Al Gore Runs Out of Green Energy Suckers to Scam

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Sure Al Gore might still show up at an environmental conference in Tahiti, a netroots ballroom in San Francisco or your son Billy’s 4th birthday party to warn that the icebergs are melting and if we don’t switch to green energy, the polar bears will have us for lunch… but he isn’t putting his money where his mouth is.

“Of course he does not say that in public,” says Bill Gunderson, president of Gunderson Capital Management. “Gore’s company still talks about how alternative energy is a good investment. How companies are adopting it, governments are subsidizing it and people are using it.

“Generation Investment says it is all about climate change, but it is just a typical investment fund with typical stocks,” Gunderson said.

“It has Amazon, Colgate Palmolive, eBay, Nielsen, Qualcomm, Strayer University and a smattering of stocks from biotech and health care. Not one company that makes solar panels, or windmills or biogas or electric cars. Catheters and commercial real estate, yes. Solar panels, no.”

“I don’t blame Gore for getting out of alternative energy,” Gunderson said, “even if he did it too late in the case of First Solar. “But when is he going to tell people that alternative energy is a lousy investment?”

I’m going to go ahead and guess… never.

Al Gore doesn’t care about the environment, he probably can’t even spell environment without a ghostwriter to do it for him, but the green bandwagon is how he makes his money and without it, he would just be another John Kerry, but without the Senate seat.

The environment is Al Gore’s thing, his only thing after people laughed at him over that whole “inventing the internet” thing. He can’t quit it and that’s why he’ll be at your son’s birthday party next week screaming about the end of the world.

  • SuicidePrevention

    Oil, natural gas, and coal supplies are finite. The first supplies to be tapped were the easiest and cheapest to produce. The supplies remaining are harder and more expensive to produce. Oil under a mile of ocean and two miles of sand and rock is expensive to produce. For now large-scale solar and wind energy is more expensive than fossil fuel. Sooner or later there will be no cheap enough fossil fuel to maintain basic physical services. It will be much harder to ramp up renewable energy when our civilization is breaking down due to lack of energy. Wind and solar may never be as cheap and convenient as fossil fuels. But, it is inevitable that eventually renewable energy will be the only energy available. Another thing to consider is that for as long as we are net importers of oil we are driving up the world price of oil. The more money Saudi Arabia gets for its oil exports, the more money that it channels to Wahhabi indoctrination and terrorism. (Remember, 18 or the 19 9/11 hijackers were middle class Saudis.) So, you might as well name your gas guzzler jihadmobile.

    • pyeatte

      Wind and solar will never be cost effective for base-load power. More to the point, they will never work for base-load power at any cost. Base-load power must be massive in quantity, predictable and on-demand 24-7, in all but the absolutely worst conditions, in order for an industrialized country to function. For all practical purposes, oil, gas and coal are not finite – we have enough to last at least 200 years. Long before then, we will have a breakthrough in physics that will make fossil fuels moot. When that happens, oil and gas will still be needed for their hydrocarbon molecules as a feedstock for the chemical industry and others.

      • SuicidePrevention

        "a breakthrough in physics". So you take a faith-based approach.

        • pyeatte

          History has shown it to be very reliable. No one can predict what or when but 100+ years is a long time, and a lot will happen.

          • SuicidePrevention

            History hasn't shown a "breakthrough in physics" capable of leading to new energy sources since the 1930's. That was when the groundwork for nuclear energy was laid with a basic understanding of the forces which hold together atomic nuclei.There are open questions in physics – for example, the details of neutrinos, why galaxies have spiral arms, and why distant galaxies seem to be accelerating away from us. None of these are likely to lead to new energy sources. Fusion energy was understood in principle 75 years ago, and big federal government money has been spent on it for 50 years, but we are still nowhere near being able to harness it as a souce of energy (except in hydrogen bombs.) Do you watch alot of Star Trek?

          • SuicidePrevention

            BTW, I hope fusion reactors become viable, the sooner the better. But, it may never happen.
            Yes, wind and solar suck compared to fossil fuel electricity generation. But, the CONSERVATIVE approach would be to develop them as back-up. Otherwise, we may find ourselves like a gambler at the craps table down to our last pile of chips mumbling to ourselves – "Come on, baby, snake eyes." I wouldn't play dice with Western Civilization.

          • pyeatte

            Wind and solar have been developed to about as good as it is going to get due to its very nature – we cannot control either one. Current nuclear technology could last as long as necessary, given the political will is there. When I refer to breakthroughs in physics, I am referring primarily to engineering, because the physics of controlled fusion is at least partially known, but the engineering implementation is a tough nut to crack. I like to look back 200 years at the state of science then. They couldn't hope to predict today. Try to look 200 years in the future – all you really have is a perception of Star Trek, stunted by what we cannot comprehend, so any prediction is shallow. You roll the dice a few times – you get snake-eyes.

  • SuicidePrevention

    BTW, I am not suggesting that the USA stop importing oil now. As long as we can print money and get oil for it we should. (In the long run the oil sellers will realize that their not getting their oil's worth.) We should import as much oil as we can and bury it underground. You know, save it for a rainy day. We should do this as much as possible. Also, notice that buying oil from overseas and burying it underground is equivalent to just locating underground oil here, but not pumping it yet.

    • C.J. Law

      Not bad but try and get that idea past the EPA, also Obama was down in Brazil last year kissing up to the leadership with all kinds of joint venture talk. Seems the Tupi oil field of the coast of Brazil is twice the size of the Saudi's. He wants to make sure Aramco gets its slice to pay back his Saudi backers.

    • pyeatte

      Yes, but we are giving our money to people who are not our friends. Now, if you say import the oil, refine it and export the products – that is a good deal for us. A $100 barrel of oil, refined, sells for $300+. High quality lubricants are expensive. Chemicals made form oil and gas are expensive. Currently we export $85+billion in refined petroleum products. Some countries send us oil to refine for them. That is one reason the XL pipeline is such a good deal. We get oil from Canada, refine it in Houston, and can export some of the refined products as deemed necessary, at great profit – improving our balance of trade and making the dollar stronger.

  • Horace

    I thought we were lucky that we avoided this lunatic con artist as president. Unfortunately we wound up with another offering from the demoncrats that was even worse. What a moron.

    • http://www.facebook.com/blossom.kelley.9 Blossom Kelley

      You know Horace, I had to stop a moment when you said "we avoided this lunatic con artist as president" – we actually avoided TWO lunatic con artists – Gore and Kerry. And then the demoncrats pulled Obama (or whatever his name is) out of some cesspool where they probably keep several to play political poker. We got a real turde in our punchbowl this time………..

  • pyeatte

    He can always re-scam the ones he already scammed – they will bite at anything.

  • james

    I think what is need is small scale combination of wind/solar for outlaying areas to supplement our oil dependencies. Rural areas are take a beating when prices spike. If the homes/small farms/town halls had a percentage of renewable energy the spikes would not hurt as much.