2008

It occurs to me that the Gores fessed up to a fourth spread during this interview.

STAHL: He's also making his parents' farm eco-friendly… oh, so you'll have windmills here?

 GORE: Yep.

This home has apparently been Al’s, as well, since 2004. Windmills are coming, but that footprint just keeps on growing.

About those 33 solar panels for that home – their second, an 18-room job, of what would soon be three for our jet-setting power couple – that the Gores purchased after his presidential defeat, and as he ginned up what “60 Minutes” described as a monomaniacal commitment to the global warming cause. Tennessean Bill Hobbs had apparently done the homework for us. In short, if you have to ask, you can’t afford it. Besides, run these numbers and you’ll see it has nothing to do with the economics of the matter.

Of course, it would be silly to wonder if everyone could foot such a monstrous bill, paying that much for so little impact but in order to live in the carbon-constrained world of Gore’s dreams. But a lot of things are silly to you and me that may not occur to people with mansions and multiple, bicoastal homes.

Which reminds us, as I previously noted, that there must really be something to hide about those “private donations from those concerned about solving the climate crisis”, accounting for the bulk of the Gore group’s budget, in order to present this $300 million ad campaign as the Gores’ project

A few things came to mind about the new Al Gore ad campaign, and his appearance with wife Tipper on CBS’s 60 Minutes last night. The first was the confused nature of the claimed target of this largest ad campaign ever, at least according to the Washington Post. Gore has repeatedly insisted (and 60 Minutes reiterated the claim) that the public are overwhelmingly with him, and that it is therefore the too-timid lawmakers who must be influenced; but the ad spokesman says it is aimed at influencing the public.

They are indeed walking a fine line here, because for their own reasons they need to say the public is with them: they can’t risk the appearance that Gore seems to bring along with him on this and related issues of being out on the fringe, and also have admitted that people are swayed when they think others have been swayed already. After all, why does someone need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to remind people how much they agree with them?

Second is that the $100 million ad campaign has gone to $100 million per year for three years, half of which — $150,000,000 — the New York Times says has been raised.

Remember, from where one receives funding dictates one’s opinions and legitimacy. The alarmists, and specifically Gore, tell us so.

So I particularly noticed when Tipper rushed to interject that the Gores had also tossed in, on top of the litany of pots of money which Gore claims he dedicated to this project, the $750,000 “cash component” of the Nobel Peace Prize which she said they also matched from their personal, recently swelled fortune. Add it up, and the Gore’s still come in around $100 million short of what they’ve raised.

So, where is it coming from? Tipper clearly didn’t want that question to fester, and Lesley Stahl either wasn’t interested, got the hint, or left it on CBS’s cutting room floor.

It’s worth noting that waaaaaaay down on the campaign’s FAQs page we are told that the funding came from Gore himself, via book and film profits plus Nobel prize, and his own contributions . . . “and has since received additional support in the form of private donations from those concerned about solving the climate crisis.” You’ll notice that this wording allows for corporations, hedge funds, and the like to be captured under its ambit.

It is clear that they actually desire the message to be that this is Al Gore’s project, funded as well as run by him, which is of course a little inconsistent with the warmists’ complaints that we’re focusing on him in our own efforts to focus on Gore’s hypocrisies. Why do we focus on Gore? Because as my colleague and fellow PG’er Iain Murray notes, “he is, unquestionably, the main financial as well as ‘moral’ driving force behind this crusade.” Dare we say, he’s their Big Oil.

Or, is he? They don’t want to talk about who is funding it. It might be their “partner” the Climate Action Network (certainly not the Girl Scouts, also a partner), which happens to be a bunch of businesses pulling an Enron and designing ways to make money off of carbon regulation. But the fact they don’t want you to know where the $100 mil-plus is coming from is a pretty good sign that we should ask. 60 Minutes clearly won’t.

A new twist has emerged in the desperate scramble to achieve some sort of agreement among the EU-25 (2 EU countries are exempt from Kyoto) as to who must actually engage in what emission reductions to meet their collective post-2012 promise of -20% below 1990 GHG emission levels.

According to the Guardian, it seems the UK wants to redefine what sort of credit it gets for what its companies do under Kyoto’s “flexible mechanisms” – or FlexMex such as Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation, under which credit is obtained for “clean” projects in other countries. The UK green groups are beside themselves, which tends to be their default stance anyway.

This move would be revolutionary because these illusory “reductions” – if, let’s face it, no more illusory than the extant pan-European claim of “reducing emissions” by paying China to slow down HFC production that it ramped up simply for that purpose – are now not counted toward an EU country’s (domestic) renewable energy promise. That’s what the UK wants to change, thereby reducing what it actually must do domestically to comply with the grandiose EU promises.

All of which is simply another way of reminding policymakers of the games people play when entering such arrangements as Kyoto or the EU’s own scheme. These rackets scream out for gaming by well-heeled constituencies which often include nation-states. In this particular case, it pits rent-seeking constituencies in the UK – “clean coal” vs. wind power being the example highlighted by the Guardian – against each other as to whose case the country will plead at the EU level.