Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 14, 2017

The Hand in Hand hurricane fund-raiser started with a lecture about global warming - then celebrities with multiple homes, cars and private jets starting soliciting much needed money

Whole host of A-list celebrities turned out for the Hand in Hand: A Benefit for Hurricane Harvey Relief telethon. An exclusive MailOnline investigation has revealed how much CO2 they have burned through by globetrotting. Performer Justin Bieber is thought to have traveled at least 136,000 miles in planes since September last year. Carbon emissions are said to have caused global temperature rising adding to devastation of powerful storms

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Carbon emissions are said to have caused global temperature rising adding to devastation of powerful storms

POSTED BY JAMESGELLIOTT AT

So,,,, man made global warming is a myth AND these poeople are causing global warming....

Ever tell yourself jokes and then laugh if you've never heard them before?

#1 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-14 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't post anything. It's initial summary of the article you idiot.

#2 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2017-09-14 02:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Ohhh.

Look out boys.

Kitty's got claws and she doesn't like how her own poop smells..

#3 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-14 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't believe it or anything. I just took the time to post it.

Soooo stupit!

#2 | POSTED BY JAMESGELLIOTT AT

Fixed.

#4 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-14 02:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I love articles like this, anyone who dare suggest MMGW is happening is supposed to bicycle across the United States or shut up.

Sooo stoopit is dead on.

#5 | Posted by 726 at 2017-09-14 03:47 PM | Reply

#1 and #5

So let's get this straight, they had to globe trot, and create a huge CO2 footprint, so they could tell everyone not to create a CO2 footprint, because that is causing all these storms and they want money from everyone to help the victims, and the personally donated ???$$$???? your right #1 it's simply brilliant and a great laugh to boot ........ Couldn't have IDK, stayed where they were and did that via a video feed or anything, but I see how you'd think bicycle first (just saying) I'm sure the had lots of chocolate, in their green room too, plus other things that are helping with more CO2 production, but you're right we should all do as they do right????

#6 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-14 05:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Stories like this assume, without any proof, that these celebrities never do anything to offset their carbon use. A rich person could be reducing their carbon footprint to zero through a variety of means. This link is just climate FUD spread in service of the industries that contribute heavily to climate change.

#7 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-14 05:20 PM | Reply

#7 Serious question like doing what to reduce a footprint that big?

Correct me if I'm wrong, if they all would have stayed home and called in and donated what their travel expenses there would have been, they would have made somewhere in the range of at least half a $1m for sure (all of them added together to get that much) and contributed that to the cause??

Then i'd be saying something completely different.

#9 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-14 05:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Serious question like doing what to reduce a footprint that big?

There are carbon offsets for much bigger footprints than people flying across the planet.

www.davidsuzuki.org

A flight from New York City to London has a carbon impact of 4,700 pounds CO2, according to Atmosfair.

The cost of an offset for that flight is around $60.

www.atmosfair.de

George Clooney, who has a net worth of $500 million, could easily fund carbon offsets and climate change charities that generate more carbon-reducing activities than he consumes jet-setting around.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-14 05:54 PM | Reply

could easily fund carbon offsets

So is he?

#13 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-14 06:22 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#12 - Here's the math on that...

Total Annual Global Carbon Output Per Year - 79,145,952,124,371.9 pounds
Clooney's Contribution to Global Carbon Output - 4,700.0 pounds
Clooney's Payment for Carbon Credits - 60.0 dollars
New Annual Global Carbon Output Per Year - 79,145,952,124,371.9 pounds
Clooney's reduction in Global Carbon Output Per Year - 0.0 pounds

Paying for carbon credits isn't reducing carbon emissions. People reducing carbon emissions is reducing carbon emissions. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint paying people who are doing it for you doesn't actually change your carbon footprint. Carbon credits would have to cost 10 times what they do now for them to be economically viable for anyone to create carbon credits for the sake of creating carbon credits. Paying someone else for reducing your carbon footprint is merely a thank you, it's not saving anything. If you want to make carbon credits mandatory expect to see airline prices double and gas prices to jump over $10/gallon which would further increase the financial burden on the poor and put our economy into a tizzy. Na, let's not.

#17 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-14 07:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So is he?

The Daily Mail doesn't bother to find out. That's my point. They would rather bash from a position of ignorance for the benefit of climate deniers and the climate denial adjacent.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-14 08:11 PM | Reply

If you want to reduce your carbon footprint paying people who are doing it for you doesn't actually change your carbon footprint.

You're engaging in a shell game. If George Clooney offsets 100% of his carbon use or more, it doesn't matter how he achieved it.

What you're doing is like telling a person their weight loss doesn't count because they did it through exercise instead of caloric reduction.

#19 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-14 08:15 PM | Reply

How does Clooney paying $60 do anything for the environment?

Honestly, as someone who, like everyone else here, has a stake in the future of the planet, think it's fine to pay an insignificant sum of money so you can pollute at a high level?

How does that square. I want less pollution?

Is it wrong to just want less pollution?

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-14 08:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#19 - No what I'm saying is your weight loss doesn't count because you paid someone else to lose weight.

#22 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-14 08:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Eberly, I understand what you are saying.

But in a world without carbon taxes, I don't pay anything other than fuel, maintenance, and whatever car payments I made once upon a time, to pollute at whatever level fits my lifestyle. Nobody does.

You think that's better?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 08:25 PM | Reply

And the point is his payment isn't reducing anything. Nobody is out building solar arrays using carbon credits as a main revenue consideration. It's just a perk for reducing your own emissions. Nothing more. it's actually hypocrisy.

#24 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-14 08:25 PM | Reply

What are we doing with carbon taxes? How much? Spent where?

And is it actually offsetting the pollution it promised to?

At the end of the day, does Clooney pollute less or does less pollution occurs due to the credits?

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-14 08:29 PM | Reply

23

Not really. But is the carbon credit a meaningful disincentive to pollute?

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-14 08:30 PM | Reply

#18 | POSTED BY RCADE

I agree it was horrible reporting, they should have done that. It doesn't remove the irony of it though.

I think #17 POSTED BY GAVASTER hits it pretty close. It's more like going on a diet and paying a super model to step on the scale for you, even though you way 600 lbs...

#27 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-14 08:32 PM | Reply

Perhaps it's obvious I know nothing about carbon credits/offsets.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-14 08:33 PM | Reply

I go to the park and start dumping trash all over the playground. And as I leave I pay the park manager to clean up my mess. Real noble of me huh? I'm really helping keep the park clean!!

#29 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-14 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I eat bacon every day, weigh 400 lbs.

I pay someone to not eat, does that reverse the heart disease and diabetes headed my way?

Does it change the damage?

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-14 08:38 PM | Reply

I think #17 POSTED BY GAVASTER hits it pretty close. It's more like going on a diet and paying a super model to step on the scale for you, even though you way 600 lbs...

Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-14 08:32 PM | Reply

I THINK I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great idea.

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-14 08:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But is the carbon credit a meaningful disincentive to pollute?"

If you get a ration of carbon, and you don't need it all, you can sell your pollution rights to that other guy. So your bottom line benefits if you use less carbon and sell your extra.

Meanwhile, the guy who buys your carbon credits is incented to find ways to not have to buy your offsets, and the only way to avoid the tax is by not emitting the carbon in the first place.

If you believe markets work, then it's not crazy to think this market can work.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 08:40 PM | Reply

"I eat bacon every day, weigh 400 lbs.
I pay someone to not eat, does that reverse the heart disease and diabetes headed my way?
Does it change the damage?"

It doesn't change the damage you're doing to yourself, but it does reduce the damage that other person might do to himself. So total damage is reduced.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 08:41 PM | Reply

Ok. If it can be established that overall less pollution occurs then fine.

Are we polluting less?

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-14 08:49 PM | Reply

#34 - No we are not. Clooney still went on his trip. He increased his carbon footprint.

#36 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-14 08:54 PM | Reply

"Are we polluting less?"

If your flight released one ton of CO2, and you pay an offset which is spent to generate the exact amount of green energy which would produce one ton of CO2 if it said energy were to come from burning coal, isn't pollution the same amount?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 08:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And the point is his payment isn't reducing anything.

If that's what you believe, you don't know jack about carbon offsets.

"Some airline websites, for example, offer the option to buy them from third-party sellers to counterbalance the considerable carbon pollution associated with flying. Should you buy them? Yes, but selectively. Low-quality carbon offsets were once common, so you first have to do some legwork to ensure authenticity."

www.nrdc.org

People can buy qualified offsets to mitigate the emissions that they cause. The net result can easily be to cause more reduction in CO2 than your activities produce. It couldn't be more obvious.

But if you want to hold to the position that we should all live in caves and forage by hand for food, knock yourself out. You're making the perfect the enemy of the good.

#39 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-14 09:07 PM | Reply

We should impose a CGW (catastrophic global warming) tax on jet fuel. And another luxury tax on private jets for causing congestion at airports and in the air.

#40 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-09-14 09:11 PM | Reply

How does Clooney paying $60 do anything for the environment?

Clooney's flight produces X amount of CO2. A $Y offset causes an activity that reduces X amount of CO2. They balance out.

Does that mean he should never think about flying less? Of course not. But if you understand that there are carbon offsets that work, you should acknowledge that reducing your carbon footprint to zero by using them is good.

#41 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-14 09:16 PM | Reply

Two hypotheticals:

1. I consume $300 a month in electricity to power my house. I decide this is wasteful, so I change my activities to consume $150 less a month.

2. I consume $300 a month in electricity to power my house. I decide this is wasteful, so I put solar panels up to produce $150 in energy a month.

Why is 1 the only acceptable solution? The net energy consumption in both is equal. They should be equally acceptable.

#42 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-14 09:23 PM | Reply

We should impose a CGW (catastrophic global warming) tax on jet fuel.

There are a lot of taxes we should impose to put the actual cost of activities into the price of doing them. At some point in the future that will be the norm, assuming we don't make a complete ruin of the planet before then.

#43 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-14 09:24 PM | Reply

"No energy consumption has changed"

But since your neighbor put up solar, CO2 output was reduced, compared to if they hadn't put up solar.

Quite simple, I'm sure you'll agree.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 09:59 PM | Reply

#47 - Yes. They did. You just pay them 5 bucks later for doing it because you're too hypocritical to change your own habits and save carbon emissions.

#48 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-14 10:04 PM | Reply

You just pay them 5 bucks later for doing it because you're too hypocritical to change your own habits and save carbon emissions.

Have you quit flying? By your ridiculous logic that's the only way to mitigate the emissions produced by your air travel.

It is well-established at this point that some carbon offsets are effective. Reputable environmental authorities all provide support for this. To insist this is not true over and over is as ignorant as climate denial.

#49 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-14 10:10 PM | Reply

"You just pay them 5 bucks later for doing it because you're too hypocritical to change your own habits and save carbon emissions."

I'm not seeing the downside.

Carbon emissions were reduced, and instead of working for it, you solved the problem by throwing money at it, which is about the only thing money is good for.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 11:06 PM | Reply

"To insist this is not true over and over is as ignorant as climate denial."

In that case, we're all looking forward to three threads a day denying it.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 11:07 PM | Reply

We should impose a CGW (catastrophic global warming) tax on jet fuel. And another luxury tax on private jets for causing congestion at airports and in the air.
#40 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I could only hope they do this, I am tired of the hoi poloi flying .....

The net energy consumption in both is equal.
#42 | POSTED BY RCADE

Actually its not. There is a carbon cost of a solar panel.

In fact with the solar panel in place and your bill lowered you might be inclined to use more energy.

Finally there is no ability to store the energy, California is facing an energy glut, but prices are outrageous.

California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it
www.latimes.com

It is well-established at this point that some carbon offsets are effective. - RCade

The "CarbonOffsets" make rich people feel good about emitting more CO2 .... seriously carbon offsets are a form of guilt amelioration.

Buying carbon offsets may ease eco-guilt but not global warming
www.csmonitor.com

I am no saying renewables are bad, but the over simplification is honestly disingenuous and a sloppy understanding of energy used in manufacturing, and production.

Are they even green? There is some concern...

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.
news.nationalgeographic.com

In the end it depends upon if you bought cheap panels or spent big dollars to be green, most didn't .........

#52 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-09-14 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"There is a carbon cost of a solar panel."

There's a carbon cost with just about anything, merely by virtue of bringing it to market.

Good article on the carbon and other environmental costs of solar, spectrum.ieee.org

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 11:17 PM | Reply

"Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste."

Yeah.
Coal has an even worse laundry list of problems.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 11:20 PM | Reply

--Coal has an even worse laundry list of problems.

So why aren't Democrats proposing a huge tax on it? Politics?

#55 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-09-14 11:33 PM | Reply

"So why aren't Democrats proposing a huge tax on it? Politics?"

What's a carbon tax?

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-15 12:41 AM | Reply

Instead of the stick of taxation, we can use the carrot of market returns to achieve the desired societal change.

What we already do plenty of is use the tax rebate to make it so when you get hit with the tax stick, it hurts less. But this is fundamentally like saying the beatings will continue until morale improves. It's not an actual profit motive that would spur carbon-free innovation to the point that carbon credits themselves are nearly worthless, sort of like salt used to be worth a lot and now it's not.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-15 12:47 AM | Reply

#39 - Not at all. But I'm not a doomsday prepper either. :-)

The bottom line is paying someone else for their previous decisions to reduce their carbon footprint does not translate to an overall smaller carbon footprint. The choice to build a 5MW solar facility in Japan I think it is that'll take advantage of carbon credits is not a motivating factor for anyone to invest in the solar power plant or to build a new one. It doesn't make solar viable or worth the investment. It's just a guilt pacifier for rich people and a perk for those who are already reducing their carbon footprint. If you think throwing a guy $60 for installing a 1KW system is motivating anyone to buy a solar panel you're delusional. "Spend $9k on solar panels and save 0.66% off your total" isn't exactly a winning marketing campaign.

#58 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-15 01:16 AM | Reply

"The bottom line is paying someone else for their previous decisions to reduce their carbon footprint does not translate to an overall smaller carbon footprint."

No, but the previous decision to reduce the carbon footprint does.

That's the bottom line.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-15 03:35 AM | Reply

I THINK I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great idea.

#31 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Aaaaaw thanks Laura! Love you too.....

Let me know what the Dr says when you pay the nurse to step on the scale for you :)

#60 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-15 07:51 AM | Reply

How about they spend that $60 after every flight and plant a tree on their enormous properties, that'll actually reduce CO2 way more. Then they can also have a mini forrest.

Honestly if you really want to reduce CO2 plant, plants every where and anywhere you can, that'll make a true difference and the planet will be prettier for your efforts. Just saying

#61 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-15 07:59 AM | Reply

Thanks to all of you who engaged me in conversation on this thread.
In the past, For merely asking questions I've been accused of being a Denier. I don't believe that happened this time.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-15 08:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#62 Denier! lol

#63 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-15 09:07 AM | Reply

There is a carbon cost of a solar panel.

A cost that pays itself out quickly. Some of you folks are really invested in never supporting anything that addresses climate change. Even solar panels!

#64 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-15 09:20 AM | Reply

#59 - SNOOFY

Person 1 walks into the park. They dump out a bag of trash. Because they feel bad they pick up half of the trash. On their way out they pass you walking into the park. Having seen them pick up trash you pay them $60. They say "Thanks dude" and saunter off. You then dump your own bag of trash on the ground. Question. Did you make the park cleaner, dirtier, or did the cleanliness of the park stay the same?

#64 - Mandatory carbon credits aren't something I'll support, ever. I recycle, I'm conservative with my energy, drive a vehicle that gets high gas mileage, waste almost no food, and bike/walk extensively to social events. All choices I make that reduce carbon emissions. You paying me money, though appreciated, won't reduce my emissions even further. Carbon credits are the same as Catholic indulgences.

#67 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-15 11:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Carbon credits are the same as Catholic indulgences."

That's nonsense. Carbon is real. Religion is a fantasy.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-15 12:56 PM | Reply

Do you deny that in the scenario you portrayed "the previous decision to reduce the carbon footprint does" in fact reduce carbon output, as I stated in #59?

???

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-15 12:58 PM | Reply

Let's roll it back to here:

"You just pay them 5 bucks later for doing it because you're too hypocritical to change your own habits and save carbon emissions."

I'm not seeing the downside.

Carbon emissions were reduced, and instead of working for it, you solved the problem by throwing money at it, which is about the only thing money is good for.

^

Show me the downside.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-15 01:01 PM | Reply

Snoofy. A is not causing B.

The downside is people feeling justified to pollute more because they paid someone else who isn't polluting as much, thus increasing their own consumption and carbon emissions overall. Nobody is setting up a solar array because of the return on investment from carbon credits. If they are, I have a couple more investments for them to invest in. Have them call me.

#71 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-15 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#71 You didn't leave him your number Gav! Snoofy call 867-5309 to get ahold of him.

#72 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-15 02:20 PM | Reply

The downside is it is delusional to think that it is reducing carbon or any pollution.

I think the argument is more that most of us would like a better solution to problem. Nothing is fixed by throwing money at it, without a solid plan it will always fail at some point. My #61 is a better solution than a carbon tax.

#73 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-09-15 02:31 PM | Reply

"Snoofy. A is not causing B."

Who cares? Carbon goes down, regardless of cause.

"The downside is people feeling justified to pollute more because they paid someone else who isn't polluting as much."

That's not a downside because people can currently feel justified in polluting as much as they want without having to pay anyone for the privilege.

Putting a cost on it creates a disincentive to pollute. So if you're already clean you can sell your credit, and if you're dirty you have a $ incentive to find ways to pollute less and not need to buy someone else's credit.

If you don't think markets work, now would be a good time to say why.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-15 03:24 PM | Reply

"Two hypotheticals:

1. I consume $300 a month in electricity to power my house. I decide this is wasteful, so I change my activities to consume $150 less a month.

2. I consume $300 a month in electricity to power my house. I decide this is wasteful, so I put solar panels up to produce $150 in energy a month.

Why is 1 the only acceptable solution? The net energy consumption in both is equal. They should be equally acceptable." - RCADE

6 years ago this past July I installed 18 solar panels. It's cost me 25K but after a 30% federal tax credit and a 50% state tax credit it only cost me actually $5000 out of pocket.

I hit my profit margin ($5000 out of pocket) last July.

In both of your hypothetical situations, people actually change their behavior.

Buying carbon credits is like the Catholic Church selling indulgences 500 years ago. It doesn't do any good but it allows rich people to assuage their guilt by spending money.

#75 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2017-09-15 04:00 PM | Reply

#74 - SNOOFY

Why do you love the rich so much? You're nothing but a boot-licker for wealthy people wanting to sooth their guilt about polluting the environment putting the cost and burden of reducing carbon emissions on other people. And why do you hate black people so much? Implementing carbon credits will hurt the poor and minorities hardest making life even more difficult for them. You're nothing but a racist 1% boot-licker trying to implement racist policies that do noting more than keep black people down while giving tax breaks to 1%ers. You're such a racist elitist.

:)

#76 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-15 06:39 PM | Reply

"Implementing carbon credits will hurt the poor and minorities hardest making life even more difficult for them."

No it won't.

If you're so poor you can't afford a car, sell that carbon credit to the guy in the Hummer.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-16 02:03 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort