All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 27, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:24
February 27, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Warning, this whole next segment or two is going to be one giant see I told you so, ladies and gentlemen.
Glad to have you back, Rush Limbaugh.
The bulwark of American conservatism.
When anybody wants to know what the conservative view of any issue is, they call here.
All roads lead to me.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, 800 two eight.
We didn't nod in agreement in there, Brian.
Even Brian understands that.
All roads lead to me.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program today, the email address, rush at eibnet.com.
Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.
Here's Paul Shanklin as Al Gore, ladies and gentlemen.
EIB Network.
And the Rush Limbaugh program.
A climate crisis global warming update here.
That's our old buddy Paul Shanklin as Al Gore, and it's riffing off of Johnny Cash Ring of Fire.
One of three global warming update and crisis, climate crisis updates that we have in rotation.
By now, most of you have to have heard about the release from the Tennessee Policy Center.
And the Gore camp is not denying any of the numbers here because they can't.
These are from the power companies, and this is apparently public information.
We know it is because this kind of data has been released about the amount of water, for example, and other utilities that Bill Gates uses at his house in uh in Seattle.
This is uh this is apparently public knowledge.
But the the bottom line here is from the Tennessee Public Policy Center.
Al Gore uses more electricity at his in his mansion outside Nashville than um than the twenty average homes combined for a year.
Uh 20-room, eight-bathroom mansion located in the Bellmeade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service.
Uh the average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt hours per year, according to the Department of Energy.
In 2006, Al Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours.
That's more than 20 times the national average.
And last August alone, had you heard about this, Don?
You hadn't heard this.
This is virgin news to you.
Oh.
Last August alone, Al Gore burned through 22,619 kilowatt hours, more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.
Now, as a result of his energy consumption, the uh average monthly electric bill at Al Gore's house topped 1,359.
That's the average monthly.
That that's that strikes me, given the size of Al Gore's house, and the amount of electricity he's using as not that much.
Uh since the release of his uh of his uh bogus uh documentary that's really a propaganda piece, Gore's energy consumption has increased since he released his movie.
His consumption of electricity has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt hours per month in 2005 to 18,400 kilowatt hours per month in uh 2006, and it doesn't stop at the electric bill.
The natural gas bills for his mansion and the guest house averaged a thousand eighty dollars per month.
So the combined utility bills over two grand, actually about twenty-four hundred dollars uh a month.
And in fact, the pool house on Al Gore's property, uh pools heated by gas and and the whole thing.
His pool house uses more natural gas uh kilowatt hours, or however it's measured uh the uses uh more of that than he does electricity in his uh in his pool house.
Uh and and of course, Gore's on the defensive now.
The uh the drive by on the defensive for him.
He's on the defensive about this.
Uh they're out there explaining that well, he does does things in a number of different ways to reduce the size of his carbon footprint.
Now, this is key.
I want to uh want you to follow me on this.
This carbon footprint business is one of the biggest scams that that has come down the uh pike in a long while.
There's an ABC story out of Nashville, back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his uh home, it says here, it's a mansion.
Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded for an inconvenient truth.
Um however, a local free market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.
Armed with his utility bills for the blast two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged all of this usage that I just shared with you.
Um the center's 27-year-old president is a guy named Drew Johnson.
He said if this were any other person with a $30,000 a year utility bill, I wouldn't care.
But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.
A Gore advisor scoffed at this, saying, I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics.
They've completely lost the debate on the issue, so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent.
Lost the debate on the issue.
This is absurd.
This is uh this is a simple news story that highlights a little hypocrisy here.
A spokesperson for the Gores, Callie Kreider, did not dispute the center's figures because they're taken from public records.
But she pointed out that both Al Gore and Tipper Al Gore work out of their homes.
And she argued that the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint.
Now, what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.
Now, what is a carbon footprint?
If you don't know, I will tell you, a carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions that each person's responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption, or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses.
You can calculate your own carbon footprint at uh website www.carbonfootprint.com if you care to do this.
The vice president's done that, said his spokesbabe Callie Kreider, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local green power switch program.
Electricity generated through renewable resources like solar, wind, methane gas, uh, which uh creates less waste and pollution.
In addition, they're in the midst of installing solar panels in their home, which will enable them to use less power, Callie Kreider added.
They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures, and they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.
Purchase offsets.
In order for this whole line of thinking to work, a carbon offset, you have your carbon footprint, and this whole thing is bogus because the vast majority of CO2 is put in the air by vegetation and the ocean and any number of natural uh uh four percent of it is uh is due to human use.
Anyway, carbon footprint, you calculate your carbon footprint, and if it's larger than what should be, then you uh you you go by permission from others who aren't using all of their carbon footprint.
And so you can trade carbon subsidies.
And you go out, and so the bottom line is Al Gore's paying for it.
He's going out and paying all of it, but he's not reducing.
He is using other people's unused carbon footprint, other businesses' unused carbon.
This is a this is a commodity.
Well, you you pay the company or the person that's not using the full fledge of their carbon permit, the per their carbon footprint, uh and and uh it's not the first time this kind of thing has been used.
I forget the the pollution credits before before the whole notion of a carbon footprint came around.
You could do this in pollution.
You know, corporations traded pollution benefits.
If uh a corporation was polluting more than it was allowed, it could go buy permission to do that from a person, a company that was not polluting as much as it was allowed to.
The bottom line, it doesn't reduce anything.
If Al Gore were serious about that, he would reduce the carbon footprint, he would not go out and buy other people's unused carbon.
How ridiculous does all this sound?
But that's the excuse, and that's That's what he's using.
And then there's this.
Kreider says that she's confident that the Gore's utility bills will decrease.
Yeah, they bought an older home and they're in the process of upgrading the home.
Unfortunately, that means an increase in energy use in order to have an overall decrease in energy use down the road.
What is this?
So they're remodeling, and the remodeling costs cause a lot of energy to be used, but that's going to lead to less energy being used in the process.
Now my my personal take on this.
If he wants to buy the energy that he wants to buy and use, I've got no quarrel with it.
I one of the things that really bothers me about all this is that the underlying subtext to all of this is that we must reduce our lifestyles in the United States.
And that's why Gore's being called hypocrite, because he's not doing that.
But everybody else is supposed to.
During the singing of Gore's song that was accompanied the movie at the uh Oscars on Sunday night, Melissa Etheridge up there warbling away one of the most depressing songs nominated all night.
They've got this stupid stuff in the background and this giant screen.
Take mass transit as often as you can, light rail as often as you can, calculate your carbon footprint, all this sort of stuff.
The whole point here is to downsize the American lifestyle to blame America for all of these so-called climate crises problems, global warming, or what have you.
The hypocrisy here is that Gore is not doing that.
He's not reducing his footprint.
He's making excuses for having a large one.
Everybody else is supposed to reduce theirs.
And the bottom line here of all of this is that the ultimate aim of the global warming religion followers is to make sure that the United States gets the bulk of the blame, and the fix for this is going to be you and I surrendering more of our liberty and our freedom and paying larger taxes to fix this disaster that we have supposedly caused and empowering an ever larger and larger government to make regulations over how we can live.
And the reason Gore's in trouble on this is because he's not reducing his carbon footprint.
He's going out and using his wealth and buying other people's unused footprint to allow him to have this big gigantic one.
I have no problem.
If he wants to build a mansion that large and he wants to pay for the electricity and the gas to run it, fine.
I have no problem with it.
You have enough uh your big house, you want to use energy to heat it and cool it and all buy it and you pay for it, I have no problem because it's not destroying the planet.
And Al Gore's perfectly fine doing all of that on his own, but his plan involves you reducing your consumption because you and the massive population in this country are responsible for the um the crisis that we face in the climate.
I have to take a quick break.
We'll suspend the outro tune here.
Mike goes straight to the break.
Right after this, we'll be back because there's lots more.
Don't go.
By the way, little update, ladies and gentlemen, our first item in the program today, the Huffington Post in their news section posted a story on the attempted assassination of Dick Cheney today by Taliban commanders and terrorists in Bagram Air Force Base, leading to comments after the news story suggesting that it was unfortunate Cheney was not killed.
Uh we posted a link to that site at rushlimbaugh.com.
They've now shut down the comments and they have eliminated some of the offensive ones.
So if you go there now, you will not see the first comment, and I didn't share this one with you because it's the F word.
That's all it is.
The first comment, the news that Cheney didn't die, that's gone, and it's been replaced with something sweetness and light and uh so forth and so on.
But they've they've stopped comments to that particular uh item in their uh in their news section.
And and of eliminated, I'm told some of the uh uh offensive comments, hoping that Cheney dies or should have died or will die when the next attack uh or what have you.
Um what one other thing here about this uh this Al Gore business uh and his home and his carbon footprint and all that.
Here's the thing that you have to understand about this.
Al Gore is rich, and that is wonderful.
And because he's rich, and because he has the resources, he's got the right to go out and buy a mansion and use as much electricity and natural gas as he wants, as long as he pays the bills.
Find it dandy.
Doesn't reduce his carbon footprint, he goes out and buys carbon credits from others who are not using theirs.
But the problem is he doesn't want this opportunity for everybody else, and that is what the global warming climate crisis BS is all about.
Al Gore and his ilk do not want everyone to share in the wealth of this world.
Only a select few elitists will be allowed to do this in Al Gore's perfect world.
No, you.
You're not supposed to go out and buy somebody else's unused carbon credits.
You are to downsize.
You're to get rid of your car and get on light rail and mass transit as often as you can.
Al Gore's not going to do that.
Well, Russia can't do that.
Secret service that don't give me this.
Leaders do what they suggest everybody else does.
And they've done it before they become leaders, which is why they become leaders.
George Patton was in the infantry.
George Patton didn't just start out as a general and orchestrate things from behind the lines.
Any number of examples like this.
But the thing that you've got to take away from this is that it's perfectly okay for Al Gore.
He's paying for it.
Well, he's paying for it.
And he's even buying some carbon credits.
Why, there's nothing wrong.
He's modernizing his house, he's putting solar panels in.
But you are not to be afforded this opportunity.
You are not to share in the wealth of the world.
You are to blame, ladies and gentlemen, for the climate crisis.
You're to blame for the polar bear's eventual extinction.
You're to blame for the Greenland ice shelf melting and flooding Manhattan.
You are to blame for all of this.
And if you doubt me, let me how successful this has been.
There's a magazine called Frontline.
It's the National Magazine of India, and it's from the publishers of the Hindu.
And the cover story is entitled Dangerous Denial.
If all the people in the world had the same living style as the average American, the climate Holocaust would have already visited us.
That's the point of this.
This is in India.
I'll tell you one thing I'm gonna do, I'm not gonna do is I'm not gonna let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air like the Kyoto Treaty would have done.
China and India were exempted from that treaty.
So said then presidential hopeful George W. Bush, October 2000 to Al Gore in a televised debate.
Al Gore could have responded, I'm sure you'd be happy to let the U.S. carry the responsibility for polluting the world's air the most, but he didn't.
Since he was the other presidential hopeful.
After all, Al Gore, who only three years earlier represented the U.S. in the Kyoto discussions and had authored a book on global warming, could not have been unaware of what Andrew Kerr of the Worldwide Fund for Nature pointed out.
The United States is responsible for almost half of the increase in world carbon dioxide in the past decade.
That increase is greater than the increase in China, India, Africa, and the whole of Latin America.
So it even now in the uh the National Magazine of India called Frontline, they've picked up the riff.
It's our fault.
We are destroying the planet.
If all the people of the world had the same living style as the average American, the Holocaust would have already visited us.
Well, what do you infer from that?
You infer we cannot continue to have and promote and expand and export the American lifestyle.
We must get poorer, and only by being poorer and more controlled by government will we save the earth from this climate crisis.
Trust me on this, folks.
You are being scammed like never before.
Oh, yes, Mama.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have El Rushbow.
All roads lead here for the definition of conservatism.
America's truth detector, Doctor of Democracy, America's real anchor man.
I want to read to you a story from the 2001 Chicago Tribune.
I don't know the specific date, but it was 2001.
It's a piece by Rob Sullivan.
The 4,000 square foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees.
The water heats the house in the winter, cools it in the summer.
Systems such as the one in this eco-friendly dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000 gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs.
Wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern.
The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home.
Plants and flowers, native to the High Prairie area, blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this is not the home of some ecocentrically eccentrically wealthy eco-freak, trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example, and no, it's not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council.
This is President George W. Bush's Texas White House, outside the small town of Crawford.
And it uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
Now Gore's Mansion.
Bush's modest 4,000 square foot little house on a ranch in Crawford.
Who is it?
That is actually walking the walk here when it comes to conserving energy.
It is not Al Gore, ladies and gentlemen.
And it isn't going to be Al Gore.
And by the way, um, the fact that President Bush's home was ecologically friendly was not unknown to the media.
This was the Chicago Tribune in 2001.
They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Al Gore.
And by the way, Bush built this house with this system long before any of the current hysteria began on any of this.
And in due course, we are going to find that George W. Bush has much more authenticity and realism than Al Gore or Bill or Hillary down the line when history is written.
Barely have we scratched, however, the entire global warming stack.
This is from a website called theAge.com.au.
This is from Australia.
Hardcore global warming skeptics will descend on Canberra today for the release of a book claiming environmentalism is a new religion.
Where have you people heard this before?
You've heard it right here.
All roads lead to EIB.
Dean, I want you to repost that brilliant monologue I did some time ago in the past three weeks or four on the fact that the global warming movement is simply a religion.
Go find it from the archives and post it.
I want you to put it on a free side today so everybody can see this.
Former mining executive RV Parbo will launch Ray Evans' new publication, Nine Facts About Climate Change, at a function at Parliament House.
The book claims that climate change is nothing new, declares the Howard government investments in solar power and cleaning up coal a complete waste of taxpayers' money.
Environmentalism is largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States, Mr. Evans says in the publication.
Yes.
As G.K. Chesterson Chesterton said, if you don't believe in God, you will believe in anything.
It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth.
The global warming scam has been arguably the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the post-war period.
This function is organized by the Le Voisier group, founded in 2000 by Ray Evans and former mining executive Hugh Morgan to test claims that global warming is the result of human activity.
In fact, there's a interesting quote here in an interview with the age last month, Mr. Evans, author of the book acknowledged that last September's visit by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore to promote his documentary had helped generate a lot of publicity on climate change.
But he described Gore's film as, quote, BS From beginning to end.
The science from the anthropology point of view is collapsed.
The carbon dioxide link is increasingly recognized as irrelevant.
But the government's frightened.
Cabinet, from what I understand, is by and large still skeptical of climate change, but it is scared of the drought and worried about how labor will make use of it.
Another story from our global warming stack today, ladies and gentlemen, and this.
Let me see from where this comes.
Well, I'm not sure where I didn't print out the link.
Actually, it's a it's it's it's a uh uh.
Oh, it's a re it's a republication of this story from the from the UK, children losing sleep over global warming.
Half of children between the ages of seven and eleven are anxious about the effects of global warming and often lose sleep over it.
The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries, and the welfare of animals.
A survey of uh 1,150 youngsters found that 25% of them blame politicians for the problems of climate change.
One in seven said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.
The kids go to bed every night scared and frightened that the animals will die.
Now, the reason I bring this up again is because I remember telling you people numerous times, way back in the uh late 80s and the uh in the early 90s before the Berlin Wall came down and a number of other things were happening, and the Soviet threat was was still still real.
I can remember turning on Phil Donahue, I'll never forget this, and it's happened a number of times, turning on Phil Donahue's show.
One day Laura Dern was on, she was 18 years old, I think at the time, eighteen or nineteen, Hollywood uh starlet, and she broke down in tears on the Donahue show, trying to describe to Donahue and the audience the literal fear of waking up every day, realizing that that could be the last day for everybody on earth because of the threat of nuclear detonation.
Ronald Reagan was recently in the White House, and of course the Soviets uh were had their arsenal as well.
We went through this.
You remember in the 1980s, all the hue and cry from the drive-bys in Hollywood about how sick and terrified the children of America were because they were so afraid Reagan was going to blow us all up because he was a cowboy with his finger on a nuclear trigger.
And there was that made-for-TV movie about a nuclear strike on Kansas City.
Uh I was living there then.
Uh they even had an episode on the hospital drama Saint Elsewhere about a child so afraid of dying in a nuclear attack that he hid in a stairwell and almost died.
All of that fear-mongering done by the liberals and Democrats at drive-by'st stemming from their hatred of Ronald Reagan.
And that is after making our children sick with fear of those people said it was all Reagan's fault.
Well, guess who it is?
Simply recycling an issue.
Liberalism is liberalism.
It has techniques and tactics.
It has an old playbook.
There's nothing new in it.
There must always be a crisis.
There must always be a crisis which is going to destroy all of humanity.
And this crisis must be laid at the feet of the United States of America and its people.
The cause of this crisis is always America's fault.
It is an attempt to spread as much guilt throughout the population as possible.
Today it is spread beyond these shores.
Now children in Europe scared, frightened, going to bed every night because the animals are going to die.
With Al Gore leading the charge, the same people who were hysterical about nuclears going boom boom in the night are now spreading their poisonous fear among children over global warming.
It's the same result, the end of the planet, the end of life as we know it.
The only thing different is how it's going to happen.
Now it's not nukes.
Now it's man-made, primarily American man-made global warming.
Now what makes this so sad is that instead of being ashamed of themselves for failing to protect these kids, these people be proud that they can terrify school children.
They'll look at this as a sign of success.
They will say that the fear and the cynicism of the American youth will launch these liberals to ever more power.
You know, this is It's just it's it's folks, it is it is it is just so bogus and it is just classic.
It is right out of the liberal playbook.
The elements are identical.
It's just the means by which we are all destroying ourselves that is different.
Of course, one other big difference, and they've learned from the nuclear attempt.
The nukes could wipe us out in a day.
And so that was it, it was easy to gin up fear about that.
Since 1984, they have been talking about global warming wiping out the planet.
They've been saying give us 20 years.
We need 20, 25 years, we can't wait, we gotta get started.
Well, it's been 20, 25 years, and it isn't happened, and there's not even anywhere near close to happening.
And so now they're revising.
Global warming will go on a thousand years.
Global warming will go on for thirty years, fifty, whatever.
So it's way, way, way down the road.
It is not something that's gonna wipe us out tomorrow overnight, so we've got all of this time to let liberals have all of this power to take away as much of our liberty and freedom and technological advancement and increases in the way of life in this country as possible.
So they've modified the uh the technique a bit so as to give themselves more time.
In other words, the nuclear threat was wiped out when the Berlin Wall fell on the Soviets went down the tubes.
Now the nuclear threat is basically part of the war on terror, and the Libs don't think there is one, and so they can't acknowledge the nuclear threat there.
How honest is that?
How consistent is that?
A nuke is a nuke.
And a nuke in the hands of a bunch of terrorists who will willingly die themselves to use one is far more dangerous than the situation that existed in the eighties when Reagan was president.
But they ignore the nuke threat today, because to ignore it is uh is something you must do.
To acknowledge it is to acknowledge we have a f we have a dire threat in the form of terrorism.
So now global warming has replaced the nuke threat and all of the ingredients necessary to frighten children, and these people are happy to do so our president.
Brief time out.
We'll be back and continue.
Your phone calls are next, right after this.
And back to the phones we go here on the one and only excellence in broadcasting network.
This is Linda in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.
I appreciate your call.
Welcome.
Rush, teacher of the deaf dittoes.
Well, thank you.
How are you?
I'm fine, thank you.
Good.
Listen, the first that I'm hearing of this whole carbon offset thing is with Al Gore justifying his overconsumption.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, I don't think there's anything such o as overconsumption if you pay for it.
That you know, don't don't don't fall prey for this.
No, I agree with you.
I agree with you, but I think that if I was consuming what he consumes, he would tell me I was overconsuming.
Oh, no question, he's telling everybody they're overconsuming.
Right, exactly.
So I'm I'm speaking, you know, uh trying to trying to understand his thought process, which ain't easy.
But um So if but I'm saying that if this carbon offset thing was legit, what if the mantra all these years have been by carbon offsets, by carbon offsets?
Everyone should be buying carbon offsets.
But that hasn't been the case.
Um you know, it's it hasn't been it's been reduced your consumption.
But now that Algar is, you know, his consumption is brought out into the light, well, he has a justification because he's buying carbon offsets, he's okay.
But how come they're not telling us to buy carbon offsets?
Well, you've got to have the money to buy the carbon offsets.
That's the thing.
I mean, this and he doesn't want you to be able to do that because he doesn't want to spread the wealth.
You know, that this is this is uh it's fine if you can go out and buy a carbon offset, uh, but you still have to have the money to be able to do it.
It's being launched as some great natural thing and wonderful thing, but the whole thing is based on the fact that each of us have a maximum amount of carbon we can put in the atmosphere, and if we exceed that, we're gonna destroy the planet.
And there's no evidence of this.
This is just it's as bogus as it can be.
This all started I got into an argument with my good friend the economist, uh Professor Hazlet, when the whole notion of pollution credits came up.
And he he he thought that it was a good idea, because any and by the way, limiting pollution's a fine thing.
I'm not opposed to it.
Um I I just I I don't think that limiting pollution should be tied to saving the planet.
You know, it's good stewardship, and that's fine and dandy, but don't connect it to a crisis.
Now, the the the whole pollution credit business started basically with uh corporations which uh were deemed to be the big polluters.
Uh and if the the the you know, they we've had federal regulations on the amount of pollution that can come out of a smokestack over time, the EPA with all these various rules, uh, and if for some companies it was cumbersome and impossible to downsize that much.
So they went out and they bought pollution credits from other companies that were not polluting as much.
The idea was that this kept the level of pollution the same, and hopefully would reduce it some.
Now the whole thing's come up here with carbon offsets.
Uh but you know, you think back, I don't know how many people you're going to remember this.
The first tax outside of the uh retroactivity of the income tax increase that Clinton proposed in 1993 was what?
A carbon tax.
It was a tax on the amount of carbon used, gasoline, any form of energy.
And it was big.
It was like fifty cents beyond what the current level was.
It was it was going to be a huge, and it didn't go anywhere at the time because it was thought to be uh unnecessary, too much uh damaging to the economy and so forth.
But the reason why you haven't heard about carbon credits or carbon offsets uh a lot lately, because it's just now ginning up.
I had this story in the stack.
I wasn't going to use it because I thought I'd ever overdone the uh the whole notion.
But look, this is in page six today, a gossip column in the New York Post.
Hollywood's wealthy liberals can now avoid any guilt they might feel for consuming so much non-renewable fossil fuel in their private jets, SUVs, and multiple air-conditioned mansions.
This year's Oscar Goody bag contained gift certificates representing 100,000 pounds of greenhouse gas reductions from TerraPass, which describes itself as a carbon offset retailer.
The 100,000 pounds are enough to balance out an average year in the life of an Academy Award presenter.
A press release from Terapass asserts, for example, a hundred thousand pounds is the total amount of carbon dioxide created by 20,000 miles of driving, 40,000 miles on commercial airlines, or 20 hours in a private jet at a large house in LA.
And so Hollywood people were given gift certificates worth 100,000 pounds of greenhouse gas credits or reductions in their goodie bags at the uh at the Oscars.
That's it's just now ginning up out there, Linda.
Keep a sharp eye.
We'll be right back.
Still lots to do.
We haven't even got the audio sound bites yet.
It's all coming up as we get back from this timely timeout at the top of the busy broadcast hour.
▲
Export Selection