[Uncle Skeleton]

Please point out ANYTHING that proves I didn't know what carbon offsets "are"

Sure thing:

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The only way to GET "carbon offsets" to buy is for someone else to be using less than their arbitrarily assigned amount, so he can purchase their "excess."

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Transcript Of A Q&A With Director Davis Guggenheim!! -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Thanks, that validates exactly what I said. I said that Gore's movie doesn't go into solutions, such as the value of conservation over "carbon neutrality," so the only way for me to show what Gore is "preaching" is by looking at the website where it describes "carbon neutrality" as "even more" than conservation efforts. And this interview confirms that:

Q: Why did your film focus so much on the problems of global warming and not the solutions like alternative energies? What do you plan for a sequel?

G: We really struggled with this because there's a whole other movie What your saying is that this is something that needs to be mobilized; like we mobilize for war. You think how many films there are about war.
This is a deep issue with a lot of dimensions to it. We felt like as filmmakers that we had to focus on: this is the problem, its real, we are the cause of it, and it's urgent. Now if we did that much and offered the tip of the iceberg of solutions at the end then maybe we could start something. We wish we could have added more, but the movie was another kind of thing.

Thanks for proving my point, Macro. Did you ever find anything indicating Gore "preaches" conservation over carbon offsets?

[Macrobat]

I give up - you are a hopeless apologist for a complete hypocrite.

He constantly preaches about what "we" need to do.

He has NEVER preached "carbon offsets." Your citing a vague reference to "remaining carbon neutral" does NOT complete your argument.

He CONSTANTLY harps about what we need to do, up to and including ratifying the Kyoto Accords with all its provisions.


Here's ANOTHER reference to his "solutions."

Gore Unveils Global-Warming Plan - washingtonpost.com

Former vice president Al Gore laid out his prescription for an ailing and overheated planet Monday, urging a series of steps from freezing carbon dioxide emissions to revamping the auto industry, factories and farms.

[Sky Captain]

Ailing overheated planet?
Mars?

[TETENAL]

According to macnews.de TV consumes between 25 and 28 Watt in standby-mode. I don't think that's acceptable (and really embarrassing for Al Gore). In Germany this adds at least €40 to your electricity bill annually.

[analogika]

Yep. That's pretty nasty.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

According to macnews.de TV consumes between 25 and 28 Watt in standby-mode. I don't think that's acceptable (and really embarrassing for Al Gore). In Germany this adds at least €40 to your electricity bill annually.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/standby.ars

[Buckaroo]

I see Gore is finally going to install some solar panels. This does not make his global warming scam any more legit.


Bill Hobbs | Ecotality Blog

[OldManMac]

What the article doesn't say is that Gore tried to install panels some time ago, but, due to zoning laws, he was turned down. The zoning rules were changed, and one could apply again.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...41/LIFESTYLE04

[Buckaroo]

It's still a scam.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

What the article doesn't say is that Gore tried to install panels some time ago, but, due to zoning laws, he was turned down. The zoning rules were changed, and one could apply again.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...41/LIFESTYLE04

What a bullshit excuse.

The zoning laws were against solar panels ON THE ROOF. He could have had them installed ground level. The roof isn't the best place for them anyway.

[smacintush]

Not to mention that he moved into that neighborhood in 2002. The last I checked he was preaching the gospel long before 2002. If I were as wealthy as he and I truly believed the things that he is saying I think that I would have moved to a nice big piece of property out in the boonies. You know, a place with lots of trees and where there are no zoning laws to keep me from doing as I damn please with solar panels, wind mills etc.

I guess living in the "right" neighborhood was more important.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Meanwhile, I've got deja vu again.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What a bullshit excuse.

The zoning laws were against solar panels ON THE ROOF. He could have had them installed ground level. The roof isn't the best place for them anyway.

It's quite clear to me that the reason they weren't allowed originally is because they didn't wan't them to be viewable by neighbors. The new rules still don't allow them to be seen; they have to be mounted on a flat roof section. Do you honestly believe they're going to allow them to be installed at ground level, where they're visible in a community of multi million dollar homes? That's laughable, at best.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Not to mention that he moved into that neighborhood in 2002. The last I checked he was preaching the gospel long before 2002. If I were as wealthy as he and I truly believed the things that he is saying I think that I would have moved to a nice big piece of property out in the boonies. You know, a place with lots of trees and where there are no zoning laws to keep me from doing as I damn please with solar panels, wind mills etc.

I guess living in the "right" neighborhood was more important.

I guess you get to decide now where people should live. Just maybe he didn't want to live in the "boonies."

[analogika]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What a bullshit excuse.

The zoning laws were against solar panels ON THE ROOF. He could have had them installed ground level. The roof isn't the best place for them anyway.

You must live on a large patch of desert.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Meanwhile, I've got deja vu again.

Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

BTW, to answer your question as to what I've done to reduce my energy use;

I keep the thermostat at 65F during the day, in winter and 85F during the summer.

I've changed all the light bulbs in the house to compact energy efficient flourescents. http://www.popularmechanics.com/home...t/4215199.html

I no longer drive faster than the posted speed limits on the freeway.

I've been recycling glass, plastic, cardboard, magazines, paper, etc., for fifteen years.

I've been checking the tire pressure monthly, on my car, for at least fifteen years.

What about you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The roof isn't the best place for them anyway.

Why is that?

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I see Gore is finally going to install some solar panels. This does not make his global warming scam any more legit.

It seems pretty silly to complain about "endless" excuses in favor of Gore and then turn right around and make "endless" excuses against him. Hypocritical even. Is there a double-plus hypocrisy award for being hypocritical about hypocrisy itself?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Not to mention that he moved into that neighborhood in 2002. The last I checked he was preaching the gospel long before 2002.

You know something has always struck me about Gore being late to the getting-a-clue party. He didn't stop farming tobacco until after his sister died of lung cancer. He didn't develop natural human mannerisms until after he lost the presidential race. It always seemed to me like these are things most people would have thought to do a little sooner on.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

BTW, to answer your question as to what I've done to reduce my energy use;

T'wasn't my question, and it actually was: "what are you willing to give up?" since even though you've done all that you have for 15 years or however (you and most other people) it still doesn't seem to be enough to ward off doomsday according to people like Gore.

What about you?

I live in Southern California not too far from the ocean, which holds at a relatively mild climate- my thermostat hovers between 70 and 72 year round. We don't even own a central AC system (neither my wife or I can stand AC). We used to have a swamp cooler in another house (loved it), but we rarely used it. I used window fans for the first time in decades during the heat wave of last year, but normally, nada. Occasionally, we'll use an oil-filled radiator type space heater during what passes for winter here. We invested from the start in excellent windows and insulation, which is key in maintaining steady indoor temps without a lot of enviro controls.

Not all our lamps have energy-saving bulbs, but most of them do. Our outdoor lights are all solar powered.

Our garden and parts of our lawn are augmented by drip irrigation- which saves a ton of water.

Recycling- been doing it for years. Here, the city issues you the 'big blue can' for recycled materials. Beyond that, my work has a recycling program for things the city doesn't take.

I drive a small, gas-efficient car and use a GPS unit- which saves fuel by finding the most direct way of travel, rather than tooling around in search of places. I would think most everyone checks their tire pressure regularly, to say nothing of keeping wheels aligned, car tuned up, etc.

I take whatever measures I do not to pretend any of it is saaaaving the freakin' world, but for the same reason most people do (excluding blowhard, holier-than-thou Gore-types): to save money. In most cases, wasting energy and resources simply costs too much, and is easily avoidable. And one doesn't need any carbon offset excuse bullcrap either.

[OldManMac]

You're to be commended for what you do. As to what I'd be willing to give up, I think that I already do give up more than most. I give up a lot of comfort in sitting in a house that's cooler in winter and hotter in summer than the vast majority of people. I give up the time it takes, although minimal it is, to sort my recyclables, and make sure they get recycled, rather than simply tossing them in a garbage bag and hauling them to the curb. Your assertion that it doesn't seem to be enough is because, in fact, most people don't do even the simple things that would make a difference. As an example, one can save 5% of their car fuel bill by making sure their tires are properly inflated, and you would think that most people do, but in fact, your thinking would be wrong. The fact is very few people regularly check their pressure, and that's easily verified by trying to find a gas station that has air compressors. If you'll do a little experiment when you're following a car, you'll note that it's very common for one or more tires to be obviously low on pressure. Why do you think the car industry is beginning to offer tire inflation monitors more regularly, and even self inflating systems; because it's a problem. I can tell when a tire is soft in my car, by the way it handles. The average motorist is too busy talking on a cell phone, or otherwise distracted, and probably doesn't even notice the differences, because they're not in tune with their car. To them, driving is getting in a vehicle, starting it, and pointing it in the direction they need to go.

It's good that you do it to save money, but in reality most people aren't concerned about saving money if it inconveniences them. Otherwise we'd all be driving at the posted speed limits on the highway, but most don't. They may have shaved a few minutes off a cross town freeway trip, but that's more important to them than saving five or 10% on their fuel bill. That's the problem; they haven't been hit hard enough yet. Maybe when gas hits $4/gallon, or more, it will make a difference.

[Buckaroo]

If this Global Warming scam was for real, there are some positive side affects.

Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I guess you get to decide now where people should live. Just maybe he didn't want to live in the "boonies."

No, I was merely pointing out that he puts his personal egoistic desires over the "urgent problems of our ailing planet". So much for looming world catastrophe.

I thought the idea was that saving the Earth was more important than what the individual wants?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why is that?

They aren't all that efficient and they should be kept clean to maintain what little ability they have, though admittedly this is far more of an issue when there is snow involved. Plus they work best when they can follow the sun's path. This is a little more difficult to do on a roof, which shouldn't be an issue when you have his kind of money. Except for that pretentious elitist zoning law.

You know something has always struck me about Gore being late to the getting-a-clue party. He didn't stop farming tobacco until after his sister died of lung cancer. He didn't develop natural human mannerisms until after he lost the presidential race. It always seemed to me like these are things most people would have thought to do a little sooner on.

That's because he is not nearly as bright as he has gotten credit for.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

It's quite clear to me that the reason they weren't allowed originally is because they didn't wan't them to be viewable by neighbors. The new rules still don't allow them to be seen; they have to be mounted on a flat roof section. Do you honestly believe they're going to allow them to be installed at ground level, where they're visible in a community of multi million dollar homes? That's laughable, at best.

Yeah, but a ground level mechanical generator IS allowed? The idea that he couldn't put ground level solar panels is what is laughable.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yeah, but a ground level mechanical generator IS allowed? The idea that he couldn't put ground level solar panels is what is laughable.

A ground level generator can be enclosed in a building, so it's not unsightly! Solar panels also happen to work best when they're higher up. Trees can prevent sunlight from being captured at ground level, whereas at a higher level there is less interference. I wouldn't think that would be so hard to figure out.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

That's the problem; they haven't been hit hard enough yet. Maybe when gas hits $4/gallon, or more, it will make a difference.

Is there any way we can hit just non-truckers and non-poor with this gas hike? I don't think the poor person who can only afford the 78' Chevy Impala needs the additional pressures of paying $4.00/gallon at the pump nor is this a very compassionate move for the trucking industry. In fact, it puts them out of business.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Food stamps for gas?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is there any way we can hit just non-truckers and non-poor with this gas hike? I don't think the poor person who can only afford the 78' Chevy Impala needs the additional pressures of paying $4.00/gallon at the pump nor is this a very compassionate move for the trucking industry. In fact, it puts them out of business.

What, are you a communist? The trucking industry doesn't need gas subsidies. I'm also opposed to income redistribution.

Sorry, I'm really not sure where you are coming from. Are you serious?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Food stamps for gas?

ewwww.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

What, are you a communist? The trucking industry doesn't need gas subsidies.

It will at $4.00/gallon for gas. This is essentially a 25% cut in profit right off the top.

I'm also opposed to income redistribution.

What, are you a neo-con?

Sorry, I'm really not sure where you are coming from. Are you serious?

I get the impression that when people think about gas consumption in light of their desire to decrease it, they are thinking only of the SUV-driving rich folks. When I hear; "hit 'em where it hurts" and "the only way we're going to learn is to get hit in the pocketbook", I find I'm hearing it from the same folks who would rail on tax cuts only benefitting the wealthiest 1% (Gore reference).

I addressed one hypothetical with another to help maintain some perspective here.

[smacintush]

Nevermind.

I've decided that arguing about whether or not Al Gore is or isn't a hypocrite has no value.

Have a nice day KarlG. I have to go to sleep now, work tonight.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It will at $4.00/gallon for gas. This is essentially a 25% cut in profit right off the top.

Why wouldn't they raise their prices to compensate?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why wouldn't they raise their prices to compensate?

They will; they added fuel surcharges to freight bills when I drove semi two years ago, and diesel started creeping to $3/gallon. The problem with that is that is that the freight recipient has to decide how much he wants to absorb, if any, and it gets added on to the cost of goods we buy.

[tie]

Of course they would. ebuddy, that is really basic economics. There is no need for the government to manage every detail of the economy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I get the impression that when people think about gas consumption in light of their desire to decrease it, they are thinking only of the SUV-driving rich folks. When I hear; "hit 'em where it hurts" and "the only way we're going to learn is to get hit in the pocketbook", I find I'm hearing it from the same folks who would rail on tax cuts only benefitting the wealthiest 1% (Gore reference).

Perhaps this makes sense. But don't you support tax cuts for only wealthiest 1%? It is definitely true that gas spending makes up a much larger proportion of total income for poor people than for rich people (as with all necessities, I guess). Perhaps a gas tax should take this into account. On the other hand, since Republicans love taxing the poor, perhaps a gas tax could be enacted with no consideration of income differences as a compromise. It could even be linked to a cut in the capital gains tax.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by tie

the other hand, since Republicans love taxing the poor,

BS. The poor havn't paid an income tax in many years. The rich loose more than half their income due to taxes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Of course they would. ebuddy, that is really basic economics. There is no need for the government to manage every detail of the economy.

Who are you talking to??? Of course they would what? I never claimed government needed to manage every detail of the economy.

Perhaps this makes sense. But don't you support tax cuts for only wealthiest 1%?

I'm nowhere near the wealthiest 1% and I appreciate the tax cuts I've gotten.

It is definitely true that gas spending makes up a much larger proportion of total income for poor people than for rich people (as with all necessities, I guess). Perhaps a gas tax should take this into account.

We're already paying a gas tax and it is not taken into account. Shall we cap it at $3.50 before giving gas tax breaks for the poor? Wouldn't this be government managing every detail of the economy?

On the other hand, since Republicans love taxing the poor, perhaps a gas tax could be enacted with no consideration of income differences as a compromise. It could even be linked to a cut in the capital gains tax.

Again, there is no common sense of right or wrong, only left or right. Generally followed up by the cute little smiley face to mask the patently ignorant statement preceding it.

[Buckaroo]

It was only a matter of time. Sheryl Crow proposes a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.

Saving the Earth: The Biodiesel Bus Blog - washingtonpost.com

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahahahaha.....that's awesome.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who are you talking to??? Of course they would what? I never claimed government needed to manage every detail of the economy.

You said we needed to subsidize truckers' gas expenses.

Again, there is no common sense of right or wrong, only left or right. Generally followed up by the cute little smiley face to mask the patently ignorant statement preceding it.

I wasn't serious. That's what the smiley face is there for. Try to figure this one out, too:

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I see Gore is finally going to install some solar panels. This does not make his global warming scam any more legit.

Well the argument was whether he was a hypocrite, since he's installing solar panels, a very efficient means of getting energy, he is less of a hypocrite.

As far as it being a scam Gore didn’t invent it, you should take that up with one of the most comprehensive studies done at NASA as I'm sure you're qualified to do considering they only brought in highly respected scientists from astronomers to biologists; and then argue with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Science Council of Japan, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for Advancement of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Indian National Science Academy, India.

Maybe you want to argue with Shell Oil…
“The debate over the science of global climate change is over. It's a waste of time to debate it. Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We'll adjust." - President, Shell Oil Co.

EO Library: Global Warming
NASA - Global Warming
NASA GISS: The Global Warming Debate

I am ashamed to call myself republican
American Chronicle: I am ashamed to call myself Republican!


The fact is due to an orbital cycle, we are in a position where we should be going through a cooling spell, just like was predicted years ago, but the planet is so polluted the reverse is happening. We had the technology at least 20 years ago to stop this cheaply.

Of course I’m probably just a blind idiot, trusting the worlds rocket scientists and not Bush and the republicans who I have all kinds of reasons to trust with such an arcane matter. I mean I should be listening to the great scientist Lomborg who claims to be an expert on GW, Poverty in every country, medicine, healthcare in every country, and natural resources of the world.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

It was only a matter of time. Sheryl Crow proposes a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.

Saving the Earth: The Biodiesel Bus Blog - washingtonpost.com

Rosie responds to Sheryl Crow's toilet paper comment:

Rosie to Sheryl Crow: "Have You Seen My Ass?"

http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/23/rosie-...ou-seen-my-ass

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You said we needed to subsidize truckers' gas expenses.

Could you please copy-paste the post in which I claimed truckers needed subsidies? This was your idea (more of an extrapolation really) and I simply said; "they would at $4/gallon for gas." I do not advocate subsidies or 'bailouts', but at $4/gallon, if we want their services we might do something. In my view, that would be ensuring we're not paying $4/gallon regardless of who wants who to pay what for their pet projects. Perspective.

I wasn't serious. That's what the smiley face is there for. Try to figure this one out, too:

So you are that guy who goes around saying things like; "that's gotta be the ugliest shirt I've ever seen... just kidding."

You're a dumbass.

[Uncle Skeleton]

ebuddy, do you believe in peak oil? point being that at some point gas probably will be at $4/gallon regardless of ecofascism or islamofascism or any other silly human construct.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

ebuddy, do you believe in peak oil? point being that at some point gas probably will be at $4/gallon regardless of ecofascism or islamofascism or any other silly human construct.

Yes I believe in peak oil and understand that it will continue to increase in cost, eventually reaching $4/gallon. I have a problem with chest-pounding "bring it on" as some punitive measure against consumption. In some states the Federal, State, and local taxes combined account for over .55/gallon at the pump. I get the feeling too many are willing to use taxes as a night-stick of sorts and I oppose the notion of taxing people into submission. The gas tax hikes of 1982, 1990, and 1993 represent an increase of over 360%. I'm hard-pressed in finding information suggesting those hikes had anything to do with peak oil.

I'm concerned the next set of hikes will most certainly be founded upon a silly human construct. I simply want people to consider all forms of consumption as opposed to thinking of this as purely a 'wealthy, SUV driving, soccer mom' phenomena.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You're coming across as if $4/gal will be the end of trucking. Surely you don't think this will be the case when the price gets there out of scarcity, do you? So what's the difference to the trucking industry whether the prices raise by taxes or by pure economics? It's not like Chinese or Indian trucking companies are going to come to America and out-compete local companies with cheap foreign gasoline they brought in their immigrant bindles.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're coming across as if $4/gal will be the end of trucking. Surely you don't think this will be the case when the price gets there out of scarcity, do you? So what's the difference to the trucking industry whether the prices raise by taxes or by pure economics? It's not like Chinese or Indian trucking companies are going to come to America and out-compete local companies with cheap foreign gasoline they brought in their immigrant bindles.

I'm not entirely sure where you're headed with all this "Chinese/Indian outcompeting and cheap foreign gas." stuff.

I'll try again; I have a problem with chest-pounding "bring it on" as some punitive measure against consumption. I oppose the notion of taxing people into submission. I simply want people to consider all forms of consumption as opposed to thinking of this as purely a 'wealthy, SUV driving, soccer mom' phenomena.

The difference this makes to the trucking industry is (as mentioned by KarlG) the difference the recipient pays in fuel surcharges and how much of that they want to offload to the consumer. Also, smaller fleets and independent truckers are most profoundly affected by even small increases in fuel costs as they are not resourced adequately in clientele for competing surcharges nor fuel storage to hedge against high-cost periods. Either way, we get hit in the cost of goods and increased prices at the pump.

I'd like to avoid both in light of the call of many here for increases to encourage compliance with silly human constructs and to maintain a more rounded perspective in so doing.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

It was only a matter of time. Sheryl Crow proposes a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.

Saving the Earth: The Biodiesel Bus Blog - washingtonpost.com

And you probably think she's serious.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're a dumbass.

Typical.

(But at least you could have made up a new name for Gore. Crash seems to have disappeared from this thread.)

What would higher gas taxes do to stop the ozone hole from growing anyway?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll try again; I have a problem with chest-pounding "bring it on" as some punitive measure against consumption. I oppose the notion of taxing people into submission.

I oppose that too, but I just don't see how anything anyone here has said is any more "taxing people into submission" than any other tax is. What is it about this tax that alludes to "submission?" Or do you oppose all taxes on principle?

Besides that, your initial comment was in response to something that didn't even mention taxes. All it said was that gas will some day be at $4/gal, if not because of taxes then because of scarcity (or embargo). Now I'm not defending that person's post, in fact I had to restrain myself from attacking it a number of times which wouldn't have been productive. But anyways, what I'm saying here is that you seem to be talking as if $4/gal gas will be the result of someone's agenda, when in reality it is most likely an inevitability that we'll be stuck in that situation eventually no matter what happens. So if we talk about using taxes to jump ahead to that time, I don't see that as "punative," I see it as making the monetary cost of buying gas more accurately represent the societal cost of using/wasting it. Isn't that what all taxes do? The price increase goes towards making alternative technologies more competitive as well as generating revenue to subsidize solutions to the coming energy crisis before it hits. None of that says "punitive" or "submission" to me, so I guess my question is, what part of it says those things to you?

[Buckaroo]

What did I tell you. This whole carbon credit thing is a SCAM.

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

FT.com / Home UK / UK - Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

[tie]

Um, you must have missed the first few pages of this thread, Buckaroo (back when you were hyperventilating about Gore's "hypocrisy," claiming that he wanted to drive the world into poverty, etc.).

The industry is not regulated and has poor standards. And it is growing quickly. I don't know Gore's reasons, but this would be one reason I would not necessarily promote purchasing carbon credits to a wide audience. A lot of people who didn't do their research would end up being scammed. There are some good companies out there, but until standards are agreed on and enforced, they won't all be equal.