Well, it sez here:
[idle speculation]
In fact, couldn’t you even make some kind of argument that consuming oodles of carbon-neutral renewably-generated energy is a good thing in the current experimental/developmental stage of the renewable-energy industry? After all, increasing the demand for renewable energy makes the businesses that sell it more attractive to investors, and hastens the development of new technology to produce it more efficiently and cheaply, hence widening its market.
So in practical terms, it’s at least conceivable that the Gores’ going hog-wild on green energy is actually more beneficial to the emissions-reduction cause than simply cutting back on conventionally generated energy would be.
[/idle speculation]
Well, this is just silly.
The problem is systemic, and both the stubborn opposition of the current US Admin and the rapid growth of China (see here; note that energy use is measured in quadrillions of btu’s, which is slightly more than the use of even a wealthy household) vastly complicate efforts at the systemic solution that will be needed to brake carbon emissions.
The best thing Gore could do to help this problem would be to replace Bush tomorrow. As that’s not possible, he’s doing as much as he can by upping awareness of the problem so that pressure is brought to bear on the US Admin.
I think I’ll wait of Snopes’ independent analysis. Your cite says he gets all of his energy from “green power”, but that’s a pretty vague term. In fact, the cite mentions methane gas (CH[sub]4[/sub]), which is just another source of carbon:
-
If his bill is really 20 times the national average, then yes. Since the average family probably doesn’t have the same size house as Gore does, I would give him some leeway, but 20 times is too much.
-
Not to me it doesn’t. Hypocrisy doesn’t change reality.
Hell, Bush might even be a closet green but that doesn’t mean his environmental policies aren’t crap.
It appears that you have gotten quite a few answers to your OP, many of which you have not accepted. Since you were trying to start a debate, and it looks like one is underway, instead of just asking questions and refusing to accept answers, can you make an attempt to provide your opinion on the matter of the OP? Thanks.
On preview - that sounds harsher than I intended. I guess I was trying to give you a good-faith opportunity to explain your perspective, rather than have to infer your opinion based on which arguments you disagree with. Thanks again.
But we hear that the stakes are so high…we MUST act…
So Gore consumes much more than the average person. From that, the average peron can easily infer that the stakes must not be really THAT high…and continue to make no green efforts…
The production and release of methane is harmful to the environment. Capturing that methane and using it as fuel has the potential (if done right) to reduce the effect on the environment. One of the major concerns among some folks has been that our enormous landfills plus large dairy farms are producing and releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere and there are a number of people working to attempt to capture that methane and use it as a renewable resource.
Several colleges/universities have programs to use methane as fuel. The programs are currently getting mixed marks, but it is nascent technology and has the potential to provide a serious benefit.
I have a problem being clear sometime. Let me put it another way. If the question on the table is the character of X, then attacking the character of X is a valid argument, even though attacking someone’s character qualifies as an ad hominem attack.
I don’t know much about how the “conservative attack groups” want me to react, as I don’t listen to them much, especially on this issue. The environment is a cause I support, and I don’t understand why this would be at odds with my fiscal conservativism. (I’m fiscally conservative at home, as well…another very good reason to turn off lights, IMO.) To me, conservativism is very much about personal responsibility, and therefore, I believe that each one of us is responsible for cutting back on energy consumption, including Al Gore.
Here is my problem, though. When your house uses as much as his does, what does it mean to “reduce?” If he is still using as much as 30 average households, doesn’t that indicate that he is using more than his share? What is a reasonable amount for ANYONE to use…forget how famous, or rich, or devoted to preaching abouut the cause the person might be?
When I start needing 30 times the amount of electricity as an average house, I will install my solar panels! 
And again, while I admire him for what he has done to raise awareness, it seems very hollow to me if he thinks that his grand lifestyle at home is more important than the cause he champions, that’s all.
You are missing the point of the film, then. The goal is to reduce green house gas emissions. It is not accurate to point at his overall electrical consumption if he obtains that electricity from sources that do not produce greenhouse gases. Your argument is a misunderstanding at best, and a red herring at worst.
I cited the article in the first damn post I made in this thread. I’ll quote it again:
Gore participates in the TVA Green Power Switch program. You can educate yourself on the program’s recovery and use of by-product methane right here.
Given that Gore purchases blocks of energy sufficient for 194,400 kilowatt hours per year, he actually gets over 100% of his energy from renewable sources. He is going above and beyond to support the use of renewable energy all while showing that we don’t have to become hermits and sleep with dogs to do so.
John Mace, I’ll say again that you are much, much too smart for this. Why are you trying to ride this dead horse so damn hard?
“I discovered that the only reason [this story] had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been nailed there.”
Of course. It’s very odd that so many people are finding ways to defend him on this one. Better to just admit he’s a hypocrite and continue to argue the merits of the case with global warming on the facts. Defending him makes you guys look like you’re unwilling or unable to think clearly on this issue.
You’re seriously reacting like a bunch of true believers in denial when thier corrupt preacher is exposed.
Yes. Like it or not, the messenger has a lot of impact on the message. Gore has lost a lot of credibility. He can install all the solar panels he wants to now, but the damage is done.
Oh, and like John, I’ll happily change my position on this if the claims from the article aren’t true. But, since the Gore camp hasn’t even denied them I doubt this is the case.
It’ll be interesting to see what Snopes says. I find they are best at uncovering blatant hoaxes, but have trouble evaluating claims like this that have room for interpretation.
Would you like to argue the case that electricity from renewable resources is non-fungible when put into the grid as a whole? Or would you like to argue that using even renewable resouces on the scale that Al Gore does would not be scalable to the population at large?
Cause otherwise, it’s puzzling why anyone would deem him a hypocrite.
And you’re gloating about that, I see. Good choice.
Gore’s attackers want that damage to be done. They’d rather nail Gore to the wall than to see us do something about man-made global warming in time to make a difference.
The purpose of even raising the issue is to sow confusion, discord, and division, so that we never even get to the point of addressing the causes of global warming. That’s their set of priorities.
The organization that put out the press release on this issue seems to have basically called itself into being in order to put this into play. And despite the fact that they essentially didn’t exist until the other day, Drudge front-paged them. Think he verified their claims first? I doubt it. Think Drudge has an agenda here? Oh, yeah.
From here:
Gore used the award as another opportunity to plug the environmental cause, telling the Hollywood audience and an estimated 1 billion television viewers that resolving the threat posed by a warming climate is “not a political issue, it’s a moral issue.”
By making that statement he does open his personal life up for some scrutiny, I think.
Excellent questions, and absolutely crucial to the charge of hypocrisy. Thanks.
It was front-page above-the-fold news in the Bushite-apologist National Post newspaper this morning. I rolled my eyes and bought the Toronto Star.
I genuinely don’t understand this position. As I understand it (and I fully admit I may well not, I’m most emphatically not an expert on global warming), Gore is actually spending so much of his own money on renewable energy credits and suchlike that he’s actually reduced his ‘carbon footprint’ to below zero. The world would actually be a more polluted place if Gore moved into a 3 bedroom semi in the hinterlands and used energy like a normal person.
I see it like this: Imagine if you’ve got a guy who goes all around the country saying that being fat is really bad, that it’s unsightly and freaks people out and, at the end of the day, shortens your life expectancy. Now imagine if you found out that this guy eats a whole tub of pig lard every single day. Surely your first inclination would be to think “Damn, what a hypocrite”.
But what if the guy offsets all the fat he eats by running on a treadmill for three hours a day? Is he still a hypocrite? After all, his message is being fat is bad, not eating fat is bad. He points out that the exercise he does negates the fat he eats and, consequently, his pig lard addiction isn’t raising the global average cholesterol level one iota. I certainly wouldn’t call such a man a hypocrite. A bit weird, maybe, but not a hypocrite.
As I understand it, this is a simplified version of what Gore is doing. Yeah, he is using a lot of energy, but he successfully offsets all of it through renewable energy credits and stuff. At the end of the day, he is not doing any harm to the planet so his actions do not contradict his central message.