Reports on criticism of Gore omitted steps he reportedly took to reduce "carbon footprint"
Coverage by several media outlets of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's (TCPR) criticism of former Vice President Al Gore's home energy bills omitted some or all of the steps that Gore has reportedly taken to reduce the effect of his home energy usage. These steps were reported by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, CNN financial correspondent Ali Velshi, and a February 27 article in The Tennessean of Nashville. On the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann said that TCPR's criticism "omits" that Gore's home includes "home offices for himself and his wife, as well as a guest house and special security measures," and that the Gores' use of "renewable sources" from the "Green Power Switch" program "actually costs more for the Gores." Olbermann further reported that, according to Green Power Switch, "some smaller homes consume energy in the same range of usage as does the one on the Gores' property." On the February 27 edition of CNN's American Morning, Velshi also noted that Gore's purchase of "green power" increased Gore's utility costs.
Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.
That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.
The weblog Think Progress also reported that Gore's office said "Gore's family ... sign[ed] up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch" and "purchas[ed] carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint."
Additionally, a February 27 Associated Press article, questioned TCPR's assertion that the Gores used more than 220,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2006. The AP reported that "according to bills [it] reviewed," "[t]he Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006," while TCPR "said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours." The AP reported that TCPR president Jason "Drew" Johnson "said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never received a request from the policy center and never gave it any information."
In contrast, a CNN report on Lou Dobbs Tonight that aired several hours after Velshi's report, as well as reports by Fox News, MSNBC, CNN Headline News, the Los Angeles Times, and National Public Radio, as well as a New York Post editorial and an editorial and a separate column in The Washington Times, omitted some or all of the actions reportedly taken by the Gores; none of them raised the question in the AP report about the accuracy of TCPR's figures, including several that aired or were published after the AP article:
- On the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson said he was judging Gore by "the rules [Gore] set out" and asked Competitive Enterprise Institute president Fred L. Smith Jr. if Gore was "living like a king, at the expense of our planet? Am I missing something?" Carlson noted the "quote, 'offsets' " as Gore's "defen[se]" of what Carlson called "quite a big carbon footprint," but agreed with Smith that such "offsets" are like "indulgences" from "the Middle Ages."
- On the February 27 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, guest host Kitty Pilgrim noted that TCPR "says that Gore's own home uses 20 times the national average for power." Radio host Joe Madison argued that "put[ting on] solar panels" is "a good flip-flop." Radio host Mark Simone claimed that Gore was only installing panels " 'cause he got caught."
- On the February 27 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, host Glenn Beck asserted that Gore "has a huge carbon footprint" and said that the "the Gores paid almost $30,000 in gas and electric in 2006." Beck did not report any of Gore's reported efforts.
- On the February 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asked actor Ed Begley Jr. if Begley had the "the courage to say, when [Gore] travels around in private jets, when [Gore's] using this type of energy, 20 times the national average, that [Gore's] a hypocrite?" Hannity added that Gore's energy use "is pure, Class A hypocritical living." In response, co-host Alan Colmes noted the Gores' use of "green power."
- The February 28 Washington Times "Inside Politics" column reported part of a February 26 ABCNews.com article noting TCPR's criticism of "environmental hypocrisy." While the ABCNews.com article quoted Gore's spokeswoman saying that the Gores "purchas[ed] their power through the local Green Power Switch program," the Times quoted a Gore spokeswoman saying only that the Gores work out of their home and that all that "Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."
- A February 28 Washington Times editorial not only asserted that "Gore apparently thinks he should be exempted personally from his own carbon morality," but added a falsehood about Gore, as well, stating that Gore was "busy inventing the Internet." As Media Matters for America noted, the assertion that Gore claimed to "invent[] the Internet" has been thoroughly debunked.
- A February 28 Los Angeles Times article noted the Gores' energy costs and that Gore "invests in renewable energy." It did not explain that the investment raised the family's energy costs, nor did it note the other steps the Gores are reportedly taking.
- On the February 28 edition of NPR's All Things Considered, host Melissa Block reported that Gore's office "said the Gore family does a lot to reduce its carbon imprint, such as making renovations that include solar panels and purchasing carbon offsets" but did not note the Gores' other reported efforts.
- In a March 1 New York Post editorial, the Post asserted that Gore's "carbon footprint" is "[p]retty hefty" and that because of the Gores' energy use, "the carbon footprint -- the amount of greenhouse gas generated to keep Gore in kilowatts -- grow[s]." However, the Post later noted that "[a] spokeswoman for Gore ... insisted the former Second Family purchases enough energy from renewable sources to offset their sizable carbon footprint," to which the Post added: "No doubt."
From 7 a.m. ET hour of the February 27 edition of CNN's American Morning:
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN (co-host): Al Gore is firing back this morning, on critics who say that he is not practicing what he was preaching in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. The day after Gore took home an Oscar for that movie, critics are charging that Gore's mansion in Nashville devours over 20 times the national average in kilowatt-hours. The average electric bill is 1,200 bucks a month! A thousand dollars a month for the gas bill.
Spokeswoman says that Al Gore told -- rather a spokeswoman for Al Gore told CNN that the Gores make up for all of that. "The Gores purchase," she said, "all their power through the local Green Power Switch program. It's 100 percent renewable power and they are in the midst of a renovation, which includes installing solar-powered panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power."
[...]
VELSHI: And we've been reporting this morning that Al Gore's big house is partially green. Gore produced bills that showed that he purchased 108 blocks of green power for each of the past 3 months. It's worth about 432 bucks a month extra that he paid for to use solar or other energy sources coming into his house.
One group says that that's about the equivalent of recycling two and a half million aluminum cans, or more than a quarter million pounds of newspapers. So, it might be a trend that folks want to take advantage of, Soledad.
From the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Al Gore has never lived in the White House, at least not yet, but he's got some pretty nice digs anyway. His family home in the Nashville area sprawls for 10,000 square feet, and according to the Nashville Tennessean, it costs the Gores about 1,200 bucks a month in electricity. That's quite a big carbon footprint, needless to say. Well, Gore defends his prodigious energy consumption with the fact that Mr. Gore pays for, quote, "offsets," which fund the production of renewable energy, like solar power. Here to discuss the meaning of this story is the president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Fred Smith. Fred, welcome.
SMITH: Hi, Tucker. We're back to the Middle Ages in indulgences, aren't we?
CARLSON: Yeah, I mean, here -- here's the thing. I don't typically go into how people live their private lives. I like to keep that -- kind of out of politics, but the nature of this global warming debate is almost by definition personal. The idea is -- and Gore said it out loud the other day. He said, "It's not political. It's moral." The way you behave in your off-hours, your private life at home, could determine the future of the Earth. So, the personal is political, according to the rules he set out, and so I think it's very relevant that this guy is living like a king, at the expense of our planet. Am I missing something?
SMITH: No, you're not. And, in fact, if he stayed at home, he'd actually use even less energy. Flying around the world in jet travel is not exactly what you would call a green lifestyle. But remember, as you point out in your beginning, he is now expiating for his evil consumptive ways by buying indulgences.
From the February 27 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
PILGRIM: Let's -- let's move on to another personality in this whole issue: Hollywood and Al Gore. They just loved each other, and it was a very, very interesting night.
But today, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research says that Gore's own home uses 20 times the national average for power. This is after collecting an Oscar for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
JOE MADISON (talk show radio host): Yeah, and I drove over here in an Escalade that you guys had pick me up.
And, you know, somebody said, well, he's flip-flopping, because he's now going to put solar panels on. Well, this is a good flip-flop. I'm glad he's going to do that, but, come on, we can all be hypocrites, too.
PETER BOYLES (radio host): Do you remember --
SIMONE: He's doing it because he got caught.
MADISON: Now, it wasn't my Escalade, by the way.
BOYLES: But you remember -- you remember, during the big debates on civil rights and the debates on bussing, and then they found that most of these people who are voting on bussing, oh, yeah, let's -- they have their children in private schools. And hypocrisy, in politicians, well, there's something brand new.
SIMONE: Here's the new term. This is what our listeners are calling it: Gulfstream liberals. They used to have limousine liberals. These guys that fly around in private jets and preach that you shouldn't waste gas are Gulfstream liberals.
You know what's interesting, the president of the United States put in solar power, thermal heating in the White House a few years ago. His ranch in Texas -- completely green: solar power, thermal heating. That truck he drives around in is hydrogen, so -- and he never -- he never gets any credit for that.
MADISON: Well, let's give Gore a little credit for -- because at least he said, "I'll change it. I will put solar power."
SIMONE: He got caught!
MADISON: And I think give him credit for -- well, fine, but you know, Bush got caught and he's still in Iraq.
From the February 27 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK [video clip]: Al Gore, what a fraud. I may have a bigger carbon footprint than Al Gore. I'm not sure. I want to see my carbon footprint. And if it's not big enough, I'm going to expand it.
I'm going to go out and smoke coal cigarettes today, just to piss Al Gore off. But I'll show you his carbon footprint, and it will astound you, how a guy who's telling me to use a fluorescent light bulb has a huge carbon footprint.
BECK: Now, turns out that Al Gore is a big hypocrite on this, according to, at least, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His 20-room house, pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006. I don't know how many I really spent until this morning. I looked it up. That's more than 20 times the national average. Gore's average monthly electric bill was about $1,300. That means that the Gores paid almost $30,000 in gas and electric in 2006.
Well, lucky for Al Gore, his Oscar goody bag included 100,000 free pounds of greenhouse gas reductions from TerraPass. The press release says that this is enough to balance out the average year in the life of an Academy Award presenter. For example, 100,000 pounds is the total amount of carbon dioxide created by 20,000 miles of driving, 40,000 miles on a commercial airline, and 20 hours in a private jet, and a large house in Los Angeles.
From the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: So, is our third story tonight outrageous hypocrisy, a minor embarrassment, or a demonstration of a different kind of windpower? First, that allegedly nonpartisan think tank, which just happens to have gotten its story picked up by the notorious Drudge Report today, is called the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. Twenty-seven-year-old President Jason "Drew" Johnson, hailing from the same American Enterprise Institute that takes money from big oil, cheerleads the war in Iraq, and consistently -- and now to pretty consistent laughter -- downplays global warming.
That said, even a partisan think tank can get the facts straight. So, the facts: last year, Gore's Tennessee property consumed almost 221,000 kilowatt-hours, 20 times the national average. It cost him more than $16,300. But Johnson's press release, calling on Gore to walk the walk when it comes to home energy use, omits several other key facts. The former vice president's home has 20 rooms, including home offices for himself and his wife, as well as a guest house and special security measures.
Furthermore, the Gores buy energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and solar. Tonight, Countdown confirmed with the local utility officials that their program, called the Green Power Switch, actually costs more for the Gores -- four dollars for every 150 kilowatt hours. Meaning, by our calculations, our math here, that the Gores actually chose to increase their electric bill by $5,893, more than 50 percent, in order to minimize carbon pollution.
The utility is also telling us that some smaller homes consume energy in the same range of usage as does the one on the Gores' property.
From the February 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Seems the truth keeps getting more inconvenient for former Vice President Al Gore. A new report from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research shows that the Gore household consumes at least 20 times more energy than the national average.
The report flies in the face of Gore's message about the need to reduce energy emissions, and it also questions whether the former vice president and his legion of Hollywood stars are legitimately leading by example.
[...]
HANNITY: If Al Gore is going to carry this message, doesn't he need to walk the walk? And do you have the courage to say, when he travels around in private jets, when he's using this type of energy 20 times the national average, that he's a hypocrite?
[...]
HANNITY: He needs those three or four homes, the eight bathrooms, the 20-room mansion. He needs the Gulfstream to live his life, because he's Al Gore. But the rest of us, we're going to get lectured by him about our SUV use? And you don't see that hypocrisy? That is pure, Class A hypocritical living. Why can't you just acknowledge that?
BEGLEY: I don't want to -- I'd like to learn more about the multiple homes. I'd like to learn more about this. I'd like to hear his response to all this before I comment. But I can I tell you it's possible to live very simply. I live on very little, and I take public transportation. I ride my --
HANNITY: I'm praising you. You're not a hypocrite, Ed. And I read you ride your bike to different Hollywood events, I read recently.
BEGLEY: Right.
HANNITY: You know, but Al Gore -- for example, the average American home consumes 10,656 kilowatt hours. In just the month of August alone, he used twice the national average, and that's only one of his homes. And I'm just --
BEGLEY: I want to talk to --
HANNITY: Go ahead.
BEGLEY: I'd like to talk to him and see his response to this study before I comment on it. I will come back on and I'll give you a fair comment.
COLMES: Actually, I'll give you his response, Ed and Rachelle [Begley] and Drew. It's Alan Colmes. Drew, I don't think you're telling the whole story. Gore, for example, bought 108 blocks of green power feeds for the past three months. That's the equivalent, by the way, according to the National Electric Service, of 2.48 million aluminum cans. Did you collect -- I wonder if you collected that over the last few months.
JOHNSON: The question isn't whether I collected it --
COLMES: What's that?
JOHNSON: The question isn't, "Did I collect it?" I'm not going around telling people that they need to change the light bulbs in their house --
COLMES: But you're not telling the whole story about what Al Gore is doing. You're not acknowledging --
JOHNSON: No, the truth of the matter is --
COLMES: -- that he's doing carbon trade-offs and he's doing a number of things that he --
HANNITY: That's a joke.
COLMES: No, it's not a joke. He's actually -- you're not telling the whole story.
[...]
COLMES: By the way, he's purchasing all his power through a Green Power Switch program. It's 100 percent renewable power. Why aren't you telling that part of the story? All you're doing is attacking Al Gore.
JOHNSON: This power switch program -- he's been a member of this power switch program for three months.
From the February 28 Washington Times "Inside Politics" column:
Gore's utility bills
Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, former Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Mr. Gore's environmental hypocrisy, ABC News reports.
Armed with Mr. Gore's utility bills for the past two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours last year, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live, and he's not following his own rules."
Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for the Gores, did not dispute the center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home, and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."
From The Washington Times' February 28 editorial, "Al Gore's glass house":
How "inconvenient." Former Vice President Al Gore, preacher-in-chief of the carbon-footprint gospel, himself owns a mansion which burns through more electricity in a month than the average American family uses in a year. You didn't hear that Sunday night, of course. Mr. Gore's Oscar acceptance speech for "An Inconvenient Truth" instead claimed that climate change is a "moral issue." Mr. Gore apparently thinks he should be exempted personally from his own carbon morality.
Gas and electricity for Mr. Gore's 20-room Nashville manse cost nearly $30,000 last year, the free-market Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported in a post-Oscar release. Heating and powering the pool house alone cost Mr. Gore $544 a month. The estate's total 2006 power consumption was almost 221,000 kilowatt-hours. The average American household uses less than 11,000. But then, average folks weren't busy inventing the Internet.
From a February 28 Los Angeles Times article:
Noncommercial aircraft and other carbon-related indulgences have caused politicians considerable turbulence recently.
A conservative group has condemned Al Gore for racking up an average monthly electricity bill of $1,200 at his Nashville mansion last year while championing the anti-global warming cause. A Gore spokeswoman said the former vice president invests in renewable energy to offset his electricity use.
As part of an ethics push, the House and Senate are toughening restrictions on lawmakers who fly private jets, though exceptions for members and spouses who own planes are under consideration.
From the February 28 edition of NPR's All Things Considered:
MELISSA BLOCK: On Sunday night, when the movie An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar, its star, Al Gore, took the stage with this message about global warming.
GORE: People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue. It's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started with the possible exception of the will to act, and that's a renewable resource. Let's renew it.
BLOCK: Not so fast, according to a press release from a group called the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, which calls itself a libertarian think tank. The center called up the Nashville Electric Service and asked about the bills for the Gores' 10,000-square-foot home.
JAMES "DREW" JOHNSON: The average American uses about 11,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, but Al Gore devoured 221,000 kilowatt-hours.
BLOCK: That's Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
JOHNSON: It sort of raises the question, "Is he doing the sorts of thing that he's asking us to do?"
BLOCK: In last couple of days, the center's research has gotten a lot of attention. And in response, Al Gore's office said the Gore family does a lot to reduce its carbon imprint, such as making renovations that include solar panels and purchasing carbon offsets. But how do carbon offsets work? We asked Mark Trexler. He's president of Trexler Climate and Energy Services. That's a climate-change consulting firm.
From the March 1 New York Post editorial:
How big is Al Gore's carbon footprint?
Pretty hefty.
Gore grabbed an Oscar Sunday night for his global-warming horror flick, "An Inconvenient Truth" - and took the opportunity to lecture America about its duty to Go Green and stay there.
Now a Tennessee think tank has revealed an inconvenient truth of its own -- about what Gore actually practices, as opposed to what he endlessly preaches.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, using public records, calculated the Gores' energy use for the past two years at their new 20-room, 10,000-square-foot home in suburban Nashville.
In all, the main house and the pool house used an average 18,414 kilowatt-hours (KWH) of power a month last year; that's 14 percent more the 16,200 monthly KWH they devoured in 2005.
Thus does the carbon footprint -- the amount of greenhouse gas generated to keep Gore in kilowatts -- grow.
[...]
Take your typical 800-square-foot, one-bedroom Manhattan pad: You could fit 12 1/2 of them inside the Gores' abode.
A spokeswoman for Gore didn't dispute the figures, but insisted the former Second Family purchases enough energy from renewable sources to offset their sizable carbon footprint.
No doubt.
But that's just another way of saying that the rich truly are different.
Gore, a Kyoto Protocol advocate, has enough socked away so he won't miss a meal should that treaty ever be adopted -- and wreck the U.S. economy.
Memo to Gore fans everywhere; You'd do best to drop this whole thing and let it die a quick death. The damage from Gore's excesses and hypocrisy have been done, no amount of "greening" public relations spin or muddying up the "carbon footprinting" will alter anything. Swallow it and move on. The quicker that's done, the less the fallout. And the real issues of global warming can be debated and discussed without this distraction.
Tell that to the media who propagate the bullsh*t. Gore fans aren't the ones stoking the fire.
Right wing talk radio/TV/Fox won't stop - they love this, so the appeal will be lost on them. But this website by highlighting it, again, are only fueling it.
Tommy, I have to disagree with you. MMFA has to highlight the story and point out the lies. The anti Gore forces in the media are the ones who are trying to keep this alive. They hate Gore and fear him as much as Hillary.
And you keep perpetuating the myth that Gore is being hypocritical. Anything a rightie can glom on to to slander soemone. Cons have no decency.
Dorris is right, T. This same thread has come up again and again since I've been hanging around this site... that is, 'don't pay attention to it... might blow up in your face'. The whole point of this website is to document the lies. Can't be both ways. This so-called hypocrisy by Gore is meaningless... but, to rightwing propagandists... it's a major chink in the armor. BS.
Those on the right, Tommy included, would love for the Right Wing echo chamber to have the last word on this and every subject, facts be damned.
"The damage from Gore's excesses and hypocrisy have been done, no amount of "greening" public relations spin or muddying up the "carbon footprinting" will alter anything." --tommy
I disagree. I see no hypocrisy here either, but I can see how partisans might view it that way.
There is never any harm in putting Gore's side of the story out. So what if it perpetuates the story a little longer. I would argue that Gore should have been aggressive about the many and sundry smears and lies said about him in the past. It looks as though he has tried your strategy before and it failed terribly. Your strategy seems to have enabled President Bush to win the Whitehouse in the first place.
On "HYPOCRICY" versus "POLICY".
The rightwing, ever simplistic, LOVE to come across "seeming" contradictions. If you advocate raising a tax, you should send all of YOUR money to the government (and leave the rightwingers alone).
If you think campaign finance is corrupting, then YOU should vow to never take a dollar from a corporation or a "special interest."
Now it that environmentalists cannot advocat policy without ceasing to travel or use electricity.
The attack of HYPOCRICY in these (and many other ) instances is that POLICY advocation seeks to change the way society operates, to the better. When POLICY does change, then ALL will have to follow the new pardigm.
For example, if Gore's advocacy of energy efficient travel were to be adopted, it might be that high-speed rail service would be expanded, and then EVERYBODY would be able to travel quickly and efficiently without jumping on an airplane. Gore would be affected like everyone else (although he might be happier about it than others).
If a politician is successful in changing campaign finance rules, then that politician TOO will have to abide by the new rules.
When a Rightwinger shouts "Hypocricy!" in these instances, what they are REALLY calling for is UNILATERAL disarmament ... for advocates of NEW policy to forsake present policy ... and thus take themselves out of contention. In every instance, if the advocate were to ALONE adhere to the changes they call for, it would effectively take them out of the game, leaving only those happy with the Status Quo in any position to change policy. And they WON'T.
There is tons of hypocricy in politics, but this ain't it. Calling for change while operating with the rules as they presently stand is called SANITY, not hypocricy. And those who strain to make the hypocricy case are just partisan propaganda demagogues, hoping American citizens aren't smart enough to know the difference.
Tex Posted:
"The attack of HYPOCRICY in these (and many other ) instances is that POLICY advocation seeks to change the way society operates, to the better. When POLICY does change, then ALL will have to follow the new pardigm"
__________________________________________________
I'm putting my tin foil hat on here Tex, but isn't that the danger of following the new paradigm?
If the policy changes (presumably for the better) and we all now have to be taxed on our carbon footprint or purchase offsets at a higher cost all in the name of reducing our footprint. Doesn't that just hurt the little guy? That seems to be the logical progression of this offset business.
Memo to Drudge Report fans everywhere; You'd do best to stop believing everthing you read from the right. You just look like idiots when the full story comes out. Everyone else on the planet knows that Gore will do more in his lifetime to improve our environment that all of the rightwingnuts combined.
How is it "spin" if Gore can provide the documentation, and the facts that he is doing what he is saying that he's doing? That's not spin, that's addressing people telling false lies about you, and hitting them head on. I'm sure that if there was someone out there telling lies about you, you'd just let it slide? Nah, you'd do what the rest of us would. Fight back, and try to get your side of the story out there.
Hey Tommy get a load of Gore's manse
Especially the first photo
Remind you of another white house?
Me thinks the guy picked out this house for that reason ;-)
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/al_gores_house.php
Jeter,
Looks like a helluva carbon footprint to me.
How can you tell? You can't but it fits your argument so run with it. What does the guy have to do to be "legitimate" and not a hypocrite in your eyes? Wear clothes made out of corn starch, sell all his possessions, walk the earth like Caine from Kung Fu? The answer is it doesn't matter what he does, it won't be good enough because you don't like him.
That's enough out of you two wiseguys. Gore is the leading advocate for conserving energy and saving the planet.
The critisms of him are unjust and I for one see the wisdom of his conservation strategy.
I have contracted a builder and am going to build a 10,000 sq ft house so that I can start consuming 220,000KWH annually...not to mention the gleeful use of over $1000/mo in natural gas. Then comes the very best part...the huge grin on my face when I write the check to purchase all those green blocks to make myself carbon nuetral and save the planet.
I can't wait for Al to announce his plans for knocking down that little 10,000 sq ft shanty and replacing it with a 30,000 sp ft abode...just think how much more joy that will bring to Al...the joy of purchasing even more green blocks...
This guy is a real beauty.
Well Wes, go ahead and do it. I think the charges of hypocricy are just an excuse to dismiss the bigger issue. He is trying to even things out with his carbon emmissions but that's no reason to put him on a pedestal or villify him. It's a wash. The man is genuinely concerned about something. Even if you think he's wrong headed, he is standing for something and advocating something. It would be much different if he had a mound of burning tires in his backyard but he doesn't. I'm sure he robably wants to do more for the "cause" but he's doing quite a bit as an advocate.
- he is standing for something and advocating something. -
Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
That flies in the face of his eye-popping, vein-busting rhetoric about conservation. If he was true to his principles he would be reducing his use of energy and buying green stamps.
It is irrational for Gore to consume bloated amounts of energy and then claim he is carbon neutral by being able to afford the extra money to buy green blocks...the allah of the greenies should not be carbon-neutral...he should be carbon-minus.
read it, you winger robot. his home includes "home offices for himself and his wife as well as a guest house and special security measures". and since he was working on and putting out a movie in 2006 it's no surprise that energy use might go up a bit. the program he is involved in makes electricity from renewable energy sources. he pays extra for that. but as someone else put it, you right wingers don't like him and want to mock and dismiss everything he does. this is your world he's trying to improve too, and the best you guys can do is carry on like squalling infants. any of you that see yourself in that description, feel free to do so.
- his home includes "home offices for himself and his wife as well as a guest house and special security measures" -
What did his office look like when you were there? What does Tipper use in her office? How 'bout the accomodations at the guest house? Those special security measures...what are they and how much energy do they consume?
Don't know? That's what I thought...you don't know squat.
I don't care how big a house he has...or how much energy he uses...but I won't abide this blowhard lecturing me...when he can't even control his own voracious energy appetite.
Your lame olbermann talking points don't cut it. I don't care how many green blocks he buys...his year to year consumption has gone up...not down...and that's a fact.
but you'll listen to all the right wingers tell you to do nothing. you'll let the energy companies lead you around by the nose while they pollute for maximum profit. and thanks for the carrying on. proved my point.
I thought you liked facts. Wesley just gave you a nice helping of them regarding Gores energy appetite and you flushed them down the memory hole. Nice. Face it, he's been exposed despite his good intentions.
And I'm not a Gore hater, the guy should run in 08 he would win easy. Just a little reality check on this topic please.
What "facts" are you referring to? That Gore's consumption went up by 2000 kwh?
The main factor in Global Warming is the emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In energy creation it often relates to CO2. Gore is going out of his way and paying more to use energy that does not create CO2 when produced. How is that hypocritical? I think you (and some others here) are falsely equating all energy consumption with Global Warming to make that apparently specious conclusion.
If you can't see the hypocrisy in this then I won't be able to convince you. http://www.jayreding.com/archives/2007/02/11/buying-indulgences-for-the-21st-century/
It doesn't seem your style to indulge in class-baiting, Bruce. Do you think that Gore doesn't have the right to have a big house, even if he tries to minimize how much energy he uses (relative to other big houses)?
So I suppose you expect Al Gore to walk, drive an ultra-efficient vehicle or ride his bike to speaking engagements and events around the country?
What alternatives do you offer him that would still allow Al to advocate his cause? I assume you are talking strictly about his jet travel in regards to the CO2 credits. His house uses green energy and would not need credits as I understand it.
Are you suggesting Al Gore curtail his speaking engagements? That is about the only possible way he could avoid this alleged "hypocrisy". Of course, Al Gore's detractors would love the obvious benefit of that now wouldn't they.
The logic here is a little too self-serving and transparent on the part of Al's detractors for me to take seriously.
Ask yourself. Who are the people who ride the bikes in China? Who are the one who ride in autos? I think Al and other elites like him want the same model for us. You all better think about getting into shape, and buying a tire pump. Of course I do believe most of the people who post here at MMFA want the same.
Thanks for that strawman. Come back when you have a point.
i do like facts, bruce, for instance your link says: "it allows gore to pump tons of pollutants directly into the upper atmosphere." but that is not the fact here. he pays extra to the power company so they will buy his power from another company that provides it from renewable resources. if he is doing that, then the size of his house becomes less of an issue. and i don't need to hear from anyone how they like {insert name here}. that doesn't buy anything with me.
WHICH renewable resources? An honest question.
Between Alberts's 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and his 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.), John Kerry's numerous mansions and John Edwards' new 28,000 square foot "humble abode", it's a wonder there's any electricity left for the rest of us poor slobs. Yes Mr Edwards, there really are "two Americas."
"WHICH renewable resources? An honest question." --lemoc
From the article above:
[link to www.tva.gov] title="http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/">Green Power Switch
Did you even bother to read the article?
Tried to follow your link. Couldn't get there.
Just wondered which renewables.
You can cut and paste the link that showed up. As I also mentioned it is in the article above. I would have corrected it after it initially appeared but I wasn't aware there were any apparent internet retárds around. Thanks for correcting that misconception.
lemoc. i'm still waiting on that tree ring study that you claimed disproved global warming. how's that coming? been two weeks now.
How's that remedial reading course coming?
As is the case with you cultists in general, information offered for discussion, if not from one of the faithful, is taken as a threat to the cult's underpinnings.
If you were capable of reading, you might have noticed that I said the study suggests that severe weather (includes droughts considerably more severe than what we have experienced in the last century) is more the norm than the exception over millenia.
When you asked if I had found said study, I said I was having trouble finding it.
In any case, there was no attack on your fraternity and its rituals.
Can you read this NOW, or shall I draw you a picture? And--just how IS that remedial reading class coming?
Typical Republicanist blather.
Sorry. Should have been "Republicist" blather.
Why do you appear to be so angry at Mefirst when it is apparently you who couldn't back up your argument? As far as I know only Republicists are capable of reading minds. You must have mistakenly projected that mefirst was capable of that as well.
The palace-like mansions owned by many Republicans are much larger and far more lavish.
I wonder what the carbon footprint of the Bush Family Compound at Kennebunkport is?
yeah, that and the carbon footprint of his energy policies.
Or the Kennedy compound in Florida?
Anyone care to guess what John Heinz Kerry's "carbon footprint" is? The fact is I couldn't care less. More power to him and his sugar mama. I just wish if these global warming/the sky is falling nutjobs really believed their BS, that they'd start acting like it.
Obviously you didn't read the article. Gore is obviously doing something about it. It seems as though you and the other nutjobs who agree with you would fault him for exhaling CO2 even if he lived in a tent.
You mean the article at the link you provided that went nowhere? Thanks, OM. The sooner Albert Gore Jr. stops exhaling his hysterical nonsense about the world being on the verge of melting, the better it will be for all the sane people in the world. Albert needs a very long time out in a safe, quiet place...
What link are you referring to? The one about the Bush compound? Please be specific. I can click on that one just fine.
Oh. I saw Lemoc's post. You must be one of the retárds who don't know how to cut and paste URL's.
Tennessee Center for Policy Research. An inappropriately-named Republican funded smear machine that Colbert's show reported as not considered legitimate by the IRS. Misnomers are the favorite tools of liars with hidden agendas meant to appear non-partisan.
Keep looking for Colbert to do the investigative reporting. Yep that's the ticket.
It's sad that people like Colbert and Stewart actually DO have to do the investigative reporting in cases like this.
It truly is.
I personally look to Colbert's show for a humorous take on the absurdities in politics and media. TCPR was rightfully outed for the faker it is and I am simply relaying this bit of media attention as an example of the correct information entering public consciousness.
Right. You can mock Colbert and Stewart and information presented there all you want but at the end of the day, the only reason people get the jokes is because they are knowledgable about the topics of the day. Viewers of those two shows are waaaaaaaaaay better informed than those who watch Fox.
"Misnomers"...
Next you'll be telling us the Left has nonathat going' on.
The ostriches like Beck and many others are just using Gore's "hypocrisy" to stifle progress on addressing global warming. It also gives them the chance to get their Gore-hatred rocks off. A pathetic bunch.
Good job MMFA in highlighting this right wing hypocrisy, contrary to a harpie on this site the left should not let this go until the real true story is repeated... repeated...
TOO LATE,,, DAMAGE IS DONE.
Al Gore could provide proof that he lives in the dark without electricity and it wouldn't matter. The damage has been done, the word has been spread in right wing land that Al Gore is a rich phony. Maybe this what Rush Limbaugh is really talking about when he refers to the "DRIVE-BY MEDIA".
what i would like is for every right wing pundit who pushed this Gore story to come out and tell the public how many houses they own, the size of those houses, what their monthly energy bill is, and whether or not they use green energy.
I bet, if asked, all of them would claim their right to privacy.
To be fair, that really isn't the point. If you advocate living a certain lifestyle and advocate it for all, then it's up to you to lead by example.
So Republicans have no need to demonstrate that they give a rat's ass about the environment.
Republicans merely need to demonstrate that they're all certifiably straight and that they're straight because they chose to be that way, they never get divorced and never have affairs (and never serve divorce papers on their hospitalized wife), they hate blowjobs (both giving and getting) and all other forms of sodomy, they're not racist, they go to Church every Sunday and really TRULY believe everything they say in reference to religion, that they don't molest children, that they don't believe in addictions unless it's to cigarettes and booze, they're anti-corruption, they're all about law and order, and that they believe in a smaller government and less interference in the daily lives of citizens.
But they don't need to demonstrate that they care about the environment.Ever wonder why you haven't been invited to represent your political party in a more public forum?
Also, when did oral sex become sodomy?
Finally, "giving a damn about the environment" does not involve marching lockstep with every green platitude that is being bounced off the wall. It involves practical and workable strategies conceived and implemented by a majority, and you will not get that majority with your shrill denunciations of anybody who wants to look at a problem in a thoughtful way, instead of just bending over for NatureFakers.
"when did oral sex become sodomy?" --lemoc
"Sodomy is a term of biblical origin used to characterize certain sexual acts that have been attributed to citizens of ancient Sodom. The term is most commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex between two males or a male and a female. The term "sodomy" also may include non-coital sexual acts ranging from oral sex to paraphilia." --wikipedia
"A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation." --wikipedia2
Well, did you have to give me a whole sermon, Oral (kidding)?
You guys are apparently more up-to-speed on scripture than me, and thanks for the education.
I never thought that I would quote Bill O'Reilly to support one of my positions, let alone here on MMFA. But here goes...
From his 60 Minutes interview:"Government’s gotta be proactive on environment," says O'Reilly. "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous."
What did he say re: presumed success rates of human manipulation of global climate?
Just asking. Don't see his show much.
The right-wingers are the ones who have made environmentalism a matter of sanctimonious greener-than-thouism. The facts are that unless we make significant changes as a society, all the expensive Priuses and rooftop PV rigs in the world are just flashy window-dressing.
So let me get this straight: until Democrats live in grass huts and consume absolutely nothing, they have no right to comment on a situation that affects all of us?
Perhaps by driving that Prius and buying blocks of totally renewable energy, a high profile person might lead by example. Ever consider that? By making such things "cool" it might publicise those tactics, and move consumers in those directions, creating demand, and in the end, replacing higher consuming products with lesser consuming products.
It's call capitalism. Check it out some time.
All your doing is trying to muddy the issue with rhetoric and hyperbole. Limosine liberals, give me a break. A wealthy guy cares about the environment and poor folks but has no credibility because he's loaded. It's absurd. You fools are on your way out, thankfully.
bing,
Your compliments not withstanding, the election is over. Your side has won. We are already out. It's about time to update your sophomoric insults.
I meant you as in conservative wing nuts. Soon y'all will be marginalized as you should be for your ridiculous accusations, charges and arguments. Because people are tired of being lied to or of hearing painfully twisted logic in order to slander someone. A con saying someone is hypocritical is a laugh, unless you're actually talking about another con.
And I take offence at your charge that my insults are sophmoric. They're usually quite clever.
AA's outrage never seems to be directed at the "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy of his fellow "Christians." Curious. They must never talk about that at Freeperville or Little Green Noballs.
Rusty,
Looks like someone up there doesn't like me. However I'd hardly call laughing at limosine liberals, (which is what I was doing,) as outrage.
As for Christians, I think you'd have to include Al and Hill and Bill and most of the rest as Christians.. so your gratuitious hit on Christians, besides being nonsensical, is simply a cheap shot. I'd think you could do better.
I was just wondering about your selective outrage when it comes to hypocrisy, that's all.
And I'm not saying that all Christians are hypocrites - far from it. The ones who do what Jesus preached aren't. The most prominent hypocrites are the conservative Christians, endlessly preaching to do as they say, not as they do. If it's so easy to laugh about the "limosine [sic] liberals," can't you share a laugh with me about the hypocrisy of right-wing Christians?
Rusty,
I sure can. People like Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton seem to me to be but a few that fit the category.
Except they don't, since Jackson and Sharpton are not by any stretch "right-wing."
Therefore, they are sanctified by being on the Left...hipocrisy could not be possible, yew kneow, pip-pip and all that...
Your confusing sanctimonious Leftopian asses with sanctimonious Rightwing asses.
I hate those "endlessly preaching to do as they say, not as they do".......like Al Gore.
Hey, I will give the guy credit for buying "green power" and putting solar panels. However, he has chosen to live in a home that, via its size and features he has installed, consumes a signficant amount of energy. That is fine by me. It is a free country and he is free to do it. However, I do not accept that simply buying a "carbon offset" absolves him of responsibility (if there is responsibility to be assigned) for the carbon that is generated by his home that is not covered by other efforts. From what I have read of carbon offsets, they have not matured into a bona fide financial market that delivers on its promises. At this stage of their development, they look to me to be more of a house of cards that allow environmentalists to sleep better at night when they own a huge home or buy a Land Rover.
You have to start somewhere and a lot of people do use carbon credits and it does have an impact. You should save your brain power trying to figure out how "greens" feel. You are off the mark. One doesn't need to feel guilt in order to take steps in a positive direction, it's simply the right thing to do. I think this bruhaha is more cons looking for any way to smear someone they fear.
I want to clarify before someone starts to go around the point to pick nits, I think some organizations selling these offsets are probably delivering on their process to offset generated carbon that would otherwise not be offset by any actions if the offset were not purchased. However, it just seems that there are some shaky vendors of these offsets who actions may be questionable as to whether they are reducing additional marginal carbon as a result of their offset sales. That is why I say that the market for offsets is not mature. I will admit that over time, as societal circumstances change and demand forces change, this could well turn into a bona fide financial market for the trading of such offset and the retailing of such offsets. But I just do not think it is to that stage of maturity.
As I stated before you have to start somewhere. The charge is Al Gore is a hypocrite because he advocates energy conservation but lives in a house that consumes a lot of energy. To offset the carbon he is involved in different programs. So he aint a hypocrite and even if he was it doesn't delegitimize what he's working for.
I don't know what country these assholes live in but $1200 a month for Electric in a 10000SF home isnt excessive, especially if any HVAC is involved. I own a 2000 SF home here in Chicago and have had $500 a month electric bills this winter courtesy or Excelon, granted some of the electric is diverted toward heating and we are using fluorescent blubs. Drew Johnson probably still lives with his parents and doesn't pay bills, the only morons taking this seriously are people who dont like Gore anyway.
Gore had to have seen this coming. He should have greened up the mansion before the movie, not three months after. This article fails to note his home in Georgetown also. How big and how green is that?
I don't have a problem with Gore or any of his homes. He was born into it. He worked hard and earned it many years in DC and should reap the rewards of a nice career. It is a tad bit hypocritical of him to tell us to conserve when he does not. It looks like he even used more kwhours last year than the year before. I'm glad he's now involved with Green Switch, but kwh's are kwh's.
When it comes down to it, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Maybe you didn't read the thread. Gore did and is taking steps to green up his house. And khws are green if they are produced with wind or solar, or even hydroelectric. We have a program here in Colorado where you can buy a percentage of your energy use with wind power. It's a very succesful program. So succesful in fact there is now a waiting list as xcel energy builds more turbines to meet the green demand. If Al Gore paid 30,000 clams as is reported, it was 30,000 clams for alternative energy.
No I understand. He started greening up after the movie and his informational tours were started. That is the point I was making. He should have greened up before. Maybe Green Switch wasn't available yet? Who knows why it panned out this way, but you have to admit it doesn't look good at the least and gives Gore's detractors ammo at the worst.
I give you the kwh's that come from renewable energy should be factored, but it's not clear in the article what percentage was factored in or not. As far as the offsets, I still say it's robbing Pete to pay Paul.
Went back through and did see where Gore signed up for 100% green energy. As much power as he's using he's gonna need it!
Can't argue with that, Hogprint, Gore will probably need 100% of the power that he will need.
huh?
Lot's-O-Green power to make up for 221,000...oh never mind...you know what I mean!
Judging by the spike in electricity costs month to month I don't think he was living there. I just don't see the level of hypocricy that merit's all the complaints.
To summarize:
Gore's a hypocrite!
Huh?
Yeah! He's against big carbon foot prints but creates a big carbon footprint!
But he's offsetting that by buying green power, power that would have to be created anyway, and taking all sorts of measures to reduce power consumption.
Doesn't matter that he's doing it now! He should have done it sooner! He's a hypocrite!
Ahhhh Good ol Al Gore... yes, liberal savior of the planet! No alterior motive from that guy is here...
Funny how MMFA didn't bring this up?
(from James Taranto)
The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset "is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases." . . .
But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:
Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management--he buys stocks. . . .
Meanwhile, Gore runs around the country and the world trumpeting "climate crisis" and blaming man's use of carbon-based energy--burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts have served to put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda, driving up the value of the stocks and companies viewed as "green" or environmentally friendly. Companies like those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples' [sic] money in. (You can see a list of Generation Investment Management's holdings here, courtesy of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.)
Interesting AA! Pretty shrewd of ol' Al I have to admit. Here is their site: http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
I wonder if the Gore's will release this info to the press to refute the hateful vast right wing conspiracy?
So a guy starts a company to encourage people to try and offset their carbon and he is a customer too. Unless he's fleeced investors I don't see the problem here. Keep digging. Haters will always find a way to hate.
My 5-year-old answers anything not going his way by saying "it's not FAIR".
Noticing that challenges to Leftopians commonly get answered "it's just HATE".
Eerily similar causal factors and stimulii involved.
So conservatives like yourself aren't as concerned as 5 year olds about fairness? I guess something got lost somewhere along the way.
A time and motion study of this site makes note of fight-or flight reactions as observed in frustrated, fearful Leftopians, and identical reactions observable in four and five-year-olds. The only difference is the phrasing used to signal frustration and defeat: the former group fleas to the phrase "that's hate-speech", the latter says "that's not fair".
Meanwhile the Republic Church teaches us that all will be better after the nearby Apocolypse happens, so why bother about equality or fairmess today?
Don't tell me you actually believe your platitudes.
Are you implying he talks about global warming just to make a buck? Blinded by your own cynicism.
Yeah. Documentaries are always huge moneymakers.
I'm all for Gore making an honest buck any way he can. Just be up front about it. The press release stated he bought offsets, but did not clarify from where or from whom. I think to keep it above board they should have mentioned that. The Thinkprogress piece defending Gore left it out also.
Just seems...well sneaky.
I think MMFA left it out, Hogprint, because it's an Inconvenient Truth.
LOL
Gore should address it. After all, it is not known if Gore even gets any money back from this venture. The wikipedia article above uses the word "presumably".
I am not sure it really matters. If the company is providing the service it claims, it is kind of a moot point. The CEO of the company that my company consults for is a consumer of his own product. I don't think it is at all unusual for that to be the case. Why should he have to go to help the competition?
Open mind pposted:
" If the company is providing the service it claims, it is kind of a moot point. "
________________________________________________________
I guess that's what it comes down to. Do the carbon offset companies actually do what they claim to do? I don't doubt they are doing something, but that begs the question is it getting the desired effect? If I bought an offset, does my purchase go to build new wind turbines or does it support existing ones? A new tree farm or support one planted ten years ago? I guess you could make the argument "what does it matter"?
It is new, so I guess it has to prove itself, but there are questions already. It looks like this is just purchasing indulgences:
http://priceofoil.org/2007/02/20/carbon-offset-companies-using-enron-style-accounting/
Go halfway down on this one and especially the second to last paragraph:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1687978,00.html
This is good gouge also:
http://www.tni.org/docs/200702201049012565.pdf?&username=guest@tni.org&password=9999&groups=TNI&lang=en
I am all for transparency here. A lack of transparency often leads to baseless speculation. If that is what you are indeed advocating, I am on your side.
Sure, that's what he should do. As I alluded to, in the defense of Gore his spokesperson linked the Green switch site, but failed to do that with the offset site. The thinkprogress defense piece neglected that info too. Why? Oversight maybe. Maybe there is nothing there?
My links above show that there are some questions in the scientific community about offsets and whether they help or not. I just haven't seen proof positive that this in nothing more than buying indulgences for excesses. Unlike the Green Switch which can be shown to have an immediate effect.
Does he still get royalties from his hazardous Zinc mine or did he give that property to "charity?"
What do you mean by "hazardous" zinc mine? Are you alleging another hypocrisy?
An Inconvenient Truth and an embarrassing truth. ;)
How much does Fox News pay for monthly electricity?
Zero.
The vast rightwing conspiracy gives it to 'em for free.
That was pretty funny...and possibly true.
It appears that Al Gore is using the Green Power Switch to atone for the conspicuous use of energy. It's guilt money that really doesn't change anything or cut down on consumption. I mean, it's sponsored by the Tennessee Valley Authority for Christ sake. They run Nuke power sites and coal plants.
Here's the link to GPS:
http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm
Actually you are wrong. Gore simply pays more for green energy. He is not using energy that creates more CO2 in the process. I don't think it should really be that hard to get.
It sure looks like Al Gore was Swift Boated to me. Tennessee Center for Policy Research held on to their accusations until after Al was given his award. Then, when TCPR came out with their report, it did the maximum amount of damage to both Al Gore's credibility and Hollywood's. Now I'm sure Al knows how Dan Rather felt. Busco/GOP hold a black belt in deception. This move of "ignore the message, attack the messenger" I'll offer as proof of that skill.
Bingo! well said friend.
This whole story would quickly die, IF the media began asking each and every right-winger who criticizes Gore's energy usage exactly how much their energy bill is. The responses to that would be amusing to watch. If any refuse to say what it is, they'll simply expose themselves as hypocritical frauds -- again.
The "right wingers" aren't criticizing Gore for using a massive amount of energy to maintain his mansion and opulent lifestyle. They are mocking him because he is the classic hypocrite who self-righteously delivers sermons of self-denial while doing the opposite. Hypocrisy from the elite is always good for a laugh.
The RIGHT-WINGERS are indeed criticizing Gore for the amount of his energy usage, while trying to create hypocrisy where none exists. Gore has not been hypocritical at all. He didn't condemn anyone for the amount of energy usage in their homes. He simply said global warming is real, and we must do something about it, and surprise... he's doing something about it. Many on the right are still denying global warming is a problem. These right-wing critics conveniently "overlook" the facts that Gore's "home" includes an office for him, an office for his wife, a guest house, security measures required for a former VP, and then attempt to compare the energy usage to an "average" home's energy usage. (No, that is not a comedy bit on SNL) I suspect a personal staff is also part of the sum.And if you weren't paying attention, he's buying all his home's power through the Green Power Switch program, while buying carbon offsets, and taking further steps to lower the carbon footprint. He actually spends thousands of dollars a year in energy bills that he doesn't have to spend in order to help reduce pollutions, and thousands more to renovate his home to further reduce non-renewable energy usage. Oh yeah, that's what the right calls hypocrisy.
"The Gores purchase all their power through the local Green Power Switch program. It's 100 percent renewable power and they are in the midst of a renovation, which includes installing solar-powered panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power." - Read it, write it down, learn it, live it, deal with it.
The right wing will not stop until Gore lives in a tree, eats raw food grown in an organic garden and drinks water from a well he digs himself, with a shovel he fashions from coconut shells. Since they can't win the global warming argument, they have little left but to make fools of themselves in these hopeless reaches. The desperation of the right is truly entertaining.
CARBON OFFSETS ARE REAL!!!
I want to go on record as making the statement above. It has come to my attention that I have an account with Carbon Credits in it, of a size I can share with others.
Since I have planted thousands of trees in my time, and am personally responsible for accelerating the growth of millions of additional trees, I can't possibly use all those credits.
Here's a win-win: all you callous Earth-haters who have not done your fair share of carbon offsets---send me as much money as you can, and I will credit YOUR account with DOUBLE the credits you will get from any other CCB (Carbon Credit Broker) for the same amount of smoliers.
But that's not all. Be one of the first 500 respondents and I'll double the offer! AND you'll get my book, "I'M GREENER THAN YOU, AND I ALWAYS WILL BE", free of charge. Call now.
That was very good. Two green thumbs up.
I admit I really don't know much about these offsets Gore apparently uses to balance his air travel, but I suppose it could be a sham. What, pray tell, do you suggest Al do to instead (to be more ideologically consistent) to get to speaking engagements or in the past campaign events around the country and the world? I'm all ears.
I have no problem with Gores travel arrangements. But does he really need that 8th bedroom?
Nothing in his house has anything to do with the offsets as I understand them. Offsets are in regards to CO2. The energy used to supply the Gore homes doesn't create CO2.
Open mind, for starters he could use video conferencing. That would be good use of the 10k sq ft. mansion/office. That would cut the REAL culprit of the carbon foot print, the G-IV, which pumps 770 gph out of the tailpipe the first hour, then drops down to 462 gph each additional hour after that. Max range is 3800 nm or Max endurance just shy of 9 hrs with reserve. If flown the max duration that is 4000 gals burnt or 26000lbs. That amount of fuel is like filling up the average car 266 times.
If you ever watch any of the Arthur C. Clarke shows, he does vid/conf from Sri Lanka almost exclusively. There is no reason Al can't do the same. He should put his green footprint where his mouth is.
I should add a note here. The data I used was for NOAA's GIV-SP. It doesn't say, but I assume they may have extended range tanks in that version. I also don't know what version of the Gulfstream Gore flies in. If it is a GV (G550 if you want to get technical) then the fuel burn would be a bit better.
The point is though that these are the typical in the ball park examples of jets of this type that our celebs in this country use. The G-450's and 550's are the most popular jet in this circle.
How do you know Gore doesn't already use video conferencing? Also, I am not all that sure that Al even travels all that often these days.
From what I understand of Hannity's criticism it was mostly about Al Gore's travel while he was campaigning. I wouldn't think videoconferencing is a very valid way to "press the flesh" as they say. I think if Al hadn't traveled in that election he never would have won the majority vote. I think arguing that Al should have resticted his travel is a pretty transparent and self-serving way try and affect Al's speech.
As for Arthur C. Clarke, I don't think he was a presidential candidate and would have found it nearly impossible to get elected without "pressing the flesh" in the traditional way, which would obviously require air travel of some kind.
I think the argument against Gore is disingenuous and invalid until it can be shown that the alternatives suggested aren't being used by Gore and that such suggestions wouldn't necessarily impair Gore from spreading his message in an effective way.
Actually I found at least thousands of instances on the web of Al Gore videoconferencing (not all from his office as you suggested, but it is inarguably better than flying) Looks like he is already taking your advice to a point, but don't let that stop you from blind criticism of him:
http://www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow6/nov98/archive/globe.vp.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iPM40jD9fI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvLsGwYVBTA
http://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press/PP98/Documents/Statement_Gore.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0304/S00204.htm
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Academia/GlobalSchoolhouseProject.html
Google had 95,400 hits on "Al Gore Videoconference" if you would like to see more links.
Glad to see Al took my advice when I up at the mansion for the after Oscar shindig!
Now if I can just get him to cut the lights out, when he leaves the mansion...
OpenMind posted:
"How do you know Gore doesn't already use video conferencing? Also, I am not all that sure that Al even travels all that often these days."
_______________________________________________
When I was invited up to the mansion last week for chicken and pastry...
The short answer is no. I don't know what Al is doing. I can only go on what he says in his book An Inconvenient Truth; pg. 284, first sentence, " As I've traveled AROUND THE WORLD giving my slide show...", and go off of the news coverage showing him in it seems every place BUT Nashville, TN. I think we can safely assume he didn't get to Hollywood or DC by Toyota Prius.
Let's not start to pick nits again. I understand the need during a campaign to press flesh, but that isn't what is going on here. I would hope that Al makes the Hollywood bash to bask in the glory of the spotlight as was appropriate and he VC's when that would be appropriate.
I get the feeling if that was happening, the spokesperson would highlight stuff like that in his defense. That's just me think'n though...
Re: Gore's transportation--
Don't care if he takes a 747 just to go to down to the convenience store, let alone anywhere else.
I'm serious. I have suddenly awoken to the size of my accrued carbon credits, and I feel damned good about it.
Yall should be green with envy.
I hear ya Lemoc. If the nattering nabobs hitting us over the heads about our carbon footprints would focus on what is REALLY burning fuel then I might start to listen a little more. Just check out these numbers. Data off NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers Association) website:
"1. How many flights per day do air traffic controllers handle in the United States? On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States. Only one-third are commercial carriers, like American, United or Southwest. On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.). At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States. In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings. For every one flight you see listed on an airport monitor, two you don't see show up on air traffic controllers' screens. It would take approximately 7,300 airport terminal monitors to show all the flights controllers handle in a single day and approximately 460 monitors to show the number of flights being handled at any one time. "
http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp
If you want a real time look at flights then try one of the airtracker sites:
http://www.java.com/en/everywhere/airportmonitor.jsp
When I hear the sky is falling crowd eschew cheap airfare for green then they will get my attention. This is just one example by the way. I really love the hate SUV crowd, that never mentions mini vans even though most american vans have the same engines that the mid size SUV's have.
I think you misunderstand the debate. I would expect environmentalists to want reduce CO2 emissions with the easiest ways first and do it in ways that would not change people's lives very much. Restricting air travel would be a pretty fool-hardy thing to attack as air travel is often used by the elites who could oppose it forcefully. This is a "pick your battles" kind of thing as far as I can see.
I would expect it to be a better strategy (with a much greater chance of success) to go after the "low-hanging fruit" first that would not change people's lives as drastically for instance increasing fuel efficiency standards, green energy programs and conservation efforts on the CO2 producing energy grids.
Maybe you are onto something. It would be a good idea to come up with C.A.F.E. type standards for aircraft, but then again, many would object to increased regulation.
I understand the debate. I understand there is a lot of hypocrisy also. Only the most spartan of us will probably ever attain a zero carbon footprint. I think the point is if you're going to hold yourself up as the self appointed guru of the green/environ/climate change debate, you'd probably want to have your ducks in row before you get on the video conference trail.
Your points on the low hanging fruit are probably right on target. As far as CAFE standards for the aviation industry, they are policing themselves to a certain degree:
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/fuel_efficiency.htm
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/11/researchers_unv.html
Here is some good analysis data:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Publications/2005pubs/2005-12_nlr_aviation_fuel_efficiency.pdf
Thanks for the links. We may just differ on our opinions on this. I can respect that. I think we have found some common ground here, though.
I was aware of some of the fuel efficiency achieved by the aviation industry, but thank you for the links to some more good information on it.
I think we can agree that it would be better to avoid regulation of the aviation manufacturers if it appears the industries are genuinely interested in working at solving the problem themselves.
I am also glad to see we can debate this without as much acrimony as before. I sincerely apologize for my contribution to that animosity. I should have tried harder to be more civil.
I agree with all above. My apologies also for backhanded remarks. It was below me and I'll keep it clean in the future. Keep up the good debate.
H