Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 4, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

FUN WITH CHARTS....Yesterday I put up a post about the Bush administration's latest version of the United States Climate Action Report. The chart I posted showed that Bush was proposing policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions only slightly.

However, sharp reader Linda L. points out that I was actually giving Bush too much credit. (I know, I know....) On the right are both of the charts the New York Times published to illustrate the report, not just one of them. Notice anything odd?

Sure you do! The "reduced" line in the chart on the right is exactly the same as the "business as usual" line in the original DOE chart on the left. Bush's proposals don't actually reduce emissions at all. He just created a higher line out of whole cloth and labeled it "business as usual" so that his line would look lower.

They never cease to amaze, do they?

Kevin Drum 1:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It's dispiriting that this sort of thing is no longer noteworthy, much less scandalous.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on March 4, 2007 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know Kevin. There is something to be said for the GWB admin not fucking things up anymore than they already are, which is what their policy proposal is.

That's a victory of sorts.

Posted by: Disputo on March 4, 2007 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

I caught a dated (pre 2006 election) appearance by Gore Vidal on CSPAN today.

His model of this administration and of our political system explains everything.

No surprise here in light of Vidal's model.

Posted by: gregor on March 4, 2007 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think you and Linda are a bit off-base here, thanks to the Times's misleading labels. I think you can see the full set of five graphs here, but who knows if it'll work or not. It's accessible in the story. The ones you excerpt above are the first two in the full NYT graphic.

The first one, with the dark red line, is what the US Department of Energy says is "business as usual" - how many billions of tons of CO2 will be released through 2020 (as projected). In the second graph, that red line remains the same - the brighter dashed line represents the projections of the US Climate Action Report - 2002 as mentioned in the story.

In other words, the administration's "new" projections, in the report they won't release, say that doing nothing will result in less CO2 emissions than their 2002 report projected, meaning they're already "reducing" greenhouse gases by not doing anything new or different. We'll still release more gases, but since we won't release as much more as was projected in 2002, everything will be OK.

The full set of five graphs compares these two ideas to three Senate bills - two of which actually reduce gas emissions, and one of which (the other Republican one) slows them further but still lets them increase.

The NYT article says that the administration's idealogues didn't like the 2002 climate report because it oh-so-carefully implied there might be global warming, and humans might have something to do with it. The new, unreleased report is the one in the graph on the left - the brighter line in the graph on the right is what the 2002 report said would happen.

So it's still odious, but not for the reason you think. The "original DOE chart on the left" is the new administration spin. The one on the right is the old spin. The dark line is the newer one.

I think. The entire story and graph could have been a lot clearer, but I think that's what it's saying.

Posted by: Matt on March 4, 2007 at 3:21 AM | PERMALINK

I think the reason the two lines are the same is because Bush's policies on emission-reduction really do look pretty much exactly like business-as-usual. I don't think it took six years to figure that much out.

Posted by: msmackle on March 4, 2007 at 4:45 AM | PERMALINK

Luckily, the press is RIGHT THERE to accurately report the facts.

Oh, wait -- I mean, report on failed land deals and consensual sex acts between adults.

Move along...

Posted by: Gore/Edwards on March 4, 2007 at 8:16 AM | PERMALINK

Matt,

I don't think the other three charts are relevant. The fact is that the NYT published two graphs side-by-side, both sourced from the government, that have two different projections of "business as usual." At the very least, the journalists should have noted the differences and attempted to explain the discrepancy.

Obviously, my interpretation is similar to Kevin's - that the Bush administration business-as-usual numbers may have been inflated to make the "reductions" from their policy appear larger. However, I am open to less nefarious and geekier explanations.

My critique is really directed at the NYT and other supposedly reputable sources that can't seem to do even the most rudimentary analysis of the data they publish.

Posted by: Linda L. on March 4, 2007 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

At home, I've introduced a new family policy to give more consideration to the expiration dates printed on milk cartons.

I forecast a reduction in the occurences of sipping sour milk, nearly down to pre-policy levels.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on March 4, 2007 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

5 Feb 07 - Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.
And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Let me stress I am not denying the (global warming) phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends NOW INDICATE A COOLING. (thank you)

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wilderness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.
He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

See all of this great article at: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Thanks to J. P. Peardad for this link


Yep, I always knew that Global Warming was the biggest fraud ever made up in the history of the Unites States, being nothing but pure politics, environmental extremism, lies and deception with the intent of destroying this country and our way of life. It is nothing more but a fake religion and a sorry and dumb excuse to blame strange weather events on. It is part of the "dumbing down process" of America and elsewhere. As more and more people (and scientists alike) start to wake up to this fact and do their own research, they will come to the same chilling conclusion.

Posted by: egbert on March 4, 2007 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

egbert,

What research have you been doing? Research
is not citing the statement(s) of someone with whom you agree (Dr. Ball). If you are really interested in learning about global warming, read the material on Real Climate.

neutrino

Posted by: neutrino on March 4, 2007 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

So, egbert, do you think pollution is a good thing? Do you believe corporations should be free to dump pollutants in the air, land and water with no consequences? Are you essentially saying we should do nothing about pollution? If that is your argument, my response is it is your perogative to kill yourself - be my guest - just don't ask me and my family to suffer along with your poor lifestyle choices. Global warming is about pollution.

I am willing to pay more in taxes and make hard lifestyle choices to leave this world a better place for my children and grandchildren and a majority of Americans agree with this viewpoint. You apparently belong to a sad, nihilistic, self-centered minority who are, at core, unAmerican and unChristian.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on March 4, 2007 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Conservative Deflater -

CO2 is not a pollutant.

If it was, then you have to believe that humans breathing CO2 cause pollution.

Posted by: egbert on March 4, 2007 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

CO2 emissions are a by-product of burning fossil fuels, which also releases sulfur dioxide and many other carcinogens into the atmosphere. Your analysis is too narrow. Like I said, if you want to kill yourself, go ahead. Take an overdose of sleeping pills and get it over with. Just don't use narrow-minded biased research to condone the dumping of carcinogens and yes, CO2, into the atmosphere and fuck up my children's lives. Besides that, alternative energy research creates jobs and strengthens the economy, not the opposite. People who think fossil fuels are the answer are short-sighted and have no faith in the ingenuity and hard work of Americans.

More charts here, comparing Bush’s “plan” with those proposed by Barbara Boxer, McCain-Lieberman and Bingaman.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on March 4, 2007 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

egbert on March 4, 2007 at 10:25 AM:

Yep, I always knew that...

Yep, I kinda figured that the Canada Free Press site was the biggest fraud ever made up in the history of the Canadian news, being nothing but pure politics, environmental extremism, lies and deception with the intent of destroying that country and their way of life.

Please try to use a less biased source next time, Eggie.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 4, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

so grape-crash, you don't agree with it, so its "biased"?

Posted by: egbert on March 4, 2007 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Egbert, if you want to have this debate with us actual working scientists, you need to go educate yourself on the differences between the Biological and Geological carbon cycles.

Biological balances - it's the geological carbon released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels that is the problem.

When you day shit like you just did, you look even more like a drooling fool than usual.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

I used to think that egbert was egbert, but I'm starting to wonder if egbert has been taken over by Charlie.

All we need is the assertion of some sort of relationship between climate science and abortion, and I'll know I'm right.

Posted by: craigie on March 4, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

say, not day.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

No, I went to the site you provided the a link for and read a few of the other articles listed on the front page. Each had a very strong conservative slant, which puts the veracity of your cut-and-paste into question.

Your source is biased, Eggie. That makes me less inclined to believe it...not the other way around.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 4, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

>"CO2 is not a pollutant"

I'm curious as to what sort of reasoning yields this conclusion? Please explain.

Posted by: Buford on March 4, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

In reference to egbert's post of a statetment from Tim Ball. Tim Ball has been paid by the energy industry for over twenty years to spread as much bs as he possibly could. This man has done absolutely ZERO research on the subject of climate change. This information about Dr Tim Ball is readily available to anyone that cares to check it out by simply googling his name. Egbert the next time you quote someone to support your view of an important subject please be courteous enough to check your sources.

Posted by: Gandalf on March 4, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Ball is a paid shill for the energy lobby in Canada. He does no research and submits nothing to be juried. He is not a working scientist, he is an entertainer.

No, that's not quite right either...Make that entertaining huckster.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Ever since I obtained my Ph. D. from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, I have noticed as a Doctor of Philosophy with a Ph. D. degree that excessive trumpeting of one's advanced degree, such as my doctoral degree of Ph. D. from Harvard University in the American state of Massachusetts, as if it were evidence of something is often a sign of a raging crackpot.

Posted by: Matt McIrvin on March 4, 2007 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

*Yep I always knew that global warming was the biggest fraud blah blah blah" from "egbert". Don't be fooled. This was not posted by the real egbert. It is not written in the real egbert's distinctive style. The real egbert always starts his posts with "Ah, Kevin" and rabbits on about liberals hating America etc. This was written by the pseudo egbert, who is probably dishing up a lot of crap he's read off some libertarian oil industry funded website. The "science " he rabbits on about is about as true as his assumed identity.

Posted by: Mike G on March 4, 2007 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

It took me less than 15 seconds to impeach egberts source:

Andrew Weaver is the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, and a lead author of a chapter in the upcoming IPCC report. He gives a frustrated sigh at the mention of Tim Ball's cross-country tour.

"He says stuff that is just plain wrong. But when you are talking to crowds, when you are talking on TV, there is no challenge, there is no peer review," Prof. Weaver says.

Like other senior scientists, he charges that Prof. Ball's arguments are a grab bag of irrelevancies and falsehoods: "Ball says that our climate models do not [account for the warming effects of] water vapour. That's absurd. They all do."

Likewise, he says, Prof. Ball's claims that climate change could be explained by variations in the earth's orbit or by sunspots are discounted by widely available data.

Many of Prof. Ball's other arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. Consider the hockey-stick graph: He was right that the U.S. Academies of Science had delivered a review of climate science to Congress. But their report concluded that temperatures in the last 25 years really have been the highest in 400 years. Moreover, the panelists assured reporters that there was no evidence at all that the Mann team cherry-picked its data - completely contradicting what Prof. Ball told his audience in Comox.

"What Ball is doing is not about science," says Prof. Weaver. "It is about politics."
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

What do you expect from the bunch of immoral, corrupt liars????????

Posted by: Mazurka on March 4, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

For further info about Tim Ball's "credibility" and "credentials", check out this post and others on the Deltoid blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php

Posted by: Leszek Pawlowicz on March 4, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

This is like the Bushies' forecasts of budget deficits. They say they expect a deficit of, say, $600 billion. Then they later say they expect a deficit of only $400 billion and say they are reducing the deficit.

Posted by: anandine on March 4, 2007 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

egbert on March 4, 2007 at 10:25 AM

I have been a reader of the journal Science for close on 40 years now, so I don't have to depend on the judgements of a few scientists expressed in a small number of mostly unrefereed articles. Almost all of the qualified and semi-qualified scientists who have considered all of the data have concluded that the preponderance of the evidence, one should say great preponderance of the evidence, supports global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2. What's more, the newer and better and more the evidence gets, the more the evidence supports the case for global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

It would be imprudent in the extreme to ignore this overwhelming consensus, at least as imprudent as to continue to believe Dr. Duesberg on the etiology of AIDS.

There are legitimate doubts about the exact nature of the CO2-induced warming, whether it is the only cause of the observed warming (solar cycles and all that), which parts of the earth will experience cooling caused by changes in wind patterns as the other parts warm up, and so on. But there is no doubt that it is cheaper to act to prevent the warming now than it will be to act later to ameliorate the damages that result. Besides that, most actions to reduce human CO2 emissions are beneficial in other respects: forestation to protect watersheds, reduce soil erosion, guarantee a future supply of trees; reduced fossil fuel consumption to end our dependence on dicatators in the Middle East, and so forth.

It's foolish for these maverick scientists to portray themselves as Galileo and all the other scientists as the Roman Curia. It's not like that. The people who are promoting the theory of Anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming are themselves alert and open-minded scientists, and they are busy in the gathering and evaluation of
new evidence. Some of the contratians, such as the fellows in Huntsville, Alabama, have in fact come around to the consensus.

As to the claimed misrepresentations of the Bush administration, that started this and the previous thread, Bush now supports reductions in CO2 emissions, reduced fossil fuel use, and increases in renewable energy supplies. He just isn't as strong a supporter as the Democratic leadership. The Democrats now have majorities in both houses of Congress, and they are working on 4 bills collectively called "the PACE act", and their net effect will be to accelerate (perhaps slightly, perhaps considerably) the developments already underway. Rehashing arguments about a plan Bush promoted 5 years ago, and that he has already moved beyond in his 2006 and 2007 SOTU addresses is pretty irrelevant. The job now is to get the Congress to act on PACE.

Matt McIrvin on March 4, 2007 at 11:59 AM

! well said. I think I wrote once that everyone here has credentials.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2, like SO2, NH3, human excrement, and the phosphates from laundry detergents, is food for some organisms and in high concentrations can have effects deleterious to the ecology as it is and to human civilization. It's handy to call such stuff "pollutants" even though they are food for other organisms, because too much is bad. The issue is whether too much CO2 is bad, not some linguistic exegesis on the proper use of a word.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 4, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Everybody reread this:

Matt on March 4, 2007 at 3:21 AM

Click on his links, and then write to your congresscritters and tell them how much you like the proposals by the Democratic Congressional leaders. If the proposals pass this summer (as they probably will, probably with modifications) you'll be glad in 2 years and in 6 years that they did.

Kevin Drum is basically beating a dead horse.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 4, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert, please note:

From a study by Anthony Leiserowitz from University of Oregon on views related to global warming:
Naysayers, who deny, discount or disbelieve the reality of climate change:
"These people claim that there is no scientific evidence, blame global warming on media hype, or even hold dark conspiracy theories, such as scientists making up data to protect their job security," he said. "Naysayers are much more likely to be white, male, conservative, Republican, very religious, hold strongly individualistic or hierarchist values and to get their news and information from radio talk shows."

I found this study at Noel Sheppard's blog on newsbusters.org/node/10908

Posted by: consider wisely always on March 4, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

here is Mark Steyne writing about Al Gore: And, in fact, in the Reverend Al's case it's even better than that. Al buys his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLP, which is "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.," that, for a fee, will invest your money in "high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns." Generation is a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3. And who's the chairman and founding partner? Al Gore.

So Al can buy his carbon offsets from himself. Better yet, he can buy them with the money he gets from his long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum. See how easy it is to be carbon-neutral? All you have do is own a gazillion stocks in Big Oil, start an eco-stockbroking firm to make eco-friendly investments, use a small portion of your oil company's profits to buy some tax-deductible carbon offsets from your own investment firm, and you too can save the planet while making money and leaving a carbon footprint roughly the size of Godzilla's at the start of the movie when they're all standing around in the little toe wondering what the strange depression in the landscape is.

The way it works out, Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth", which won a well-deserved Oscar as best documentary, turns out to be advertising for his company. That doesn't bother me, though he is going to be repeatedly excoriated for being a hypocrite (which he is not) and a huckster (which he might be, though I doubt it.) He invented a private equity firm that is an alternative way for rich individuals to invest in reductions in global CO2 accumulation.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 4, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

I think I've cyphered it - egbert is that special kind of stupid that is exclusive to public schools in Kansas. Where are you a student egbert? Valley Center? Kechi? Hutch? Salina? HO-lathe?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert, event The Wall Street Journal has deserted camp. You are alone at the ramparts, dear one.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

"eco campitalism"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030202044.html

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

a prominent convert to LED lighting.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/migros_supermar.php

One of the bizarre occurances of the California electricity crisis is that the restaurants and other public places that I went to kept their incandescent light bulbs. A prominent exception was the Outback Steakhouse that switched to compact fluorescents. I guess that's why the state legislature had to write a law banning the sale of incandescents: Californians on their own seem to be averse to saving electricity.

Anyhow, gradually switching to more efficient light bulbs will, over time, reduce the demand for electricity, compared with what we have been doing.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 4, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Linda and Matt - I actually meant only to comment on the graphs. I still think the descriptions botched what the NYT was trying to say.

What the main post thinks the graphs say: They invented a new, higher, "business-as-usual" projection so that it looks like their do-nothing stance accomplishes something.

What I think the graphs say: The new do-nothing stance is projected to reduce the level of increased emissions more than they said the same policy would in 2002, but won't drop emissions in any way.

That was all.

Posted by: Matt on March 4, 2007 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Posted by: egbert on March 4, 2007 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

egbert, you missed the bit about Gore buying CO2 offsets.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 4, 2007 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

"He invented a private equity firm that is an alternative way for rich individuals to invest in reductions in global CO2 accumulation."

Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Surely if rich people are going to invest in something, and they are, then what better than reductions in global CO2 accumulation? Conservatives, at least the ones who even acknowledge global warming, are always banging on about market based solutions. Well, here is one.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow on March 5, 2007 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

Ginger Yellow: Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

Nobody has said so. When I wrote about Gore's company a few days ago, I praised it as an alternative source of funding the transition from what we have now to an energy economy with reduced CO2 emissions and greater energy independence. I expect that we'll be hearing from liberals who object to Gore's making money off of CO2 offsets. So far, I have not found any liberal discussions of Gore's company, but some right-wing sources have noted that Gore essentially pays his CO2 offsets to himself, and that his company caters only to the very wealthy. From what I have read, it is still a net benefit, and will be more so in the near future.

Posted by: spider on March 5, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Take a look again at the five-graph display, of which the two here are the first two from the left. In all except Bush's version, the left sides (in the white background) are identical. In the Bush version (second from left), the left side has been scaled upward a little.

I think that Bush's version of Business as Usual expanded the range of the entire DoE plot from (6 to 9.5) to (6 to 10).

Posted by: John H. Morrison on March 6, 2007 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly