Global-warming skeptics are painting Al Gore as a modern-day Sylvester McMonkey McBean.

For readers who haven’t revisited Dr. Seuss lately, McBean is the infamous profiteer who appears in Seuss’ parable on racism, “The Sneetches.” The businessman shows up just as conflicts between those Sneetches with stars on their bellies and those without are reaching a fever pitch. He earns a handsome yield with machines that add and remove stars, thus solving a “problem” that never existed in the first place. Similarly, climate change nonbelievers allege that the former vice president, who has invested heavily in corporations that stand to benefit from green-energy legislation, is doing the same thing.

The main difference: unlike stars on bellies, the issues that green technology promises to address are real problems.

In a recent New York Times article, Gore’s work with venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins is investigated, along with claims from Tennessee representative Martha Blackman, who alleges that Gore stands to profit handsomely from policies he has encouraged Congress to adopt. Her criticisms have been echoed around the blogosphere, where opponents allege that Gore will be the first “carbon billionaire,” and, in one memorable headline, that he stands to make “Big Profits from ‘Global Warming.’”

Judging by what his critics are saying, Gore appears to have committed two crimes here: he’s scamming people by advocating unnecessary environmental measures, and he’s being disingenuous in his promotion of green energy issues when he stands to profit himself. Neither of these accusations, however, hold up to any real scrutiny – regardless of one’s stance on climate change.

Consider the first allegation: that the ventures Kleiner Perkins backs – focused largely on creating a low-carbon economy, in which fewer emissions are released into the atmosphere – are part of alarmist global warming hyperbole, tricking America’s consumers into purchasing services and buying into industries they don’t need.

If one believes in the greenhouse effect, of course, these efforts would appear to be a good idea. But even if one does not buy into the whole climate change thing, anyone who dislikes pollution – which is, undoubtedly, the form that carbon emissions generally take –  would also be hard-pressed to debate the benefits of industries that combat such emanations. “Carbon emissions” is a fancy term for the smoke that chugs out of factories and the gasoline vapors that fill our streets with smog.

It is not much of a stretch to say that most people with any sense of self-preservation would support inquiries into its reduction. There’s also the fact that the investment that has caused the most hullaballoo – the development of technology that allows companies to monitor more closely their energy usage – fills a need entirely unrelated to climate change: we live on a planet of finite resources, and paying attention to how we use what’s left of them is not a bad idea.

Evaluating the second argument, that Gore’s lobbying is ethically questionable, is a bit trickier. Bear in mind, however, that Gore is no longer in office. Therefore, there’s nothing actually wrong with his seeking to make a profit. He’s not blocking the market – in fact, such high-profile involvement may actually encourage other firms to get in on the action, thus creating a more competitive environment that might benefit consumers in the long run. If the former VP’s involvement contributes to the growth of the green-tech sector, he’s actually encouraging the development of incentives for private organizations to get involved, rather than the heavy-handed government intervention that most climate skeptics seem to fear.

To borrow from another Seuss classic, Gore’s been playing the Lorax for years now – speaking for the trees, and all they represent, to a mixed audience of skeptics and believers. Perhaps if he can demonstrate that there’s more than talk to be made from fixing the environment and introducing better habits to the American people, we’ll see more investors following in his footsteps.

A few more capitalists looking for ways to make money by preserving the environment instead of destroying it is certainly preferable to the alternative. And maybe, if Gore can set a new paradigm for the green investor, he’ll be able to prove something: if the problem is real, then you can teach a Sneetch.

Popularity: 2% [?]