give these countries more ambitious targets. If a year such as 2000 were picked as the US's base, it would be a fairer treaty. There's also not a chance in h*ll that European countries would have ratified such a treaty. Any government actually proposing to lower living standards to try to change the weather would be laughed out of office.

Seeking to add insult to injury, apparently (or to ensure that at least some countries would vote to ratify the treaty), the Kyoto sponsors are so serious about the environment </ sarcasm> that they granted Iceland a free pass to emit more GHG's. Clearly, Kyoto's a tilted deck that has nothing to do with science, climate or environmental betterment, and made an exception for Iceland (link), specifically, some aluminum smelters it wanted badly to develop. Excerpts below:

February 4, 2007

Smokestacks in a White Wilderness Divide Iceland

By SARAH LYALL

NORTH OF VATNAJOKULL GLACIER, Iceland —

*snip*

This is the $3 billion Karahnjukar Hydropower Project, a sprawling enterprise to harness the rivers for electricity that will be used for a single purpose: to fuel a new aluminum smelter owned by Alcoa, the world’s largest aluminum company. It has been the focus of the angriest and most divisive battle in recent Icelandic history.

*snip*

They are also allowed to pollute:

another Kyoto exception gave power-intensive industries that use renewable energy in Iceland the right to emit an extra 1.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year until 2012.

These are all “inconvenient truths” omitted by Mr. Gore in his crock-umentary.

[gc1765]

1990 is a baseline year that is grievously unfair to the US, Canada and Australia, since that was a recession year for us. By contrast, Europe was at a peak, and immediately after end of 1990 Germany was re-unified, closing many factories in the former East Germany. Similarly, without subsidies, many factories in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic closed, placing Europe immediately well under the 1990 baseline. Also, some countries have base years other than 1990.

And yet, we were still emitting more carbon dioxide than them back in 1990, weren't we? How can we tell Europe (or third world countries) to reduce their emissions when we emit so much more? It's like the guy driving an SUV telling the guy driving a smart car that he will only cut his emissions if the guy driving the smart car reduces his as well.

[Riverwind]

How can we tell Europe (or third world countries) to reduce their emissions when we emit so much more? It's like the guy driving an SUV telling the guy driving a smart car that he will only cut his emissions if the guy driving the smart car reduces his as well.

A false analogy. Out of control population growth in the third world is a bigger problem than larger per capita emissions in developed countries. China will pass the US as the world's largest carbon emitter this year and has zero interest in controlling their emissions.

[jbg]

It's like the guy driving an SUV telling the guy driving a smart car that he will only cut his emissions if the guy driving the smart car reduces his as well.

Al Gore's embarrassingly capitalist activities (link) demonstrates that his charlatanism is more akin to that of the travelling salesmen of Glengarry Glenross or "Tin Man" than to genuine idealism. A short quote from the Wall Street Journal article:

Capitalism and sustainability are deeply and increasingly interrelated. After all, our economic activity is based on the use of natural and human resources. Not until we more broadly "price in" the external costs of investment decisions across all sectors will we have a sustainable economy and society.

*snip*

As some have said, "We are operating the Earth like it's a business in liquidation." More mechanisms to incorporate environmental and social externalities will be needed to enable capital markets to achieve their intended purpose -- to consistently allocate capital to its highest and best use for the good of the people and the planet.

It has become well known that Gore's house uses almost as much electricity in a month than the average American home uses in a year. How does Gore maintain his "green" credentials? Same way as Suzuki does; he buys "carbon offsets". Anyone interested in where he buys them from? (link) I was:

Gore's carbon footprint may be the size of Godzilla's, but he eases his conscience with 'carbon offsets.' He buys them from himself. And every time someone else buys them, Big Al gets richer.

*****

Lewis was referring to the buying and selling of 'carbon offsets,' a mechanism that allows Gore's home to consume 20 times as many kilowatt-hours as the average American's. It allows gluttonous energy consumers like Gore to ease their conscience while doing absolutely nothing to curb their own energy use.

Say you want to fly your Gulfstream private jet across the country regularly to Hollywood premieres instead of taking a Greyhound bus. You buy a carbon offset, giving money to people who will do something like invest it in windmills and solar panels to 'reduce' carbon emissions by an equivalent amount. Your are then declared 'carbon neutral' as you continue to pollute.

Speaking of carbon offsets and shell games, guess where Gore buys his carbon offsets? Well, he buys them from a firm call Generation Investment Management LLP, a tax-exempt U.S. 501©3 corporation. The chairman and co-founder is Al Gore. In other words, he buys his carbon offsets from himself. Others who buy these offset are really buying stock in Gore's growing business. You, too, can green up his portfolio, if not Earth itself.

Sometimes the details are "inconvenient". More likely, no sane person is going to actually reduce his own standard of living in support of a flaky theory. They'll gladly reduce that of others; not their own. A lot like the way Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are "men of the people".

[gc1765]

A false analogy. Out of control population growth in the third world is a bigger problem than larger per capita emissions in developed countries. China will pass the US as the world's largest carbon emitter this year and has zero interest in controlling their emissions.

First of all, China is controlling their population...

Secondly, I have a question for you: Let's say hypothetically that you are one of 10 children, and one of 100 grandchildren, and I am an only child, and only grandchild. Does that mean I should be allowed to pollute 10 times, or 100 times more than you? Or should we still be allowed to pollute the same?

[Riverwind]

Secondly, I have a question for you: Let's say hypothetically that you are one of 10 children, and one of 100 grandchildren, and I am an only child, and only grandchild. Does that mean I should be allowed to pollute 10 times, or 100 times more than you? Or should we still be allowed to pollute the same?

Why should every human be expected to pollute the same?

[gc1765]

Why should every human be expected to pollute the same?

You didn't answer the question.

Also, why shouldn't they be allowed to pollute the same? What makes one person more entitled than another?

[Riverwind]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to pollute the same? What makes one person more entitled than another?

What makes one person entiled to live in a bigger house or drive a more expensive car?

There is no rational reason to insist that every individual 'pollute equally' when we already live in a society where inequality is not only considered normal - it is considered desirable.

If we want to deal with the GHG problem then we must address the root causes. Letting certain groups of people off the hook makes no sense.

[gc1765]

What makes one person entiled to live in a bigger house or drive a more expensive car?

Because in order to have the money to buy a house/car, they must have provided a service to someone else. In return for the services they provide, they get rewarded with being able to purchase a house. What has a big polluter done that entitles them to pollute more?

[Riverwind]

Because in order to have the money to buy a house/car, they must have provided a service to someone else. In return for the services they provide, they get rewarded with being able to purchase a house. What has a big polluter done that entitles them to pollute more?

Built an economy that produces goods and scientific knowledge that the poor need. People in the third world do not live in a vacuum even if their standard of living is much lower than ours. They depend on the goods and knowledge produced by rich economies. Without that they would be much worse off.

[gc1765]

There is no rational reason to insist that every individual 'pollute equally' when we already live in a society where inequality is not only considered normal - it is considered desirable.

It is equal in the sense that we get what we give (see post above). The harder we work/more we give to society, the more money we get and more we can purchase.

The difference is polluting is not give and take. Polluting is like "taking", but without giving. If we had a carbon tax for everyone, then the rich would be able to pollute more because they are "giving" more.

Which brings up a good point, certain people (depending on where you live) will be affected more (and it's not us in Canada). Those people are "giving" in a sense, so if anything they should be allowed to pollute more than us.

[gc1765]

They depend on the goods and knowledge produced by rich economies. Without that they would be much worse off.

And the rich economies benefit from the money that they receive for the goods & knowledge. That is the beauty of the free market, if BOTH sides weren't benefitting, no exchange of goods would be taking place.

[jbg]

They depend on the goods and knowledge produced by rich economies. Without that they would be much worse off.

And the rich economies benefit from the money that they receive for the goods & knowledge. That is the beauty of the free market, if BOTH sides weren't benefitting, no exchange of goods would be taking place.

But creating tradable rights in something that ought to be free, i.e. CO2 (as opposed to CO) emissions creates a mis-alllocation of resources, making us all poorer.

[Riverwind]

The difference is polluting is not give and take. Polluting is like "taking", but without giving. If we had a carbon tax for everyone, then the rich would be able to pollute more because they are "giving" more.

A carbon tax is a blunt tool that would not really solve the problem. For example, truck drivers are essential to the smooth functioning of our economy and the GHG emitted by them is easily justified by the benefit they deliver and they cannot easily reduce their emissions with technology. OTOH, a soccer mom driving the kids to school in a SUV could significantly reduce her emissions by choosing a more appropriate vehicle and walking to school.

The soccer mom would not likely change her behavoir even if we doubled the price of gas. The truck drivers would likely be forced out of business as companies relocate to countries where there is no carbon tax.

[gc1765]

A carbon tax is a blunt tool that would not really solve the problem. For example, truck drivers are essential to the smooth functioning of our economy and the GHG emitted by them is easily justified by the benefit they deliver and they cannot easily reduce their emissions with technology.

Higher gas prices wouldn't affect the truck driver, the costs would be passed on to the final consumer. They could either reduce their consumption, buy things locally, or not change their behaviour at all. Even if they don't change their behaviour, at least they are paying for it. That money could go towards dealing with problems associated with global warming (which I believe we have discussed before in other threads).

The truck drivers would likely be forced out of business as companies relocate to countries where there is no carbon tax.

That's why we need some sort of international system. Kyoto is not perfect, but the intent is there.

[Riverwind]

That's why we need some sort of international system. Kyoto is not perfect, but the intent is there.

Kyoto is flawed because it accepts the premise that developing countries should not be required to do as much because they have lower per capita emissions. The fact that their rapidly growing populations contributes significantly to the GHG problem is conveniently forgotten. We will never have an international system that works until people are willing to address that taboo subject.

Furthermore, any 'breaks' given to developing countries in the short term will simply encourage more industry to move there. We need to wait for the consequences of global warming to get more serious. We will be able to negotiate a more effective international regime pnce developing countries realize that they cannot afford to 'develop first - clean up later'. China is starting to clue in which is good. Unfortuately, rampant corruption makes it virtually impossible to ensure that China will follow any agreement.

[B. Max]

Higher gas prices wouldn't affect the truck driver, the costs would be passed on to the final consumer. They could either reduce their consumption, buy things locally, or not change their behaviour at all. Even if they don't change their behaviour, at least they are paying for it.

That is the biggest pile of stupidity I have ever heard.

[gc1765]

Kyoto is flawed because it accepts the premise that developing countries should not be required to do as much because they have lower per capita emissions.

We just went over this. If anything, developing countries should be allowed to pollute more since they will be affected more (but I'll settle for the same). People in developed countries are the ones who allowed to pollute (or "take") more while people in developing countries are the ones suffering (or "giving").

The fact that their rapidly growing populations contributes significantly to the GHG problem is conveniently forgotten. We will never have an international system that works until people are willing to address that taboo subject.

Do you have an answer for the question I posed earlier, about whether an only child should be allowed to pollute more than someone who has 9 siblings?

[gc1765]

That is the biggest pile of stupidity I have ever heard.

No, the biggest pile of stupidity would be trying to pass that off as some sort of intelligent argument...

[Riverwind]

We just went over this. If anything, developing countries should be allowed to pollute more since they will be affected more (but I'll settle for the same). People in developed countries are the ones who allowed to pollute (or "take") more while people in developing countries are the ones suffering (or "giving").

The only thing that matters is the total amount of GHGs. The climate would not even notice if Canada eliminated all of its GHGs emissions because the population growth in India would replace those emissions within 10 years.

Do you have an answer for the question I posed earlier, about whether an only child should be allowed to pollute more than someone who has 9 siblings?

Yes if the economic contribution of that one person is greater than the 9 others. The per captita economic contribution of Canada to the world is much greater than the per capita contribution of the average developing country. For that reason there is no reason to say that the per capita GHGs production from Canada should be the same as a developing country.

What you are really advocating is a form of global communism where the regulations are used to force everyone to be equal.

[gc1765]

What you are really advocating is a form of global communism where the regulations are used to force everyone to be equal.

First off, I never said anything like this. I am simply saying that those who create harm (ie global warming) should pay those who are harmed (by global warming). If I were to burn down someone's house, I would have to pay for it. If I contribute to global warming, and that causes someone's house to be underwater, I should pay for it as well.

Yes if the economic contribution of that one person is greater than the 9 others. The per captita economic contribution of Canada to the world is much greater than the per capita contribution of the average developing country. For that reason there is no reason to say that the per capita GHGs production from Canada should be the same as a developing country.

How would you feel about an international carbon tax, where everyone pays proportional to what they pollute? You wouldn't have to worry about who is allowed to pollute what, you pay what you pollute. The only real difference between this and a system with caps is that in the system with caps, everyone is allowed a "basic personal exemption" (kind of like income tax).

[Riverwind]

First off, I never said anything like this. I am simply saying that those who create harm (ie global warming) should pay those who are harmed (by global warming). If I were to burn down someone's house, I would have to pay for it. If I contribute to global warming, and that causes someone's house to be underwater, I should pay for it as well.

You are implying it when you say that developing countries should not have to do their part because their per capita emission are lower.

How would you feel about an international carbon tax, where everyone pays proportional to what they pollute? You wouldn't have to worry about who is allowed to pollute what, you pay what you pollute. The only real difference between this and a system with caps is that in the system with caps, everyone is allowed a "basic personal exemption" (kind of like income tax).

How do you calculate the amount of GHGs each person produces? Do you calculate the GHGs required to produce the goods consumed regardless of where they are produced? Or are you expecting everyone in Canada to pay more because a few people in Alberta are getting rich cooking the tar sands? If you are talking about the former then I can agree it would be a reasonable starting point. Kyoto is really designed to do the latter which makes it unacceptable.

I could live with a system of global carbon taxes which are applied to all goods no matter where they originate. IOW - if the Chinese/Indians refuse to clean up then goods they produce should be be slapped with the _same_ tariffs that a company in Canada would have to pay if they produced the goods here. This would increase the cost of goods but I guess that is the point.

[jbg]

That is the biggest pile of stupidity I have ever heard.

No, the biggest pile of stupidity would be trying to pass that off as some sort of intelligent argument...

The biggest pile of stupidity is derived as follows. 97% of the world's GHG's consist of water, and materials of than CO2. Not all CO2 is manmade, by a long stretch.

Even if we were to pull every car off the road in Canada, the US and Australia it would not change a single temperature on a single day at a single place. Pure and simple, this treaty is about the purchase and sale of carbon credits, not about reducing GHG's.

[sunsettommy]

PLANET ARK

No US Emissions Curbs Without China,India - Envoy

BELGIUM: April 19, 2007

BRUSSELS - The United States will not join an international regime curbing emissions blamed for global warming until it also applied to China and India, the US ambassador to the European Union said on Wednesday.

"Rather than shooting at each other, the United States and Europe should be joining forces to engage China," Ambassador C. Boyden Gray told Reuters in an interview ahead of an April 30 US-EU summit.

"There will be no comprehensive global warming legislation coming out of the United States, whoever you have as president from whatever party, that does not include limits or a programme for China, India and the rest of the developing world."

He cast doubt on whether the 27-nation EU would be able to achieve ambitious emissions reductions targets it adopted last month and said the US approach of focusing on technological solutions to climate change was just as valid.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...41463/story.htm

[gc1765]

You are implying it when you say that developing countries should not have to do their part because their per capita emission are lower.

Would you consider Canada or the U.S. to be a communist country? Would you call anyone who supports the tax system in Canada a communist? In Canada, everyone is allowed a "basic personal exemption" on paying income taxes. Allowing people to pollute x amount before paying is no different. That's like saying your a communist because you think someone who earns less than $9,000 a year should not have to do their part in paying income tax.

How do you calculate the amount of GHGs each person produces? Do you calculate the GHGs required to produce the goods consumed regardless of where they are produced? Or are you expecting everyone in Canada to pay more because a few people in Alberta are getting rich cooking the tar sands? If you are talking about the former then I can agree it would be a reasonable starting point. Kyoto is really designed to do the latter which makes it unacceptable.

Does it really matter? The consumer is going to pay in the end, regardless of where it is produced. If it costs more to produce something, it is going to be sold for a higher price.

Now, the only final question is should there be some sort of personal exemption like there is with income tax, or should you have to pay tax on everything you pollute?