I’m just curious at what point you people would give him a pass? Where is the line were people can advocate environmental issues? He is clearly taking some measures to reduce his carbon footprint, how much does he have to do before he’s allowed to be an advocate for this issue? I suspect that nothing short of perfection would satisfy some of his critics and then they would probably just call him a doo-doo head.
I think that’s fair, and I said the same over here.
I suppose in the extreme this is true, if everybody checked the green energy box we would run into problems of limited green resources. Currently we are not really near that point. We do find ourselves in the situation where renewable resources are underdeveloped, precisely because not enough people check the green energy box, Many states have implemented Renwable protfolio standards (RPS) theat require utilites to have a certain portion of their protfolio be renewable energy. This encourages develpment of green resources, but it is not driven by individuals necessarily asking for renewable power.
I do believe that energy efficiency and reduced consumption is a good thing as well, don’t get me wrong.
D’oh. Well, for what its worth, sorry about the confusion, although it was kinda funny.
But then, the more demand there would be, the more people would build to take advantage of it, and the cheaper it will get through economies of scale.
Do you think that his gardener and caterer emit significant amounts of carbon?
Apart from plane travel (and I’m still waiting for some number regarding how often he flies private planes), the rest is plenty green, in terms of the ecological impact you speak of.
It sounds like you think it doesn’t matter unless it is hard for him, which is kind of a good point to come out of this - it doesn’t have to be all that hard.
Ultimately, it may be that we cannot produce enough green power to meet the demands for it. Right now that is not the problem that industry faces, so while it may not be great, it is very good to have people like Gore putting their money where their mouth is and supporting green power producers in a big way.
I’m don’t care for Gore as a person, but I have little beef with him using the energy he does because he is putting a large effort into reducing global warming, increasing energy efficiency, etc. It’s not like his house means anything in the grand scheme of things. I was a little shocked to see he didn’t even have CF lights until recently, but you know what? I can’t see well with CF light, so maybe he’s got the same problem, I don’t know. I would never want him as President, and I think on some issues he’s a mendacious SOB, but I think the criticism over his energy use is invalid and politically-driven. Even if he wasn’t buying a single, solitary kW of “green power.”
It’s sort of like when someone said once “Una, you drive a car that gets 19mpg - why don’t you switch to a hybrid and get 44mpg?” and I said “Yeah, and I’m responsible for reducing hundreds of thousands of tons per year of carbon emissions through the analyses I’ve done which resulted in green capital and O&M improvements actually implemented at coal power plants.” A large part of my work, larger each year, is in renewable fuels. Although I could reduce my individual carbon footprint, the paid - and unpaid - work I do to reduce carbon on a large scale allows me to sleep just fine at night.
You know, I’ve seen the United States criticized for using a disproportionate amount of resources based on population. All we need now is a shitload of those carbon credit vouchers and we can all sing kum bay ah.
Forgive me if someone already said this. I haven’t read the entire thread yet.
Wired magazine seems to have taken on green homes as a bit of a pet project. Nearly every issue has something on the subject. There’s lots of groups out there doing varying kinds of green homes right now, and they all get written up in Wired.
It’s very interesting some of the clever ideas that folks come up with. It’s also mostly low tech. Having the right set up of insulation and windows allowing in sunlight can make a very big difference for instance.
What I am trying to say, however poorly I am getting my point across, is this.
It is not plenty green to have a 10,000 sq ft house. As one of your three residences. It just isn’t and nothing you can say is going to convince me otherwise.
And for it being hard for him? Yes, I think it does have validity. If you are going to ask me to make an effort, then you should be willing to make an effort, especially if you are a spokesman stumping for conservation. $5,000 a year just doesn’t impress me. He spent more on his toilets. He spent more on his damn fridge. Not both of them, just one.* The buying green energy is not a sacrifice, and as someone who supposedly leading the way on GW, I do expect some sacrifice for the cause. Otherwise, why should I personally bother to do it myself?
“Home to only about 6% of the world’s population, the region consumes 30% of the world’s energy” Rowntree pg 46
*I did not work on his house, nor have I seen a breakdown on the costs. I am making an assumption on his appliances and toilets because I am very familiar with this type of housing, and this kind of homeowner. Please do not rip me a new one if you find some cite where he only spent $4900 on toilets.
Always nice to meet someone with an open mind.
What specific sacrifices has Al Gore asked you to make that he has not made himself?
Builders are also taking steps to incorporate green building practices.
http://www.nahb.org/meeting_details.aspx?meetingID=3249§ionID=121
Ok, I am coming from the point of working on these kinds of houses for the last 15 years. For my bread and butter, to keep the wolf from the door. I am very familiar with this type of homeowner, these kinds of houses. There is no way you are going to convince me that it is not conspicuous consumption. He probably spent more on imported french tile that was pissed on by authentic 3rd generation frenchmen, in his 8th bathroom, than you earned last year. So, if I am not overly impressed by his $5,000 he spent on green energy, can you see my point? As someone intimately involved with the building process—there is no way a 10,000 (although I think this particular house is 20,000) house is green. It can be greener than a comparable house built with less efficient design and products, but it cannot be green.
Honey, I am not even on Al Gore’s radar. But hey, I’ll give up all my private jet trips this year for my contribution to reduce GW.
Man, the 'Publicans are sure scared to death of Gore to start the smears this far in advance, aren’t they?
Well, yes and no, because generally green resources are deceloped in the most economic areas first and then as more and more are developed they are developed in less economical places. But there is definite economies to more demand for green power, also. As I said the more people who opt for green power the more that will be available for investment in it. Of course, we could never actually go completely green, since renewable energy is not responsive/dispatchable enough to meet the intertemporal profile of electricity demand across the grid.
Al Gore balance sheet:
On the minus side: He lives in big house. A couple of them. He takes planes. He uses much energy. He does a lot of stuff to minimize this, but comes nowhere near to driving it to zero.
On the plus side: Um, only the most influential voice for enironmentalism and taking Global Warming seriously. Impossible to quantify, but has probably convinced tens of millions of people to change some of their behavior, and influenced governmental initiatives along the same lines.
Seems like he’s wwwaaaaaayyy on the plus side to me.
Depends on whether we can convince the older Green groups that more and safer nuclear power should be part of the solution. As far as Global Warming goes, Nuclear power could help quite a bit.
Even Coal can be cleaned up to the point where if clean coal replaced dirty coal we would see a large decrease in Green House Carbon. Maybe Una could talk about this some or point to one of her existing posts where she has in detail.
I have become a broken record on this but there are many approaches that combined could allow us to overcome Global Warming in 50 years and actually bring us back down to lower levels within 100 years. We can do it with today’s technology and without killing the economy.
Does it matter if many of us are not around to see the positive results? I think this is a worthwhile effort to give to future generations.
Jim
Sure are! It’s hilarious the way the people pitting Gore here ignored the same topic in GD where you have to deal with something trivial like facts.
No, frankly, I can’t see your point. How does the type of tile used in Al Gore’s bathroom contribute to global warming? Does French piss contain unusal concentrations of CO2? Does money just automatically exude greenhouse gasses when gathered together in large amounts?
Maybe you should pay more attention to your own posts, sugartits. You said:
So, what effort has Al Gore asked you to make, that he is not willing to make himself?
I’d be interested to know when Gore purchased it. If it was within the last 2-5 years, it would certainly make him more of a hypocrite than if he bought it 20 years ago.
Short of tearing down his 10,000 sq. foot house, which would be wasteful, even if Gore sold his home tomorrow, someone else would presumably buy it. So the net positive impact on the environment would be nil.
Of course, whether or not the messenger has sinned personally does not negate the message he is sending. We Americans do indeed consume too much energy, Al Gore included. If you don’t buy into the global warming argument, surely you can see that our presence in the Middle East is causing problems for the entire world. Personally I’ve been a proponent for strict environmental laws for no other reason than because I was taught that you should take care of your shit.