Intense article with so many links to follow, thank you. I vividly remember wishing the ticket was reversed at The Democratic Convention when Gore spoke. His words about the environment spoke to my heart. He published An Inconvenient Truth, I own a copy, but he caved in Florida to W which baffled and infuriated me. I would have to watch his Ted Talk to give a full opinion here, but if he didn't address overconsumption, population, the shortcomings of Biden's decisions and Degrowth, he fell woefully short. Here's to your growth, Chris. Keep working. Doing the same, I know how much time and energy goes into swimming upstream. My latest, at least a small victory for what's right. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/a-victory-for-a-clean-and-healthful
I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" when it came out. I thought it was good that such a high profile politician was speaking out on the climate. But the call to action at the end of the film left me disappointed and deeply uncomfortable. Some of the suggestions are good, others are problematic (the full list is below).
The film claims to be "a Carbon Neutral production", with "energy offset by NativeEnergy". It turns out that An Inconvenient Truth gave US$496.80 to NativeEnergy. One of the projects that the money went to was a Pennsylvania dairy farm that captured and burned the methane emitted from its cow manure. NativeEnergy argued that the project "would likely not happen" without the carbon finance. But the farm's co-owner told Mother Jones that they would have built the digester anyway because they wanted to use it to generate electricity and to reduce the smell.
"[I]n the mini-controversy surrounding An Inconvenient Truth‘s carbon footprint lies a cautionary tale about how hard it is to tell good offsets from bad in an industry with rapidly rising stakes. The best of these swaps reduce greenhouse gas emissions without environmental or social costs; the worst have been compared to medieval indulgences—absolving environmental sins with little more than feel-good marketing. The sometimes fuzzy line between the two is becoming evident as the carbon-offset market is poised for a potentially lucrative boom, with myriad new players lining up for a piece of the green."
A paper (https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.08.002) published in 2010 found that, "in the two months following the film’s release, zip codes within a 10-mile radius of a zip code where the film was shown experienced a 50 percent relative increase in the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets."
The point of the paper was to demonstrate how effective the film was at raising awareness about the climate crisis. Unfortunately, of course, buying carbon offsets is the exact opposition of taking meaningful action to address the climate crisis. In any case, the paper found that "There is, however, little evidence that individuals who purchased an offset due to the film purchased them again a year later."
Ah, my favourite sport - tearing up Granfalloons! (such as Al Gore)
There’s another in Vermont who should suffer a similar fate. These people have totally closed minds and exist in their own clique or social bubble and cannot countenance another idea regardless of how good. See, if you write a Book, printed on paper, you are a demi-god while if you only write online, you are less than scum.
Yes, as the representative of the US govt, Gore had no choice (?) but to gut the Kyoto agreement so that it would be essentially worthless (or less). Then apparently he got a guilt complex from that and set about to produce the “Inconvenient Truth.” I actually spent money to see that turkey in a theatre, only to be disappointed by the pathetic string of “wedges” at the finale. Similar to the film’s ending is Gore’s chart presented here on dark background: “We need more…” Like Chris states above this, no mention of “over-consumption, capitalism, extractivism or neo-colonialism.” Because, instead of all the “Mores” of Al Gore, we need LESS of everything! People in the rich North consume on average 30x the energy of world average per capita. As well, people say, we need to cut emissions by 50% by (whatever) year. So what’s the problem - if we cut emissions by 50% we are still 15x world average energy consumption, so still have a long way to go. We need LESS of everything - less energy used, less cars, no flying, less consumption of “toys,” and zero expenditure on relieving human boredom!
And then after making the movie, Gore CO2-ed around the world presenting it!
As we know, World Bank and IMF are back-handed policy instruments of the US. And remember, regarding lobbyists, what John Dewey said in 1905: “Politics is the shadow cast upon society by big business.”
Dr. James Hansen: "Political leaders at the United Nations COP (Conference of the Parties) meetings give the impression that progress is being made and it is still feasible to limit global warming to as little as 1.5°C. That is pure, unadulterated, hogwash, as exposed by minimal understanding of Fig. 6 here and Fig. 27 in reference 6."
Thank you for this excellent (large) bit of journalism! Well done!
Gore's history with respect to the Kyoto agreement--pushing the EU away from a carbon tax into cap and trade and the fatally flawed Clean Development Mechanism--is past. The lesson learned is the the 83% failure rate of the CDM (EU program evaluation) is ignored and that Article 6 mirrors the CDM.
What would be useful to understand is how John Kerry inherited Gore's soft spot for promotion of voluntary carbon offsets. Kerry introduced the Energy Transition Accelerator where U.S. industries would transfer funds to finance emerging economies renewable energy development and take credit for the "reduction." It appears to be voluntary carbon offsets on steroids. Partnering with the Rockefeller Foundation, an early creator of forest carbon offsets, is telling.
Thanks for this - you're write that Gore's record and the Kyoto Protocol itself are in the past. And you're right that Article 6 is pretty much a rebranding of the CDM (with a few tweaks thrown in there). I'd still love to hear Gore apologise (or even acknowledge) what he did back in 1997.
Complete with "lead coordination" by Environmental Defense Fund - one of the oil industry's favourite BINGOs - and it's yet another way of promoting offsetting:
"As envisioned, the ETA will support country-driven energy transition strategies through a high-integrity voluntary carbon market framework that will generate carbon credits representing verified greenhouse gas emissions reductions and make them available to qualified private sector and sovereign government buyers."
Intense article with so many links to follow, thank you. I vividly remember wishing the ticket was reversed at The Democratic Convention when Gore spoke. His words about the environment spoke to my heart. He published An Inconvenient Truth, I own a copy, but he caved in Florida to W which baffled and infuriated me. I would have to watch his Ted Talk to give a full opinion here, but if he didn't address overconsumption, population, the shortcomings of Biden's decisions and Degrowth, he fell woefully short. Here's to your growth, Chris. Keep working. Doing the same, I know how much time and energy goes into swimming upstream. My latest, at least a small victory for what's right. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/a-victory-for-a-clean-and-healthful
A few more thoughts on all of this.... (If you want lots more on Al Gore, here's another post from three years ago: https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/planet-of-the-humans-part-1-blood)
I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" when it came out. I thought it was good that such a high profile politician was speaking out on the climate. But the call to action at the end of the film left me disappointed and deeply uncomfortable. Some of the suggestions are good, others are problematic (the full list is below).
The film claims to be "a Carbon Neutral production", with "energy offset by NativeEnergy". It turns out that An Inconvenient Truth gave US$496.80 to NativeEnergy. One of the projects that the money went to was a Pennsylvania dairy farm that captured and burned the methane emitted from its cow manure. NativeEnergy argued that the project "would likely not happen" without the carbon finance. But the farm's co-owner told Mother Jones that they would have built the digester anyway because they wanted to use it to generate electricity and to reduce the smell.
In the 2008 Mother Jones article (https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2008/07/turning-carbon-gold/), Josh Harkinson writes,
"[I]n the mini-controversy surrounding An Inconvenient Truth‘s carbon footprint lies a cautionary tale about how hard it is to tell good offsets from bad in an industry with rapidly rising stakes. The best of these swaps reduce greenhouse gas emissions without environmental or social costs; the worst have been compared to medieval indulgences—absolving environmental sins with little more than feel-good marketing. The sometimes fuzzy line between the two is becoming evident as the carbon-offset market is poised for a potentially lucrative boom, with myriad new players lining up for a piece of the green."
A paper (https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.08.002) published in 2010 found that, "in the two months following the film’s release, zip codes within a 10-mile radius of a zip code where the film was shown experienced a 50 percent relative increase in the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets."
The point of the paper was to demonstrate how effective the film was at raising awareness about the climate crisis. Unfortunately, of course, buying carbon offsets is the exact opposition of taking meaningful action to address the climate crisis. In any case, the paper found that "There is, however, little evidence that individuals who purchased an offset due to the film purchased them again a year later."
Here is the call to action in full (I found it here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX1iey3X57E):
"Weatherize your house, increase insulation, get an energy audit.
"Recycle.
"If you can, buy a hybrid car.
"When you can, walk or ride a bicycle.
"Where you can, use light rail and mass transit.
"Tell your parents not to ruin the world that you will live in. If you are a parent, join with your children to save the world they will live in.
"Switch to renewable sources of energy.
"Call your power company to see if they offer green energy. If they don't, ask them why not.
"Vote for leaders who pledge to solve this crisis. Write to congress, if they don't listen run for congress.
"Plant trees, lots of trees.
"Speak up in your community.
"Call radio shows and write newspapers.
"Insist that America freeze CO₂ emissions and join international efforts to stop global warming.
"Reduce our dependence on foreign oil; help farmers grow alcohol fuels.
"Raise fuel economy standards; require lower emissions from automobiles.
"If you believe in prayer, pray that people will find the strength to change. In the words of the old African proverb, when you pray, move your feet.
"Encourage everyone you know to see this movie.
"Learn as much as you can about the climate crisis. Then put your knowledge into action."
Ah, my favourite sport - tearing up Granfalloons! (such as Al Gore)
There’s another in Vermont who should suffer a similar fate. These people have totally closed minds and exist in their own clique or social bubble and cannot countenance another idea regardless of how good. See, if you write a Book, printed on paper, you are a demi-god while if you only write online, you are less than scum.
Yes, as the representative of the US govt, Gore had no choice (?) but to gut the Kyoto agreement so that it would be essentially worthless (or less). Then apparently he got a guilt complex from that and set about to produce the “Inconvenient Truth.” I actually spent money to see that turkey in a theatre, only to be disappointed by the pathetic string of “wedges” at the finale. Similar to the film’s ending is Gore’s chart presented here on dark background: “We need more…” Like Chris states above this, no mention of “over-consumption, capitalism, extractivism or neo-colonialism.” Because, instead of all the “Mores” of Al Gore, we need LESS of everything! People in the rich North consume on average 30x the energy of world average per capita. As well, people say, we need to cut emissions by 50% by (whatever) year. So what’s the problem - if we cut emissions by 50% we are still 15x world average energy consumption, so still have a long way to go. We need LESS of everything - less energy used, less cars, no flying, less consumption of “toys,” and zero expenditure on relieving human boredom!
And then after making the movie, Gore CO2-ed around the world presenting it!
As we know, World Bank and IMF are back-handed policy instruments of the US. And remember, regarding lobbyists, what John Dewey said in 1905: “Politics is the shadow cast upon society by big business.”
As for the COP meeting, is matters not a hoot whether fossil fuel industries can appear or vote, the whole enterprise is a scam. Here’s what Dr. James Hansen said in his latest post http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/UhOh.14August2023.pdf
Dr. James Hansen: "Political leaders at the United Nations COP (Conference of the Parties) meetings give the impression that progress is being made and it is still feasible to limit global warming to as little as 1.5°C. That is pure, unadulterated, hogwash, as exposed by minimal understanding of Fig. 6 here and Fig. 27 in reference 6."
Thank you for this excellent (large) bit of journalism! Well done!
Gore's history with respect to the Kyoto agreement--pushing the EU away from a carbon tax into cap and trade and the fatally flawed Clean Development Mechanism--is past. The lesson learned is the the 83% failure rate of the CDM (EU program evaluation) is ignored and that Article 6 mirrors the CDM.
What would be useful to understand is how John Kerry inherited Gore's soft spot for promotion of voluntary carbon offsets. Kerry introduced the Energy Transition Accelerator where U.S. industries would transfer funds to finance emerging economies renewable energy development and take credit for the "reduction." It appears to be voluntary carbon offsets on steroids. Partnering with the Rockefeller Foundation, an early creator of forest carbon offsets, is telling.
Thanks for this - you're write that Gore's record and the Kyoto Protocol itself are in the past. And you're right that Article 6 is pretty much a rebranding of the CDM (with a few tweaks thrown in there). I'd still love to hear Gore apologise (or even acknowledge) what he did back in 1997.
I haven't looked at the Energy Transition Accelerator - but I probably should do. At a first glance it looks horrific: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/u-s-state-department-bezos-earth-fund-and-rockefeller-foundation-announce-next-steps-on-energy-transition-accelerator/
Complete with "lead coordination" by Environmental Defense Fund - one of the oil industry's favourite BINGOs - and it's yet another way of promoting offsetting:
"As envisioned, the ETA will support country-driven energy transition strategies through a high-integrity voluntary carbon market framework that will generate carbon credits representing verified greenhouse gas emissions reductions and make them available to qualified private sector and sovereign government buyers."