Chilling truth about ‘global warming’ hypocrisy

WorldNet Daily | Sep 10, 2007

Over the weekend, I saw a photo of Al Gore de-boarding a private jet. Gore was no doubt on his way to an emergency meeting on what can be done about the carbon emissions of everybody except Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, Bette “Chainsaw” Midler and all others who have earned the right to be environmentally hypocritical.

Leading the pack in ecopocrisy are some of Gore’s biggest supporters, the television and film industry. Hollywood is the second largest polluter in the state of California. This industry is, oddly enough, from where the most environmental finger-pointing originates, and they are being pressured to either reduce their emissions and/or buy carbon offsets. Recently it was announced that the program “24″ will aim to be a “carbon neutral” production.

In reality, the most obvious solution to creating a carbon-neutral production is simple: Shut down production. This option is off the table, so what to do?

Being “carbon neutral” is now the designer jeans of wealthy, liberal self-proclaimed environmentalists who don’t want to stop their energy gluttony but also don’t want to appear to be harmful to the environment. This is where “carbon credits” come into play.

The notion of carbon credits is an offshoot of the “zero sum game” theory that is quite popular among certain economists and chess players. It’s quite often a theory used to cast guilt and shame upon somebody who makes money – allegedly at the expense of others. Zero-sum game theory implies that, for every dollar you make, somebody had to lose a dollar. There hasn’t been a more bogus economic theory since Bill Clinton’s answer to a businessman’s concerns over high taxes was to “just raise your price.”

Imagine you’re playing a zero-sum baseball game and the score is 4-4. Your team scores a run, so the other team loses a run, making the score 5-3. If you score another run, the score would be 6-2. The good news for the team with two is that by applying “zero-sum game,” even though they’re down by four, they’ll only have to score two runs to tie the game. Make sense? We find as we go through life that those who embrace the zero-sum game theory are usually the ones who are behind, in this case, trailing big time in the game of environmental friendliness.

But there’s something wrong, and also telling, about the above example. In a zero-sum game, the score could never be tied at four. True equality can only be attained if everybody (except the game’s “managers” such as Al Gore) has zero. Anything more or less for any party involved means the other sinks into negative-number oblivion.

Why do energy gluttons enjoy zero-sum games? If we apply the above baseball metaphor to carbon credits, the person who burns more energy in his or her life than the average person can tie, or “neutralize” the game, in this case via carbon credits, for far less than it took them to get down that much in the first place.

The unspeakable fact of the matter is that if Al Gore didn’t have a heated pool, there would be that much less energy burned. Period. Al Gore produces nothing – the sum of zero, if you will. If all his famous energy consumption went toward producing, say, wheat, his offset would be fed human beings. When his energy consumption goes toward ensuring his pool guests don’t get shrinkage when they dive in, the only way to offset this would be to turn off the heater and sentence swimmers to cringing in the cool water. Anything else is kidding himself and everybody else, which is what much of the “global warming” theory is based upon.

How come it seems that carbon credits never work the other way around? Can you write to Al Gore and tell him to turn off his air conditioning so you can mow your lawn today? Of course not. Offsetting Al Gore’s carbon emissions is your responsibility as a global citizen. Asking Al Gore to offset yours is… proof-positive you need to cut back on energy consumption.

The global warming movement as built by Al Gore believes that every gainer must have a loser, and what are the odds that Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio have any intention of being the latter?

Hopefully one day somebody will calculate how much carbon per year is spewed into the atmosphere by the smoke that accompanies the mirrors.