TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The "Goracle"
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Rather it makes no sense for a non-profit company to trade publicly because investors SEEK profit.

AHHHH! when will this mad, crazy merry-go-round ever end?!

non-profits cannot trade publicly, because they're non-profits. i just mentioned the DOW to solidify that. i apologize for the confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Nobody would want to buy something that has no way of enhancing shareholder value. Not to mention the costs of being a public company and complying with Sarbox, etc is a cost I'd imagine no sane non-profit would want to deal with.

the idea is not to enhance shareholder value, rather to do something that the government considers a good cause, but not good enough to budget for. that is why there is 501(c)(3) designations. it provides individual members of society, corporations, and foundations an opportunity to contribute to causes that they feel are worthy while receiving breaks from their taxes. Because of the tax benefits for said donations, there is a very stringent criteria on how these companies are set up and run.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka However, that doesn't mean unethical behavior magically becomes ethical by virtue of not having a shareholder base.

there's no magic involved. one just has to acknowledge that there is no unethical behavior to begin with.

Hey--I wasn't refuting you, I was just throwing in another viewpoint on why it wouldn't make sense. I probably should've just said nothing. No craziness here.

it's all good.

i'm just flabbergasted that with all the digging for dirt on Gore there has only been two revelations:

1. Gore uses airplanes to travel

2. Gore has a high electricity bill

in my book, that makes him pretty damn clean.

I just couldn't sit back and listen to creationist arguments on non-existent earnings from a non-existent source of non-existent revenue.

now, if we weren't speaking of 10Ks of dollars to an American based non-profit that gives no dividends and were, per say, speaking of a 16 billion dollar no-bid contract to a now Arab-Emirates based for-profit corporation that gives 10s of millions of dollars in yearly dividends to the giver of said contracts...we could have an ethics discussion.

hey, here's a little joke to lighten up the room.

what's the difference between Michael Jackson and Halliburton?

Micheal Jackson only fucked a handful of Americans before moving to the middle east.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag it's all good. i'm just flabbergasted that with all the digging for dirt on Gore there has only been two revelations: 1. Gore uses airplanes to travel 2. Gore has a high electricity bill in my book, that makes him pretty damn clean.

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment but it's been addressed ad nauseum already so I'm not going to write anything lengthy.

quote:

now, if we weren't speaking of 10Ks of dollars to an American based non-profit that gives no dividends and were, per say, speaking of a 16 billion dollar no-bid contract to a now Arab-Emirates based for-profit corporation that gives 10s of millions of dollars in yearly dividends to the giver of said contracts...we could have an ethics discussion.

This is all a sideshow to the larger discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag hey, here's a little joke to lighten up the room. what's the difference between Michael Jackson and Halliburton? Micheal Jackson only fucked a handful of Americans before moving to the middle east.

A variation on a classic. MJ gets no love.

What's the difference between Michael Jackson and Neil Armstrong?

Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon--Michael Jackson likes to fuck little boys in the ass.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka A variation on a classic. MJ gets no love. What's the difference between Michael Jackson and Neil Armstrong? Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon--Michael Jackson likes to fuck little boys in the ass.

lol

What's the difference between Michael Jackson and a grocery bag?

One's made of plastic and dangerous for small children--the other's a grocery bag.



Why does MJ love twenty eight year olds?

Jeez, there's twenty of them!

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag we're still a little confused on the definition of a NON-profit. the board cannot financially gain from contributing to the company. although the boards (in most non-profits) are the main source of revenue for maintaining operating costs for the the companies. ie. the only people that can profit from non-profits are the staff. of course, there are tax advantages to contributing to 501 (c) (3)s, but he could get the exact same benefits contributing to his church or the boy scouts. there's nothing shady about that at all. that's why the tax codes are written that way.

So you think he's sitting on that board getting nothing?
It's tantamount to The United Way top exec getting a 6 figure income; one of the reasons I don't support United Way.

You're right, there are many non-profits out there and if he was honest in his intentions, then he wouldn't need to choose a company he happens to represent.

I don't disagree that it isn't a dubious business move on his end, because it's a great tax write off for him in the end.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag Why does MJ love twenty eight year olds? Jeez, there's twenty of them!

I heard this one the other day....is it wrong to laugh?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So you think he's sitting on that board getting nothing? It's tantamount to The United Way top exec getting a 6 figure income; one of the reasons I don't support United Way. You're right, there are many non-profits out there and if he was honest in his intentions, then he wouldn't need to choose a company he happens to represent. I don't disagree that it isn't a dubious business move on his end, because it's a great tax write off for him in the end.

yep, top execs can receive as much a $500,000/year salary.

but

Chairmen and top execs are not the same person. Execs are employees, chairmen serve the board of trustees. there's nothing dishonest supporting a company that you serve as a board member and every non-profit in the country has board members that do just that. no organization can survive on foundation grants alone.

tax write-off? i'd rather support a worthy cause than Halliburton and our Iraq debacle. everyone in the states that makes a notable amount of money makes charitable donations and receives tax write-offs. it's like a unwritten rule. the government always gets their share in the end.

you can't vilify one person just because he serves on the board of an organization he supports.

btw, United Way is the largest service foundation in the US. every company deserves good leadership and you can't get that from the private sector by promising 5 digits. the board of trustees decided that it is in the best interest of the company to hire someone with that price tag to manage the organization. i doubt you have a problem with corporate CEOs earning 9 digits, so why should 6 bother you now.

i guarantee that the red cross has the same pay scale. as do hospitals, universities and the 700 club.

i guess to answer your first question. yes, he sits on that board and receives nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r You're right, there are many non-profits out there and if he was honest in his intentions, then he wouldn't need to choose a company he happens to represent.

Are they all identical? Don't you think that if he picked one to help chair, he'd pick the same organization to give his credits to? Maybe because he has the most trust in something he has a hand in?

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag in a non-profit there are stakeholders (people who have a moral investment), not shareholders. regardless how the company does, the board of directors do not receive any stock dividends because NON-PROFITS DO NOT HAVE STOCKS!!! you will not find this company on the DOW or NASDAQ.

i suppose you're right. although if he had interest in the companies his firm invests in there would be some tangental argument for being sheltered, who knows. who cares. and when i say tax scam i didn't mean any impropriety, just dubiousness.

hopefully, when Cheney donates his Halliburton option's profits to charity when they are exercised maybe you'll sleep better at night?

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Are they all identical? Don't you think that if he picked one to help chair, he'd pick the same organization to give his credits to? Maybe because he has the most trust in something he has a hand in?

And therein lies the point; are there ethical/legal bounds crossed here in this instance.

I understand that sure, he'd want to prop a company he knows or represents, who wouldn't?
But people of political persuasion are not allowed that luxury, that's why they have laws against it.
Even if he did as a favor to friends, it's still cronyism.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka He claims it is a major crisis, not I. I wonder if he even knows what he's talking about, or if he simply invented a new kind of environmentalism. I don't know about you guys, but I think Web 2.0 is pretty sweet. I'm sending Alie a thank you note now. Man, it's almost soothing.

Hmmm so Gore claims global warming is a major crisis and proposes using alternative energies to reduce this threat, despite him engaging in carbon consumption, he's spreading "fear tactics". Meanwhile Bush has been expressing how US dependency on middle eastern oil is a major crisis, furthermore he has proposed numerous alternative energies to reduce this threat, yet he's NOT spreading fear tactics despite his policies allowing the US to embrace its dependancy on the consumption of middle eastern oil. Yes ... I see what you did there.

quote:

You and Opus have been pulling this strawman throughout this thread. Who on the other side of this argument has explicitly called for anyting like radical environmentalism. All I've said about the matter is that if Gore really wanted to make his point then taking more radical steps would greatly enhance his cause. However, I can't recall anyone saying he should take a pogo stick to work. However, Al has CERTAINLY suggested people change their lifestyles (as any well intentioned environmentalist should). That is near the heart of the entire issue.

Haha huh? No my friend, this strawman was fully instigated by you. My original post only called for responsible carbon neutrality. You said that you had a better carbon footprint than Gore without calculating (or understanding?) what your carbon footprint was prompting me to tell you that Gore's carbon footprint was zero (have you calculated yours?). Then you got off the argument of carbon footprints and started talking about absolute carbon consumption in order to criticize Gore's carbon consumption despite Gore's compensatory environmental offsets. Clearly the intent was to hold Gore to a standard beyond what Gore himself was advocating. Give me a break, your arguments merely pertained to the "effectiveness" of Gore's message based on his carbon consumption??? It would appear that you had "strawman" expectations, according to your own words, for Gore as an environemental spokesman that surpassed what Opus or I ever expected.

Are you sure you want to continue advocating my endoresement of a strawman argument?

this is all making the spectacular assumption that compensatory environmental offsets do, indeed, work.

i mean, good faith in action is one thing but there's the whole of humanity at stake

but back on The Goracle's "moral obligations"

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r And therein lies the point; are there ethical/legal bounds crossed here in this instance. I understand that sure, he'd want to prop a company he knows or represents, who wouldn't? But people of political persuasion are not allowed that luxury, that's why they have laws against it. Even if he did as a favor to friends, it's still cronyism.

there's no legislative benefits happening here.

he's giving his own money, please explain how that is cronyism. i'd hate to think that there is some skewed definition of that word floating around in the stratosphere that only applies to the activities of Al Gore.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag there's no legislative benefits happening here. he's giving his own money, please explain how that is cronyism. i'd hate to think that there is some skewed definition of that word floating around in the stratosphere that only applies to the activities of Al Gore.

It's called political ethics and it applys quite aptly here no?
You're are correct, it's HIS political money HE'S spending on a company where HE sits on their board.
Cronyism doesn't get much simpler than that even by definition regardless if it 'happens' to be Gore.
He's fitting the role perfectly.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hmmm so Gore claims global warming is a major crisis and proposes using alternative energies to reduce this threat, despite him engaging in carbon consumption, he's spreading "fear tactics".

Gore tells people they need to use less energy to stop hurting the environment. Meanwhile, Al uses a shitload of energy while enriching a hedge fund that he chairs. According to the fund's own website, they only donate 5% of their profits to the Generation Foundation (the 501(c)3) for global sustainability initiatives. WOW! 5% of profits! What do they do with the rest of their 20% annual performance bonus (assuming they actually made profitable investments)? What about the 2% management fee? They don't disclose their performance track record so I can't quantify how much they've actually contributed towards their causes of choice, but needless to say, 95% of their profits are explicity NOT earmarked for this purpose. Convincing. This fund most certainly is a for-profit company. If you look at their holdings, they're nothing more than a plain-vanilla, long-only hedge fund. A look at their holdings reveals that there's nothing special about what these guys do other than sell vouchers to people in order to take in their money to earn a profit. Environmental concerns are secondary, if not tertiary concerns. Make no mistake, Alie profits handsomely when his fund makes money.

quote:

Generation's founders have contributed a total of "double-digit" millions of dollars to the startup according to the Financial Times. In addition to Messrs. Gore and Blood, the founders include former Goldman Sachs executives Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris as well as Colin le Duc, former director of research for Sustainable Asset Management (SAM), a Zurich-based sustainability investment firm.

Nothing special here. Hell, they barely even touch alternative energy stocks! Why aren't they investing in Evergreen Solar? Ballard Power? Calgon Carbon? ADE-ES? or any other companies that genuinely address the problem? The most eco-responsible company in their portfolio that I see is Whole Foods who recently said they were going to switch to wind-based power. But Whole Foods is also in the portfolios of god knows how many other funds? It's just a more eco-responsible growth company. Yay! I'm convinced more than ever that these guys are really making a difference!

quote:

AFLAC INC AQUANTIVE INC AUTODESK INC BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC GENERAL ELECTRIC CO GREENHILL & CO INC JOHNSON CTLS INC LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS METABOLIX INC NORTHERN TR CORP NUVEEN INVTS INC STAPLES INC SYSCO CORP TECHNE CORP UBS AG VCA ANTECH INC WATERS CORP WHOLE FOODS MKT INC

Let's look at the Fund's mission statement:

quote:

* Deliver superior investment performance by taking a long-term investment view and integrating sustainability research within a rigorous fundamental equity analysis framework * Create long-term client partnerships by delivering unique investment insights and exceptional client service * Attract, retain and develop the best professionals within a passionate investment culture through a commitment to Our Values

Nope, no mention of improving the environment as a mission of the fund. Leave that to the foundation that gets the crumbs while the partners make off like bandits.

quote:

Meanwhile Bush has been expressing how US dependency on middle eastern oil is a major crisis, furthermore he has proposed numerous alternative energies to reduce this threat, yet he's NOT spreading fear tactics despite his policies allowing the US to embrace its dependancy on the consumption of middle eastern oil. Yes ... I see what you did there.

Bush is certainly using fear to spread his message, though it seems to be much more well-founded on facts(much of our energy supply comes from locales that are hostile to our intersts) and general supply/demand (peak oil) than the still controversial and contentiuos matter of global warming. And I don't see Bush enriching his own fund by selling meaningless pieces of paper as salvation for excessive power consumption. Ergo, you're comparing apples to oranges and sidestepping the issue of Al Gore once again.

quote:

It�s as if Gandhi had been photographed inside his ashram wearing spats and a waistcoat and sipping Boodles gin. From now on all the little gestures - riding in the hybrid limo, having the private jet pilot sign the carbon offset certificate, and for all we know, touring the North American continent in a solar-powered blimp - are going to look just the slightest bit hollow.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009730

quote:

The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset "is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases." . . . But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management: Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . . Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management--he buys stocks. . . . Meanwhile, Gore runs around the country and the world trumpeting "climate crisis" and blaming man's use of carbon-based energy--burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts have served to put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda, driving up the value of the stocks and companies viewed as "green" or environmentally friendly. Companies like those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples' [sic] money in. (You can see a list of Generation Investment Management's holdings here, courtesy of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.) Another Volunteer State blogger, Bob Krumm, looks at Gore's demands for the suppression of dissent. Yesterday's Tennessean reported on a speech the erstwhile veep gave in Murfreesboro: "I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly--and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen . . . balance as bias. "I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe. "I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced." Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event. Krumm notes that Gore was complaining as early as 1992 about excessive balance in the media. Yet in a speech at the October 2005 We Media Conference, Gore seemed to urge government-mandated balance, at least on other topics: As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free." As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S.--including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine--though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves. Gore is mistaken on two out of three points: Although the Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine (which regulated the presentation of "controversial issues of public importance") in 1987, the Public Interest Standard (which is part of the law that created the FCC) and the Equal Time Provision (which applies to political candidates) remain in force. So, let's sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies. Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this? Why aren't the mainstream media all over the story? Could it be . . . bias?

quote:

Haha huh? No my friend, this strawman was fully instigated by you. My original post only called for responsible carbon neutrality. You said that you had a better carbon footprint than Gore without calculating (or understanding?) what your carbon footprint was prompting me to tell you that Gore's carbon footprint was zero (have you calculated yours?).

Wrong again. On page 2, you were the very first respondant to suggest this despite the fact that nobody had explicity claimed that was what he was suggesting:

quote:

originally posted by Occrider He's not advocating that people should be living naked in the forest engaging in tree huggery with no electricity, cars, or meat folks.

In the very next post, Opus said this, despite the fact that neither I nor anyone else other than yourself had explicity suggested it:

quote:

originally posted by Opus Like Occ mentioned, what would you have him do? I'd love to have a fellow bretheren huggin' trees with me in my little forest, and of course Gore is more than welcome in my hippy librul wonderland,

Sorry, I never suggested he do that. I merely suggested he not using an overabundance of energy while telling the rest of us that we need to cut back and use less ourselves. A couple of posts later you said this, despite my not explicity suggesting anything of the sort Your use of hyperbole to try and make a point is the crux of your strawman.

quote:

Gore isn't advocating that people live in trees and give up modern technology because it pollutes.

Right. I never said he was.

quote:

Gore is advocating that people try to attain carbon neutrality by investing in green technology that absorbs the carbon proportionate to what you "spend" in carbon.

Right. Achieve mythical "carbon neutrality". This is a buzzword that is meant to be used as a rationalization for overconsumption. It does NOT address the problem as the CRISIS Gore claims it to be, rather it allows people to sleep well at night knowing they have bought forgiveness for their sins in the eyes of some. Furthermore, I fail to see where Generation appears to be wholeheartedly "investing" in green technology when their portfolio speaks otherwise. Wow 5% of their profits goes to the foundation. That's good, but hardly anything earth shattering. Let's say they run a $5B fund (maybe it's a lot more maybe a lot less--I don't have the information handy). Just for back of the envelope kicks, let's say they have a good year and are up 15%. That means that the fund made $750M. Of that, a whopping $37.5M would go towards their global sustainability initiatives. No small sum to be sure and we should give them kudos for supporting a "good" cause, but don't forget that around $112.5M of those profits go right to the pockets of their general partner (represented by Messrs Blood and Gore). Yes, Gore stands to benefit quite nicely if his fund has a good year. Maybe he can buy Tipper new tits with all that cash. Forgive me if I'm a bit non-plused. It looks nice when you're talking about a big enough portfolio of assets, but at the end of the day, 5% is still 5%. They could certainly do a LOT more if they were geniunely so concerned about the environment, but at the end of the day they're just run-of-the mill investors running the equivalent of a high-end marketing scam.

quote:

Then you got off the argument of carbon footprints and started talking about absolute carbon consumption in order to criticize Gore's carbon consumption despite Gore's compensatory environmental offsets.

Well, you posed the question of gross vs. net that prompted that tangent.

quote:

Clearly the intent was to hold Gore to a standard beyond what Gore himself was advocating.

No. The intent is to hold Gore to the same standard that he is demanding from the rest of us. If we all consumed the same amount as Gore AND we all were "carbon neutral", what do you think the effect would be on the environment? Honestly? Aside from shutting down the grid and using up our energy reserves at an alarming rate while increasing the effects of global warming in the near-term. Can I get an answer as to how a "carbon credit" is actually calculated? Wikipedia says:

quote:

Carbon credits are a tradable permit scheme. They provide an efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving them a monetary value. A credit gives the owner the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide... Carbon credits create a market for reducing greenhouse emissions by giving a monetary value to the cost of polluting the air. This means that carbon becomes a cost of business and is seen like other inputs such as raw materials or labor.

Great. Putting a monetary value on something is fine, but that doesn't do a lick to curb the emissions that come from him lighting up his own persona Taj Mahal. This is all good theory, but get real.

quote:

It would appear that you had "strawman" expectations, according to your own words, for Gore as an environemental spokesman that surpassed what Opus or I ever expected.

Incorrect again. It was the two of you (maybe others) who claimed we/I were advocating he live in the trees and not consume anything. My side has advocated a much more moderate stance on overall use, while you have suggested that I am advocating extreme behavior. At the end of the day it is clear that there are those of us that see through his veil of bullshit and those that want to applaud him for being an environmental leader. The only positive thing that I can say about him in this context is that he has brought a lot of attention to a very contentious subject, though he is certainly not the first person to do so.

quote:

Are you sure you want to continue advocating my endoresement of a strawman argument?

Are you sure you want to continue endorsing one? Bottom line: Al Gore consumes an overabundance of energy which creates a large "carbon footprint." However, he is able to make that disappear by buying stocks with the hope of making a profit so he can give a pittance of his profits to a well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed foundation, likely enriching himself and his partners in the process.

Perhaps you can direct me to a website where I can calculate my own carbon footprint and then I'll know how much salvation I need to purchase.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It's called political ethics and it applys quite aptly here no? You're are correct, it's HIS political money HE'S spending on a company where HE sits on their board. Cronyism doesn't get much simpler than that even by definition regardless if it 'happens' to be Gore. He's fitting the role perfectly.

except it's not political money... and he's not in any political office (think way back to Nov. 2000...i'll give you a hint, the supreme court was involved).

and i think you're still confused as to how board members happen to be board members.

i'm too broke to serve on a board of TRUSTEES of any incorporated non-profit if you catch my drift. It's not cronyism in any size, shape or form. check any of the headlines from the white house for a proper example of that word.

i don't think it's possible to clarify this point any narrower, so i'll move on with my merry day

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag except it's not political money... and he's not in any political office (think way back to Nov. 2000...i'll give you a hint, the supreme court was involved). and i think you're still confused as to how board members happen to be board members. i'm too broke to serve on a board of TRUSTEES of any incorporated non-profit if you catch my drift. It's not cronyism in any size, shape or form. check any of the headlines from the white house for a proper example of that word. i don't think it's possible to clarify this point any narrower, so i'll move on with my merry day

You're right.
He doesn't hold any office and if anything, it's a morality call more than a legal one.
I still think it stinks since he does have political 'influence' even if he's technically not holding any office...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this is all making the spectacular assumption that compensatory environmental offsets do, indeed, work.

Exactly. And in addition to this, taking the "I can waste all the resources I want as long as I write a check" attitude gives him, for me at least, very little credibility as a spokesman for environmentalism.

Do you think PETA would hire a spokesman that says "I believe you can kill all the animals you want, as long as you buy a new one for every one you kill"? Yes, that person would have a neutral 'animal footprint', but it would still be completely contrary to PETAs core message.

Hey look--an inconvenient article just hit the presses courtesy of BusinessWeek:

quote:

Another Inconvenient Truth Behind the feel-good hype of carbon offsets, some of the deals don't deliver The organizers of the Academy Awards declare all their celebrity presenters to be "carbon-neutral." Vail Resorts Inc. (MTN ) in Colorado boasts that its chairlifts and lodges are "100% powered by wind." Seattle's municipal utility claims that its net contribution to global warming is zero. A growing number of organizations, corporations, cities, and individuals are seeking to protect the climate�or at least claim bragging rights for protecting the climate. Rather than take the arduous step of significantly cutting their own emissions of carbon dioxide, many in the ranks of the environmentally concerned are paying to have someone else curtail air pollution or develop "renewable" energy sources (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/1/07, "Ethanol: Too Much Hype�and Corn "). Carbon offsets, as the most common variety of these deals is known, have become one of the most widely promoted products marketed to checkbook environmentalists. Done carefully, offsets can have a positive effect and raise ecological awareness. But a close look at several transactions�including those involving the Oscar presenters, Vail Resorts, and the Seattle power company�reveals that some deals amount to little more than feel-good hype. When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates. One danger of largely symbolic deals is that they may divert attention and resources from more expensive and effective measures. The market for carbon offsets in the U.S. could be as high as $100 million, according to researchers' best guesses. That's up from next to nothing just a couple of years ago. One reason for this growth is that the U.S. remains one of the few industrialized countries that hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a global agreement setting emission limits by nation. In the absence of a mandatory national cap, some Americans have begun taking action on their own, but without widely recognized standards as to what constitutes a valid offset. As long as there are willing buyers and sellers, almost anything goes. "Right now it's a no-man's land out there," says Jennifer Martin of the nonprofit Center for Resource Solutions in San Francisco. Hollywood celebrated environmental activism at this year's Academy Awards, and not just by giving an Oscar to the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences promoted the show itself having "gone green," by means of a variety of initiatives. One element: Each performer and presenter received a glass statue representing the elimination of the amount of greenhouse gas associated with a celebrity lifestyle over the course of a year. The offsets were issued by TerraPass Inc., a two-year-old for-profit company in San Francisco that identifies climate-protection efforts and, for a fee, gives its customers the opportunity to buy a piece of the environmental action. Each Oscar favor represented 100,000 pounds of emission reductions drawn from TerraPass' portfolio of offset projects. One of the largest in its portfolio is a sprawling garbage dump outside of Springdale, Ark., from which TerraPass has purchased thousands of tons of gas reductions. The vast sloping mound of the Tontitown landfill rises near stands of bare-limbed hickory and oak trees, with the blue Ozark foothills in the background. The decomposing trash generates methane, a gas 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere, melting glaciers and raising ocean levels. Waste Management Inc., (WMI ) the huge garbage processor that operates the facility, tends nearly 90 wells dotting the trash mountain, each giving off a barely audible hiss as it sucks methane from the depths of the landfill and delivers the gas to a single towering flare. Once torched, the gas is released into the atmosphere as less-damaging co2. But company officials and Arkansas environmental regulators say Waste Management began to burn methane, and continues to do so, for reasons having nothing to do with TerraPass' offsets. 'ICING ON THE CAKE' Concerned that methane might be contaminating groundwater beneath the landfill, Waste Management first floated the idea for a gas-collection system in early 1999. Arkansas regulators urged the company to pursue this remedy. In 2001 the state increased its pressure by imposing a requirement for "corrective action" at the Tontitown facility. Waste Management promised to make the methane flare operational by late 2001. After probes subsequently detected methane levels exceeding allowable levels, Dennis John Burks, then chief of the Solid Waste Management Div. of the Arkansas Environmental Quality Dept., wrote to Waste Management on June 27, 2001, saying that the state "strongly urges WM to bring the newly installed Tontitown Landfill gas extraction system online as soon as possible." Asked about Waste Management's response, Gerald Delavan, a supervisor at the Arkansas environmental agency, says: "It started out as a voluntary effort" by the company. "But it ended up being guided by corrective action,'" imposed by the state. Wes Muir, a Waste Management spokesman, says: "We felt a gas collection system was the most effective way to deal with this.... It was a voluntary process." Regardless of who deserves credit for taking the initiative, one thing is clear: The methane system was launched long before any promise of carbon-offset sales. In other words, it appears that the main effects of the TerraPass offsets in this instance are to salve guilty celebrity consciences and provide Waste Management, a $13 billion company based in Houston, with some extra revenue. All six other project developers selling offsets to TerraPass that BusinessWeek was able to contact said they were pleased with the extra cash. But five of the six said the offsets hadn't played a significant role in their decision to cut emissions. "It's just icing on the cake," says Barry Edwards, director of utilities and engineering at Catawba County, N.C., which installed a system in 1998 to turn landfill gas into electricity to power 944 homes. "We would have done this project anyway." A big player in the growing industry of brokers and retailers marketing offsets, TerraPass was the brainchild of Karl Ulrich, a professor at the Wharton School. Ulrich, an environmentalist who bikes to work(finally somebody with some courage!), became concerned several years ago about the carbon dioxide emitted when he drove to his cabin in Vermont. In the fall of 2004 he gave one of his classes $5,000 and challenged students to create an affordable carbon-offset program. TerraPass, with a number of Wharton graduates as shareholders, has soared since then. The company now claims 42,500 customers. Tom Arnold, the 30-year-old former Ulrich student who runs the business, says TerraPass has already had a major impact by offsetting more than 117,000 tons of greenhouse gases. Ford Motor Co. (F ) and the travel Web site Expedia.com (EXPE ) collaborate with the offset-retailer to offer customers the option of neutralizing travel-related emissions for an added cost. TRICKLE DOWN Arnold concedes that TerraPass hadn't known until approached by BusinessWeek that concerns about groundwater contamination had led to the Tontitown methane project. TerraPass, he says, will now rethink how it evaluates such landfill gas-reduction efforts. But Arnold stands behind the legitimacy of offsets related to the Tontitown dump. He emphasizes that Waste Management acted voluntarily, and he praises an $800,000 upgrade to the methane system last year: "That's behavior consistent with somebody trying to enhance methane capture." He also warns against getting too bogged down in the intricacies of how particular offset projects were conceived. "Let's get the market working well," he says. "That will do a lot of greater good." As the offset market now works, intermediaries typically pocket a big portion of the money coming in. Consider two projects in the TerraPass portfolio that are run by dairy farmers in Princeton, Minn., and Lynden, Wash. Several years ago, the farmers had installed expensive equipment that uses methane from cow manure to generate electricity. In theory, the promise of offset income encourages farmers to invest in such equipment. TerraPass typically sells offsets for about $9 per ton of carbon dioxide, or the corresponding amount of methane. The company takes a cut of that $9, but won't say what the percentage is. A broker that introduced TerraPass to the dairy farmers also took a cut. In the end, the farmers say they each received less than $2 a ton out of the original $9. Darryl Vander Haak, the farmer in Washington, says he's happy with the $16,000 he earned last year from offset sales. But offsets didn't factor into his decision to start the methane venture, he adds. TerraPass' Arnold nevertheless maintains that "the [offset] prices out in the market now are changing behavior." The fees intermediaries collect cover costs such as auditing projects and marketing to buyers. "It's much like Starbucks (SBUX )," Arnold says. "What do you think Starbucks pays for a pound of coffee, and how does that translate into a $3.50 latte?" Seattle, the home of Starbucks, made an astounding announcement in 2005: Its municipal utility, Seattle City Light, had eliminated its contribution to global warming. The power company still annually spewed some 200,000 tons of greenhouse gases. But Seattle said it had negated every last ton by paying other organizations around the country to curtail their emissions. "We can power our city without toasting our planet," Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels declared. But as in the case of the Oscar presenters, the bulk of the pollution reductions for which Seattle paid would have happened regardless of its offset deal. The city's experience illustrates the difference between more expensive methods of cutting greenhouse gases close to home, vs. more far-flung deals with third parties. In 2000 the Seattle City Council imposed the long-term goal of Seattle City Light becoming carbon-neutral. At first the utility pursued local projects, such as one in 2003 with Seattle's municipal trucking department. The strategy was to convert 900 diesel vehicles to a more climate-friendly blend of fuel containing 20% biodiesel. The blend was expected to cost an additional 25 cents a gallon, so Seattle City Light agreed to chip in half of the difference. In exchange, the utility has taken credit for the relatively modest 700 to 1,400 tons of annual greenhouse-gas reduction the cleaner fuel allowed. This arrangement, which improved air quality in Seattle, wouldn't have occurred without the financial incentive provided by Seattle City Light. "Our approach initially was very strict," says Corinne Grande, a strategic adviser to the utility. "The project would only happen if the check came in the mail from us." But Seattle sought to offset hundreds of thousands of tons of gas a year. "We wanted offsets quickly, not offsets coming 10 or 20 years in the future," Grande says. City officials culled dozens of offers from various middlemen. Several factors drew attention to a DuPont (DD )project reducing emissions at a Louisville (Ky.) plant that manufactures the refrigerant Freon, Grande recalls. DuPont enjoyed a strong reputation for reducing greenhouse gases, and the Louisville plant provided the chance to buy in bulk. Seattle City Light purchased its largest block of offsets in 2005 from DuPont, for nearly $600,000. The 300,000 tons of co2 reductions were enough for Seattle to claim "net zero" emissions for its utility, with plenty left over for 2006. The price, at only $1.95 per ton, was tiny compared with that of the biodiesel venture, which ran as high as $220. NO DETAILS DuPont deserved to be rewarded for its climate efforts, says Grande, the adviser to Seattle City Light. The chemical company "took a chance on doing more than they needed to do," she adds. "We'd like to encourage the continued destruction of greenhouse gases." But Seattle's offset purchase didn't prompt the cleanup of the once-dirty Louisville plant. DuPont had begun researching improvements all the way back in 1995 and installed a more environmentally friendly system in 2000, five years before Seattle began paying DuPont. "We would have continued with these emissions reductions anyway," says Stephanie Jacobson, a DuPont spokeswoman. In a legal twist, Washington's state Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the Seattle utility lacks authority to use ratepayer money to fight global warming. The state legislature could counteract that decision, but meanwhile the future of Seattle's offset program is uncertain. The growing green marketplace offers an alternative to carbon offsets known as renewable energy certificates, or RECs. When RECs work properly, producers of wind-generated power and other "renewable" energy sell the certificates as a way of promoting the creation of additional renewable energy sources. One RECs buyer is Vail Resorts, which runs ski and vacation destinations in the West. Vail Resorts declares in marketing material that it is now "100% powered by wind." But this claim isn't literally correct. Vail Resorts contemplated building expensive mountaintop wind turbines to power its ski lifts and other operations. But instead it decided last year to enter a multiyear agreement to buy, for a fraction of the cost, RECs representing 152,000 megawatt hours of wind-generated electricity each year, equivalent to its annual use. "We're in the travel business," says Rob Katz, chief executive of Vail Resorts. "We're not in the electricity-generation business." He adds that even if his business obtains its power from a standard utility, which in the Rocky Mountains means relying mostly on coal, "we're helping to push forward development of new wind projects." Which new wind projects? Katz says he relies on a broker to select appropriate recipients. His broker, Renewable Choice Energy of Boulder, Colo., declines to identify any of the investments it makes on behalf of Vail Resorts or its scores of other clients. Neither party will discuss the price of the RECs. What Renewable Choice will say is that the RECs it buys and sells are confirmed by the Center for Resource Solutions, the San Francisco nonprofit, as representing power not counting toward any government mandate and coming from projects built since 1997. RECs related to more recently built projects are thought more likely to spark development of new projects. Still, this kind of secretiveness provokes skepticism. "If neither a seller of RECs nor the buyer will provide any details of how, exactly, their transaction is reducing carbon emissions, I would suspect it's vaporware," says Randy Udall, director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, an Aspen (Colo.) nonprofit that promotes renewable energy. Some developers go further, scoffing at the basic economics of RECs, most of which sell for $1 to $3 per megawatt hour�a small fraction of what wind projects can attract in federal tax incentives. Voluntary REC purchases "are pure corporate marketing and image management" for buyers, says Mike O'Sullivan, senior vice-president for development at Juno Beach (Fla.)-based fpl Energy (FPL ), the nation's largest developer of wind power. "The economics of our wind investments have to work without the green credits." More broadly, the proliferation of suspect RECs and offsets may persuade consumers and businesses that preventing climate change comes cheap, says Anja S. Kollmuss, outreach coordinator of the Tufts Climate Initiative, an advocacy group affiliated with Tufts University. "We cannot solve the climate crisis by buying offsets and claiming to be climate-neutral," she adds. "Nature does not fall for accounting schemes." By Ben Elgin

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Yes, that person would have a neutral 'animal footprint', but it would still be completely contrary to PETAs core message.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo hopefully, when Cheney donates his Halliburton option's profits to charity when they are exercised maybe you'll sleep better at night?

so long as it's not a charity that represents something that he supports

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag so long as it's not a charity that represents something that he supports

Hey now Mr....

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.