If there was any doubt that the liberal disciples of climate change fail to practice what they preach, nor even care, this should settle the case
(Washington Times) Former Sen. John Edwards’ 2008 presidential campaign has paid nearly $22,000 to offset its global-warming emissions this year, including more than $5,000 a month from April through June, making him the candidate with the largest acknowledged output of greenhouse gases. (I never knew haircuts and makeup created so much CO2!)
Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign spent $2,367 to offset its emissions for April alone, while Sen. Christopher J. Dodd paid $650 for his presidential campaign’s emissions from April through June.
Together, they are the three campaign pioneers in the new world of carbon neutrality: the idea of "offsetting" their greenhouse-gas emissions by paying a third-party company to plant trees, build clean-energy projects or take other steps that will lead to less carbon dioxide being emitted.
Paying for offsets is not walking the walk. It is simply a dodge to make someone feel better about polluting releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, which is pretty much exactly what the folks who came up with the whole carbon offset scheme, bloviators like the Goracle (who happens to make money off of offset companies), wanted.
Interestingly, I have heard a liberal say that purchasing offsets is like going to confession. Big difference: Catholics try and avoid committing sins, while liberals don’t even make the attempt to change their lives to fit in to their religion of Climate Change. They just say "hang it all, I am livin’ my life the way I always have, so I’ll just pay to offset it."
Sen. Barack Obama, the candidate running closest to Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic presidential-nomination race, does not pay for offsets, but he does use Air Charter Team, the same company Mr. Dodd uses, which offsets emissions through Carbon Fund. Mr. Obama’s campaign listed $702,802 paid to Air Charter in the last period.
His campaign did not respond to calls for comment on his carbon footprint.
He’s too busy going "from saying he’s going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he’s going to bomb our allies. I mean, he’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week." Great line!
"The question is not how much they’ve paid, nor indeed the amount of carbon dioxide they’ve emitted, but what they’re actually doing about it — what the offsets mean," said Iain Murray, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "You have to ask — if you believe that offsets are actually doing some good, then what is it those offsets are paying for?"
Actually, I believe the question should be "what are they actually doing to reduce their carbon footprints other then paying them off like a gambler to a loan shark?"
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke’s news and views, Planck’s Constant, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Republican National Convention Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Let’s call these carbon offsets what they
are – a fraud, a sham being put over by
leftists who want to destroy capitalism
and a way of life that lifts all boats.
People who are dumb enough to believe carbon offsets do anything other than assuage the guilt ridden consciousnessess
of our liberal friends are perpetuating the fraud.
What do you expect? These are liberals we’re talking about! Instead of offsets, they should be waterboarded into submission! Damn liberals!
Gotta say, you both are absolutely correct!
Carbon footprints?
With the current bunch of hypocrits, it’s more like “carbon buttprints.”