Well for one thing, cars leave the market much more rapidly than houses, and respond to market demand much faster. But, you probably say, if no one buys the new SUV, eventually they stop making it. However, the used SUV is going to continue to exist until it’s junked.
Likewise, that old house is going to exist for at least 100 years, and possibly much longer. Why tear it down and build a new house when you don’t need to? It’s a sunk cost in resources. You can retrofit it to use less energy than it did before and there’s the energy it would take to construct a new house to consider as well. What Gore did is the equivalent of taking an old SUV and putting a biodiesel engine in it.
At the same time, houses stay with us for a long time. There are developers out there building big houses and small houses. They make their decisions based on the market. Because lots of people want big houses, developers are throwing up McMansions all over the place. It’s very common for people to have houses with rooms that they hardly ever use. And these houses will be with us for a long long time.
The decision of what kind of house or car to buy affects the market, which affects what kind of houses or cars that builders decide to build.
So the “but it already exists” argument fails in either case.
I simply don’t agree. Gore isn’t responsible for decisions that other people make in regards to their houses or cars. What he can do is show the way for people to reduce the amount of energy that existing infrastructure uses. He didn’t buy the house and then just leave it as it - he changed it to reduce its impact. That the house stays with us for a long time is precisely the point. No one sane was going to tear it down just to build another more eco-friendly house (surely you see the contradiction there).
Do you agree that fluctuations in what sort of houses are in demand today are more likely to have a long lasting impact on what sort of houses are in existence in 50 years?
Not nearly as much as what new houses are built. If I buy that used SUV, the new car market doesn’t know what car I purchased. It sees the car that the guy who sold me the SUV buys. Likewise with buying an old house and the home builders market.
In any case, this is focusing on the wrong thing. Gore’s message is not just “consume less”. It’s “consume less that comes from AGW-contributing resources”. If you have a 8000 sq ft house and consume 10 times the energy as the average household, but it comes from energy sources that don’t contribute to AGW, then there’s no issue. In fact, if you’re consuming lots of green energy, it increases the demand to produce that green energy, making it cheaper in the long run for others to purchase it. If I do buy that used SUV and convert it to run on a green source, then it’s cheaper for the next guy to do the same.
Now that doesn’t mean you should be purposefully wasteful, but it’s not as simple as saying “consume energy = hypocritical green”.
Of course it does. If you buy a used SUV, it pushes up the residual value of the car and makes it cheaper for people to get new SUV’s.
Let me ask you this: If half the McMansions in the country went up for sale tomorrow so that the owners could move to smaller houses, do you think that builders would modify the sizes of the houses they are building?
Please explain how the reported $1000 per month in natural gas and God Only Knows amount of jet fuel used by Gore comes from energy sources that don’t (in your opinion) contribute to AGW.
You can’t really count the jet fuel against him. He can’t get his message out from his house. He has to give the slideshow. You can spend a dollar to save a billion, it’s okay.
That’s where offsets come in. Now I get that you don’t believe this works. But Gore does, and to call him a hypocrite you would have to reveal that he doesn’t and he’s acting against his beliefs.
I disagree. First of all, it would be a lot more efficient to fly using regular air service – even if he brings a couple security guys and flunkies with him.
Besides, I think that it would make a more powerful statement if on some of his speaking engagements, he appeared by satellite link. And charged $5000 instead of $100,000.
You are very good at spreading misinformation. Your cite about the office is from a report Published: June 14, 2001, you know before that magical 2002 date you were harping on.
Your cite that actually mentions the $1000 per month gas bill (which you failed to quote anywhere in this thread, you only linked to it.) is from The Tennessee Center for Policy Research which is of course a right wing think tank and not a news service. Their information is unsupported.
In other words, they made an unsubstantiated attack and you repeated it.
I really with you would stop spreading misinformation on this board. Who do you actually work for?
“If” being the key word. Believe it or not, extra supply doesn’t always create its own demand.
No, you would have to show that he is acting against the principles that he urged on other people. For example, if he has simply urged the public to use less energy, then he’s a hypocrite.
And even if he’s not a hypocrite, he’s still setting a bad example.
I believe I referred to it as a “press release (attacking Al Gore)” So it’s not like I was presenting it as a neutral source.
Cite?
So let’s see . . . I’m spreading misinformation by linking to a press release attacking Al Gore, and explicitly stating that it’s a press release attacking Al Gore?
No, I am claiming your article precedes them moving into the home. He did not add the office after he bought the home.
So, he has retained the office he set up before he moved into the home. Now produce some support for how often he drives there in the last 5 years. (We can both play this silly game)
Please see below … #1
Yes, TIME, you know the national News Magazine.
The article is Al Gore Draws Flak On Utility Bill. TIME from (2007-02-28).
#1: Funny, you mentioned the $1000 per month at least two more times, without ever quoting it and you never included a disclaimer again. So yes, you are spreading misinformation. You are just very skilled at it like the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.