Which touches on one of the points I was going to make. The “fact” that’s being pushed here by the right-wing spin machine is the dollar amount he spends on energy, but that’s exactly the wrong fact to push. If there’s any relevant question about his total energy consumption, it’s how much energy he uses, measured in joules (or kilowatt-hours, or BTUs, etc.), not the amount he spends on it, measured in dollars. This is especially true since part of the reason his bill is larger than usual is that he’s paying extra for greener energy. So why push the dollar figure, instead of the watt-hour figure? The only reason is to deceptively make him look worse than he is.
I don’t know about that…it was the figure of 191,000 kilowatt hours that made me go :eek: (That figure was from Hentor’s link.) The money is hard to compare, as energy rates are so different from one state to the next, and as you point out, he is paying into the green program.
Again, it was the 191,000 kilowatt hours that set me back. That appears to be a fact, and I really, really doubt that there isn’t somewhere that this can be cut down. The part I am fuzzy about is exactly how much is from non-CO2 producing sources vs. other, but there is still the issue of why he NEEDS so much more energy than everyone else. If he can figure out a way to get ALL of his energy from green sources, then great, let him burn the lights all night if he wants. But if he doesn’t, then I think it would really be a smart gesture to find ways to use less.
Also, didn’t you read the press release? Al Gore is “devouring” that energy. Which is even worse than using it. Gore is like a dragon, or another scary animal that eats energy. That press release devours Gore, it slays any who are opposed, it is a blood-soaked death-orgy of nonpartisanism.
I would have more respect for this organization if they were called Tennessee Center for Policy Research for Truth. If you don’t have truth in your name, how can I tell that you’re telling it?
I’ll quote it again:
I’m not sure how you can remain fuzzy on that, unless you have evidence or reporting from another source that says he does not purchase 16,200 killowatt hours per month of green energy, or that he uses more than the amount of energy he purchases from green power. I’ll be happy to put it on every page, if that would make things less fuzzy.
Why? As Kimstu already noted, paying large amounts of money to green power producers at this point is a strategy that will support the process. Perhaps when consumers are primarily using green power, we’ll see a need to conserve that energy as well.
But to repeat, his goal is not to reduce energy consumption. His goal is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Suggesting that we switch to green power is consistent with his own behavior. Suggesting that we reduce our consumption of energy that does not come from green power is also consistent with his behavior. The charges of hypocrisy are a non-starter, and should be an embarrassment.
“That [story] is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.”
To you, and in fact Debaser who seemed to be coming at this from the same angle… I hope you have now read through the thread carefully enough to come to the realisation that
Energy Consumption != Greenhouse gas emission.
The question of whether or not Gore is hypocritical depends NOT on his energy consumption, but on his greenhouse gas emission. It doesn’t matter how much energy he’s using, it matters how green it is. Whilst the latter is harder to evaluate, Gore’s efforts in this have been repeatedly explained in this thread. It is not ‘honest debate’ to disregard such posts.
And John Mace… methane? :dubious:
Paraphrasing what you said, ‘using methane as a fuel is bad because methane is a greenhouse gas’… this must be some new definition of the concept ‘fuel use’ that I am not familiar with.
If you USE it, you are TAKING IT AWAY from the environment, not ADDING IT TO the environment. Feel free to do this: :smack:
Eh, sorry for the double post, I’ve now read further through the thread, seen David Simmons post. My God, the cries of hypocrisy get stupider by the minute. Not only are we now suspecting that the figure given in the OP was totally fabricated (I am accusing the original source, not Contrapuntal), but we find that the supposed proportionality between ‘dollars spent’ and ‘energy used’ is so much methanogenic bovine product. Gore actually spent more to use less!
I don’t fault Contrapuntal at all for starting this thread, but now that these issues have been discussed, how can any rational person still fall for the ‘hypocrisy’ canard? At least John Mace’s ‘I dunno, I’ll wait and see’ approach is more honest.
Actually, it’s this quote that I am unclear on the meaning of:
What does it mean “to balance?” It sounds to me as though he is not USING the green energy, but is in fact, helping subsidize the production of it. This is terrific, but as I said before, to me it doesn’t entirely mitigate the fact that he is probably personally using coal-based electricity, and that he could obviously use a lot less of it if he wants to.
Yes, the goal is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. And using less coal-based electricity would help reach that goal. How is this not obvious?
Again, I do not agree that his actions are necessarily consistent with the desire to reduce greenhouse gas.
I’m never embarrassed to encourage investigating the private behavior of public figures who loudly espouse a specific opinion or desire to persuade the public to a particular point of view. If this investigation proves that he is not a hypocrite, again, that is great.
Prove you are not a witch?
I agree the actions of public figures should be scrutinised. This is not what is happening. Certain people in this thread are not asking ‘DOES Al Gore practice what he preaches?’ They are declaring ‘Al Gore DOES NOT practice what he preaches’. This requires evidence. The sole evidence provided so far is flaky and has been refuted.
OK, so if anything I have said indicates that I believe he DEFINITELY does not practice what he preaches, I officially retract it as of this post. I believe that I have already made my point clear that I think his energy consumption is a potential issue, and that I would like to see more unbiased (from either side) information.
I don’t believe the evidence I have seen that he might be over-using fuel that creates green house gas is flaky, at all. 191,000 kilowatt hours used in a year, and no hard evidence that he has been attempting to use “green” electricity all along is questionable to me. I am glad he is having solar panels installed. Did he just hear of them recently? Because I have heard of folks using them since the 70s.
Over at the Daily Gut website, they’re running a poll:
Okay, now that’s funny. 
Of course, you kinda hadda be there back in the 1980’s when Tipper’s “Parents’ Music Resource Center” was getting going on its campaign for parental advisory info on pop music packaging.
Bush’s personal life environmental footprint:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/112134.asp
Let’s not forget the Airplanes and such he uses to get down to his vacation home. The man should fly commercial, or drive, when he’s not doing the people’s business.
I think that’s fantastic, and he should be lauded for it.
However, he could use his position and influence to achieve far more than even Al Gore has, yet it seems like he’s actually been working against efforts to combat global warming. I’d trade his very tiny individual impact for a much larger policy and political impact any day of the week and 10 times on Sunday.
I think a much different mindset is at work. I’m sure that Bush did it mainly for economic reasons, with environmental as a minor benefit. I don’t think Bush sees AGW as a problem, but more as a scare tactic. Bush does not begrudge Gore’s excessive lifestyle.
Gore is living high on the hog, a world of excess but since he can offset the carbon it’s all OK with him. It’s a world where only the rich can afford energy, and the rich don’t have to conserve.
Now take the world wide view, which style of living is better for the planet - the rich living in excess and the other classes struggling or the rich living modestly, and the rest of the classes in proportion?
I don’t think you have to be rich to purchase your energy from green power producers.
If that’s the only type anyone can buy you will need to be.
Oops, you missed the latest memo:
But this is a strawman. Neither Al Gore nor any other reputable emissions-reduction advocate, AFAIK, is suggesting actually banning the use of fossil fuels.
The whole point is that we should start reducing our emissions in a more gradual transition now, using various strategies like green-power credits, energy conservation, and carbon markets, so that we don’t end up faced with a severe crisis situation where we might have to take draconian measures like banning fossil fuels.
Not if early adopters like Gore subsidize it to the point where it become more affordable to everybody.
Saying that he uses more because he’s rich and that only rich people get to afford using lots of energy is a red herring. I couldn’t even begin to approach using that much energy in a year unless I was running a particle accelerator or a grow op. And if he’s offsetting it to be carbon neutral, that’s fine by me.