By now you've probably read about how Al Gore and his Alliance for Climate Protection plan to drop $300 million on hard-hitting affective propaganda aimed at convincing the American viewing public to embrace the drastically reduced standard of living that carbon emission controls guarantee.
The first ad from the campaign, narrated by Oscar-nominated actor William H. Macy, shows footage of Americans taking action by storming the beaches at Normandy during World War II, marching for civil rights, and landing on the moon. Americans didn't wait to take action at these critical points in the nation's history, so "we can't wait for someone else to solve the global climate crisis. We need to act and we need to act now. Join us. Together we can solve the climate crisis..."
Setting aside the fact that "we" couldn't actually solve the imagined climate crisis even if stringent carbon controls were imposed on "us," why isn't the media taking a hard look at how much money Al Gore stands to personally take in as a result of the climate of mass hysteria he’s been been helping to foment with his no-holds-barred campaign of misinformation aimed at marginalizing and ostracizing all those who dare to question his take on global warming? Why is the media giving Saint Albert of Carthage, Tennessee, a pass, treating him as a selfless truth-teller on a crusade to save the world, instead of as a masterful market manipulator? (NewsBusters' Dan Riehl hit the bullseye on his personal blog last year, "If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in?")
It's well-documented that the media treats Gore like a rock star. Fast Company hailed Gore as a comeback kid, describing him as "an epic loser [who] engineered what may be the greatest brand makeover of our time." Business Week said he "seems now to be tapped into the American zeitgeist." ClimateBiz cited one source calling Gore a "truly committed and courageous leader," another source in the same article described Gore's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize as "a huge intellectual milestone." And there have been a few puff pieces here and there on Gore's global warming-related business investments, but none that this writer was to find go beyond the superficial.
How is Gore trying to be a climate change profiteer? Essentially, he wants to make a fortune by creating a new market for a product that he is attempting to create by legislative fiat. If he succeeds and carbon emissions trading comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in. He's made sure of that.
Gore himself is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). He says the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally-friendly, to use green parlance. GIM appears to have considerable influence over major carbon credit trading firms: the U.S.-based Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the U.K.-based Carbon Neutral Company (CNC). CCX appears to be the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
As a politician, Gore speaks warmly of transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming. Little is known about his shadowy firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.
As reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch ("Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It," by Deborah Corey Barnes), with help from friends at Goldman Sachs, including Hank Paulson, the investment bank’s former CEO who is now the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Gore has created a web of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis.
Meanwhile, Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is pushing for tougher environmental regulations on the private sector. It wants “cap-and-trade” legislation enacted so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits. Untold billions of dollars could be generated in a brand new U.S. carbon market.
When Gore's potential for immense profits is factored in, the $300 million outlay for ads (some of which is likely to come from donations to the Alliance's "We Campaign") seems like a drop in the bucket.
If Gore can keep up the pressure for carbon emissions restrictions, he could end up a very wealthy man.
(This is an expanded version of a blog entry posted a few hours ago at Capital Research Center's blog.)