• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

I don't think I'll be making billions but I want a carbon footprint as big as Algore's.

What does Obamer have to say about this level of profit?

Has Algore checked with Czar Obamer to make sure it's OK to make those profits?

.
 
zimmer said:
I don't think I'll be making billions but I want a carbon footprint as big as Algore's.

What does Obamer have to say about this level of profit?

Has Algore checked with Czar Obamer to make sure it's OK to make those profits?

.
Click to expand...

What does Obama have to do with Gore investing in a company?
 
bowerbird said:
If trees are such a good investment - why are there not more being grown? We are deforesting our planet at an alarming rate and there is little incentive to stop it. I am betting that you, like us actually have legislation that forces loggers to replant - that logging companies get subsidies. I will also bet that the trees most often regrown are fast growing pines. Some of the best wearing longest lasting trees in the world are the Australian hardwoods - ruddy hard to find anyone investing in growing Ironbark or Ironwood trees.
Click to expand...

On a global scale, you are correct. But, timber, paper, logging companies here in the states and Canada, have figured out that their future lies in re-planting.

Tell me - you have a choice of putting money into one investment that will return 10% profit over 5 years or put it into another investment that might or might not give you 20% profit but you have to wait 20 years to collect - which one will you choose?
Click to expand...

neither! If I can't see a 100% return in five years- I'm not spending the money. But, that's just me.

And you are making the argument for me - you are saying that these alternate energy sources are nowhere near maturity and yet the only way they will mature is by investment of capital - which Gore is going - and taking the requisite risks
Click to expand...


All the investment of capital in the world isn't going to speed up the evolution of alternate energy. Research and developement is the only thing that is going to speed them up. Yes, that costs money, but the point is, no matter how much money you spend on them now, it's not going to make them become practical any sooner. The oil companies have spent billions on alternate energy and don't have **** to show for it.
 
bowerbird said:
If trees are such a good investment - why are there not more being grown?
Click to expand...

They are being grown. Loggers plant trees to keep their company going. Tree farms grow trees to meet the demands of different consumers.


We are deforesting our planet at an alarming rate and there is little incentive to stop it. I am betting that you, like us actually have legislation that forces loggers to replant - that logging companies get subsidies.
Click to expand...

Loggers replant because it is an investment, if they didn't replant then they would eventually run out.

I will also bet that the trees most often regrown are fast growing pines.
Click to expand...

I imagine that since logging companies also make money of hickory, walnut, cherry, red oak,white oak, fir, cedar, poplar and other kinds of wood they probably plant those varieties too. You seem to be under the impression that logging companies only want to exist for a decade or two and then quit. A logging company not planting any trees is like car dealership not ordering any new cars from a factory or buying used cars.
 
Last edited:
American said:
If it were Bush making money on oil, you'd be okay with it right?
Click to expand...

Now that he's out of office? Sure. In fact, if he was making money on oil, that would be a marked improvement from his first foray into the oil industry, when he ran Harken into the ground. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Please provide where they grow more trees then they cut down.
Click to expand...

I never said they did, but since you ask such a childish question.

Plum Creek Timber Company is the second largest private timberland owner in the United States, with 7.8 million acres located in the Northwestern, Southern, and Northeastern regions of the country. Our resource professionals are experts in forest management, wood fiber merchandising, real estate management, and developing new business opportunities. We are also innovators in environmental stewardship and habitat conservation.

Plum Creek Home Page[/quote]

When's the last time that 7 million acres of timber were harvested in this country?

Can you provide proof of anyone making this kind of contribution to reforestation? A single Libbo group. Which Libbo tree-hugger outfit is working with any timber company to reforest millions of acres? Which one? Take you time. We await with baited breath.
 
Kandahar said:
Now that he's out of office? Sure. In fact, if he was making money on oil, that would be a marked improvement from his first foray into the oil industry, when he ran Harken into the ground. :lol:
Click to expand...
I don't believe you for a sec. You would tie him back to his presidency and scream conflict of interest and Halliburton!!! Oh yes you would.
 
American said:
I don't believe you for a sec. You would tie him back to his presidency and scream conflict of interest and Halliburton!!! Oh yes you would.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm done with Bush. I rarely criticize him anymore except A) when his policies are still causing problems, or B) to point out the hypocrisy of partisans who are suddenly outraged over Obama doing the same thing. But in general, I prefer to just let the man enjoy his retirement. I'm not big on the whole fake outrage thing anyway...I never gave a **** about some attorneys being fired, or what Karl Rove knew and when he knew it, to begin with. Even when he was president, I generally just criticized his policies.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
A) when his policies are still causing problems, or B) to point out the hypocrisy of partisans who are suddenly outraged over Obama doing the same thing. .
Click to expand...

I just get tired of the helicopters flying over my townhouse. It really is annoying.
 
apdst said:
On a global scale, you are correct. But, timber, paper, logging companies here in the states and Canada, have figured out that their future lies in re-planting.
Click to expand...

And how much of that is government mandated or subsidised?

neither! If I can't see a 100% return in five years- I'm not spending the money. But, that's just me.
Click to expand...

So, you would not invest in "risky" green technologies but will happily deride those that do because they might make some money? Thanks for proving my point for me

All the investment of capital in the world isn't going to speed up the evolution of alternate energy. Research and developement is the only thing that is going to speed them up. Yes, that costs money, but the point is, no matter how much money you spend on them now, it's not going to make them become practical any sooner. The oil companies have spent billions on alternate energy and don't have **** to show for it.
Click to expand...

:roflThe oil companies have spent **** on alternate energy!!:rofl

Compared to profits they have invested more in advertising and funding astroturf.
 
apdst said:
Can you provide proof of anyone making this kind of contribution to reforestation? A single Libbo group. Which Libbo tree-hugger outfit is working with any timber company to reforest millions of acres? Which one? Take you time. We await with baited breath.
Click to expand...

The major difference is that environmental groups are VOLUNTEER and require DONATIONS. They also plant trees, not for re-supply to be cut down again, but for longevity and to reestablish the eco systems destroyed when the forested area was initially farmed.

Plant A Billion Trees - one dollar at a time - with The Nature Conservancy
5.5 million trees planted in the Atlantic Forest.

Plant a Tree USA, along with the Billion Tree campaign, claims to have planted over 7 billion trees across the globe (one for each person on the planet.
https://www.plantatreeusa.com/individual/myweb.php?hls=42

My problem with re-planting is many of these lumbar companies are 1) are destroying eco-systems by tree farming and killing the diversity of forests with small and mature trees by having all plants the same age, 2) cutting down entire forests with many types of trees and re-planting only a single species (the one they want to harvest).

Recently lumbar companies are getting better and I personally don't have a problem with utilizing current tree farms. We realistically require wood for many things. I am just not for expansion into untouched and still naturally wooded areas.
 
Gibberish said:
The major difference is that environmental groups are VOLUNTEER and require DONATIONS. They also plant trees, not for re-supply to be cut down again, but for longevity and to reestablish the eco systems destroyed when the forested area was initially farmed.

Plant A Billion Trees - one dollar at a time - with The Nature Conservancy
5.5 million trees planted in the Atlantic Forest.

Plant a Tree USA, along with the Billion Tree campaign, claims to have planted over 7 billion trees across the globe (one for each person on the planet.
https://www.plantatreeusa.com/individual/myweb.php?hls=42

My problem with re-planting is many of these lumbar companies are 1) are destroying eco-systems by tree farming and killing the diversity of forests with small and mature trees by having all plants the same age, 2) cutting down entire forests with many types of trees and re-planting only a single species (the one they want to harvest).

Recently lumbar companies are getting better and I personally don't have a problem with utilizing current tree farms. We realistically require wood for many things. I am just not for expansion into untouched and still naturally wooded areas.
Click to expand...

Not only that but young forests do not uptake as much CO2 as old growth forests, Sad but true

PS it is lumber not lumbar - you just gave me a mental image of a woodsman with an axe walking around holding his back;)
 
akyron said:
Actually with legislation pushing carbon taxes it pretty much is guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Many a slip twixt cup and lip!

This may not be viable technology - lots of unknowns
 
I don't think green companies are particularly doing anyone any harm. It's a capitalist society in which the ultimate goal of 99% of the population is the accumulation of capital. I don't begrudge him or anyone for being successful.
 
​
Phoenix said:
For profit green industry is just unethical.:roll:
Click to expand...

I assume you are being ironic. If green industry were truly profitable, that would be the solution to global warming.
 
 
Kandahar said:
Why? Do you really expect non-profits or government entities to innovate at the same rate as for-profit businesses? :confused:
Click to expand...

Sarcasm aimed at the "for profit health care is unethical" crowd
 
bowerbird said:
:roflThe oil companies have spent **** on alternate energy!!:rofl

Compared to profits they have invested more in advertising and funding astroturf.
Click to expand...

Oil companies will spend millions a year on alternate energy research. They are a business and they need to invest to be a leader and controller in whatever the next big energy supply comes from.

It's ridiculous to think that billion dollar companies would not invest in new technology. R&D of new technology is a requirement for them to stay billion dollar companies when their current product/service is no longer used.
 
Last edited:
What Democrats and Republicans have in common is the fact that they will honestly decry the political corruption of the other party when the other party is in power, but will defend the same politically corrupt actions of their own politicians when they are in power.
 
 
bowerbird said:
Excuse my cynicism but an awful lot of that is what the advertising industry call "greenwashing" - the appearance of doing something without actually getting anything done
Click to expand...

Isn't that what living in a home that uses twenty times more energy than a standard home, flying private jets, carbon credits and traveling to concerts by plane and dumping trash everywhere does? The appearance of doing something where you are not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom