digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

An Inconvenient Truth was made "carbon neutral" for $496.80

latimes.com — Co-producer Lesley Chilcott used an online calculator to estimate that shooting the film used 41.4 tons of carbon dioxide and paid a middleman, a company called Native Energy, $12 a ton, or $496.80, to broker a deal to cut greenhouse gases elsewhere. The film's distributors later made a similar payment to neutralize carbon dioxide from marketing.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -68/+133Carbon credits are nothing but a liberal scam that does nothing to decrease emissions. They only do this because they think it allows them to get away with being as bad as they want, because they can "buy" their way out of guilt.
    • reeder, on 10/10/2007, -51/+18Something tells me you don't believe in Global Warming.

      Or science, for that matter.
      • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -17/+41Maybe he doesn't believe in the myth of Anthropgenic Global Warming (AGW) or the political myth that paying taxes can stop the planet from expressing a warming trend in near-surface temperatures.

        Perhaps you don't believe in the effect of the Sun on the Earth's climate - or science for that matter.
      • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12No i just don't bow down before the all knowing Gorical. The Earth has been much warmer and the temp changes back and forth a lot. Here is the problem with global climate science today: If you run around saying that the sky is falling a lot of people throw money at you. That's great if your one of the people doing it but what about later when money is needed for real science, Some day money will be needed to research something that really will have an effect on the planet and no one will have any faith left in science.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Nicely put. Unfortunately science is a business more than a means for human advancement now.
        • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I really hate how Al Gore ***** up science, before Al Gore opened his mouth people generally didn't listen about the whole "global warming" thing going on, however we heard about it a bit in school, but it wasn't involved with politics, or know-it-all adults at the time. Now that politics got involved, everyone is a scientist, and it's suddenly not real. Awesome, way to make a mockery of science in the name of political gain.

          On the other hand, unless people are using it for political gain, people ignore scientists' outcries to make drastic improvement that we need or that would save us tons of money and be safer.
          • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Did you live under a rock prior to this movie?
    • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -23/+66a "liberal" scam? is that a scam applied liberally?

      yes... carbon credits are completely silly and do nothing to stop the pollution that accompanies C02 emmissions, but whatever political point you're trying to make is seriously lacking in substance...
      • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -28/+16The concept of AGW is supported on a broad-consensus basis by the liberal-left. That includes by way of precise definition, the US Democrats, the UK Labour and Liberal-Democrat parties. Also the UK Conservative party who although reputedly right-wing are doing as good an impersonation of Blairism by way of Cameron as they possibly can. The ideology (for that is what it is) is supported to an embarrasingly high degree by leftist-liberal media organisations such as the BBC. The BBC let it be know for Americans who fail to keep up with events, have recently been taken to task for their blatant bias and it wouldn't take you long scouring Google to find plenty of sites dedicated to exposing the liberal-left leaning bias in the organisation Eric Blair (George Orwell) parodied as Big Brother in 1984 whilst he was employed by the British government as a media propagandist.

        The accusation of leftist-ideological support does not preclude the possibility that more rightist/monetarist/capitalist groups will not profit from these scams.

        AGW is an entirely spurious and populist phenomena which appears to be a useful and "convenient" enabler for social engineering desired by the more radical left the concept of underpins a potential and emerging financial scam to rival those like the British South Sea Bubble and Dutch Tulip Mania of previous centuries since people are trading, ;literally, on "hot-air futures".

        Of course if you're trapped within the left/right paradigm then you'll fail to understand how both sides of the political spectrum are controlled by BIG money and how, ultimately, big money always profits from the ensuing chaos.

        Try reading some history and check out how the same scams are repeated over and over...
        Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds - Charles McKay 1841
        http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macEx.html (online reading)

        Enough substance?
        • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I can't help but feel you could of added just a little more substance.
    • IEatBrains, on 10/10/2007, -10/+34Reminds me of the sale of indulgences >
      • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4Yeah science is no different than religion... scientists always makin' up stuff to be afraid of like cigarettes and trans fats.
        • mikerand, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Global warming is real, we need to understand it better and take better care of our planet. The global warming crowd HAS made it their religion and they behave that way.
        • hiikeeba, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Indulgences were a way to pay your way out of Hell. Carbon Credits are a way to pay your way out of leaving a carbon footprint. Sound the same to me. Perhaps you should read some history.
          • gamer_013, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Indulgences were a way for people to pay priests so their relatives would spend less time in "purgatory." If you go to hell, there's no way out. But people who didn't go to hell paid for their sins by spending time in "purgatory" (depending on how much and the severity of their sins). Priests sold indulgences to people to help fund the church and people bought indulgences because they didn't want their loved ones to spend so much time in "purgatory."

            Wow, I DID learn something from humanities class!
      • EnderWalcott, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Martin Luther would be so proud!
      • vagarach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Too true! In this case though, it's nothing more than something to tout, all for a paltry $500, chump change for its makers.
    • diggless, on 10/10/2007, -19/+15can you point me to specific flaws with the carbon crediting system?
      • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -13/+16The entire credit system falls down on the basis of false and unproven a-priori assumptions. Examining the system itself with the assumption that the fundamental basis for it is proven and sound is not logical.
        • diggless, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i am not assuming its proven and logical, this is why I asked the question. I want to know specifically why buying carbon credits is ineffectual.
      • fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Unlike snowball, who begins with the assumption of bias, here is a non-biased flaw of the system:
        - NO ENFORCEMENT of any kind, be it governmental, market-based, or society-based (i.e., shame). Without enforcement, the only people who participate are those who want to participate and who can also afford to participate.
        - NO SOURCE CONTROL. "Neutralizing" sources is all well and good, but eliminating the sources is the only way to actually accomplish anything. Otherwise, you'll simply waste money repeatedly addressing the symptoms. That's why all pollution control mechanisms focus on the *source* rather than on cleaning up the pollution (...and also because rain will clean up most particulate pollution anyway).
        But carbon credits do work...when they're implemented correctly:
        - LOCAL TRADING ONLY. It doesn't help to have the NW plant a billion trees to offset pollution in the South.
        - EMISSION CAPS: limits on emissions are necessary to make it worthwhile to upgrade technology or trade credits
        - ENFORCEMENT: must exist, and must be more expensive than compliance.
        • diggless, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1this is precisely what I was looking for. I am not sure why asking for flaws warrants digging down.

          i guess questioning is looked down upon. I am uncertain how else to learn if not asking questions.
        • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No matter where you plant a tree it will make a difference. the Earth is a big planet but it is still a cosed system so a tree in the south will filter the same amount of air as the same tree planted in China
      • 5urr3al5am, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2just another way for Politicians to take money... taxation without representation ... Its sad that some many people have fallen for this C02 boogie man
    • ryanwarnersteel, on 10/10/2007, -13/+24buried because conservative economists devised carbon credits to assist capitalist growth.
    • jestin, on 10/10/2007, -12/+13It's been my experience that carbon credits come from conservatives, not from liberals. Conservatives tend to think they can solve any problem by capitalizing off of it.
      • EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7If people like this are dumb enough to pay money per ton of CO2 they put out, then I have no problem with those who are making money from the suckers.
    • chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16He's right. When they stop flying round the world in a private jet then maybe I'll listen. hypocrites.
    • expatcatalyst, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Thank You! Well said.
    • TheRealPod, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7I believe in global warming, but I don't get this carbon neutral crap yet. So how do they calculate this number? Do they include the mileage of people driving in the make the movie? Do they include the shipping of the film to theaters?

      It's appauling to think that I can drive an H3 and feel good about it because I pay a "carbon credit". What if everyone in India and China would like to do the same thing? It would be okay right because they paid somebody to plant trees that die in the desert somewhere (which I'm sure nobody wants to really know about).
    • CDoug03, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I don't think they factored in all the burping and farting livestock that they ate during production.
    • GGreen420, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8How exactly is paying for your carbon usage and offsetting it with, say, planting trees bad? I understand that it may not be the ideal solutions, but is it bad? Would it be better to just keep moving forward and not bother trying to offset our emissions or associate some kind of cost to a businesses usage. Yes, it may allow some people to "buy their way out" of accountability and the exact formula may not be perfect... but isn't it better to do something rather than nothing? do we have the right to criticize people that are at least doing something, regardless if its for their conscience or the environment?
      • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Because offsetting doesn't actually solve the problem. If global warming was real, and if carbon dioxide is indeed causing it, then the ONLY solution is to not produce the stuff. Producing it and then paying for somebody else to "offset" it doesn't actually DO anything.
        • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Producing it and then paying for somebody else to "offset" it doesn't actually DO anything."
          Other than offsetting the carbon you produces, resulting in zero added carbon to the atmosphere. How exactly wrere you expecting to spin that into a negative?
        • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's just the problem: Carbon is still added to the atmosphere. You still produced the carbon, you just paid somebody else to "offset" it. In other words, you bought your "right to pollute" from somebody else who then doesn't necessarily have to do anything about it.
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Normally I barbecue twice a week. If I cut back to once a week I'll be carbon neutral because the CO2 I create will be offset by the CO2 I saved by not doing it twice.

        See the problem?
        • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4A better analogy is you pay your neighbor to stop barbecueing so you can barbecue twice as much.
    • wallyhartshorn, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3That's one thing I've noticed about many conservatives. They tend to view issues like the pollution and racism in terms of "guilt to be atoned for" or "sins to be forgiven" rather than in terms of "problems to be solved". Perhaps that's why they are so often opposed to trying to solve problems -- because they view it as an admission of guilt rather than as correcting a problem.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4What a scam. But I'm talking scam as in, "Global warming is not manmade" "Carbon Dioxide is not a greenhouse gas" type of scam. The type of scam that leads to a "Carbon Tax"
  • 0bamaclintobush, on 10/10/2007, -21/+6Fighting global warming is one of the most important issues out there. Gore did good by putting out the info, but this hardly seems like an effort for "carbon neutrality". Selling 50 dvds would have covered the money it took to supposedly erase the carbon footprint.
    • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So your problem is that offsetting carbon isn't expensive enough?
  • Mariasha, on 10/10/2007, -29/+13OMG!! Thats soooooo AMAZING!!!! I love you Al Gore!!!!!!

    (Just stop flying round on private jets, to raise awareness for "global warming")

    Al Gore = Gulfstream Environmentalist
    • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -15/+20Let me tell you a story:

      A Librarian walks up to a man who is talking loudly on his mobile phone and says "Please don't talk so loudly". Suddenly the mobile phone manufacturers jump up and say "THE LIBRARIAN WAS TALKING!!!! NO CREDIBILITY"

      Yeah ok.. It's not going to win any Pulitzer Prizes, but seriously, shut the ***** up about Al Gore being the antichrist for using the worlds flawed infrastructure to illustrate the fact that it is infact flawed...
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16Al Gore uses more energy to heat his swimming pool every year than the average joe uses all year. That is hardly whispering. If the guy was texting on his phone, and the librarian used a bullhorn, THEN your have an accurate analogy.
      • expatcatalyst, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Gore is nothing but the puppet of the left to chicken little us into voting to the left......not gonna happen
      • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Larry Craigs hypocrisies are front page news, Al Gores we're supposed to stfu about.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Our local weather man (Paul Douglas in MN) is the same way. He spews his GW crap on the news, telling ME to reduce MY lifestyle, when that ***** hypocrite just build himself a second mansion on Lake Minnetonka, in the western metro where all liberal elites live. I wonder what his carbon foot print is.
      • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What kind of weatherman has two mansions? I looked into getting a meteorology degree in high school and they make less than I do now with a computer science degree. That and the idea of some guy who's wrong most of the time getting paid that much money is rather sickening.
  • blitzer, on 10/10/2007, -18/+23The publicity machine keeps on churning..
    No kool-aid for me.. thanks...
  • Bricks, on 10/10/2007, -9/+86Green progress is inherently slow.
    Al Gore could avoid hypocrisy by whispering about global warming from a shack in the woods, but he wouldn't have any positive impact. Gestures like planting trees to combat the footprint you make are worthwhile ones. True sustainable living for tomorrow will require patience and planning today.
    Do I want to see the world become environmentally sustainable? Of course. Do I want car manufacturers to instantly cease production on SUVs and fire every person involved tomorrow? Hell no. Make a plan, set goals, and ween yourself off your old way of operating.

    • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -19/+11You're assuming propositions surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), its "cures" and propositions to "fix" these probelems can be defined as "green". Unfortunately whilst the focus is concentrated on some largely unproven and IMHO imaginary issues larger and more genuine "green" issues are being neglected.

      As for planting trees. Yep, they sequester CO2 during their existence but sooner or later all timber must decompose unless you have a plan to bury it in deep mines (oops, forget I mentioned that - some moron will probably try making money out of the idea).

      It is also unfortunate that most climate-change "deniers" (those who deny that climate change is natural) forget their childhood biology with diurnal respiratory cycles for plants and the fact that they as well as photosynthesis they also respire giving off huge amounts of CO2.

      Pollution from trees being considered a sufficient problem in a recent article for some twit to consider deforestation. I think you'll find where property speculators want to build on European land the polluting factor of forests will be stressed whilst simultaneously in other parts of the world the same politicians will be calling for reforestation to "save the planet". Doublethink at it's finest perhaps?.
      • consoneo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5"As for planting trees. Yep, they sequester CO2 during their existence but sooner or later all timber must decompose unless you have a plan to bury it in deep mines"

        To me it looks like you're saying trees capture CO2 and keep it for their lifetime, then release it all when they die...
        Uh, if so, I'd have to say you're horribly wrong and should have never typed as much as you did. Oh, and you need to look up photosynthesis.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's because apparently you can't read. He said that "sooner or later, all timber must decompose." Decomposition creates carbon dioxide.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I've been trying to sum up as much in so many global warming is going to kill us articles that lately, i've just begun calilng them commies. It gets my point off and adds humor in. I can't keep trying to educate a bunch of people that think Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant and that polar bears are in danger of going extinct when their population is exploding. These people are literally beyond help.

        And imagine. They're planning on adding a carbon tax when they already give off about 20-50% of your earnings in some cases to taxes and big gov. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned against. If you give a central government power enough, they'll tax 100% of everything you earn by hook or by crook. Global warming as a mechanism to destroy man, in todays already dangerous atmosphere just compounds the problems we already face and people can't seem to get a hold of the fact that they're not as rich as they once were.

        Comprehensive annual financial report anyone?
      • yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Uh, plants convert carbon dioxide into water and sugars. Sure, the timber must decompose, but where do you think it got that carbon in the first place? During the lifetime of the plant it will convert CO2 into H2O and sugar. The point here isn't to eliminate carbon from the environment long-term. Educate yourself on photosynthesis.
    • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7the planet is normally warmer and has not died yet.
      • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"normally" is a bad term, it has been hotter, isn't exactly it's median temperature though... and the problem is the estimations that due to high CO2 that the temperature will continue to rise, probably not in our lifetimes, and science needs to hurry up and accept that unless it's going to kill people in THIS lifetime, the public doesn't give a *****.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's not true, some of us care about what we're leaving for future generations (especially those of us who are currently being ***** out our asses by those damn baby boomers), but not all of us want to go ***** crazy to solve a problem we don't even fully agree on yet.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Commie.
      • visability, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dude, the cold war is over, you can stop that now
    • sgtpppr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, I guess this gives you something to spend your day doing. It's the latest hobby.
  • dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -17/+7In the 60's the Regan administration commission a study asking the question what problems would the united states face if it entered an age of peace. That might sound like a strange title but you have to understand the mindset that was behind the thinking. If there is not peace there is war. The commission basically looked at substitutes for war, and one was the threat of global warming, whether real or totally manufactured. By creating the problem of global warming, the powers that control the world could offer their solution, which is world government. It's not the scientists pushing the global warming movement, it's the politicians because it gives them more power and control over us. A tax on carbon is a tax on living, a tax on breathing. It's just totally insane.
    • mscf, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Also, the 60's saw the collapse of the USSR and the rise of hair metal. Rock on.
    • snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Ummm not quite. Reagan was placed in power by Rockefeller who, I understand, suggested that the report be commissioned. Few people could consider Reagan anything other than a glove-puppet for "big money" in a similar way to GWB. The report was largely rhetorical and given it's true origin it is no surprise that it found the conclusions which were required to advance World Government.

      The question is important when one realises that the entire cultural foundation of the United States is entirely predicated on an economy dominated by the Military-Industrial Complex. As Orwell (Eric Blair) pointed out in 1984 - war is waged to keep the very fabric of society intact. The risks considered in the report would have been the risks of peace to the MIC and the global money men who use it to parasite immense wealth off the backs of global human suffering.
    • heliox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Okay everybody, whats wrong with this statement?
      "In the 60's the Regan administration"
    • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd really rather be dumping millions into global warming research and green technology- even if it were a fake threat- than be dumping the same money or more into a war that is killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And I'm no eco-nut either, I just hate ***** useless wars that destroy our economy.
  • httpgeek, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Theodore Kaczynski = the only carbon neutral political activist.
    • Coolkid11, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You're kind of rigiht.
    • Dobby156, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8who could care less 1). water vaper is largest (worst) green house gas
      2). humans dont even produce 3% of earths C02
      3). when temps get higher CO2 in the ocean is released, not C02 causes warming
      see 'the great global warming swindal'
      • Bartboy919, on 10/10/2007, -7/+54). You are a tard.
      • turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2remember that time you got lied to and made a fool of yourself?
  • Digitalfilm43, on 10/10/2007, -25/+42Carbon credits are nonsensical, feel-good *****. I can't believe people are actually "buying" these things.
    • antoniuk, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9***** or not, it beats doing nothing like everyone is now. Only true carbon neutrality is reducing the population. I hear World Wars are good for that.

      So by my logic, war = environmentally friendly
      • EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That is a fallacy. Doing things blindly, disorderly and purely out of emotion can very easily cause more harm than good. Sometimes doing nothing until the situation is figured out is better.
        In this case, however, if these people want to give money to make themselves feel better about driving their cars, then fine by me. To me it is just like the magnetic bracelets that let you live forever. However, you say that doing "something" is better than nothing, but what you aren't considering is that the money could be going to other things such as disease research or the fight against poverty.
        • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not going to say anything about the global warming, but why can't the money go to both that and disease research and the fight against poverty? The world has more than enough money for all that. It's just all going into the military.
        • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not going to say anything about the global warming, but why can't the money go to both that and disease research and the fight against poverty? The world has more than enough money for all that. It's just all going into the military.
      • fmoliveira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Lets just live our lives normally. When the environment gets bad enough, people will die normally, and the population will auto-adjust.
    • crapmatic, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Why is it *****? I'm looking for someone to explain why it's *****. I went to Wikipedia to find criticisms on it but there weren't any written up.
      • EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Ok, ok, I got a good one for you.
        "Pay the church for your sins else ye suffer eternal damnation."
      • heliox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Wow...you went to Wiki !!!
        You leave no stone unturned. If Wiki doesn't say anything, then it doesn't exist!
        • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Wikipedia is obviously an unimpeachable source. Especially on hot-button topics.
      • nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's B.S. because its a just a cheap way for the rich to be able to be hypocritical and not look like it. If Gore really cared about the environment he would not do the things that cause him to have to buy the carbon credits in the first place. Sure it's better than nothing but really it's not as good as it could be.

        Plus how well does this carbon credit thing work? does the tree reduce the carbon over its lifespan of the next 100 years? cause if so that does us no real good now. And is it guaranteed these trees won't be chopped down in 5 or 10 years? rather than being part of the problem and then trying to offset it later why not just avoid being part of the problem in the first place? Wheres your solar powered roof on your home mr. Gore? Where are your wind mills? why are you flying in private jets rather than driving a biodiesel fueled bus? a bunch of stinking hypocrites.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is the way I see carbon credits:
        Something is determined to be bad. Let's say, murdering people. The solution is to make a law that says it's not okay to murder people, but instead, they just choose to tax it. So now, someone comes along and kills 10 people, but it's okay as long as he has enough money to pay some arbitrary amount for each person he's killed.
        I'm not saying that CO2 is anything at all like killing a person, and that fact actually makes carbon credits seem even more absurd to me. The entire notion of these things is "You don't like what I'm doing, so here's some money to keep you happy." It makes absolutely NO sense.
        Oh, and the people who will inevitably do the bulk of this credit buying are huge corporations with tons of money that can afford to just throw it at their problems instead of cleaning up their act, so it surely won't be a deterrent. Besides, why spend the money to clean up when you can just pay some more taxes and then pass them onto the consumers?
    • jambarama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Kind of like recycling* - nonsensical, feel-good, but not actually better for anyone but recycling plants. Don't believe me? See Penn & Teller's episode on recycling.

      * Aluminum and sometimes glass are exceptions
  • TheLoneWolf071, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Instead of putting it to DVD, which they have to Pump out 2,000,000 copies to try and raise money for it, why not make it a free podcast? It would save money on DVD's, reduce the pollution they will create, and spread the word in a much better fashion.

    Look, I can tell you that people will never stop driving their SUV's until sulfur is reigning from the sky, and most people who preach about Global Warming on the TV and media are usually the people who are still doing a lot of damage. I think that instead of having all these people trying to fear monger people into changing their lives, we should work to find out solutions, Such as planting trees and cleaning up trash. How much carbon does one tree that we plant absorb? How many have we cut down for various purposes?
    • Economist35, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2obviously a podcast does not provide the same revenue as selling 2,000,000 copies of a dvd for what? I think it's selling for $9.99 retail right now, down from $19.99. I'm not debating whether global warming is real or not, but Gore (or Moore, or whomever is making documentaries) can't afford/isn't willing to give up the revenue just to throw the topic on the table. You can't share an opinion without funding.
      • nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Gore has enough money (A lot of it made from a mine that was on his property) that he doesn't need the dvd sales. Especially if the cause is as important as he says, if he really beleived it as much as he says he would offer his movie for free on You Tube so everyone could see it. (He made enough $$ in the theaters)
        • temsi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@nestafett and @TheLoneWolf871
          You're woefully incorrect in your assumptions.
          Gore didn't make this movie with his handycam. There were hundreds of people involved, not to mention investors who financed the whole enterprise.
          All of these people need to be paid.
          Industry guilds and unions don't care if the project has a "message". Their people need to get paid. That doesn't mean just the day they showed up, that also means royalties as agreed upon by their union contracts.
          This prevents the filmmakers from giving the movie away for free. Al Gore doesn't own this film. His director doesn't own this film. The investors do, and they have a deal with the distributor, both of whom want their share of the revenue. This has nothing to do with Al Gore wanting money. Of course, the right wing ministry of misinformation would like you to believe that.

          It would behoove you to actually know what you're talking about, before you start laying blame, criticizing and/or attacking someone for not giving something away that isn't theirs to give in the first place.

          @Economist35
          You're partially on the mark, but as I said above, this is not about Gore or Moore not being willing to give up revenue. They simply aren't in the position to give it away.

          As for Carbon Neutrality, it is not *****, it is not a 'liberal scam", it is in fact a system desgined by conservatives, who were trying to figure out a way to help corporations whose survival depends on them being able to pollute, in an effort to find a way to keep the government off their asses for doing so, while not changing their polluting habits at all, and maximizing profits.

          The good thing about it is that it allows regular folks the opportunity to offset their own carbon footprint too.
          • nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I know that many made this and I know they need to get paid, but I don't know if their payment comes from royalties, in fact I know it doesn't. And If Gore cared he could leak it on BitTorrent or Google vid, or make a deal with the producers where a certain percent is given away, or donate all his share of the profits into buying copies to freely distribute. My point was that he could be doing more.

            And Carbon neutrality is a scam.
          • andyd273, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Glad to see that at least one person drank the kool-aid. I'd hate to see it all go to waste.
    • fafaforza, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Let's see: hosting this hundred-some megabyte file for download would require all sorts of equipment, which uses electricity, which generates heat, which requires cooling facilities, which in turn require electricity, with the whole thing running on some sort of a backup system, packed with batteries that need to be replaced every few years or so. All this has to get to the viewer, via copper, telcos, etc, then you're running your 400watt power supply with a quad core CPU.

      But guess what, you hit F5 or Ctrl+R by mistake and the whole vide started to load all over again. Or you got bored and came back to watch it some other time. Youtube just recently added 'seek anywhere' functionality, so up until recently, you would have been re-downloading the whole wideo from scratch.

      With a DVD, you press one in a few seconds, it gets shipped with the rest of the junk that's shipped around this country, and when you feel like watching it again, you're not loading up their servers/upstream providers, forcing them to add more capacity. So I think a DVD would be better.
  • mikerand, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7My rates are $10/ton.
  • bushesbitch, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10i thought plants thrived on co2 , are these people commiting herbecide ?
  • kidcodea, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5i will never stop eating meat and cows are great.

    there, go ***** yaself ecoterrorists.

    signed, a balanced earth loving human.
    • trer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Eating cows is great, but eating dogs is not?
      • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it's good enough for the Vietnamese...
  • imaref, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Oh please...
  • Dobby156, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5What get me is that many of the fact in the film are extremely bias, and are often untrue. dont get me, watch 'the great gobal warming swindal' on utube and you'll soon see that it designed to draw the money from your wallet, it bloody good documentry 2
    • fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Even the oil companies admit that 100% of the facts int he documentary are true; they are only that some relevant facts are excluded. Of course, you clearly know more than the companies who have a vested interest in combating this film.
    • macatak, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2only that film has been seriously discredited by scientists (including those appearing in it), so don't
      • Dobby156, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1that doesnt really make sense, i appeared in it, but its wrong, ringt...
    • EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You will fail because people accept the first perspective on an idea more often than latter ideas. As "An Inconvenient Truth" gave people enough to go on, gave them a perspective and immediately put forward political and social agenda, much like children they adopted the beliefs of their parents. If they were open to a debate such as that argued with that movie, then you would be getting legitimate rational arguments against the film in place of being buried. No one wants to hear the movie they have been going off of for over a year now is bias.That would mean that they could, possibly, be wrong.

      *cough* I mean "Shun the non-believer! Shun the non-believer!"
    • visability, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i'd love to know how facts can have a bias
  • skyfire1, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5Hey everyone! This guy is a phony! A big, fat phony!
  • yellowsnowcone, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Do I have to pay to off-set my farts?
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes. You must pay someone for "not farting" for you.
  • AgentOfZOG, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I drive a Hybrid......Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks!
    • toppgun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6the levels of smug have reached critical mass.
    • nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I havent had a car in 7 years. I win! (If we're playing the holier than thou game)
  • eth3l, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2so the movie made the earth a better place twice. Al Gore is a Charlatan; and i am not referring to the Mancunian band.
  • cmpshotty, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3***** the planet, I just wanna save the whales!
  • dunderballer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Hm, Carbon Credits....k, I've gotta business model idea: Christian Credits. I will sell pre-sin forgiveness. When expect to sin, you pay me to reduce my sins by one. Ya, know, like maybe cut out a swear word or something. I'm gonna be so damn rich.
  • hittnrun, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Liberals stand for nothing so they fall for anything.

    Moonbats, one and all.
  • hairyconiption, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1I used to go to a catholic private school, Sounds a lot like paying penance to me. $496 dollars will make your sin go away.
  • SmudgeTheFirst, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3At least they made some effort. Plus, the money didn't get siphoned off into completely unrelated projects. I know it's still a cop-out technique, but I would be more angry at the companies offering these misleading services than Al Gore or the film producer for using them.
  • Beltiras, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I find the price ludicrous. The only viable option to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere and bind it up is by making soil from the growing of plants and decomposing the plants. Well, at least I thought so till a friend of mine revealed to me that actually decomposing vegetable matter releases Methane into the atmosphere, and you guessed it, that's a greenhouse gas.

    The problem with carbon-balancing is you can't be sure the middle man isn't just pocketing the money. You would have to do something yourself, or be utterly convinced by your middle-man's methods. What did this middle-man actually do? That price is too low to even write out a report on the actions taken.
  • dunderballer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0For some the cost to reduce carbon omissions is high than for others. If we all have the goal to reduce as much carbon as is economically feasible, monies allocated to reducing emissions would best be spent where the cost:benefit ratio was lowest. Hence why it is sometimes more effective for businesses to reduce others' emissions rather than their own.
  • ctshrt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Anyone want to sell me their carbon. I guarantee that I will use less carbon all a year then Al Gore uses in an average month.
    • prpodium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0really? what is his carbon footprint? do you know or are you parakeeting a republican talking point. Al Gore uses green energy which is more expensive so that can be one reason his electric bill is so high (another talking point that his bill is higher than most americans). And furthermore, zoning restrictions prevent him from building solar panels, something he is lobbying to change.
  • techmaster, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Isn't hypocrisy great? One day, you'll be able to pay somebody else to NOT commit a crime, which will cancel out the crimes you commit, so you end up getting away with murder if you're rich enough. (Kind of like OJ but without the high speed bronco chase)
    • prpodium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Or invade a country for the wrong reasons but change the story to make it look like your spreading democracy.
    • xcedrinod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Or steal tons of money, then give away a small percentage to charity. Thanks, Michael Milken.
  • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3we don't contribute to global warming in the same way cigarettes don't contribute to lung cancer. it doesn't matter that the majority of scientists thinks so, i'de rather believe a few industry paid shills. /s
    • representDLV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4A majority of scientists believe in global warming, but there is no consensus on what the actual cause is. Maybe it's us. Maybe it's the sun. Maybe it's just part of the earth's natural climate fluctuations. Maybe it's from something we haven't even thought of yet.
      • nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Actually there is a huge agreement in what the cause is, have you looked at any of the studies?
  • bsmeteronhigh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Hey! I work from home so I don't drive, except an occasional client meeting. Anybody want to buy some "Official BSMETERONHIGH" carbon credits? I got some ready to be printed up. I'll sell 'em to ya cheap. Just a buck apiece! What a scam!
  • Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2We don't need to worry about global warming, pollution, or any other environmental issues. For it is the glory of our Lord, the Free Market, that shall solve all of our problems for us, in a utopian libertarian anarchy ruled by His Holiness Ron Paul.
    • leogodin217, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How did it take this long to get a Ron Paul reference. Somebody must be on vacation.
  • Stevanoski, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Now if the movie could only become "lie nuetral" it would be perfect. RE: The Sky is Falling, repeat adnauseum.
    • prpodium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0thats a way to debate the many points in the movie... make a blanket statement. riiiight.
  • lebaige, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2$12 a ton eh? That's pretty affordable! I should start selling Carbon Credits, I think we're looking at the junk bonds of the future.
  • thomasprebble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm doing some plane travel soon. Will somebody offset my emissions for me? Pretty please!
  • m00nstone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm so tired of hearing people go on about personal conservation. The current power brokers in the energy industry "own" our 1st world Governments. Stop that and save the world.

    Simple as that.
    • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know of a man running for president who would do that but for some reason the greenies don't like him and spend their time spewing fallacies about libertarianism. Oh well.

      I can't wait for Hillary to end subsidies to oil companies and legalize hemp for biofuel, In fact, I'm so confident I'm actually holding my breath. Gotta cut down on that carbon when you can you know. /s
    • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Another "It's not our fault!" BS post. Yes, the energy companies are like drug dealers and are making ludicrous profits.

      But, the thing is, a few powerful men can't use energy and release emissions on their own. We're all to blame. If there was someone watching us point fingers at each other like that will actually help in this sort of predicament, they'd be laughing at our collective stupidity and inability to problem solve.

      Humans are to blame. We're doing it. Thinking that Mother Nature gives two ***** about our political games is retarded.
  • Rythlok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There is no such thing as a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
  • revenge7, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Blah blah global warming is fake blah blah everything I say is ***** blah blah I am making facts up.
  • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I will plant only the best oak and maple trees and My rates are just $9.95 per ton.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll throw some hemp seeds in the ground for $12
  • RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 In a recent case of carbon offsets doing more harm than good someone planted millions of eucaly[tus trees in Brazil I think it was and the end result was that they sucked up so much water that the local river went dry.
  • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Just search for "free energy" on youtube and you'll see many working examples of clean, cheap devices we could have in our homes - many using magnets. But it will never happen whilst the big energy companies continue to fund political campaigns on both sides and control the mainstream media (GE owning NBC for example).
    • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3OK....Magnets...I see someone didnt take high school physics.
    • Kwilco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah, magnets. The untapped well of infinite energy.
  • OffPiste, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"...the 496.80 was later used by Vinny, the CEO of Carbon Offset Corp to hit the strip club and get 4 lap dances in the VIP room." Frickin libs are such suckers.
  • spoid_, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Just remember, Al Gore was born 9 months after the Roswell Incident.
  • crazywarthog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Did you know NYC set a record for the coldest day in August on August 21, 2007 ? Of course not ! It doesn't fit the media's global warming agenda. Shhhhhhhh ... please don't tell anyone. But if it was the hottest day on record do you think you would of heard about it ? Plain and simple, it would have been world headlines. Remember, it's the agenda. Keep drinking Al Gore's kool aid !

    Reference : http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_233143509.html
    • nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Individual dates mean nothing, with Global warming many odd weather occurances happen. Read the studies and you'll understand whats happening and what will happen. Saying that is as stupid as someone pointing to it being a hot day today and saying thats proof of global warming.
      • crazywarthog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I agree with you but you missed the point. Having the hottest day in August in NYC is not really news but the media always hypes it up. After all it's summer and it's suppose to be hot. But having the coldest day ever in August in NYC is really news and should have been splashed across the media world wide. But nothing? You can not be that ignorant ? Can you ?
        • prpodium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1well clearly you didnt seek out all the information on this topic as he has addressed this in his movie. here are some of the many sources that have tackled this micro level of thinking.

          http://digg.com/environment/Weird_weather_is_worldwide
          http://mediamatters.org/items/200701180011

          Try and think on a bigger scale than your local news... remember its a GLOBAL problem. And you have the nerve to call someone else ignorant!!
        • nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The mjedia typically doesn't say that individual hot days mean anything. Now if 4 of the 5 coldest days ever came in 2007, then the media would put that everywhere. sorry wart, but you're the ignorant one here.
        • DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nestafett - what world do you live in? Almost every time a record for heat is set in any major cities, the first item that gets mentioned is "Global Warming" or "Climate Change". Whenever there is a dry spell for an area, it is always blamed on global warming. But when there is a wet spell or a cool spell, it is never mentioned by those who believe in climate change.
        • nestafett, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I don't know what news your watching Dread, but thats not what I see. Maybe if they're talking about the hottest season on record, but never the hottest day. I'm curious what you're talking about. Maybe you should watch some real news cause it seems like you're just reading Mother Earth News or something like that
    • xcedrinod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Noone talks about the expanding ice in Greenland, they just want to talk about the shrinking polar caps in Alaska. There's so much disinformation on both sides of this global warming nonsense that it's become like the abortion issue: devoid of any intelligent discussion. Blah blah, enjoy the smell of your own farts.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Remember in the totally mailable world of the liberals, all data can be twisted to support their views - example: Record cold weather is more proof of global warming. Record hot weather is also proof of global warming. Not to mention average weather is also proof of global warming....heck the Ice Ages were proof of global warming....and...and...Britney Spear's haircut is proof of global warming...and breakfast cereals, twinkies, and toadstools - all proof of global warming.
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Scam me once, shame on you. Scam me twice, shame on me. Scam me a third, fourth, fifth time to infinity, call me a liberal sheep.

    http://digg.com/world_news/Guyana_criticizes_carbon_credit_scheme_of_Kyoto_Protocol

    "Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo on Thursday criticized the Kyoto Protocol on climate change for failing to allow countries like his nation with pristine unharvested forests to earn carbon credits.

    "The Kyoto Protocol is limited in that sense, and it's short-sighted in that it encourages bad behaviour basically among countries; if you cut down trees and you plant them back you get money, if you preserve them, you don't get anything," Jagdeo told a forum on agro-energy.

    The Guyanese leader noted that Guyana would reap "miniscule" assistance under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol when the South American country begins large-scale production of ethanol and other types of agro-based energy.

    He said Guyana has decided to get into the production of bio-fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. But "assistance is miniscule through the Clean Development Mechanism as compared to the carbon credits we could get from standing forests," said Jagdeo, a Russian-trained economist.

    Carbon credits are the center of a system of credits that allows a company or country that reduces its carbon-dioxide emissions below a target level to sell the extra reduction as a credit to a company or country that has not met the target level.

    Under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, developed countries can take up a greenhouse gas reduction project in a developing country where the cost of greenhouse gas reduction projects is usually much lower.

    Guyana has already set aside 80,940 ha (200,000 acres) of land in the eastern part of the country for investors to plant special varieties of sugar cane to make ethanol.

    In northwestern Guyana near Venezuela, a company is planting oil palm to make biodiesel for use in that area to reduce fuel costs and at the same time clamp down on illegal fuel smuggling from the neighboring nation.
    "
    • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fool me once...Fool....You fool me you can't get fooled again!
  • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If your worried about global warming I think we need to remove more trees in South America look at all the heat rain forests absorb compared to the deserts of the world. You can see this by simply measuring the temp after the sun goes down.
  • YZBot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Cut down some trees and build a house. Plant some more in their place. Rinse and repeat. That's probably our best bet currently for carbon sequestration. and it doesn't cost anything more than it does now. We are already doing it in many places.
    • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How dare you inject logic and science into this discussion only Al Gore inventer of the interweb tubes shall comment on this issue...he is after all god!!
  • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The people who defends this total ***** are a perfect example of proof that the liberals have effectively destroyed public education in america and in doing so have created a legion of foam at the mouth followers that will swallow the garbage they spew without thought. What's amazing is Liberals repeat the crap they hear and instantly believe that they are scientist or equal in intellectual might.They know nothing about the topics they argue about....they just repeat what they hear.
    • prpodium, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Kind of like those that watch Fox News religiously and take every republican talking point as gospel. Perception is everything my friend.
    • SmilinBob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0well said!
  • Edge00, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I don't see how this is any different than when the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
    • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1LOL...Good one sir!! The Church Of Liberalism shows its true side.
  • Edge00, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7How is this any different from the Catholic Church selling indulgences in the middle ages? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
    • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3LOL...Good one sir!! The Church Of Liberalism shows its true side.
    • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well if you take as fact that paying for an indulgence actually erased your sin, it's not different at all.
  • SmilinBob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4i had always thought that after ice ages, the temperature got warmer. Considering that we only have a 100% accurate temperature measurement from only the last ~100 yrs. how are we able to tell if there wasn't a +/- 3 degree temperature change 200 yrs. ago? Its amazing how the libs will call Christians morons for believing anything. i.e. Flying Spaghetti Monster etc. Yet there is a Looooong line of dumb asses who are falling in line on this because its what the news tells you to believe.
    I'm not saying that preserving resources is a bad thing. But I'm not going to look down on someone for traveling for their job and require them to pay a frigging fee for doing so.
    I
  • prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just because I'm curious...

    Has anyone anywhere done any sort of study/business proposal that shows what the actual cost would be to remove one ton of carbon from the air? I don't mean offset, I mean "we will grow enough algae to suck one ton of carbon out, then dry the algae and drop it into a cave somewhere" or "we've got huge air filters that make carbon cling to them when we pump air through it" or such. I'm just intrigued by the "academic question" of what the real-world technology/cost might be of actually making actual carbon reductions. I would think that it's quite a bit more than $12 a ton.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.