Chicago Tribune’s Top 8 Anti-Green Celebrities

The Chicago Tribune has released ‘A big, hot mess’ – their top 8 list of celebrities who aren’t going green. We’ve covered some of them before – like #1 Celine Dion’s massive water use at a home in Florida that she doesn’t even use. John Travolta’s fleet of planes, including a Boeing 707 complete with multiple dining rooms, puts him at #5. Most of the others on the list won’t surprise you at all, given their penchant for disgusting displays of wealth.

One choice we have beef with, though, is that of Al Gore. The Chicago Tribune rationalizes his inclusion by saying,

Al Gore’s Nashville home may be considered “carbon neutral,” but in 2007 it was reported that the Gores’ use of electricity (in kilowatt hours) was 12 times that of the average person in the area, according to USA Today. Although a Gore spokesperson said he had bought enough “green power” to balance his electrical costs, the situation nonetheless prompted skeptics to call him a hypocrite.

This is a B.S. reason to put him on a list of anti-green celebrities. Yes, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a bunk-ass right wing organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources, wrote a scathing report on energy use at Gore’s Tennessee home. That report didn’t bother to reveal the fact that during the period reported on, extensive renovations to make the home more green were in progress - hence the extra energy use – as well as the fact that Gore offsets 100% of that energy use. Gore and wife Tipper both work from home, as well, so energy use is bound to be higher than ‘the average person in the area’. We’ll go into that more next week when we take a closer look at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research’s allegations and who they really are.

Meanwhile, check out the rest of the Chicago Tribune’s list, ‘A big, hot mess’.

Link [The Chicago Tribune]

Timber Companies Finding Profit in Leaving Trees Uncut

Timber companies are facing a reality check right now: the public’s desire for timber products is waning, which means the companies are making less money. This fact has forced timber companies to come up with new and fresh ways to turn a profit. Ironically, this may mean a dramatic change within their industry: leaving trees alone instead of cutting them down.

From Reuters:

Because uncut trees are stores of carbon, forest owners may be able to extract value from them by just leaving them alone, particularly as a U.S. market for trading carbon emissions develops, experts told a conference in San Francisco.

Also, timberland owners and investors can sell easements that protect resources or wildlife, or provide sustainable fuel for burning in biomass power plants.

“Conservation and biomass are new return drivers,” said Andrew Kelsen, director of alternative investments at investment consulting firm Gray and Co.

Doesn’t it just warm your heart to know that timber companies are being such do-gooders? Oh yeah, they’re just doing it to make money. Regardless, we’re glad to hear they’re tackling these issues. It’s huge that companies are realizing that they can ‘go green’ and still make a profit, and in some cases, make even more money than before.

Link [Reuters]