A link to an attack on Al Gore's energy usage? Jeesh. I suppose it is just to generate comments. Let's move beyond that. Somehow, I think we burn through more energy and emit moe carbon on one routine patrol in Baghdad, or on one Bush fundraising trip on Air Force One, than Gore has for the past six years.
Most of this whole discussion below misses the point of the linked article... it's not about Gore.
It's about carbon credits and emissions trading, and the deep problem with the idea that, at this late stage in the climate change game, it's OK for ANYONE to go on emitting carbon into the atmosphere based on (1) the idea that they will pay someone else to build additional capacity somewhere else that will emit at a lower rate, or (2) the idea that you should be able to buy a credit to keep on emitting at a high rate to force someone else to emit at a lower rate.
The fraud lies at the level of the proposed fix. Gore's only culpability exists to the extent that he or any of his allies promote the idea that carbon credits and emissions trading and similar fraud schemes are doing any good.
He's not alone in that delusion.
But what should the one man who has done more to change US awareness of climate change than any other have done? Had he not emitted untold tons of carbon traveling around spreading the word, he might not have succeeded in getting the message out. The problem is that EVERYONE thinks he or she has a good reason for that next airplane flight. Most of us probably don't have as good a reason as Al Gore did.
And he doesn't have any more justification for his energy hog house than the next person.... or President.
The problem with Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth flick is how it ends... in a call to take small personal half measures... buy a hybrid, whatever. It was ridiculous. A classic delusional American message, to the effect of "The planet is almost dead! Shop wisely!" It almost reminds me of what King George said when after the terrorist attacks.... "Don't do anything differently... go shopping!"
No Al, and no George, we've got to move a lot faster than that. Shopping won't save us this time.
We need a large and increasing carbon tax that begins to move every incentive in every corner of the global economy away from carbon emissions. It's going to hurt, but atmospheric CO2 emissions are going to hurt a lot worse pretty soon.
Yeah the ending was dumb. I saw the movie at pre-release screening with Dem politicos, environmentalists , and media types in attendance. At bar afterwards (where else do politicos hang) the one thing all agreed on, even those who had been personal friends of the Gore family many years, the ending was dumb.
I think Gore's energy usage is completely legitimate issue. It brings up the question of off-sets, which are bullshit, carbon trading and all the rest.
America must cut our energy consumption period. If your traveling around the world claiming climate change is going to be a historical disaster and we have ten years, and then you've done nothing to cut your personal energy use, I think it's completely legitimate to shine a light on, using an efficient bulb hooked to pv of course.
Abraham Lincoln has a lot of credibility -- maybe because he lived in a one-room cabin with no electricity and learned his alphabet by writing on a fire shovel?
If you're worried about what the corporate media is going to do with you, then you're a fool to be talking about these issues. If you think your going to co-opt the corporate media by talking out of both-sides of your mouth, you're even a bigger fool.
Gee did i say that? How about offering some personal leadership to a country that's going to have change its lifestyle in order to do anything about both climate change and peak oil. Walk the walk, and if you don't it's legititmate criticism. Let's see Al lead now, I'd like really like to see it.
It all comes back to ELP. Conservation has to start AT HOME first. Standing on the soapbox and screaming to the masses while you consume prolifically IS hypocritical. "Do what I say, not as I do" is a crappy argument.
And this whole idea that because Al Gore is a former VP and has to entertain people to a certain standard is crap too. If he's got the money to buy a big estate, he's got the money to make it green.
You people are so damn disconnected from reality. Ted Turner has also came out and said we need something like the effort Roosevelt gave to win WWII if we are to have any effect on global warming.
Does that make Turner a hypocrite because he has the audacity to warn us about global warming while being rich? If we looked at Turner’s electric bill and found it a bit excessive, should disqualify him from saying anything about global warming? Should we turn to him and say na-nana-na-na, while giving him a raspberry?
If you have a problem with the people who are trying to warn us about global warming you should find some other dirt to smear around, their electric bill is a non issue.
Yes, we're going to have an effort like Roosevelt's save us, when all the corporations empowered by fossil fuels control DC, and our democratic system in pieces, all we have to do is elect Al Gore! Don't worry about your SUV, your air conditioning your hundred inch television screen. DC is going to save us!
Excuse me if some of us in fantasyland don't find that too realistic and simply mentioning the former VP might have to now start broaching the real changes necessary to do anything about the problem and that is in fact exponentially more difficult than acknowledging them, is unjustified attack.
If we were ducks, we'd be shitting in the water to solve our problems because that's what we ducks do, constantly shitting in the water and constantly congratulating ourselves about how much we shit in the water.
No one is going to do anything for anyone else. You have to do it for yourself. It has nothing to do with "virtue" but survival.
So because Ted Turner is rich he doesn't have to participate in the massive effort he's calling for?
As I said before, you are totally disconnected from reality. Can people raise the alarm about peak oil and still drive a car. I have seen, on this list, people bitching about technology while using their computers. We all drive, heat our homes in the winter and cool them in the summer with air conditioning. We all eat food shipped from halfway around the world. Every American, Canadian or European consumes far more energy than our fair share! Dues that make us all hypocrites?
Every calorie of food we all eat took about 10 calories to produce. Hell, why are not we walking that walk while talking that talk? Should not we all clean up our own house? And that includes all you Gore bashers!
You just do not understand the momentum our lifestyle has. Neither Gore nor Turner can move into a tiny shack anymore than you can grow all your own food our give up riding in gasoline powered vehicles.
None of us who are talking that talk are really walking that walk!
You Gore bashers make me sick. You will grasp at any straw to make him look bad. Perhaps you think that will make Bush look better. Well, I don't think so.
We all eat food shipped from halfway around the world. Every American, Canadian or European consumes far more energy than our fair share! Dues that make us all hypocrites?
In a word, yes.
A lot of people who've taken the former VP to task haven't bashed him at all. You are the one who does the real disservice:
Neither Gore nor Turner can move into a tiny shack
So, that's the choice ehh? Either spend 30 grand a year on electricity or stack wood. We all need to begin cutting back our energy use, all can show others how.
I'm not saying Gore can't use energy. He's entitled just like the rest of us. But if he stands on a soapbox and starts preaching that we need to change our (that would be yours, mine, AND his) ways it rings hollow if he is burning energy at the rate of 18x that of an ordinary American.
I have zero problem with Gore having a 10,000 square foot house. But A $1200/month electric bill? Come on! Turn of the flood lights already.
If the average American consumes more then his fair share, what does that say about Gore then?
I'm working hard to reduce my carbon footprint. I take the train to work. I had cellulose installation blown in in my house last year. And I'm planning on adding more this year along with an instant hot water heater. My electric bill is $40.
If you want to be the nation's conscience, you have to be doing cleaner and better then the next guy.
Al Gore is not a hypocrite. He would be IF his message was for individuals to go home and use less energy. But that's not his message. His message is that we, as a society, need to recognize how the use of fossil fuels are damaging the environment. His message is that we need inform, educate and implement legislation to change consumption habits. And that is exactly what he is doing.
If you think the solution to global warming is for individuals to reduce their consumption volunterily, you are very naive.
Well lets pass a bill to get Al start first - that should be easy. If you think you're going to simply "implement legislation" to radically change individual lifestyles, without the active buy-in of a significant segment of the public, send me the drugs you're on, i could use them.
While I think that there is a possibly valid way to argue that Gore is not a hypocrite, the reality is that most people don't have time to ferret out the subtleties in Gore's stance on global warming. I think the issue is not so much that Gore is a hypocrite, it is that he seems to be blind to the fact that his massive electricity use will make it that much harder to get his message across.
I am tempted to be satisfied with the fact that Gore uses offsets which is more than most people do in his class, wealth, and station. I find it difficult, however, to comphrehend how he can be using so much energy, even given the size of his house, the climate, and his need to entertain and keep a staff in his house.
The other thing I think that Gore preaches is that we can have it all. We can have the big house, the big Lexus, and we do not have to care one wit about our historical patterns of consumption. Technology and offsets will fix it all. I would like to believe that but I don't. We can do a lot of conservation and we can improve efficiency without significantly affecting our so called standard of living. At some point, howerver, some people are going to be inconvenienced and we might even see some groups of people see their income and lifestyle impacted.
In sum, I think the unfortunate message that Gore sends out is that we just buy our way out of the problem. The wealthy and profligate can continue business as usual. Want that monster SUV. Just buy some offsets. I just don't think that is going to work; that attitude is not going to have much impact on our carbon emissions.
Al Gore is a hypocrite. That doesn't mean he's not right about climate change. It doesn't mean he's not a nice guy. But he's telling people that they need to reduce their energy usage while not doing much about it himself. I've never seen a confirmation of the numbers published by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, but if Al Gore does use over 200,000 kilowatt hours per year, then there's no way that is acceptable. That's an enormous amount of electricity.
Now I realize that many people don't like Al Gore and will take any opportunity to bash him. But that doesn't change the fact that he's unwilling to change the way he lives for something he claims to believe in. Here's a quote from climatecrisis.net:
Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.
If the situation is that dire, then why isn't Gore making more changes in his personal life? Why isn't he willing to lead by example?
Hahahahah... it's on the internet so it must be true? I suggest you research this "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" and see just what a joke and a sham it is. Then, if you follow the NY Times blog where the story first broke, you might discover an MIT professor lecturing TCPR on their fundamental misunderstandings of kilowatts versus kilowatt hours. Finally, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann ripped this entire story to shreds. You'd think Fox News might not want to get their faces associated with this sort of reporting but I guess they do not care.
Ghawar Is Dying The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Doesn't Tennesee have a high percentage of its electricity from nukes and hydro which are extremely low in fossil carbon compared to the high use of coal elsewhere? How much carbon from electricity is mostly a matter of geography. I mean if the rite-wing media's biggest complaint is Gore's electric bill then they are scraping the bottom of the septic tank.
How about offering some personal leadership to a country that's going to have change its lifestyle in order to do anything about both climate change and peak oil.
Perhaps he's decided that's not the most energy-efficient thing he can do.
If Al Gore increases his personal energy consumption to 10x that of a normal person, but by so doing convinces 1M people to reduce their energy consumption by even just 1%, then he's getting a thousand-fold return on that energy.
Leading by example is one way to lead; it is not the only way, and sometimes is not the best way.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves. Forgive me, but his talk enabled others to walk the walk.
Gore is putting solar panels on his house. Are you? He is trying to offset all of his GHG emissions. Are you? Unless you are a complete vegetarian, growing your own food and powering your house and your business through your own bicycle generator, you can't measure up to Al Gore.
Everyone on this board knows the dire straits we are in with regard to peak oil and catastrophic climate change as much as Al Gore does. Only when you are without carbon emissions may you stoop to pick up a stone.
Well offsets are bullshit. I haven't had a car for ten years now. I specifically moved to a city with good public transit. My electricity bill has been about $25 a month for last three years. So if your asking me if over the past ten years, have I significantly cut my energy footprint the answer is yes.
I said and still maintain it was a justifiable whack against poor Al, just as Jefferson's slave ownership was a legitimate whack. Jefferson did not go out an lead the abolitionist movement after he was president though either. Will Al have an impact on energy as large as Jefferson's on liberty? History will judge.
We all need to cut our energy use and yes, I think those speaking the loudest should also be leading by example.
I am the only non-Icelandic member of their "Tree Growing Club" and have introduced for trials two new species. Reforesting Iceland can offset world carbon emissions by a year (with small trees like the natives) or more with larger trees,
I just helped an elderly gentleman fix his hurrican damaged home (485 sq ft), insulated it and added a tankless water heater & CFLs. Hopefully cut his utility bills by 2/3rds.
I use (level billing) $35/month on electricity & natural gas.
I use about 6 gallons/month in my old M-B 240D.
I have been promoting more streetcar lines in New Orleans for years, with some innovative approaches.
Al Gore can do MUCH better; I will have to struggle to do slightly better.
Although I realize that right-wing nutjobs are trying to smear Gore in order to divert attention from the real issue, I nevertheless think that Gore could set a better example by being more frugal with his personal energy usage. Just because he made a great movie about global warming doesn't give him a free pass to waste energy heating his 10,000 square foot mansion, while telling the rest of us to conserve. And I simply don't believe in "carbon offsets" - that's a bad joke, and needs to be exposed as such.
LOL Gore is the worst kind of moralizing hypocrite a typical limo liberal that wants everyone else to do whats right while he makes boatloads of cash and carries on living an extravagent lifestyle that any self respecting person would be embarrassed to claim. So now that he has been exposed for what he is a gluttonus energy hog he decides to throw up a few solar panels what a freaking joke.
Do you think he will pay for them with it with the money he got selling the family lands to the coal strip miners? Gore is a pathetic joke always has been and always will be.
Interesting you bring up mining. A big part of the Gore family's wealth is the germanium deposits on their land. It is an important ingredient in most electronic devices and especially computers. Not only did he help create the Internet he also supplies some of the raw materials.
Why is a one room shack the only alternative to a 10,000 square foot house? The guy doesn't practice what he preaches. Why can't people just admit that? The way some people defend Al Gore beyond all reason just amazes me.
If you want a spot in the circus, you have to put up a show. Gore could indeed have bought himself into a sustainable lifestyle years ago. If he did, his film wouldn't even be started to be made, and the situation would be worse. It's like the finale of reservoir dogs: a bunch of guys pointing guns at each other: put your gun down, and you lose. Don't put your gun down, and you're not a step further. The only way to get out is for everyone to put their guns down simultaneously. Gore is now spreading the meme that avoiding a shooting match might actually be a possibility.
And this is where the movie analogy ends, because the whole problem will not - NOT - be solved in a single session of 110 minutes.
If we believe either party is going to do anything substancial to change our course, well....
Joe had another good article showing how much difference there is between them.
In the Reign of the One-nutted King
Democracy American style means we get free speech for trivial matters but not for life-and-death issues. When an election is stolen, the very party from whom it was stolen refuses to protest the theft because well, "Nobody likes sour grapes, do they? thereby assuring future electoral thefts. When America supplies Israel with cluster bombs to kill Palestinian children and grandmothers, you don't see rallies against Israel or American arms cartels. You see yet another exercise of free speech on behalf those things the politicians and corporations could care less about, and thus grant us permission to "dissent" upon. Issues such as gender and identity, or just about anything related to sexual freedom: "Go ahead, parade and rant about your own penises and vulvas. Just don't challenge the banks, the war machine or the fraudulent democratic process by which we manage the people. Remember, fucking with these things is called terrorism. So stick to your own narrow "issues" like sexual freedom and nobody will get hurt. Got it punk?"
Well hell. Now that the Bush administration has played all the fear cards available -- at least until he can bring a swarm if self-exploding Iranians down upon us -- the 2008 Dem
A link to an attack on Al Gore's energy usage? Jeesh. I suppose it is just to generate comments. Let's move beyond that. Somehow, I think we burn through more energy and emit moe carbon on one routine patrol in Baghdad, or on one Bush fundraising trip on Air Force One, than Gore has for the past six years.
Ole: It is funny how the MSM never bothers to report on the energy requirements of that big white mansion Chimpy resides in.
Most of this whole discussion below misses the point of the linked article... it's not about Gore.
It's about carbon credits and emissions trading, and the deep problem with the idea that, at this late stage in the climate change game, it's OK for ANYONE to go on emitting carbon into the atmosphere based on (1) the idea that they will pay someone else to build additional capacity somewhere else that will emit at a lower rate, or (2) the idea that you should be able to buy a credit to keep on emitting at a high rate to force someone else to emit at a lower rate.
The fraud lies at the level of the proposed fix. Gore's only culpability exists to the extent that he or any of his allies promote the idea that carbon credits and emissions trading and similar fraud schemes are doing any good.
He's not alone in that delusion.
But what should the one man who has done more to change US awareness of climate change than any other have done? Had he not emitted untold tons of carbon traveling around spreading the word, he might not have succeeded in getting the message out. The problem is that EVERYONE thinks he or she has a good reason for that next airplane flight. Most of us probably don't have as good a reason as Al Gore did.
And he doesn't have any more justification for his energy hog house than the next person.... or President.
The problem with Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth flick is how it ends... in a call to take small personal half measures... buy a hybrid, whatever. It was ridiculous. A classic delusional American message, to the effect of "The planet is almost dead! Shop wisely!" It almost reminds me of what King George said when after the terrorist attacks.... "Don't do anything differently... go shopping!"
No Al, and no George, we've got to move a lot faster than that. Shopping won't save us this time.
We need a large and increasing carbon tax that begins to move every incentive in every corner of the global economy away from carbon emissions. It's going to hurt, but atmospheric CO2 emissions are going to hurt a lot worse pretty soon.
Yeah the ending was dumb. I saw the movie at pre-release screening with Dem politicos, environmentalists , and media types in attendance. At bar afterwards (where else do politicos hang) the one thing all agreed on, even those who had been personal friends of the Gore family many years, the ending was dumb.
I think Gore's energy usage is completely legitimate issue. It brings up the question of off-sets, which are bullshit, carbon trading and all the rest.
America must cut our energy consumption period. If your traveling around the world claiming climate change is going to be a historical disaster and we have ten years, and then you've done nothing to cut your personal energy use, I think it's completely legitimate to shine a light on, using an efficient bulb hooked to pv of course.
Right, in order to have any credibility Gore should move into a one room shack with a wood stove.
Christ, some people will seize on any issue in an attempt to smear Gore. Get a life!
Ron Patterson
Abraham Lincoln has a lot of credibility -- maybe because he lived in a one-room cabin with no electricity and learned his alphabet by writing on a fire shovel?
Ron: Good one. Then if he actually did this, the MSM would say "Don't listen to this guy, he's a "wierdo".
If you're worried about what the corporate media is going to do with you, then you're a fool to be talking about these issues. If you think your going to co-opt the corporate media by talking out of both-sides of your mouth, you're even a bigger fool.
Gee did i say that? How about offering some personal leadership to a country that's going to have change its lifestyle in order to do anything about both climate change and peak oil. Walk the walk, and if you don't it's legititmate criticism. Let's see Al lead now, I'd like really like to see it.
It all comes back to ELP. Conservation has to start AT HOME first. Standing on the soapbox and screaming to the masses while you consume prolifically IS hypocritical. "Do what I say, not as I do" is a crappy argument.
And this whole idea that because Al Gore is a former VP and has to entertain people to a certain standard is crap too. If he's got the money to buy a big estate, he's got the money to make it green.
You people are so damn disconnected from reality. Ted Turner has also came out and said we need something like the effort Roosevelt gave to win WWII if we are to have any effect on global warming.
Does that make Turner a hypocrite because he has the audacity to warn us about global warming while being rich? If we looked at Turner’s electric bill and found it a bit excessive, should disqualify him from saying anything about global warming? Should we turn to him and say na-nana-na-na, while giving him a raspberry?
If you have a problem with the people who are trying to warn us about global warming you should find some other dirt to smear around, their electric bill is a non issue.
As I said before, get a life!
Ron Patterson
Yes, we're going to have an effort like Roosevelt's save us, when all the corporations empowered by fossil fuels control DC, and our democratic system in pieces, all we have to do is elect Al Gore! Don't worry about your SUV, your air conditioning your hundred inch television screen. DC is going to save us!
Excuse me if some of us in fantasyland don't find that too realistic and simply mentioning the former VP might have to now start broaching the real changes necessary to do anything about the problem and that is in fact exponentially more difficult than acknowledging them, is unjustified attack.
So because Ted Turner is rich he doesn't have to participate in the massive effort he's calling for?
Because he's rich he gets a free pass on the amount of carbon he spews?
WTF?!?!?
Would it be ok if Al Gore spoke out against animal furs while wearing a Mink coat? You can't preach what don't embody.
Garth
We're apes. All apes do is talk.
If we were ducks, we'd be shitting in the water to solve our problems because that's what we ducks do, constantly shitting in the water and constantly congratulating ourselves about how much we shit in the water.
No one is going to do anything for anyone else. You have to do it for yourself. It has nothing to do with "virtue" but survival.
I care not one wit for Gore.
As I said before, you are totally disconnected from reality. Can people raise the alarm about peak oil and still drive a car. I have seen, on this list, people bitching about technology while using their computers. We all drive, heat our homes in the winter and cool them in the summer with air conditioning. We all eat food shipped from halfway around the world. Every American, Canadian or European consumes far more energy than our fair share! Dues that make us all hypocrites?
Every calorie of food we all eat took about 10 calories to produce. Hell, why are not we walking that walk while talking that talk? Should not we all clean up our own house? And that includes all you Gore bashers!
You just do not understand the momentum our lifestyle has. Neither Gore nor Turner can move into a tiny shack anymore than you can grow all your own food our give up riding in gasoline powered vehicles.
None of us who are talking that talk are really walking that walk!
You Gore bashers make me sick. You will grasp at any straw to make him look bad. Perhaps you think that will make Bush look better. Well, I don't think so.
Ron Patterson
In a word, yes.
A lot of people who've taken the former VP to task haven't bashed him at all. You are the one who does the real disservice:
So, that's the choice ehh? Either spend 30 grand a year on electricity or stack wood. We all need to begin cutting back our energy use, all can show others how.
Ron,
I'm not saying Gore can't use energy. He's entitled just like the rest of us. But if he stands on a soapbox and starts preaching that we need to change our (that would be yours, mine, AND his) ways it rings hollow if he is burning energy at the rate of 18x that of an ordinary American.
I have zero problem with Gore having a 10,000 square foot house. But A $1200/month electric bill? Come on! Turn of the flood lights already.
If the average American consumes more then his fair share, what does that say about Gore then?
I'm working hard to reduce my carbon footprint. I take the train to work. I had cellulose installation blown in in my house last year. And I'm planning on adding more this year along with an instant hot water heater. My electric bill is $40.
If you want to be the nation's conscience, you have to be doing cleaner and better then the next guy.
Garth
PS - This isn't political - I can't stand Bush.
We all air condition? Speak for yourself.
Al Gore is not a hypocrite. He would be IF his message was for individuals to go home and use less energy. But that's not his message. His message is that we, as a society, need to recognize how the use of fossil fuels are damaging the environment. His message is that we need inform, educate and implement legislation to change consumption habits. And that is exactly what he is doing.
If you think the solution to global warming is for individuals to reduce their consumption volunterily, you are very naive.
Well lets pass a bill to get Al start first - that should be easy. If you think you're going to simply "implement legislation" to radically change individual lifestyles, without the active buy-in of a significant segment of the public, send me the drugs you're on, i could use them.
While I think that there is a possibly valid way to argue that Gore is not a hypocrite, the reality is that most people don't have time to ferret out the subtleties in Gore's stance on global warming. I think the issue is not so much that Gore is a hypocrite, it is that he seems to be blind to the fact that his massive electricity use will make it that much harder to get his message across.
I am tempted to be satisfied with the fact that Gore uses offsets which is more than most people do in his class, wealth, and station. I find it difficult, however, to comphrehend how he can be using so much energy, even given the size of his house, the climate, and his need to entertain and keep a staff in his house.
The other thing I think that Gore preaches is that we can have it all. We can have the big house, the big Lexus, and we do not have to care one wit about our historical patterns of consumption. Technology and offsets will fix it all. I would like to believe that but I don't. We can do a lot of conservation and we can improve efficiency without significantly affecting our so called standard of living. At some point, howerver, some people are going to be inconvenienced and we might even see some groups of people see their income and lifestyle impacted.
In sum, I think the unfortunate message that Gore sends out is that we just buy our way out of the problem. The wealthy and profligate can continue business as usual. Want that monster SUV. Just buy some offsets. I just don't think that is going to work; that attitude is not going to have much impact on our carbon emissions.
Really? What about this? http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction
Al Gore is a hypocrite. That doesn't mean he's not right about climate change. It doesn't mean he's not a nice guy. But he's telling people that they need to reduce their energy usage while not doing much about it himself. I've never seen a confirmation of the numbers published by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, but if Al Gore does use over 200,000 kilowatt hours per year, then there's no way that is acceptable. That's an enormous amount of electricity.
Now I realize that many people don't like Al Gore and will take any opportunity to bash him. But that doesn't change the fact that he's unwilling to change the way he lives for something he claims to believe in. Here's a quote from climatecrisis.net:
If the situation is that dire, then why isn't Gore making more changes in his personal life? Why isn't he willing to lead by example?
Hahahahah... it's on the internet so it must be true? I suggest you research this "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" and see just what a joke and a sham it is. Then, if you follow the NY Times blog where the story first broke, you might discover an MIT professor lecturing TCPR on their fundamental misunderstandings of kilowatts versus kilowatt hours. Finally, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann ripped this entire story to shreds. You'd think Fox News might not want to get their faces associated with this sort of reporting but I guess they do not care.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Doesn't Tennesee have a high percentage of its electricity from nukes and hydro which are extremely low in fossil carbon compared to the high use of coal elsewhere? How much carbon from electricity is mostly a matter of geography. I mean if the rite-wing media's biggest complaint is Gore's electric bill then they are scraping the bottom of the septic tank.
It does. The TVA is one of the oldest hydro 'deals' in existence. So this has little or nothing to do with Gore's "carbon footprint".
And, yes, that would be the septic tank they've been living in for the last 20 years or so...
Perhaps he's decided that's not the most energy-efficient thing he can do.
If Al Gore increases his personal energy consumption to 10x that of a normal person, but by so doing convinces 1M people to reduce their energy consumption by even just 1%, then he's getting a thousand-fold return on that energy.
Leading by example is one way to lead; it is not the only way, and sometimes is not the best way.
Welllll....
Al is not great in many respects, but he is the best you've got.
How many do you know that can get a documentary on GW onto video shop and supermarket bookshelves.
And of course, MSM will pick up on his carbon foot print:
Just another form of swift-boating.
I couldn't disagree more, especially when you'r talking about an issue which is going to take the personal initiative of millions to solve.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves. Forgive me, but his talk enabled others to walk the walk.
Gore is putting solar panels on his house. Are you? He is trying to offset all of his GHG emissions. Are you? Unless you are a complete vegetarian, growing your own food and powering your house and your business through your own bicycle generator, you can't measure up to Al Gore.
Everyone on this board knows the dire straits we are in with regard to peak oil and catastrophic climate change as much as Al Gore does. Only when you are without carbon emissions may you stoop to pick up a stone.
Well offsets are bullshit. I haven't had a car for ten years now. I specifically moved to a city with good public transit. My electricity bill has been about $25 a month for last three years. So if your asking me if over the past ten years, have I significantly cut my energy footprint the answer is yes.
I said and still maintain it was a justifiable whack against poor Al, just as Jefferson's slave ownership was a legitimate whack. Jefferson did not go out an lead the abolitionist movement after he was president though either. Will Al have an impact on energy as large as Jefferson's on liberty? History will judge.
We all need to cut our energy use and yes, I think those speaking the loudest should also be leading by example.
E tu?
The Christians would love you! They are always trying to vote for Jesus!
christians use energy too
I think that I can "out do" Al Gore.
I have a plan that reduces both GHG & US oil consumption using overlooked mature technologies.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
I am the only non-Icelandic member of their "Tree Growing Club" and have introduced for trials two new species. Reforesting Iceland can offset world carbon emissions by a year (with small trees like the natives) or more with larger trees,
I just helped an elderly gentleman fix his hurrican damaged home (485 sq ft), insulated it and added a tankless water heater & CFLs. Hopefully cut his utility bills by 2/3rds.
I use (level billing) $35/month on electricity & natural gas.
I use about 6 gallons/month in my old M-B 240D.
I have been promoting more streetcar lines in New Orleans for years, with some innovative approaches.
Al Gore can do MUCH better; I will have to struggle to do slightly better.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Yes...Al Gore CAN do better, but he is a private citizen. The person I would REALLY like to see do better is sitting in the White House.
Although I realize that right-wing nutjobs are trying to smear Gore in order to divert attention from the real issue, I nevertheless think that Gore could set a better example by being more frugal with his personal energy usage. Just because he made a great movie about global warming doesn't give him a free pass to waste energy heating his 10,000 square foot mansion, while telling the rest of us to conserve. And I simply don't believe in "carbon offsets" - that's a bad joke, and needs to be exposed as such.
all the best,
Oz
LOL Gore is the worst kind of moralizing hypocrite a typical limo liberal that wants everyone else to do whats right while he makes boatloads of cash and carries on living an extravagent lifestyle that any self respecting person would be embarrassed to claim. So now that he has been exposed for what he is a gluttonus energy hog he decides to throw up a few solar panels what a freaking joke.
Do you think he will pay for them with it with the money he got selling the family lands to the coal strip miners? Gore is a pathetic joke always has been and always will be.
Interesting you bring up mining. A big part of the Gore family's wealth is the germanium deposits on their land. It is an important ingredient in most electronic devices and especially computers. Not only did he help create the Internet he also supplies some of the raw materials.
How about a reality TV show where Al's mansion gets a green makeover.
Why is a one room shack the only alternative to a 10,000 square foot house? The guy doesn't practice what he preaches. Why can't people just admit that? The way some people defend Al Gore beyond all reason just amazes me.
If you want a spot in the circus, you have to put up a show. Gore could indeed have bought himself into a sustainable lifestyle years ago. If he did, his film wouldn't even be started to be made, and the situation would be worse. It's like the finale of reservoir dogs: a bunch of guys pointing guns at each other: put your gun down, and you lose. Don't put your gun down, and you're not a step further. The only way to get out is for everyone to put their guns down simultaneously. Gore is now spreading the meme that avoiding a shooting match might actually be a possibility.
And this is where the movie analogy ends, because the whole problem will not - NOT - be solved in a single session of 110 minutes.
If we believe either party is going to do anything substancial to change our course, well....
Joe had another good article showing how much difference there is between them.
In the Reign of the One-nutted King