It’s still unclear that that adds up to 100% (or more). Firstly, this has only been going on since November, so he’s got quite a bit of catching up to do. Secondly, It’s hard to imagine that he can pay $400 and get over $1000 worth of “green power”. And we don’t know exactly what this “green power” consists of. Sure, it looks like Gore is doing much more than the average guy on this front, but is he doing enough considering he is setting himself up as the spokesperson on the issue?
So, like I said in my first post: “If the stats are that far above the average American…” (emphasis added). And as I said in a later post, I’ll be happy to go with what Snopes comes up with, as they are an independent observer.
Hmm…is this a bad time to admit I haven’t seen the film? I was trying to avoid making any statement regarding whether his behavior undermines what he says in the film. I had gathered, however, that the point of the film was about greenhouse gasses, and if indeed all of his energy consumption comes from “clean” sources, then I retract everything I said (except that I think his use of energy in general seems a little wasteful, but that’s a different issue).
What does this mean? Are you suggesting that unless he makes up for all the greenhouse gases he is responsible for* in the past*, he is somehow a hypocrite today?
I don’t have a position. If I had a position, I would have stated it. I am interested in the pros and cons to the questions I asked.
One way to start a debate is to say Resolved: (Some affirmative statement) and then support that statement with an argument.
Another way to start a debate is to throw out a question. That’s what I did. I am seeking answers.
No, it means: Why did he only start doing this in November? Was that when his film was put on the short list for an Oscar nomination?
But that’s only a part of it. I’m still not convinced that he’s 100% “green”, as has been claimed. And for the 3rd time, I’ll wait and see what Snopes says. I think anyone rushing to a conclusion on this is trying to fit the facts to a predetermined answer.
First of all, if he did only start doing this in November, I would love to know why. What is his motivation, and where was that motivation a year ago? I am not trying to hold him up to an impossible standard, I just think that if this cause is important enough to make a film over, then it is important enough to get personally involved at the level of looking at your own consumption to see where you can cut back.
Secondly, I think the information given so far that indicates his personal level of green-ness as 100% is fuzzy at best. I would also be interested to see what Snopes says.
The message Gore is spreading either has, or does not have, validity. HOw he personally lives is not relevant to the truth of his message.
It is relevant to a charge of hypocrisy.
Even here, however, I am not convinced. I saw Ed Begely Jr on Hannity and Colmes last night; he was asked if Gore is a hypocrite. Begely’s response? We ALL could do more to reduce our use of energy, including me, says Begley. Now, this is a guy who rides his bike to get around Hollywood and drives his Prius cross-country when he needs to go cross-country. He’s made substantial sacrifices in his life to promote what he views as the right way to expend energy, and even he acknowledges he could be doing more. Gore’s message is not even that extreme, and he’s living more or less consistently with his message and his occupation. It’s tempting to call him a hypocrite, but it’s a misunderstanding of the word… (a problem I have previously inveighed against at length; see gambling and Bennet, William.)
I was basing my opinion on the information I had. The point I was trying to make is that if he is really using as much electricity as he is, and it’s not coming from green sources, then I believe that is a violation of his principles. To me, it’s not about making himself look good, it’s about whether or not he cares enough to make sacrifices for his cause, that’s all. If he does, then good for him.
“A spokeswoman for Gore said he purchases enough “green power” — renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas — to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs…Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of “green power” for an extra $4 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources”. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_re_us/gore_electric_bill_7
And again, this wasn’t what his film was about. The film was about reducing emissions.
It’s frankly annoying that the first sign of dirt about someone regardless of how reliable the information people jump in with both feet to criticize without any facts.
It would be nice for Gore if his response to this was bulletproof. Unfortunately the maze of carbon usage and green power is impossible to explain to the average Joe (of which I am one) so there’s really no way for me to judge how “green” Gore is in real life.
I can deduce that he is making a pretty good effort- about what he is asking others to do, but I am basing this on his other behavior- jetting around the world to give essentally a low-level academic presentation again and again.
What is the point of making him a hypocrite? It is to reduce his credibility on the subject at hand. It has everything to do with the fact that he his by far the most well-known advocate of reducing emissions. And it smells. As a friend said to me, he can be both right and a hypocrite.
What I don’t get is- if Gore does not believe what he is saying, why is he doing it? Some answers I have heard are: Lunacy, Ideological Blindness, Anti-big business, and a need to be cool to celebrities. I don’t find any of these compelling in this instance. Are there other options?
I will quote what John Mace said about this, because I couldn’t say it better:
I remain unconvinced as well, and will also feel more convinced if the information comes from an independent source, rather than his own spokesperson.
Again, I am not worked up about his film, whether it has validity, or whether or not his energy use negates that validity. My point is that I don’t know if he is substantially reducing his use of greenhouse-gas-producing energy, and so far the evidence I’ve seen leads me more to believe he hasn’t than he has. The electricity where his lives is derived from coal. It sounds to me as though this program that he contributes to does not necessarily reduce the use of coal, but is more of an investment in other forms of energy that do not cause CO2 emissions. So, he could still contribute as much money as he wants to those programs while still cutting back on his own coal-produced electricity consumption. I wouldn’t mind at all being proven wrong on this, as I think his showing concern at his own grassroots level would really help the cause of raising awareness of environmental problems.
The attack on Al Gore comes from the nature of the global warming debate itself.
The “preachiness” of the legislators who adopt the environmental platfrom becomes tiresome, for me. The message comes across using the same “tone” of mother/father to dimwit child. Couple this with the various proposals to mandate behavioural change, and the proponents are seen as “pushing the issue into my face”. (Some of the proposals were also seen on this board. Adding an additional tax on electric and gasoline use to "encourage me to use less. You have no idea how much I am personally using. Why do you assume I am engaging in unnecessary driving? Why do you assume I am leaving the air conditioner or heater on when I am not around?)
“Pushing it into my face” is all well and good for an important issue. However, when those same preachy politians seem to engage in hypocritical behavior, it lessens (emotionally) my willingness to listen.
Consider: Al Gore jet setting around, daily, dumps more CO[sub]2[/sub] than I can with my car all year. Also, he uses, in one month, 10 (? I forget the article/cite) times more electricity than I use all year. We are “assured” he buys Carbon Credit offesets, but so what? The stuff still gets dumped into the air. So, he gets to pollute because he’s rich. (Normally I shun this class warefare garbage…)
There are California legislators seeking to mandate the Gas and electricity taxes. But thier costs are paid for by the tax payers. Several drive (or chauffered?) in Lincoln Navigators, paid for by tax payers, with their gas and auto insurance also paid for by tax payers. The expenses for thier residences in the state capital are undoubtadly paid for by the tax payers, as well. Do they use energy saving light bulbs? Hmmm… (I am sure a couple actually try to practice what they preach. I remember “hearing” about a legislator who actually drives himself in a hybrid. But he is, generally, an exception.) Makes me a sad panda.
Here is an analysis of the story by Kieth Olberman on Countdown. Click on the story and get a video of the story.
Gore’s bill was actually a little over $16000, not $30000. Had he bought power directly off the grid his bill would have been $10000 but he paid an extra $5000 to buy power from renewable sources.
His house is 20 rooms plus a guest house. An office for his wife and himself plus added security measures are included.
Where the hell is this idea that he’s only been doing this for the past three months coming from? If it’s from the link in the second post, that story only says that bills obtained for the past three months show his purchasing of green energy. It doesn’t say that he started doing so three months ago, or in September, or whatever the hell this claim is. John Mace, please provide a cite that says he only started this in September.
This is all very Pavlovian. One of these “think tanks” throws together some sort of allegation and rings a bell, and a certain segment of people start salivating like crazy in just the ways that they are expected to.
The problem with that is that almost without fail, there is no meat to these stories. With Pavlovian conditioning, when the unconditioned stimulus is presented without meat, the response should be extinguished. With you guys, you don’t need the meat. You keep salivating anyways.
Shouldn’t you stop responding like you are expected to if you’re never given any meat?
In order to participate in green purchase of electricity, one must be on a grid served by a utility that has access to a green provider.
There was an effort made a few years ago (as part of an energy bill passed in the '96 - '98 time frame) to permit individual consumers to select their own providers, regardless of the local utility. However, that process had to go through the various state regulations and then each local utility had to negotiate with various outside-the-area providers to figure out which providers could get their “product” pumped into any particular region. Despite the laws going back around ten years (from today), my section of Ohio did not get access until about two years ago. It would not surprise me to discover that other areas of the country are still just getting that service, now.
I am not claiming that this is true regarding Gore’s situation. I only point out that buying “green” power is not even a slam-dumnk, today, and it varies by region and local utility when it has become available in other places.
(In addition, given that much of Tennessee is served by the huge hydroelectric facilities of the TVA, it might not have even occurred to Gore until recently to discover how much of his original provider was based on coal-fired plants.)
Of course, you are right about all of that, tomndebb. My issue is more about why he can’t find ways to cut back on his consumption, not so much about where his electricity comes from. Unfortunately, right now a lot of us don’t have much of a choice in terms of any of our fuel consumption…other than how much we use, that is.
There you go again. Consumption is not the issue. Where the electricity comes from is. Gore espouses reducing greenhouse gases. His message is less concerned with cutting overall consumption. If you think we all should be conserving electricity for what ever reason, good on you; but you can hardly tar Gore as a hypocrite when that is not the message of his movie.
Well, without a delta, you can’t really talk about whether someone has “cut back”. It’s possible that Gore was using more power before, maybe until recently he had special UV lights to accelerate his beard growth or something. He certainly has not been operating his treadmill a lot.
The point is, you have looked at a snapshot of Al Gore’s energy use and decided that it is too much. Well, it is too much for a preachy person. Presumably it’s OK for someone who does not care about global warming, or at least isn’t all up in our collective grill about it.
So how does this work exactly? People are attacked first based on misinformation and half truths and you aren’t convinced until some independent source decides to investigate? See anything at all faulty with this way of thinking?