The Inconvenient Truth - Fear Mongering Al Gore Exposed!

Submitted by SadInAmerica on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 11:52pm.

The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." So says Al Gore. To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin." (Uh huh... Sighing... S.I.A.)

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he appears quite content to let it fall, if his conduct is any measure. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

As Gore lectures the world on excessive consumption, public records show that he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is also the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But there is no evidence, according to public records, that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

The world routinely ignores evidence that Gore may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore's followers realized how much their man stands to gain?

Gore's blueprint to save the planet moves the United States towards a command economy in which government regulators hold sway over what kinds and amounts of energy will be made available to the private sector. His principal regulatory tool is what's called carbon-credit trading. What Gore does not trumpet in his documentary is the fact that he is the chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM), which is really a broker for carbon credits. According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green.

All these are strangely reminiscent of the flak thrown palm oil's way by environmental NGO's such as Greenpeace, FOE, Wetlands and Mongabay. Astonishingly accusing palm oil of every environmental misdemeanor that they could dredge up, ranging from deforestation to threatening the habitat and extinction of the orang utan to global warming, raises the specter that these "environmental organizations" are really after the funds that such posturing will bring (perhaps from "big oil" lobbies or from the competing "oil-seed" lobbies such as the soy, rapeseed or sunflower lobbies).

Never mind that the scientific community is divided over what causes global warming, how bad it is and how to deal with it. These "environmental organizations" play Chicken Little to the media's applause, insisting that the world is warming dangerously and that palm oil is a leading cause.

Never mind too, that there is no concrete evidence that palm oil has caused deforestation, at least in Malaysia and certainly not on the scale to warrant such alarmist pronouncements.

Never mind also that these alarmist activism by Greenpeace, FOE, et al have led to a situation where a global food crisis is looming with food riots breaking out in the poorer parts of the world.

In the view of Deforestation Watch, responsible activism requires that the proponents of such activism consider the consequences of their actions. Deforestation Watch takes the view that, as things stand, Greenpeace, FOE and others of their ilk would be having the blood of the poor of this world on their hands, with their misguided and irresponsible actions against one of the most sustainable and productive oil seed crops in the world, vis a vis other oil seeds such as soy, rapeseed and sunflower. The final indictment and the inconvenient truth behind the actions of these "environmental organizations" against palm oil is the ultimate ulterior motive - money. What else is new?

Ross Spencer - June 21, 2008 - posted at

Tag this page!
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 11:52pm.


Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 07/09/2008 - 1:19pm

Ross Spencer I'm not quite sure what the link is here between Al Gore's campaigns and oil palm. For the record I am quite suspicious of the Gore camp, but also, surely the best way for environmentalism to go mainstream is for it to make money. If carbon pays, and it helps our strive for a sustainable planet, then so be it. Regardless of Gore's stance, to question the reasoning (and evidence) for acting for climate change is ridiculous - try questioning the climate scientists that have devoted the last 30 years of their lives into research on this. It's them we should be following, not Al Gore. Back to oil palm...perhaps Mr Spencer should take a walk across a plantation in Indonesia and investigate the environmental misdemeanors himself...not to mention the social problems that large-scale agriculture with immigrant labour causes. An academically peer-reviewed paper submitted to the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil - RSPO - (and soon to be published in a leading journal) reviews the impacts of oil palm plantations on biodiversity: there are 3 main messages. 1. Oil palm expansion is linked to deforestation in both Malaysia and Indonesia..fact..the question is how much, and the answer is that it depends on what land-cover data you use. Even Koh's study is flawed by using national FAO data but it's good for lower and upper bounds. 2. Oil palm plantations have lower biodiversity value compared to not only forest but *other plantation crops*! ie contrary to claims by the industry, fewer species are found in oil palm plantations than forest or other crop types, so the more they replace natural habitats, the greater the extinction threat to orangutans and the like. 3. There is a net loss of carbon when land is converted to plantation. Fact. This can take several decades to sequester following plantation establishment, so justifying vegetable oil as a biofuel for environmental reasons is fundamentally flawed! Whether we like it or not we all need palm oil. The point is that plantations replace forest with obvious and demonstrated repercussions for biodiversity and climate. The frustrating thing is that they don't need to, because there is enough degraded non-forest land available. The reason it's not used is because of money...most environmentalists are campaigning for improvements to the industry, not a boycott. So Mr Spencer should perhaps keep an eye on the palm oil companies before he attacks the environmentalists. Those companies signed up to the RSPO (currently around 40% of the industry) are the better parties, and even they are admitting their flaws (and you can read about his directly on the RSPO website!)...check out the other 60% - these are the ones growing an economic and much needed product, but producing it in a way that has unnecessary repercussions for the environment. Finally, it is absurd to claim that alarmist activism has led to a food crisis. We have a food crisis looming because productive agricultural land is being diverted to grow crops for biofuels, which, you will find, any sane environmentalist is against! The big environmentalists have their flaws, granted, but this is not one of them!

Nick Wilkinson (not verified) | Mon, 08/04/2008 - 12:04am

Anonymous is obviously connected to RSPO. I live near an oil palm plantation and I can vouch for the fact that most palm oil plantations abuts the rainforest. Take a drive or a walk in any plantation and inevitably, you'd come across the rainforest as these plantations sit cheek to jowl with the rainforest. To claim then of habitat destruction and extinction of any species is alarmism at its best and far fetched, to say the least. Heck, 65% of Malaysia (palm oil country) remains jungle! Spencer is right in dismissing the alarmist claims of these environmental (emphasis on the mental part of the word environmental)loonies. I do agree with Spencer's assessment that the global food crisis can be laid squarely on the laps of these green loonies as their activism against the opening of more palm oil plantations (or any food crop, for that matter) has contributed to the price spirals. It's all supply and demand and so far as I know, the bulk of palm oil production goes towards production of edible oils.

Cheech (not verified) | Sat, 06/21/2008 - 3:55pm

"Never mind too, that there is no concrete evidence that palm oil has caused deforestation, at least in Malaysia" Regardless on his points on global warming, this guy is taking us for a ride on this one. A paper based on Malaysan govt stats shows that oil palm plantations have caused significant deforestation in the country: Lian Pin Koh & David S. Wilcove. Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conservation Letters. May 2008