Not your fault, I agree with you that it was a bad argument on BG’s part. I do know Gore puts his money where his mouth is by purchasing his energy from green sources at least. Could he do more, of course he could. I suspect everyone except Ed Begley Jr. could do more.
I lovely lady I know just passed away after being a big part of the green movement since the sixties. She has sung with Pete Seeger. She was the key volunteer in running a successful environmental festival for decades and she was tireless in her fight for cleaner air and water until diabetes kept her from doing anymore. She was never wealthy, she was a large woman with some joint problems and all she could afford to carry herself and all her stuff to events was a beat up old van. She felt guilty for using so much gas, she would have loved to buy a low emission hybrid, but she drove what she could afford and more than made up for it with her efforts for the environment. I mentioned she was a large woman that was suffering from diabetes. When it was very hot, she would run a small AC so she could escape the heat. I do not think small acts like this and her van, take away from a lifetime of good work.
Is Bill Gates a flawed philanthropist because in addition to the billions he gives to charity, he also keeps other billions for himself? Where is the line where wasted potential begins to outweigh real accomplishments? Tough question.
(What I wonder is, why doesn’t Gore just short-circuit the criticism by building his own eco-friendly mansion just like George Bush’s? Obviously it can be done, and I would guess Gore has the money to do it. What’s he waiting for?)
Just a thought, but perhaps he thinks that would send the wrong message - i.e. that it takes a great deal of personal sacrifice (or at least personal expense) to reduce CO2 emissions. And conservatives could just as easily twist that into a talking point, e.g. “Gore wants us to live in tiny expensive houses.”
My guess is that building it (or even retrofitting his own place) would consume more resources than it saves and open him up to a new round of criticism. He also is frying bigger fish than figuring out what the floorplan of a new place should be.
Yes, it is already built, he buys green energy and I believe I read an article where he is looking to add solar. I can’t find it however. The house he lives in is over 50 years old. Again, I need to find some details.
She lived in Calcutta - do you seriously think she didn’t do exactly that every day? Seriously?
Argue all you want about whether Gore deserves this or not, but the arguments about his personal energy consumption are sophmoric and unworthy of anyone on this board. If a doctor found a cure for cancer, would you rant about his personal consumption of alcohol or other drugs? Can I not express concern about starvation unless I am starving myself?
I don’t see why it’s necessary for him to live in a really really big house.
Has Al Gore urged anyone to change their personal lifestyles? Has Al Gore advocated for policies that would encourage people to use less electricity/fly less/etc.?
If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then he’s not setting a good example.
If the doctor was urging other people not to consume alcohol or other drugs, then yeah, it would be rantworthy. Or if the doctor was pushing for policies that would discourage people from using alcohol or drugs.
You can express whatever concerns you want. But if you don’t practice what you preach, you are rantworthy.
Why the hell weren’t people paying any attention until Al Gore said it? He sure wasn’t the first and many of his claims are bogus fluff, yet now he’s a visionary. The whole charade makes me ill.
So you’re agreeing there’s no point, but you’d like him to live in a smaller house, which is something I don’t think he’s ever told anyone to do. Again, this sounds more like house envy than any kind of actual argument.
Let’s suppose a prominent politician announced that he or she is not going to vote in the next election. Do you agree that he or she is setting a bad example?
Yes, a good example of a needless increase in built-space, additional heating, cooling and power consumption… Unless you argue that he should tear down the house rather than selling it and buying a new one.
Please do. I’d be curious to see what you come up with. Start with a list of common recommendations for energy conservation and tell us how they would necessarily result in a net change of zero.
Sure. For example, if you purchase and use less gas, then there’s a good chance somebody else will purchase and use the gas that you did not use. (I’m not saying that this argument is correct, only that’s the same as the argument about living in a big house.)
That’s exactly the point. He took an issue that was only being followed by a group of scientists and brought it to worldwide attention. The issue needed someone to fill that role, and Gore stepped up. The problem lies in the notion that this issue didn’t exist before and that Al Gore invented it out of thin air.
