Well, I am glad to see conservatives such as you embracing the idea that we need to reign in inequality in this nation. I imagine that Gore…and the other rich folks…are saving a bundle from Bush’s tax cuts, so I guess you’ll be on our side when we push to have them (or at least the parts that go to the rich) rescinded!
Or, are concerns about the poor only paramount when it comes to the question of whether we should all be allowed to use the atmosphere as a free sewer for greenhouse gas emissions?
Again, considering all that they’ve done for the environment, I think any sane or reasonable person would conclude that Gore has been better for the planet.
But you aren’t talking about the law of supply and demand. You’re talking about a non-existent situation where renewably-generated energy is “the only type anyone can buy”. Complaining about the hypothetical negative consequences that poor people will hypothetically suffer from that non-existent situation is, as I noted, a strawman argument.
Bush’s private residence definitely sounds better in terms of general sustainability/eco-friendliness, although Gore’s might be better in the specific area of greenhouse-gas emissions reduction. Either way, it doesn’t imply that Gore is a hypocrite.
I see you’ve given up on attempting to rationally defend this assertion and have resorted instead to merely repeating it. That’s probably your best strategy at this point, although it isn’t exactly in the best ignorance-fighting tradition of these boards.
We already reign in inequality in this nation (i.e., we totally rule in that area); you meant to say we need to rein in inequality (i.e., pull back on the reins to slow our rapid increase in inequality). [/nitpick mode]
I read about this in the papers the other day (as I’m sure all of you have done) but the stated usage of electricity was not 191,000 kwh, but 221,000 kwh. That’s what they wrote here anyways.
It doesn’t undercut the truth of whether or not global warming exists…
but it’s an elegant example of why worrying about it is no more effective than people worrying about an incoming comet. The change required to do any good is simply not going to happen, and Mr Gore is a poster child for why this is so. Of course I don’t expect him to give up his lifestyle. Nor do I expect anyone else to either. It isn’t the limousine’s fuel, stupid–it’s the limousine!! (and the resources required to make it, and your house, and your other houses…)
I must admit bemusement at those who continue to support the cause, and support Mr Gore’s support of the cause when he is such a prime example of the problem (assuming, for the moment, he’s right about what the problem is). On the other hand, Jimmy Swaggert still has followers, and from a “moral” standpoint, it is exactly the same thing.
Since Mr Swaggert’s followers can’t be convinced, I doubt Mr Gore’s followers will be convinced either. But the obvious hypocrisy of it is amusing. As another person noted on an anti-airline site, producing more than your share of carbon while you fund carbon offsets is like justifying the fact you continue to beat your wife because you contribue to a home for abused spouses.
Just because someone is wealthy doesn’t mean they have to consume excessive amounts of energy. It is especially dodgy considering Al Gore’s supposed concern for the environment.
If you are wealthy, does that mean you must consume more energy?
Can’t you be wealthy and NOT buy a hugonormo mansion?
The problem is our overly consumptive lifestyle. I believe this is cause for much pain in the world, not just GW.
And Gore’s power bill illustrates the problem…We want stuff.
If the problem is so serious and AG cannot fing it within himself to live modestly in the interest of the planet and future generations, shy should I?
If the problem is so severe, why can’t Gore still buy all of his carbon offsets and be carbon negative? That would be a more positive impact on the environment than simply being carbon neutral.
Gore weighed his lavish lifestyle in one hand and how much impact changing it could have on the environment in the other. His lavish lifestyle was more important.
And that is the exact choice billions of others make every day. Only more easily now that we have Gore’s example to follow.
The fact that I was unpersuaded by the thread doesn’t mean I didn’t read it…
Human CO2 production is driven by wealth and consumption. It’s not a matter of buying green energy or carbon offsets because you like airplane rides. It’s staying in nice hotels. It’s swapping out the furniture. It’s eating at expensive places. It’s wearing nice clothes…it’s the thousand little conveniences and niceties that we take for granted every day. To understand why this is so, just visit the places the support tthat supply chain–Chongqin China, say–and get a feel for what it takes to produce those goods and services.
I must be the change I want to see in the world. (Gandhi)
But I understand that any comments which are negative toward Mr Gore are felt intensely by his followers so I’ll leave the issue alone for now.
Perhaps then, for the sake of the debate, you could explain your lack of persuasion. If Gore has successfully achieved a carbon neutral lifestyle, through conservation, reduction, the full use of green power, and finally by purchasing carbon offsets, how is it that he is a hypocrite? What else has he called on others to do that he has not achieved?
I’m not sure I’m a follower of Gore’s so much as a strong opponent of the now cliched conservative bullshit attack.
I don’t know what Chief Pedant will say about this, but I can explain why I am not fully convinced of Gore’s committment.
Here is a link to an article from a group that recommends gong “Carbon Neutral.” I read several articles, and all of them recommend trying to go carbon neutral in addition to cutting back on your own consumption:
The article also says you can buy carbon offsets as gifts for other people, indicating of course that you do not just need to offset what you actually use…you can invest in these credits to your hearts’ desire, and if you are willing to do that AND reduce your own consumption, you will have more than a “neutral” effect. Reducing consumption is an easy thing Al Gore could do, but having a 20-room house is more important to him. You say in your post that he has achieved carbon neutrality through “conservation, reduction, the full use of green power, and finally by purchasing of carbon offsets.” But I don’t see too much committment to the first three methods on your list…which, IMO, are the most important.
Dammit, Sarahfeena, it’s been repeatedly stated that he already purchases 100% (or more) of his energy from green power sources. Why do you refuse to believe that? Please provide a cite supportive of your continued refusal to believe that he buys 100% of his energy from green power providers. (Do you understand that this is different from purchasing carbon offsets?)
In addition to that, he uses energy reducing lightbulbs, is installing solar panels, and who knows what else. He’s a former vice president of the United States who maintains offices for himself and his wife in his residence, yet he apparently uses less kilowatt hours per square foot of homespace than the average for the Tennessee area.
Yes but he’s a liberal. He’s a liberal leading by example and he’s a liberal who turns out to have been right all along. And now he’s won an Oscar. He is therefore the Devil Incarnate and he has to be attacked and hounded at every misbegotten opportunity regardless of reason, fact or common sense. Try and get with the program.
Who has it been stated by? Because the article you linked to does NOT state that. It states the following:
This statement, as far as I can tell is about purchasing the offsets (that’s why the spokesperson said “balance” not “use.”) Please explain to me where it says otherwise.
Good on him with installing the solar panels. Considering he’s been yapping about climate change for the last 15 years or so, I’d say it’s about time.
Oh, please, I couldn’t care less if he’s a liberal. I don’t happen to think this is a “liberal” issue. I have always liked him well enough for a politician. I just think he could do more in this one area that he cares so passionately about. I wish we ALL would hold ourselves to a higher standard (including myself). I happen to think it should be easier for him, considering his personal resources.
