Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djtestudo
Wait a minute.
One of the criticisms of the Bush Administration is that many involved are also involved (or have been in the past) with oil and energy companies.
Now, there is a point to which there is a criticism to be made (mostly about who is setting the energy policy, right or wrong), but why is it OK to criticize one major political figure for having a monetary interest in a certain area, but to brush aside the same issue from another?
Is it because you simply disagree with one while agreeing with the other?
|
Wait another minute.
When did this become about the Bush Administration? I thought we were talking about Al Gore and carbon offsets. I don't recall criticizing Bush's involvement in the oil & gas industry. But if you want my opinion on this, all you had to do was ask instead of making assumptions.
I have nothing against Bush making profits in oil, so long as he does so ethically. If you were to tell me Bush spends his free time advocating the benefits of gas-heated homes over electric, I wouldn't have a problem. If, however, you can give me evidence that his decision on Iraq was motivated by oil, I would certainly have a problem. If he wants to drill for oil while disregarding the environment and the well-being of the local population, I would have a problem with this too.
So far, I have yet to hear of Gore causing strife or destruction to fulfill his agenda of carbon neutrality, offsets, sinks, or whatever. And for that reason, I see nothing wrong with his making money in an industry of which he is an advocate. This is a common practice.