Sanders And Warren Campaigns Paid Reparations For An Estimated 2,102 Tons Of Coal Worth Of Carbon In 2019

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Andrew Kerr And Chris White Contributor

February 05, 2020 8:07 PM ET

Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren collectively spent $59,138 in carbon offsets in 2019 to counteract the carbon they produced campaigning for president, FEC records show.

  • That’s enough to offset 3,815 tons of CO2, according to an online calculator from NativeEnergy, the carbon offset firm Sanders and Warren used.
  • The two candidates spent a combined $2.4 million on private jets in 2019, FEC records show.

Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren purchased carbon offsets meant to counteract the equivalent of 2,102 tons of coal while traveling the country campaigning for president, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation estimate derived from their carbon offset payments.

Both Sanders and Warren devoted a considerable amount of cash to private jets travel in 2019. Sanders led the Democratic field in private airfare spending in 2019, dishing out $1.6 million to Apollo Jets, LLC, a “luxury private jet charter service,” according to Federal Election Commission records.

Warren’s campaign, meanwhile, spent $871,000 on private jets through Advanced Aviation, FEC records show.

In March, Sanders, Vermont’s senior senator, became the first Democratic presidential candidate to promise to purchase offsets to effectively wipe out his campaign’s carbon production from travel. A Warren aide told The Hill in October that her campaign also purchases offsets for carbon emissions.

The two senators used the Vermont-based NativeEnergy for their carbon offset needs. Sanders purchased $32,230 in offsets from the firm in 2019, while Warren spent $26,908, Federal Election Commission records show.

That’s enough for the two campaigns to offset a combined 3,815 tons of carbon emissions, according to a NativeEnergy online calculator that places the offset value of a ton of carbon at $15.50.

3,815 tons of carbon emissions is the equivalent of burning 2,102 tons of coal, or consuming 429,000 gallons of gasoline, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The precise amount of carbon the campaigns paid to offset is not clear. NativeEnergy spokeswoman Betsy Dall told the DCNF that the firm’s pricing decreases as the volume of offsets increases, which suggests that the campaigns could have offset more than a combined 3,815 tons of carbon, but she didn’t provide the exact rate they paid when asked.

Neither of the campaigns responded to multiple requests for comment about their carbon offset payments. (RELATED: Bernie To Charter A Private Jet To Campaign In Iowa During Impeachment Trial)

Sanders, a prominent environmentalist and supporter of the Green New Deal (GND), confirmed his decision to use a private jet during a Jan.10 episode of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” The GND calls for shifting the U.S. away from traditional fossil fuels and toward green energy fuel sources. Warren, who represents Massachusetts, rolled out her own version of a GND in June 2019 that would create one million green jobs at the cost of $2 trillion over a decade.

Democratic 2020 candidate Bernie Sanders walks to his vehicle after he landed on Feb. 04, in New Hampshire. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Warren’s campaign netted a big endorsement in December from Rhiana Gunn-Wright, whose Twitter profile suggests she crafted policy for the GND, a piece of legislation introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat. The bill was ultimately defeated in March 2019, but has become a rallying cry for young climate activists and Democrats alike.

Many of the country’s most prominent climate activists and Democratic politicians are being tight-lipped about Sanders and Warren’s private jet travel. The DCNF reached out to GND sponsors Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey but neither has responded to repeated requests for comments.

The DCNF also reached out to Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, but none of them responded to multiple requests for a reaction to Sanders’ jet travel. They are all part of the same group of freshman lawmakers who have been nicknamed “The Squad.”

The Sunrise Movement, which kickstarted the GND push, has also not responded to requests for comment.

The GND resolution, among other things, called for “10-year national mobilizations” toward a series of goals aimed at fighting global warming. A separate fact sheet claims the plan would “mobilize every aspect of American society on a scale not seen since World War 2.” It sought to nix oil production outright.

Reports suggest the GND could cost tens of trillions of dollars. Americans could be forced to pay up to $93 trillion to implement the proposal over a decade, the conservative-leaning American Action Forum (AAF) noted in a study in February 2019.

That comes to an estimated cost of $36,100 to $65,300 per household every year to meet the GND’s goals, AAF reported at the time. Such goals include “net-zero” emissions, widespread high-speed rail, guaranteed jobs, universal health care, and creating infrastructure for other social justice measures.

114 thoughts on “Sanders And Warren Campaigns Paid Reparations For An Estimated 2,102 Tons Of Coal Worth Of Carbon In 2019

  1. Does anyone really want these totalitarian leftist lunatics waging war on the country on the scale of world war two.

    • Actor John Cusak at a Sanders rally declared that their first goal had to be the elimination of capitalism.
      Sanders, who was seated behind him never disagreed.

      • Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren collectively spent $59,138 in carbon offsets in 2019 to counteract the carbon they produced campaigning for president, FEC records show.

        That’s enough to offset 3,815 tons of CO2, according to an online calculator from NativeEnergy, the carbon offset firm Sanders and Warren used.
        The two candidates spent a combined $2.4 million on private jets in 2019, FEC records show.

        Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren purchased carbon offsets meant to counteract the equivalent of 2,102 tons of coal while traveling the country campaigning for president, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation estimate derived from their carbon offset payments.

        But did that actually stop the increase in CO2 caused by their exuberant private jet usage? NOOOO
        Did that cause the temperature to drop even immeasurably? NOOOO
        Sanders ans Warren…traveling by Private Jets with Sasquatch sized carbon footprints…HOW DARE YOU!!!

          • Yes, do some elementary chemistry investigation. Using the basis for gasoline as an example: (coal is a more complex issue as it’s not all the same, but the following illustrates why you get more mass of combustion products than fuel)

            Octane is C8H18. You need oxygen for combustion – your car ingests roughly 14 times more mass of air than the fuel injected into the cylinders. (air is 20% oxygen)

            formula is 2 (C8H18) + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H2O

            So for every 2 moles of octane, you need 25 moles of oxygen, and you get 16 moles of carbon dioxide and 18 moles of water (vapor)

            A mole of octane is 115 grams
            A mole of oxygen is 16 grams
            A mole of CO2 is 44 grams
            A mole of water is 18 grams

            So to burn 2 x 115g or 230g of Octane, you need 25 x 16g or 400g of O2, and the products of combustion are 16 x 44g = 704g of CO2 and 18 x 18g = 324g of water

            If the Octane mass is taken as 100%, then you consume 174% of the fuel mass in Oxygen, and you end up with 306% of the fuel mass in Carbon Dioxide, and 141% of the fuel mass in water.

            NOTE water (vapor) is a far more effective “greenhouse gas” than CO2, and we are “creating” water vapor that did not exist before the combustion!

            But the Climate Catastrophe crowd knows full well they cannot scare the public by saying “water vapor” is evil and going to kill the planet!

          • while it sounds counter intuitive to have 2k tons producing nearly 4k tons , that’s because only part of the material in the equation (the carbon) is being considered and an important part is being overlooked (the oxygen from the air).

            As BillP points out, the C from the burning Carbon combines with O2 from the air, so the difference in weight is because of the added oxygen molecules.

          • Correct
            Carbon has an atomic mass of 12.011 (12)
            Oxygen has an atomic mass of 15.999 (16)
            Burning (oxidizing) Carbon to release it’s energy forces the recombination with O2 to form CO2 which has a molecular weight of 12 + 16 + 16 (C +O +O) 44

            Carbon is 12
            CO2 is 44 (44.009)

          • Louis H

            Yes the calculation is easy and routine, but the real question is why they are throwing away so much money. A ton of CO2 offset in the EU is only a few cents per ton. At $1 per ton (well above the current price) they spent 15.5 times too much. Who are these people anyway?

            “That’s enough for the two campaigns to offset a combined 3,815 tons of carbon emissions, according to a NativeEnergy online calculator that places the offset value of a ton of carbon at $15.50.”

            This is NaiveEnergy not NativeEnergy, a place where fools are separated from their money.

            In addition, holders of CER’s (Certified Emission Reduction certificates) are keeping back billions of them from the EU market in fear they will drop to zero value if released, like the CCX experience in Chicago. The CCX is the carbon exchange created by, among others, David Suzuki and Al Gore. The price of a CER dropped to 5 cents and some time then they closed and sold the rights to a carbon exchange to the New York Stock Exchange for something like $600m. Talk about separating fools…

            Carbon offsets are cheap. Any politician who thinks sane people will not shop around for trades have another think coming. If they are suckered into believing that a one ton CER is worth $15.50, I know of a bridge in New York I’d like to sell them. McDonalds can sell them Big Macs for $75 apiece. I hear there is one born every minute. Wow.

          • The molecular wt. of CO2=44, molecular wt. of C = 12
            The molecular wt. of C6H12O6 (sugar)=180
            6 molecules of CO2 to make 1 sugar molecule
            Price of sugar is $.1474/lb = $294.80/ton
            This is the real value of CO2.
            The actual, real carbon trading happens in the biosphere.
            “…that places the offset value of a ton of carbon at $15.50.” ??? WTH
            What a misspending of money resources.
            And these people want to run our economy????
            More CO2 = More Sugar

        • That’s not the point. It’s all about recycling, which is a GND goal.
          The money paid to those companies for the CO2 offsets then gets recycled as campaign contributions or is paid as a salary to friends of family of said campaign. It’s all very efficient and very green.
          As said in the Shawshank Redemption “I send it out into the real world, and when it comes back….Clean as a virgin’s honeypot, huh?”

          • Oops, I incorrectly used O molar mass, when I should have used O2.
            So the O2 mass is 800 g not 400.
            correction as follows
            2(C8H18) + 25O2 => 16CO2 + 18H2O
            230 g of Octane
            800 g of O2
            704 g of CO2
            324 g of H2O

            Error due to a hasty post without proof reading….

            Anyway, the point is combustion products are much higher mass than the fuel mass.

        • Forget the psuedo-science behind offsets. What I want to know is: Has anybody followed the money? Has cash actually moved from the Campaigns of these two jokers to Vermont-based NativeEnergy? If money has been transfered, what does NativeEnergy do with the money? This whole thing sounds like a massive bureaucratic flim-flam to me.

      • So John Cusak wants his job destroyed? Why didn’t he just wear a banner saying “NO MORE ACTORS, NO MORE MOVIES” and leave everyone else out of it? His desire to be poor and unemployed is his alone. Maybe we need to buy him a tent and shopping cart and drop him off in the appropriate section of LA. We can sell his property and use any other assets he has to buy the homeless more tents and shopping carts. A win-win for everyone.

        • I doubt he’s thought it through that far. Assuming that he is capable of thinking it through that far.
          He’s probably one of those who believes that as soon as we get rid of profit, everybody gets rich.

    • Yes. Yes we do.

      The only way the socially engineered masses of Western society, indoctrinated into a religion the cant even name, ignorant, utterly devoid of self-discipline, character or even the basest virtues will turn from the darkness and look truth in the face is if they are stripped, personally, of the advantages and comforts of the “industrial technology free market democratic evil”. An evil they are oh so ready to condem with their banal, complicit lip service, yet unwilling for their hand to perform the Excommunication their WitchKings so badly proclaim.

      I just feel abit bad wishing it on the USA so hopefully the rest of us wise up.

      • How did you manage to post your comment without the advantages of industrial technology?

        Oh, that’s right… you’re a giant hypocritical douchebag, just like Sanders and Warren (but probably not as wealthy as they have become selling their lies to people like you).

        Try actually living without the advantages and comforts of industrial technology before you criticize anyone else for enjoying them. You wouldn’t last two weeks.

        • For me, Kate’s comment came across as a commendable if flawed attempt at sarcasm, while your response struck me as crude, rude, over the top, and ironically challenged. But that’s just me. As a youngster, I was taught by nuns who demanded politeness, common decency, and razor-sharp reading comprehension. I followed their teaching to a T. That’s how I came to ruin myself.

          • Tim,

            I didn’t perceive any sarcasm in Kate’s post; if she intended it, she should have tagged it as such. Her comments struck me as typical of a person ignorant of how the things she takes for granted came to be and they certainly shouldn’t be commended.

            Industry, technology, free markets and democracy have improved the lives of billions of people. That’s not a hallmark of evil. Socialism, on the other hand, is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and the misery of countless others. That is the hallmark of evil.

            If Kate wasn’t advocating for evil, she should have made that a bit more obvious.

          • The sarcasm in that post was so thick it was positively dripping.

            “An evil they are oh so ready to condem with their banal, complicit lip service, yet unwilling for their hand to perform the Excommunication their WitchKings so badly proclaim.”

            If you can parse that sentence and use it in reference to the previous sentence, the sarcasm is quite obvious.

        • I think you misread Kate’s post. She doesn’t appear to be advocating it because she believes in the CAGW cult, she appears to be advocating it so that the US can stand as a warning to the rest of the world of the folly of it (as being “the only way ” that they “will turn from the darkness” is to be “stripped, personally, of the advantages and comforts” that “industrial technology free market” democracy brings )

          • Perhaps. It just strikes me as a bit cruel to wish harm upon some people, even if it serves as a warning to others.

            It’s a bit like saying: “I hope lots of Chinese people die of coronavirus, so the rest of the world will take it more seriously.”

            Now that would be crude, rude and over the top! (And something no one in their right mind would say.)

      • So what part of the woods do you live in< Kate?
        Also, the whole idea of paying "carbon offsets" inherently establishes a value for the use of the fuel. So why are we supposed to believe that it is evil when we are already establishing the fact that it has value?

        Mods: I am still not getting posted. have inquired about this before several times. What's up?

  2. Exactly how does spending of money on “net-zero” emissions wind-turbines that do not work in low or too high wind and solar systems that do not work in high cloudiness or at night, supporting widespread high-speed rail, guaranteeing jobs, universal health care, and creating infrastructure for other social justice measures reduce back the CO2 you put in the air. Further, what exactly does reducing the CO2 in the air do apart from starving plants, reducing agricultural output and inhibiting the greening of the Planet. Answers must include unadjusted data, verifiable experiments and all workings must be shown.

    • In the teaching of the Catholic Church, an indulgence (Latin: indulgentia, from *dulgeō, ‘persist’) is “a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins”.[1] It may reduce the “temporal punishment for sin” after death, in the state or process of purification called purgatory.

  3. I’m baffled. Someone please tell me: What is the difference between the “indulgences” to sin that the Catholic Church sold centuries ago, and the present day indulgence of carbon offsets to fly charter/private jets?

        • And interestingly enough, both (indulgences, offsets) are scams designed to get people to part with their money to assuage their feelings of guilt.

          So they’re both scams that prey on the feelings of guilt that adherents of a religion (Catholic in the case of indulgences, CAGW in the case of offsets) have about not being devout enough.

      • Try the healing power of AND. There is no difference. Just a different time period. The payment doesn’t stop the CO2 from being made.

    • There is no difference !
      You can go out and “sin” as much as you like.
      Pay your indulgences to the Holy Church Of The Coming Thermogeddon.
      Then go out and continue your hedonistic and hypocritical lifestyle.
      Its a very expensive way to salve your conscience even though you must know it won’t remove a gram of Carbon from the atmosphere.
      These poor people are too dumb to recognize all the hallmarks of a great scam.

    • The promised benefits of carbon indulgences are meant to benefit all future earthbound, while the catholic indulgences were claimed to benefit specific souls both living and liberated by death. We still await the salvation by grace doctrine of the climate worshiper. Maybe the Maunder Minimum will expedite that interpretation of the book of Gore…

      • Really? So why not just not emit the CO2 in the first place? Then “future generations” get the same benefit, to my understanding that’s what an “offset” means.

        Special privileges for the rich?

        Therefore, are not both indulgences are meant to assuage the conscience of the sinner?

    • Both were a scam. You can’t buy your way out of bad behavior in a moral world (which we obviously do not have) there’s no “offsets” or “indulgences” for pretending bad is good. Religion can lie and rip people off, or we would not be discussing carbon offsets. People often ignore rules and behave like hypocrites. Doesn’t make the rules wrong, but it does clearly indicate the person speaking does not believe the rules or does not believe the rules apply to them. It’s called “human nature” and it’s so far outside science that it generally wins over logic and reasoning.

    • Rod

      “…What is the difference between …”

      The main difference is the carbon offsets are real.

      • Crispin,

        You seem to be missing my point, which is spiritual/moral. If the carbon “sinner” just did not make the CO2, no offsets would be needed to mitigate the sinner’s CO2. Therefore, the offsets are indeed indulgences to “sin.” So the rich can sin with impunity, while we mere mortals can’t. I.e. Gore can have his mansions. How many homes does Bernie have? (Well, they ACT like emitting CO2 is sin; to me, CO2 looks more like a benefit. And I’m not even addressing the legit question as to if the offsets actually work.)

      • Why do I get the feeling, that by pointing out the moral equivalence between carbon “offsets” and the Catholic Church’s “indulgences” to sin, I’m Goring the AGW warriors’ sacred cow? Truth hurt?

  4. Buying carbon offsets for Sanders and Warren is easy when it’s campaign donations, money that they can’t use for personal expenses or put in their own personal bank accounts.
    Per federal law, campaign money from donors for them is of course OPM. In this case carbon offsets are part of climate change religion for buying indulgences to garner virtue points. And even better, spending OPM is always fun and easy.

    Climate Change is simply a religion to those idiots. (and calling them idiots is being nice.)

  5. Exactly who’s money was spent on these offsets?–is there any personal sacrifice evident from either of these two? It was for personal convenience that the jet fuel was burned; that someone else’s campaign contribution was spent to offset this personal luxury should impress us little.

    In comparison, note how much the average citizen is expected to sacrifice if either of them gains power–the average citizen that will be forced to get stuffed into mass transit with the corona virus while the elite take private jets.

    What a future to vote for.

  6. Instead of simply saying the GND would cost taxpayers 93 trillion dollars over a decade, we really need to say, “The GND would transfer 93 trillion taxpayer dollars over a decade to those promoting and selling green ‘solutions’.” That money doesn’t go to the climate. It’s not a bribe or a payoff to CO2. It goes to people, and everyone should be reminded of that.

  7. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren collectively spent $59,138 in carbon offsets in 2019 to counteract the carbon they produced campaigning for president, FEC records show.

    OK. Now we know who is stupid. Vote for someone else.

    Paying that much moolah to virtue-signal is a sure sign of stupidity.

    Why not just do the honorable thing politicians do and lie? Just save the money and buy another campaign ad. Everyone expects them to lie, so live up to everyone’s expectations. Don’t be so stupid.

      • And it should come out of their own pockets, not the pocket of their “campaign” donors.

        • Why doesn’t Bernie fly one of the new electric planes that can be powered using solar panels? It’s called the Pipistrel. It can carry one passenger and fly about 120 miles before needing a charge. What’s not to like about that? Show us an example by your actions. Otherwise, you’re just proving the superiority of fossil fuel powered aircraft.

    • Having the two of them spending campaign funds on things that make no difference is a good thing for the rest of us.

  8. Are we looking at a circular money corruption program?

    Environmental groups get offsets from Green candidates.

    A separate arm of the same group collects Tax Exempt donations.

    A separate arm donates to Warren and / or Sanders campaigns.

  9. In my ignorance can someone explain:

    a) Who gets the money paid in offsets?
    b) How does the payment of this money reduce the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere?

  10. So here’s the plan. We double the amount of “Carbon Offsets” required for each mile flown. That will be a net benefit, and after people fly for a decade or so, CO2 will be back down to pre-industrial levels!

    I gotta patent this one.


        • Once government becomes the sole payer for medical expenses, government will be able to set the price for all things medical.
          So what if the price being set is below cost, think of the children.

  11. Who owns those carbon offsets. Are they taxable? What if they run out, does it mean they can’t fly???

  12. If the carbon offsets were used to purchase wind turbine or photovoltaic cell systems, then you should add many more tons of CO2 emissions instead of subtracting. Any wind or solar systems will NEVER be net CO2 reducers, as they, through their energy of construction plus energy wasted by standby fossil fuel backup systems, consume more energy than they will produce during their lifetimes.

  13. Sooo, is this the real Green New Deal? Just do what you like, send buckets of money to this company in carbon indulgences, and they make it dissappear (the cash I mean , not the CO2) Sounds like a great money laundering system for the Breaking Bad crowd.

    • Laundered… clean, renewable, sociopolitically inoculated redistributive greenbacks.

      Exactly. There is a reason why mortal gods, secular religions, and faiths founded on a conflation of logical domains, have, throughout human history, been the most toxic to human, fauna, flora, and ecosystems generally.

  14. Ok, if I promise to hold my breath for a while, will somebody pay me for carbon offsets for the CO2 that I don’t emit?

  15. From the NativeEnergy site:


    Reduce your greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing NativeEnergy carbon offsets.

    Your Purchase Options:

    One Time- You can check out now to make a single purchase of carbon offsets.

    Monthly- If you would like to purchase carbon offsets on a monthly basis, please send an e-mail to or call us at 800-924-6826 x200, and we will assist you with setting up a monthly carbon offset plan.

    What project will my purchase help build?

    NativeEnergy website purchases are helping build the Honduras Coffee Growers Clean Water Project. By purchasing Help Build™ carbon offsets, you will provide upfront funding for the installation of these water filters. The mission of this project is to promote the sustainable development of communities participating in the coffee production process and improve the human development indexes within the Honduras coffee sector.

    How do carbon offsets work?

    With carbon offsets, you can counteract your personal carbon footprint by helping build clean energy and carbon-reducing projects.

    At this time, the Hondouras water project is the only funding option they offer. A description of the project is here.

    In that description they say:

    Validation & Verification

    The Honduras Clean Water Project is designed to follow the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) protocol for low greenhouse gas emitting water purification systems. The project is being independently validated as a Gold Standard Microscale Project.

    I certainly won’t argue against providing people with clean safe water, but since the project description explicitly says the target population does not now have clean water, building a new system doesn’t reduce any CO2 emissions except possibly by comparison with other water purification technologies which the Honduran coffee growers aren’t building anyway.

    Sounds like magical thinking to me. The Sanders and Warren campaigns contribute money to an organization which claims the money will have the effect of reducing net CO2 emissions by the amount the two campaigns emitted using private jet travel. All of that based on a magical number of $15.50/ton they or someone at the UN pulled out of the air. According to their calculator, if I send them $50.36 they will reduce the carbon emissions of Honduran coffee growers by the same 3.25 tons I just added flying 8900 miles to Hawaii and back.

    Why do I get the impression there is no monitoring or regulation of the “carbon offset” industry at all? Calling them “indulgences” is charitable; I’d call them green extortion schemes.

  16. Where does it get offset to 😐 Bernie wants trillions upon trillions, and warren (god knows how she is still in politics) wants us to live like the amish, all the while, they spent millions on jets😐

    Will this news make the national news? Newspapers? Viral on Social media??

  17. These people couldn’t even pronounce ‘the fallacy of composition’ let alone read or comprehend it. Therefore such contracts are harsh and unconscionable given the vast disparity between the purveyors’ and the purchasers’ mental capacities and as such should be declared null and void. Unfortunately they’re entitled to their money back to be squandered elsewhere. Where are Cons Affairs on this?

  18. How ironic that the candidate who, at one time, claimed to be a Native American bought so-called carbon offsets from NATIVEenergy.

  19. Halleluja (from Messiah Händel), Alle Menschen werden Brüder (Beethoven 9th). High speed rail and universal healthcare are cool though.

  20. The SEVEN Commandments revised to EIGHT Commandments

    8. No animal may travel in an airplane.

    Revised for the pigs
    8. No animal may travel in an airplane without carbon offsets.

    Apologies – George Orwell ANIMAL FARM

  21. Nothing is a sacrifice unless it costs you something. If you have lots of money. financial sacrifice is impossible as long as you have money left over after you have bought everything you need or want. If you can just pay somebody money every time you commit a sin, and the sin is then forgiven, the rich can buy moral innocence in the same way that they buy expensive consumer goods or safe, beautiful neighbourhoods. I’m on a budget, and I have to maintain my moral innocence by not sinning.

    • I fully agree, with one exception. I feel an urge to sin against against the 5th commandment. There will come a time when a lot of people feel the same.

    • Which has been the goal all along. It also helps to ensure that the good vacation spots aren’t being over run by the deplorables.

  22. “create one million green jobs at the cost of $2 trillion over a decade.”

    So 200 billion a year so each job costs 200,000 dollars a year….they’d better be able to do their job and sing across 5 octaves and juggle for that kind of moolah…

    • Well, the “jobs” will only pay $30,000 a year. The rest of the cost is for government “administration.”

  23. What this means is if you can afford to pay Carbon Offset ‘Indulgences’ you are sin free. If you are poor and cannot afford ‘indulgences’ then you are a sinner. Therefore the ‘Bishops’ of the ‘Church Without Carbon’ can wear fine clothes, stay if fine hotels, eat fine food, and travel first class anywhere so as to have meetings about new ways of frightening children about what sinners we all are.

  24. “net-zero” emissions = zero jobs, as South Australia is discovering. Once, it had an auto industry.

  25. Seems this is backwards. Someone should pay them NOT to fly!
    This would:
    a) Not produce CO2 – which is the goal.
    b) Raise money for the campaign – which is also the goal.

  26. From the article: “The two senators used the Vermont-based NativeEnergy for their carbon offset needs. Sanders purchased $32,230 in offsets from the firm in 2019, while Warren spent $26,908, Federal Election Commission records show.”

    I would have sold them carbon [dioxide] offsets for half that much! 🙂

    See how easy it is, Greta. Get George Soros to buy you some carbon [dioxide] offsets and then you can fly instead of sitting in a cramped sailboat for weeks on end.

  27. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had suits made to look poor and unfitted to display to the people that he lived as they lived. The only difference is he lived in luxury while they stood in line for hours to by food from stores that had little food to sell.

    Sanders, Warren and that actor would do the same. Not one supporter would, in the real world, want what these two offer if they lived under the consequences.

  28. “It sought to nix oil production outright.”

    They have no clue do they?
    Do they even know how many products are made from oil other than fuels.

  29. Liz Warren pays +$2,000/hr for a private jet to fly to her next political speech. When she gets off the plane and sees she is ‘on camera’, she hides behind an assistant as she walks to the terminal. During her speech, she then tells us she wants to ‘get money out of politics’ and ‘save the environment’. Arrogant chutzpah, high irony, and overt deceit on open display….. a socialist’s ‘triple play’.

  30. This business of carbon offset is just another squishy morass. This began with offsets for habitat destruction for listed species. If you are going to destroy an acre of habitat for human development, you must pay for several acres of habitat preservation elsewhere. But wait, is the habitat actually occupied by the species? Can’t you claim land already set aside for another species, if it works for your species? In the end this does not add any habitat or even keep things equal. An acre of habitat is still lost.

    Now for carbon offsets. Can this really be done? It seems like it depends. Let’s suppose your offsets are paying for wind or solar. The expected life of these technologies is only 20 years. How much carbon is saved? How much carbon is used producing wind and solar? The mining, metallurgy and manufacturing. How much carbon is used to replace it after 20 years? Let’s say you plant trees. Trees respire. They produce O2 during the day and breathe it back to produce CO2 at night when there is no sunlight. Granted in the interim there is an increase in woody mass. Until the tree burns or dies. At which time carbon is returned to the atmosphere. Carbon offset is an illusion. They have burned carbon-based fuel. There is no “un-burning” it. There should however be no apologies as aircraft travel is generally the most fuel efficient. Flying at altitude, wind resistance is low. There is no rolling resistance as with cars and trucks. Chances are they have used much less fuel than traveling by tour bus or motorcade. Fuel efficiency of aircraft appears to be low because the gross amount burned is high. But you must divide it by number of passengers to get passenger-miles. After all, an average jet gets 0.5 miles per gallon. But if it happens to be transporting 200 people, it is getting 100 passenger miles per gallon. Compare that to a typical car getting 25 miles per gallon while transporting only the driver. I’d like to see the hypocrisy and sanctimony ended. Aircraft travel is the most fuel-efficient. No guilt. Real offsets mean real reductions in carbon use. That means nuclear and/or geothermal power for generation of electricity in lieu of natural gas and coal. That is meaningful reduction.

  31. Wait. So you are allowed to produce as much co2 as you like so long as you have the money to pay for an offset? Doesn’t sound very socialist-like to me.

  32. How coincidental Native Energy is based in Vermont… I wonder how much stock, or ownership Sanders or Warren has in the company. …. When Al Gore produced An Inconvenient Truth, he bragged about buying carbon credits to offset the footprint of making the movie… In reality, he bought stock in Generation Investment Management, a company he owned.

    Carbon credits is just shuffling money into different pockets.

  33. It’s 100% pure BS designed as a pander for votes gambit–many ignorant “sickophants” buy it!!!!!

Comments are closed.