Obamas Big Carbon Footprint

Hycklaren Al Gore har fått sällskap av Barack Obama vad det gäller att predika Gloom and Doom för vanligt folk. Samt att de kräver att vanligt folk OMEDELBART lägger om sin livsstil och genomför nedskärningar och besparingar.

Medans de själva lever ett HELT ANNAT luxuöst liv och gör allt det de säger att vanligt folk INTE skall göra.

Och McCain är inte ett dugg bättre än Obama utan deltar även han i detta hyckleri. Hillary är åtminstone så PK att hon sköter biten med utsläppsrätter.

Se även mina inlägg:

The master hypocrite Al Gore doesn’t want to criticise his Hollywood buddies! Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!Al Gores energislösande hem,  Al Gores energislösande resandeHycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd


An Open Letter to the Presidential Candidates on Global WarmingObamas senate achievements – Ehh… Which achievements??

”Per interest in Barack Obama’s airplane use, here’s more info on his oil addiction: When the Green Senator disembarks from his Secret Service-provided Chevy Suburban, he boards a Boeing 757 (sucking 1,100 gallons of fuel an hour) booked by his campaign through Air Charter (pictured below). And because his wife, Michelle, generally campaigns separately from her husband, you can add to that fuel consumption number (although, given Barack Obama’s large press contingent, she may require a smaller plane like an MD-80. The Obama campaign has a set policy against using corporate jets).”


”Good gravy! What is that behemoth from which SUV-slaying Barack ”Speak Truth to Horsepower” Obama and his family are emerging on the Chicago airport tarmac Tuesday? It’s. . . it’s . . . a 13-mpg Chevy Suburban sport ute!

Do as I say, not as I do.

Obama’s inconvenient photo comes in the midst of a campaign in which he regularly preaches against Detroit’s production of large vehicles, saying that ”when our economy, our security, and the safety of our planet depend on our ability to make cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars, every American has a responsibility to make sure that happens.”

Well, not every American, obviously.”

”In addition to using a thirsty charter jet and SUV motorcade to ferry him to speeches ripping Detroit automakers for causing global warming by not building more fuel efficient vehicles, it turns out Barack Obama also chooses horsepower over fuel efficiency in his family car.

Mark Phelan reports in Friday’s Detroit Free Press that Obama drives a 340-HP V-8 Hemi Chrysler 300C – the most powerful engine option for that vehicle, and one of the most powerful family sedans on the market. The ”C” gets a combined city/highway 21 mpg.

As Obama shows, fuel efficiency is not a top priority among American customers. Though engine technology generally gains in efficiency 1.5 percent a year, most of that gain goes to HP, reflecting buyer tastes.

What’s next for Green hypocrite Obama? A 10,000 square foot home in Tennessee?”

”In response to Henry Payne’s item below on the Obamas and their SUV, a number of readers have written in to note, rightly, that the Obamas were most likely crossing the tarmac to get into a private jet, which is slightly less green than the pictured sport ute. But reader Tim Lloyd’s response made me laugh out loud:

I saw the Henry Payne bit about the SUV, but I recall Michelle Obama telling the Boston Globe that while on the trail ”she makes a point of fitting her campaigning into daytrips, so she can be home to put their daughters to bed.”

Makes the SUV pretty irrelevant.

I assume, given her schedule, it was a private jet. Daily flights back and forth to all 57 states, four or five times a week, quite a carbon footprint. I wonder if other countries would be OK with that.”

Artikeln finns här:


Och här:


Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6+USA” rel=”tag”>miljö USA</a>


Issue Date: Feb. 25, 2008, Posted On: 2/25/2008

McCain, Obama talk a green game but fail on carbon neutrality

By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama have called for strict mandatory limits to control greenhouse gases but they aren’t leading by example – each has failed to pay for offsets to cover all of his campaign’s carbon emissions.

Campaign finance records for 2007 show that neither of the two leading presidential candidates has spent money to independently cover his campaign’s ”carbon footprint” – the amount of carbon emissions emitted by the planes and vehicles the candidates and their staffs use for travel, or by the computers and headquarters needed to run a presidential campaign. Though both campaigns say they practice energy conservation, Mr. Obama offsets only some of his airplane flight emissions, while Mr. McCain doesn’t cover even that.

”They clearly should be not only buying these ration coupons, or indulgences, but they should be massively reducing their footprint,” said Christopher Horner, author of the ”Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.” ”The fact that they’re out front on [global warming] is where their troubles start.”

By contrast, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made monthly payments to offset her campaign’s ”carbon footprint.”

The concept is simple: Businesses and individuals can pay a company to plant trees or fund projects that produce lower amounts of greenhouse gases. The goal is ”carbon neutrality,” or paying for enough offsets to cover your own emissions, and it’s catching on from rock bands to Congress. Even parts of the Academy Awards went carbon-neutral last year.

But presidential campaigns are having a tougher time.

Six months ago, Mr. McCain’s campaign said it was preparing to reduce its net carbon output. Spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan told The Washington Times that McCain staffers had asked for a company to study the campaign’s carbon footprint and suggest offsets.

They’re right in the middle of it, so we look forward to hearing the outcomes of this study,” she said in August.

On Feb. 18, though, spokesman Brian Rogers said that was a mistake, and the study fell by the wayside a month earlier during a July staff shake-up.

We were in negotiations for study but in the chaos of last summer, the staff in charge of it left, and it was not picked back up,” Mr. Rogers said.

Even some campaigns that started with the best of intentions fell short in execution, stopping payments when their cash flow tightened.

John Edwards, one of the earliest candidates to commit to offsets, paid $21,997 last year to Native Energy, a Vermont-based company, according to Federal Election Commission reports. His most recent payment was made July 11, six months before his campaign ended.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, another candidate who made an offsets pledge, recorded his last payment to Carbon Fund in September, more than two months before he dropped out of the race.

”I’m sure that a number of the candidates saw offsets as a good way to show leadership by example, but when confronted with the cold reality of a cash crunch, offsets are one of the first things to go,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. He said offsets are probably well-intentioned, but are not an overall solution to climate change nor the best way to gauge a campaign’s commitment to addressing global warming.

Mr. Horner, a critic of environmentalists’ global warming solutions, said campaigns that abandoned their pledges showed that their commitment ”was a stunt, not a belief.”

He said offsets are ”climatically meaningless,” and that the programs funded through offsets are often not transparent or verifiable.

Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have called for cap-and-trade schemes that would set a limit for carbon emissions and allow companies to trade credits among themselves. Mrs. Clinton takes advantage of a similar offsets market.

Mrs. Clinton spent $20,327 last year with Native Energy, making regular payments including one of $4,743 in December. At $12 per metric ton, that December figure would give her a monthly carbon output of less than 400 metric tons, or about 20 times the average U.S. home’s total for a year.

Still, that was smaller than what Mr. Edwards produced. During four months, he made payments averaging more than $5,000, or an acknowledged carbon footprint of at least 450 metric tons per month.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to several e-mails and phone calls seeking comment.

Although Mr. Obama doesn’t purchase independent offsets for commercial flights, automobiles and campaign headquarters energy use, his campaign pays its charter company, Missouri-based Air Charter Team, to offset the costs of his charter flights. Last year, Mr. Obama recorded $4.3 million in costs with Air Charter, though only a tiny fraction of that would have gone to offsets.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said the campaign takes other steps, such as use of fluorescent light bulbs, energy-efficient computers and copiers, and 40 percent post-consumer recycled copy paper.

He said the campaign draws the shades on its buildings’ west, south and east sides to reduce the need for extra air conditioning; encourages conference calls to reduce travel; follows a policy against reimbursing for taxi fares to encourage use of public transportation; and requests flex-fuel vehicles for staffers’ travel.

”Finally, the campaign’s main Web site, barackobama.com, encourages e-mail over traditional mail to contact us, which eliminates the carbon footprint of the delivery. We use primarily electronic communications to circulate information amongst the staff and send nationwide invitations and promotional materials via e-mail, eliminating paper use and the carbon emissions associated with delivery,” Mr. Vietor said.

On the McCain campaign, Mr. Rogers said staffers were working to improve energy efficiency in their building. ”[Air conditioning] and heat is not running when we’re not here, trying to shut off the lights, turn off computers at night,” he said. If Mr. McCain wins the nomination, he said, the campaign will take another look at steps to take, including ”the possibility of offsets.”

”It will all be determined by whoever comes back with recommendations and what steps we can practically take as a campaign to reduce our footprint,” he said.

He also said Mr. McCain deserves credit for his policy leadership.

”We think that the senator’s longtime commitment and advocacy for a real market-based program that can address our carbon emissions in a market-based way speaks for itself,” he said. ”The fact that we are even engaged in this discussion is a step forward.”

Etiketter: , ,

7 svar to “Obamas Big Carbon Footprint”

  1. Democrats Fall Out « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] även mina inlägg: McWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner?,  Obamas Big Carbon Footprint,  How Hawaii Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Legislation,  […]

  2. The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Fall Out,  McWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner?,  Obamas Big Carbon Footprint,  How Hawaii Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Legislation,  […]

  3. We Don’t Need a Climate Tax on the Poor « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Democrats Fall Out,  McWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner?,  Obamas Big Carbon Footprint,  How Hawaii Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Legislation,  […]

  4. A factory that makes 30 TIMES MORE MONEY by selling “carbon credits” to fight global warming than it makes by selling it’s products. « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […]  Democrats Fall Out,  McWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner?,  Obamas Big Carbon Footprint,  How Hawaii Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Legislation,  […]

  5. Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Democrats Fall Out,  McWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner?,  Obamas Big Carbon Footprint,  How Hawaii Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Legislation,  […]

  6. The perfect “Eco Friendly” life for humans according to The Global Warming Hysterics « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Democrats Fall Out,  McWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner?,  Obamas Big Carbon Footprint,  How Hawaii Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Legislation,  […]

  7. Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 59 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Obamas Big Carbon Footprint […]


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: