Since carbon credits place a monetary value on carbon emissions isn't this like saying, "If you can afford it - you can drive (or fly) it"? It sounds hypocritical to me.
2007-03-09 00:51:08 · 8 answers · asked by Spud55 5 in Environment
Methane from cows and pigs? What do we do about the deer, elk, rhinos, elephants, water buffalo, giraffes, horses, and every other flatulent being in the world? The domestic food producing animals aren't a drop in the bucket when compared to the rest. This is just a flimsy Greenpeace attempt at promoting vegan lifestyle.
2007-03-09 01:07:45 · update #1
Follow the money, my friend. You will find that this entire "global warming" thing is only a money/power grab scam perpetrated by the fear mongers (read libs) with the idea of increasing their control over the population.
Don't forget, it was only about 30 years ago that 'global cooling' was going to pound the planet with glaciers in 10 years. Now it's 'global warming' that will have it in flames in 10 years.
It's all bs.
2007-03-09 01:35:42 · answer #1 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hypocritical for sure! More than that...
If Al Gore and other climate change alarmists are serious about the warning of the impending disater, they MUST become vegetarians. Even Greenpeace's site shows that the methane from cows and pigs is a major factor in the increase of "heat trapping gas". It's actually 23 times more potent as a heat trapping gas than is carbon dioxide. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/science/other_gases
According to the newest UN report on Global Warming, "Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together." http://news.independent.co.uk:80/environment/article2062484.ece
So again, if Al Gore and all the alarmists really want to do something about climate change, they MUST become vegetarians and shut down cow and pig farms. I mean seriously, if they truly believe that global warming is as disastrous as they are preaching then they need to stop eating meat, period! I seriously doubt that will happen. If not, then they are the hypocrites that some of us already suspect they are.
Also Al Gore preaches to you to conserve, but he does not practice it himself. He uses 20 times more energy in his Nashville mansion than the national average. http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
One thing he has not learned is that you MUST practice what you preach... at some point you will get caught as he has.
Edit: Spud, my point is they are all hypocrites to some extent. Follow the money and you'll find that those seeking to prove the existance of global warming are getting paid handsomely. To say Gore can buy offsets is to say I can rob a bank and give the $ to the poor to help them and all will be fine again. The difference is robbing a bank is illegal, but you get the premise It should not even be an option for him or anyone else.
2007-03-09 08:55:49 · answer #2 · answered by capnemo 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is completely hypocritical. It is just an excuse to make it ecologically acceptable for people like Al Gore to use private jets, and tons of electricity in there homes. The idea that planting trees will offset the Carbon that you put out is ridiculous. For the average person it would take hundreds of trees and the companies that sell them claim they will plant trees to offset you carbon use for $25 there is no way that is possible. If you really believe in Global warming you should not be using enough energy to need carbon credits. Some people apparently like Al Gore are just not willing to make that sacrifice.
2007-03-09 09:00:48 · answer #3 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore has nothing to do with the science behind global warming, and he's not causing it singlehandedly. So he's unimportant.
Carbon credits are fundamentally a good idea. They let society reduce global warming in an effective way, based on the free market. Companies that can reduce greenhouse emissions cheaply do so. Companies that would be forced out of business if they had to reduce greenhouse gases can buy the credits instead.
It's a free market system. One that is supported by all the serious people in industry, government, and environmental protection.
2007-03-09 11:18:08 · answer #4 · answered by Bob 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes; the whole carbon credit industry is terrible. If somebody participates in an activity that creates an unnecessary amount of greenhouse emissions than it would make sense to address that issue. Rather, in the typical American fashion, we would rather shell out some money in order to neutralize our emissions by reducing/preventing carbon emissions elsewhere.
If Al Gore was VERY concerned he would reduce his emissions while still donating money to his local renewable energy source.
2007-03-09 09:03:41 · answer #5 · answered by justin_at_shr 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore let's out more hot air and methane than a herd of cattle.
2007-03-09 11:46:04 · answer #6 · answered by the_skipper_also 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Don't worry about it,methane is a very light gas and this high in our atmosphere. How did the environmentalist measure it . They didn't. I have more news they have lost that great lake of methane in the upper atmosphere,where did it go??
2007-03-09 09:56:03 · answer #7 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If a utility bill is the worst you "enviormentalist captains for truth" can come up with against Gore than you are scratching at straws and are completely laughable.
2007-03-09 09:00:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋