Should Al Gore Profit From Global Warming? Should Any of Us?

img20081311232hi[1] Al Gore receives award for his anti global warming efforts

Al Gore, who barely lost (or won) the US Presidential election in November 2000, and vowed never to return to US political life, appears to have come out a winner for not doing so. The former Vice President for 8 years under the Clinton Administration decided to devote his time afterwards to teaching as well as making the world aware of the dangers of global warming, a warning that has been noted several times on Green Prophet, including a more recent article tying global warming and climate change with what is happening in the Middle East.

Gore’s efforts to make the inhabitants of our planet more aware of what fossil fuels and other man-made polluters are causing must have rubbed off on some people, as it has resulted in Gore being honored and awarded a number of acclaims and prizes, including an Academy Award in February, 2007, from the Hollywood film industry for his documentary film: An Inconvenient Truth, that paints a sobering a graphic picture of what is happening to this planet thanks to its human inhabitants. 

This honor was followed a few months later with Gore and the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , jointly winning the 2007  Nobel Peace Prize. Gore was also honored in Israel less than a year later, in July 2008, with an award from the Dan David Foundation  for alerting the world to the dangers of overuse of fossil fuels.

So as it has worked out, it appears that the best thing that has happened to the former Vice President was actually losing the Presidency; for had he become the 43rd US President, it’s most likely that Gore would not have become so involved with his environmental crusades as he simply would have been too busy dealing with the aftermath of the “9-11 terror attacks” which would have taken place during his “watch”.

Since the filming and release of his documentary movie, and being awarded the Nobel Prize, a lot of money has come Al Gore’s way, with a great deal of it going to a foundation he set up, known as the Alliance for Climate Protection , founded in 2006, and today has more than 5 million members worldwide. The New York Times says that his green stocks are up and Gore’s made a killing from clean tech investments.

Beyond investment interests, his foundation works with a number of affiliate organizations to find solutions to the problems of climate change and global warming in ways that “diversifies and strengthens the global network of concerned individuals who want to take action now on climate issues”.

Just who is against Mr. Gore and what he is trying to do to save the planet? A lot of  business interests and organizations, for one, who are connected to the fossil fuel industries (oil companies in particular), and who have hired a large group to research scientists to try to disprove Gore’s theories that it is petroleum, coal, and other fossil fuels (including natural gas, by the way) that many say are greatly responsible for the present state of the world’s environment.

For Gore’s part, these allegations of his profiteering from his environmental crusades haven’t affected him that much, since he considers the matter of global warming “not as a political issue but as a moral, ethical, and spiritual one”.

Gore himself is a religious man, belonging to the Southern Baptist Church. He was presented with the Baptist of the Year Award in January 2008, for his efforts on behalf of the environment.

Mr. Gore may never have gotten to occupy the Oval Office (except during a skit he was involved in for an episode of Saturday Night Live); but it now appears that he wound up being a bigger winner by losing the Presidency. And taking everything that has happened to him into account since the events of November/December 2000, he has come out much better than that “other guy”  who did sit there for 8 years, critics et al.

What do you think? Should Gore profit from the environment?

Photo via the Baptist Press

Facebook Comments

Comments

comments

35 thoughts on “Should Al Gore Profit From Global Warming? Should Any of Us?”

  1. Maurice Picow says:

    Al certainly did profit: he won a Nobel Prize as well as an Oscar for best documentary film at the time. All in all, the best thing that happened to him was not being elected President of the US as 9-11 would have occurred during his administration and not George W. Bush’s.

  2. I believe Al Gore should indeed profit from the entire global warming crisis and effort, since prior to the last couple of years we’ve had Americans all over the nation claiming that they don’t ‘believe’ in global warming. Well? Too bad. It doesn’t matter if you do or don’t ‘believe’ in global warming because its not a religion, its science, and its whats happening to our environment. We live in a naturally occurring world, doesn’t that speak to enough people?

    -Sharone Tal

  3. brendan says:

    Well, I'm glad we've got it all figured out then. Life should be much easier with all these clear answers in mind.thanks!

  4. CLIMATEGATE1 says:

    Cap and trade, or KILL and TAX, is nothing more than a scheme cooked up by ALGORE and his band of socialists to re-distribute the wealth of industrialized countries to 3rd world countries of the world. Our taxes will be stolen by dictators and tribal leaders and their countries will stay as “waste-land”. Our developed countries will be brought down to their level by excessive taxes on businesses and the middle class! NOTHING MORE THAN A SCAM AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

  5. brendan says:

    Well andy1yev, it's going to be hard to find any comment in this debate as ignorant as yours. the global climate change debate is about CLIMATE, not WEATHER. And GLOBAL, not local.for example, 2009 now having ended, we know that it was the second warmest year on record over the whole earth, but not in the u.s.–where it was still among the five warmest, but not #2, in the sourthern hemisphere, 2009 was the record warmest year–the warmest ever in that half of the globe.–but we are talking here of averages across an entire planet, over a whole year. nothing there would say that some state or country would not have a very cold week or month–just that such weeks will become unusual and eventually rare, and warmer months or weeks more common (and warmer, occassionally) as the years and decades go by.climatologists, in fact don't even really like to talk about individual years, since one can be an el nino or la nina year. they prefer to look at decades at a time, or five or ten year floating averages. this avoids mistaking one unusually warm or cold year for a trend.looked at in ten year averages, the numbers for the three years since Gore's film, or for the ten years we have so far this century, are actually a slight bit worse (warmer) than was predicted then. so much for exageration.–brendanbut i suspect that you are not anxious to hear all this.

  6. brendan says:

    Well andy1yev, it's going to be hard to find any comment in this debate as ignorant as yours. the global climate change debate is about CLIMATE, not WEATHER. And GLOBAL, not local.for example, 2009 now having ended, we know that it was the second warmest year on record over the whole earth, but not in the u.s.–where it was still among the five warmest, but not #2, in the sourthern hemisphere, 2009 was the record warmest year–the warmest ever in that half of the globe.–but we are talking here of averages across an entire planet, over a whole year. nothing there would say that some state or country would not have a very cold week or month–just that such weeks will become unusual and eventually rare, and warmer months or weeks more common (and warmer, occassionally) as the years and decades go by.climatologists, in fact don't even really like to talk about individual years, since one can be an el nino or la nina year. they prefer to look at decades at a time, or five or ten year floating averages. this avoids mistaking one unusually warm or cold year for a trend.looked at in ten year averages, the numbers for the three years since Gore's film, or for the ten years we have so far this century, are actually a slight bit worse (warmer) than was predicted then. so much for exageration.–brendanbut i suspect that you are not anxious to hear all this.

  7. Joel Garner says:

    Your makeing money off Global warming so why can't Al Gore, nether one of you are causeing it. There is no subsatute for profit and Al Gore hasn't been proven wrong.

  8. Joel garner says:

    It beats hurting the enviroment to make profits, could even help.

  9. Joel Garner says:

    Wait till this summer!

  10. Joel Garner says:

    On 6-24-09 Ingersoll Rand/Hussmann Corp. Fired me for refuseing to violate EPA laws and National Electrical Codes. The EPA laws were refuseing to blow off refrigerant (R-22) in to the atmosphere from a commercial HVAC unit. My supervisor stated thats how (IR/Hussmann Corp.) dose it in LasVegas, NV. So far I have not found any Goverment agency that cares. The EPA says they have no laws against being fired for refuseing to violate there laws. This happened in Reno NV. Nevada has no laws against this it is a “at will' state. The Ceo of Ingersoll Rand, Herb Henkel was contacted and passed it off to Mr. John Gialouris <[email protected]>, President Retail Solutions,Hussmann whom did nothing not even a phone call or E-mail.

  11. Anyy1yev,I think the effects of global warming mean that climate patterns will become more radical. It's also hard to take short-term patterns and apply it to the system.

  12. andy1yev says:

    GLOBAL WARMING MY ASS I'M IN FLORIDA AND IT'S FRIGGIN 28 DEGREES OUT IF THATS GETTING WARMMER WE MUST BE CRAZY, THAT'S WHY I MOVED TO FLORIDA TO GET AWAY FROM THE COLD IN THE NORTHEAST, KEEP TRYING TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE THAT THE WORLD GETTING WARMMER YOU ASSHOLE, AL GORE WE CAN SEE REALITY OURSELVES THE ONLY THING GETTING WARMMER IS YOUR BANK ACCT!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. brendan says:

    It is not correct to say his movie included huge errors or gross exagerrations. It was not perfectly correct in every detail to the nth decimal place, but after three years of intensive attack and review and re-review, it has held up in almost every particular. it is also not fair to say he (or who?) 'avoids all debate about whether the danger is as bad as feared.” there is much, much open and live debate, including by mr. Gore. it's just that he doesn't take at all the position in that debate that you believe he should (I guess), but the debate has certainly been active. it would help advance that debate to show his movie, and many others like it, to schoolkids and many other folks as well. then this could be followed–on the same program would be great–with more discussion–or debate if you insist.i don't know anyone, least of all Mr. Gore, who condemn coubters as 'child killers'. talk about gross exageration!but i do think you are close to the mark with the flat earth comment.climate change denial is just a notch or so short of that ignorant.

  14. austinmclaen says:

    I will buy a ford focus when Al Gore sells his escalade

  15. austinmclaen says:

    I never knew that Al Gore had a PhD in enviromental engineering. I'm sure he has done alot of test on global warming. It's pretty pathetic that people actually listen to someone that has no professional experience in global warming. Al Gore seems to have taken this up as a hobby to make money. A

  16. brendan says:

    It is not correct to say his movie included huge errors or gross exagerrations. It was not perfectly correct in every detail to the nth decimal place, but after three years of intensive attack and review and re-review, it has held up in almost every particular. it is also not fair to say he (or who?) 'avoids all debate about whether the danger is as bad as feared.” there is much, much open and live debate, including by mr. Gore. it's just that he doesn't take at all the position in that debate that you believe he should (I guess), but the debate has certainly been active. it would help advance that debate to show his movie, and many others like it, to schoolkids and many other folks as well. then this could be followed–on the same program would be great–with more discussion–or debate if you insist.i don't know anyone, least of all Mr. Gore, who condemn coubters as 'child killers'. talk about gross exageration!but i do think you are close to the mark with the flat earth comment.climate change denial is just a notch or so short of that ignorant.

  17. austinmclaen says:

    I will buy a ford focus when Al Gore sells his escalade

  18. austinmclaen says:

    I will buy a Ford Focus when Al Gore sells his Boeing 747 and Suburban

  19. austinmclaen says:

    I never knew that Al Gore had a PhD in enviromental engineering. I'm sure he has done alot of test on global warming. It's pretty pathetic that people actually listen to someone that has no professional experience in global warming. Al Gore seems to have taken this up as a hobby to make money. A

  20. Chris says:

    Short answer: in the United States of America, everyone has the right to make a fair profit and self determine their own worth.Having said that, there does appear to be a profitable loop set up in that VP Gore buys carbon credits to offset his lifestyle from an organization that VP Gore set up and chairs (actually, several organizations that VP Gore created). That organization invests those carbon credit funds in green technology (either IP, stocks, or purchase outright); and on “awareness” consisting of public ad campaigns, research grants, and lobbyists. So far, we are over $1 Billion invested.The research dollars are magnitudes more than the $19 million oil companies spent and are a plentiful cash cow for those research organizations that are used to scratching out funding. Scientist that disagreed with the man-made global warming were discredited and maligned by the “awareness” literature, and there are more man-made Global warming lobbyists than there are congressmen, so the legislative branch will certainly hear what it is supposed to hear (and backed up by their constituents who follow the 'awareness” literature and taught in our schools)If legislation is passed to take action against man made global warming, and it is like the Kyoto Protocol where principally the US was restricted and it was OK for other countries to pollute more, than US industry and ability to provide for their own will be handicapped. Except for the holdings mentioned before. Those IP, stocks, and companies that the carbon credits purchased would become indispensable and very, very profitable for those organizations that VP Gore controls.If all this is predicated on a lie – as indicated by recently revealed e-mail accounts of those whose research founded the policy, than yours might be a messy question to answer.The original raw data for the studies conclusions have already been destroyed and have never been released for independent peer review, so the “science” behind man-made global warming is debatable. The need to be good stewards of our planet is not debatable, and the results of poor ecological policy are evident and defendable (Love Canal, Union Carbide India, Etc).Green Technology is the responsible path to a sustainable future, but is basing this new industrial revolution on “overstated truths”, bad science, and alarmist headlines justification enough for the press organizations and congress to continue to admire the Emperor's New Clothes? Even if it does, is it wise to channel so much of the financial gains, influence, and control through one chairman? And even then, Al Gore is not immortal, so who inherits this throne after VP Gore's passing and what will that entity do with it?Making profit, how you made that profit, and what you do with your profit are three major aspects that the government has reviewed in publicly traded corporations and do require examination in this instance, regardless of political affiliation and intention.

  21. re2 says:

    I've identified a niche environmental market which will save small businesses money and have just been advised that if it is managed effectively I could “clean up” an entire area. Owing to a medical condition, I have been unable to find work because no-one has been prepared to provide the necessary support facilities which would enable me to work for them. Applying some of the arguments on here, does that mean I shouldnt go out and sell my niche business idea so that I can improve my standard of living in an environmentally friendly way??

  22. karin_kloosterman says:

    Gore won $1 million at Tel Aviv University from the Dan David prize. He could have pocketed it; but he gave it to charity. I think it's fair to profit from climate change, but maybe he is guilty. It's hard for me to say. He went out on a limb and has done so much to educate the average person about climate change…

  23. Karin says:

    I think that in this case, it should be okay to profit from the environment – by putting your money where your mouth is.

  24. Maurice Picow says:

    Fiona, I think that Gore really believes what he is preaching about; and the fact he’s made a lot of money out of it just happened along the way.

    Did Mr. Gore actually pocket all this wealth – or did the money actually go into foundations, etc., that might wind up doing some good? Maybe into alternative and renewable energy, perhaps?

    Most people are just envious of his good fortune – including G.W. Bush!

  25. Fiona says:

    There is nothing wrong with making a profit from global warming, just as there’s nothing wrong with making a profit from vaccines or even fossil fuels.

    There’s also nothing wrong with campaigning on an issue.

    It’s when you combine the two.

    Al Gore isn’t advertising his ‘product’, he’s scaring people into having it. He’s using his position as an advisor/benefactor/saviour to line his pockets. I find such an activity just as distasteful in religious types. Here’s the picture of Hell, now give me money to save yourself from it. Nasty.

    Now to many like Doug it doesn’t matter, but then he’s not type of person who needs to be convinced.

    If the AGW movement are serious about needing the entire world to follow them in cutting back on CO2 then the leaders have to be beyond reproach. If that’s not possible, you’ll never convince the general public for more than a few months at a time and many will never listen to you.

    I suppose it depends on whether you really think that’s important.

  26. Maurice Picow says:

    I see that so far there is one yea and one nay regarding Al Gore and his profiting from his warnings about global warming. Only time will tell, and that “time” appears to be going quickly.

    Referring to Gore losing the Presidency, There appeared to be a lot of hanky panky involved most, if not all of it from the Republicans, especially a guy named Dick Cheny, who flew back and forth between Florida and Washington DC to convince the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Bush. However, I think Gore would agree that it would have been most unpleasant to have been the president when those three planes slammed into the WTC and the Pentagon.

    Better to be where he is now.

  27. Solar energy says:

    I’ve got a solar energy business helping solar panel installers get more business, so you could say that I am profiting from Global Warming. It’s all relative!

    Cheers, Doug

  28. Fiona says:

    Take the current swine flu pandemic – a real and present danger. People are dying and it could be a whole lot worse.

    Say I was the chairman of a vaccine company.

    Would it be right for me to insist that there is no time to examine if swine flu is a great enough problem to warrant the vaccine, we also don’t have enough time to test? Don’t think, get vaccinated NOW! No.

    Would it be right for me to create a movie with huge mistakes and gross exaggerations about swine flu and then promote it as fact? No.

    Would it be right for that movie to be shown to school kids? No.

    Would it be right to encourage kids to pressure their parents into buying flu vaccines? No.

    Would it be right for me to continually exagerate the dangers of the virus well beyond the risks determined by mainstream scientists?

    Would it be right for me to promote my vaccine while having no intention of taking it myself (ie when is Al going to cut his CO2 footprint to match his words)? No.

    Would it be right for me to avoid all debate on whether the danger is as bad as feared? No.

    Would it be right for me to condemn those who have doubts about the vaccine as child killers and so stupid they also think the world was flat? No.

    You get the picture.

  29. Pingback: Greengamma.com
  30. Pingback: Rosezell James
  31. Pingback: Jewish Bloggers
  32. Pingback: Kimberly
  33. Pingback: greenprophet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

16 + four =