[QUOTE=brazil84]
Nice. I imagine you would be interested to know that Americans emit less CO2 per unit of GDP than people from Colombia, Malawi, Madagascar, Kenya, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Thailand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mongolia. Perhaps the UN needs to crack down on these countries.
[/QUOTE]
To a certain degree, yes. Those with absolutely low GDP are not worth worrying about now, but those with fairly large per capita GDP are, because, at least in the case of China, it shows that they do not have an environmental infrastructure in place so if they continue their economic growth patterns they will soon exceed the US in per capita pollution, period. Better to include them in any global pollution agreement than having them unilaterally reap the economic benefits of not having to cut down on pollution while the U.S. takes on the relative burden of doing that.
20 years from now when China is around the same GDP per capita as the US and pollutes twice as much per capita, let’s see how interested they’ll be in cutting back on CO2.
[QUOTE=duality72]
So I guess carbon footprint is that hard to understand. Or, perhaps, just inconvenient.
[/QUOTE]
So you seem to be saying that, if every man, woman and child on the face of the planet used as much energy as Algore does, that would have no effect on global warming or the environment? This is completely irrelevant?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
So you seem to be saying that, if every man, woman and child on the face of the planet used as much energy as Algore does, that would have no effect on global warming or the environment?
[/quote]
I would guess that Al Gore would say it’s a-ok. As long as everyone invested a few thousand dollars each in his investment fund.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
So you seem to be saying that, if every man, woman and child on the face of the planet used as much energy as Algore does, that would have no effect on global warming or the environment? This is completely irrelevant?
[/QUOTE]
The environment, almost certainly yes, because in order to use that much energy you’re going to have to use material goods in the process. Global warming, depends on what source the energy comes from (nuclear, for instance. Lots of thorium still lying around.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Just like the last time this came up, I’m not seeing how this going against what he preaches in any way.
[/QUOTE]
he was burning through $1000 of natural gas a month for such important things as a pool heater. Paid for by flying around the world to lecture us on the conservation of fossil fuels.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
A) Yeah, he uses a lot of energy. It’s coming from a clean source, so who cares?
[/QUOTE]
The suckers who believe the world is comming to an end and need to conserve so he can continue making $100,000 a speech on his jet-setting tour of the damned.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
B) When did he ever say that the key goal for humanity should be to live with less electricity and power?
“Clean” and “less” are entirely different words, people.
[/QUOTE]
Most of the electricity in the US is made using fossil fuels and using less electricity creates a smaller carbon footprint. That’s his message.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
he was burning through $1000 of natural gas a month for such important things as a pool heater. Paid for by flying around the world to lecture us on the conservation of fossil fuels.
[/QUOTE]
And?
Again, he’s arguing for a smaller carbon footprint not for austere living. Do you think that the world is going to reduce power usage in the future? No, that’s ludicrous; it’s going to grow and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Global power usage is going to continue growing, so if we’re already affecting the climate, we’ve really got to work on making the sources of electricity be cleaner ones, which is an infrastructure issue, not an individual one. It’s infeasible and impractical to convince every single individual in the planet to use less electricity, or even to use clean sources. You have to work on a grand scale level to have any effect, which he is arguing for.
You find me the place where he recommends austere life and I’ll eat my words. But that I can tell, his specific recommendations are:
Again, he’s arguing for a smaller carbon footprint not for austere living.
[/QUOTE]
You think a grand a month in natural gas doesn’t release any CO[sub]2[/sub]?
And Nashville Electric Service buys much of its power from the TVA, which runs a lot of coal-burning plants. (cite.)
So, directly and indirectly, Algore’s carbon footprint is bigger than a ghetto booty.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
He released the book Earth in Balance in 1992, That showed an interest in the environment from before the 90’s.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not saying he didn’t care about the environment. I’m saying he didn’t do anything about it that would have risked his political aspirations, and he didn’t come out of the AGW closet until his political career was over. His movie served to put himself in the public eye as much as AGW, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Gore’s heart my be in the right place on this issue, but he strikes me as a coward and an opportunist, and I think it’s unfortunate that he has become such a central figure in this debate. The planet could use a better spokesman.
[QUOTE=Dumbguy]
I’m not saying he didn’t care about the environment. I’m saying he didn’t do anything about it that would have risked his political aspirations, and he didn’t come out of the AGW closet until his political career was over. His movie served to put himself in the public eye as much as AGW, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Gore’s heart my be in the right place on this issue, but he strikes me as a coward and an opportunist, and I think it’s unfortunate that he has become such a central figure in this debate. The planet could use a better spokesman.
[/QUOTE]
Amazing to see the dems defending this at all. He is a huge hypocrite. Why is this even debatable?
As a rebublican I admit Bush sucks hard. He has helped screw the economy and just is not a good leader. I’m shy and not well spoken and I could probably read off the teleprompter better.
I would just like to see a few democrats here admit the damn hypocrisy of Al Gore.
[QUOTE=gravitycrash]
Amazing to see the dems defending this at all. He is a huge hypocrite. Why is this even debatable?
As a rebublican I admit Bush sucks hard. He has helped screw the economy and just is not a good leader. I’m shy and not well spoken and I could probably read off the teleprompter better.
I would just like to see a few democrats here admit the damn hypocrisy of Al Gore.
[/QUOTE]
Because it’s not hypocrisy. Wealthy people use more energy. Trying to compare Gore to the “average” person is ridiculous because the average peson couldn’t even afford Gore’s energy bill or a private jet.
[QUOTE=gravitycrash]
Amazing to see the dems defending this at all. He is a huge hypocrite. Why is this even debatable?
As a rebublican I admit Bush sucks hard. He has helped screw the economy and just is not a good leader. I’m shy and not well spoken and I could probably read off the teleprompter better.
I would just like to see a few democrats here admit the damn hypocrisy of Al Gore.
[/QUOTE]
I’m a Republican if I’ve got to choose one.
Would you say that someone who fights for poultry to be housed in larger cages is a hypocrite for eating chicken?
