Oh, yeah, pretend you don’t know about the Meteoro-Climatolo-Marxist conspiracy? Just look at the facts, man. I’ll send you a link to my video on YouTube.
Don’t taze me, bro.
Simply put, AGW according to the arguments of Mr Gore, is driven by consumption.
We consume energy directly; we consume the comforts provided by energy. Developing nations are hoping to consume more; developed nations are consuming too much.
Consumption is related to wealth more than any other single factor, and unless (like Ed Begley, perhaps) you are willing to be rich and live poor you are not a solution. You are part of the problem. The degree to which you are part of the problem can be most simply measured by your lifestyle. It really is that simple.
It is true that if Mr Gore swaps his home for a home like Mr Bush’s little will be gained. It is equally true that if he stays in a tent and rides a bicycle instead of of staying at the Ritz, little will be gained. One person’s lifestyle is not enough to make a difference. It is only the cumulative difference of millions–billions–of lifestyle changes which will effect change.
In my opinion, that is not going to happen, and Mr Gore precisely personifies why. Few of us want to really sacrifice personal consumption for the good of the next guy. I prefer to fly first class even though it’s less efficient than coach. I want new golf clubs when the old ones are fine, knowing the new ones are made in China in AGW-unfriendly factories. I want to stay in my nice house even though only two of us live in 4,000 square feet. And on and on.
I am neither Right nor Left. I am an equal opportunity cynic. I am surprised at the defensiveness shown toward Mr Gore b/c I cannot think of a better poster child for why the AGW cause is a non-starter. I am not going to criticize someone who is just like the rest of us in contributing to Global Warming (if current reasoning is correct) but neither am I going to give him the Nobel prize for attempting to persuade others what he has not persuaded himself to do: live so that your lifestyle makes a positive difference for the cause.
The glutton who takes in 20,000 calories a day shouldn’t get the Nobel prize for persuading the world to cut down their 1,000 calorie/day consumption due to impending famine, even if the glutton cuts down to 18,000 calories/day. The fact that Mr Gore is being called to account by an equally hypocritical Right does not diminish whether or not he should be called to account, and I must say I am disappointed more Liberals on this board do not see the relationship between what I call others to do and what I do myself. Next thing you know we’ll have social liberals dodging their own taxes while calling for tax increases in general to support more social programs.
The “Vast majority”? I don’t know what you’d call “vast,” but by any reasonable definition of that word, this seems extremely unlikely.
AGW, according to Gore’s arguments, is driven by CO2 production. (Almost) nothing more. This could be cut through extreme sacrifice, and every little bit helps, but it is not the complete solution and I don’t believe Gore has ever said so. What the solution is to reduce the major sources of CO2 production through efficiencies and through alternative energy sources. The message is not that we have to give up everything.
Um, no. AGW is driven by greenhouse-gas emissions. [Edit: as the previous poster noted.]
Cutting consumption is indeed one way to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, but so is decoupling consumption from emissions (i.e., consuming renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency). Both of those are among the things Gore is advocating.
Now let me get this straight. You’re saying that if there were an impending disastrous famine whose consequences could be averted or greatly reduced by cutting average food consumption worldwide, and one person managed to persuade the world to do this and thus averted the famine, that person wouldn’t deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?!??!
Dude, if one person managed to save the world to that extent, I would not care if he personally overeats like Jabba the Hutt. I would say “Yeah, he doesn’t practice what he preaches, and he sure is an overconsuming glutton, but he saved the world, y’know? I’m willing to overlook some personal failings on account of he was able to keep didderty-million people from dying of famine.”
Mind you, I’m not suggesting that this hypothetical situation is actually analogous to Gore’s case, either in terms of the Prize recipient’s achievements or in terms of his alleged hypocrisy. I’m just pointing out that the reasoning you use here isn’t convincing even in the hypothetical situation you yourself devised to illustrate it.
You mean like the peace in the world we’re experiencing now, before the effects of what he’s preaching against have set in?
w.
The time lag to do this is so great, and the urgency so real that these are long-term solutions. There is no alternative to the current crisis other than to cut consumption. Now.
Dude-ess, what I am saying is that the world will not be persuaded, and Mr Gore represents why. We all want to be a little richer and consume a little bit more. Mr Gore is a great example of that; here’s a guy who by his own admission has been aware of this problem for years. Yet look where he is on the consumption scale. Mr Hut would have an unpersuasive appeal to the masses and so will Mr Gore. A few liberal University professors on the coasts; a few college students with stars in their eyes; a few actors. The rest will admire, and adulate, and continue consuming, using as an unguent for any guilt the comfortable notion that others are consuming even more.
. How about “solid?” I’m sure a solid majority of military families voted against Al Gore. Does that work for you? Point remains the same.
Well. Thank you, Mr. Sunshine.
Point? The military of just about every nation is more conservative than its general population. European history pretty much revolves around the ruling class - military - Church alliance.
(Thus, you have the odd effect of a Communist country who’s military is more Marxist than the wild eyed radicals who want to try a bit of capitalism. Being, as they are, conservative and suspicious of change…)
That may be true, but is that what Al Gore says? If it’s not… well, he might be a fool, but he’s not a hypocrite.
This just in: by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has decided that George Bush won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Oh. So you’re opposed to this award because Gore hasn’t actually single-handedly caused a significant world-wide reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions? Because, according to you, it’s an impossible mission?
Okay, but in that case, I don’t see why you’re not equally upset about earlier Peace Prizes being awarded to people who didn’t actually bring about peace, or end torture, or effectively accomplish whatever it was they got the Prize for trying to do.
And I also don’t see how what you’re saying now jibes with what you wrote in your OP:
Then, you seemed to be saying that you oppose Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize because of his personal behavior, which you consider incompatible with his public mission.
Now, you seem to be saying that you oppose Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize because what he’s trying to do can’t be done (according to you).
Surely you don’t mean that you think the only significant obstacle to Gore’s accomplishing his mission is his high level of personal energy consumption? Are you seriously suggesting that if Gore would only stop using all those BTUs for his own lifestyle, the rest of the world (besides the few liberal professors, starry-eyed students, etc., who are already on board) would start acting on his recommendations? (And as other posters have already pointed out, how would he manage to get his message out worldwide if he were living a minimal-consumption lifestyle, anyway?)
That just seems silly, and I don’t think from your earlier posts that it’s the point you’re actually trying to make. If Gore is successful at raising awareness about AGW and inspiring effective action to mitigate it, then clearly the extent of his own personal consumption will be negligible compared to that massive accomplishment.
On the other hand, if, as you seem to think, it’s innately impossible for anyone to inspire effective action to mitigate AGW, then Gore’s own consumption level is basically irrelevant. If the world is indeed fundamentally unpersuadable on the subject of reducing emissions because we’re all so greedy for more, then it won’t matter whether the person trying to persuade us is Al Gore or Ed Begley, Jr.
So where’s the point in picking on Gore because of his high-consumption lifestyle? According to you, his mission would still be doomed no matter how low-consumption a lifestyle he chose, because we all just loooooooves us our new Chinese-made golf clubs so much.
In short, I still can’t figure out why you are, in your own words, “so upset” about this.
But your own information is outdated. That was then. This is now! Would you look at that roof! When you are driving in that neighborhood, you certainly don’t have to ask which house is Al Gore’s! (Thanks for the original link, What Exit.
This information is also provided under the photo:
The information about consumption of energy at the Gore house during 2006 came during the year that they were renovating the house to make it more efficient. You called it Dangerosa:
I don’t think their house is all that big for that neighborhood. By comparison, the church rectory is sixteen rooms – only four short. It is a large house, but I wouldn’t call it a mansion. Other houses that size have been torn down so that larger houses could be built.
To the best of my knowledge, he doesn’t own a private plane. He sometimes uses the private planes of others. I don’t know if they are small planes or not. I do know that he sometimes goes commercial because once he got searched and another time he didn’t have to go through security. Those things make the news.
He is a very successful businessman and professor in addition to the roles for which he is most well-known.
For those who think that Al Gore is just the front man and hasn’t done any of the grunt work, you might want to check to see when he published his first book on the environment.
Only a few weeks ago Alan Greenspan said that the Iraq War is all about oil. That is one example of how energy and peace/war are related. Further, V.P Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, Inc. – formerly known as Halliburton Oil.
The information on the Gore’s electricity and gas consumption (neither verified nor denied) originally came from the Drudge Report.
I think you meant to type “powerpoint presentation”.
Pfft. Powerpoint? You don’t win Oscars with Powerpoint. Al’s a Keynote man, just like his pal Steve.
Gore’s Nobel? Well deserved, and it’s especially satisfying seeing his critics humiliate themselves trying to trash him. His house is too big! He flies in newfangled jet aeroplanes! He’s like Yassar Arafat! He’s setting a bad example! He says he invented the internet! Mother Theresa was a bitch!
Well done, Al. And well done, righties. Together, you’ve made this a spectacular day.
Point remains the same, yes. Useless. Define military families, please. Then cite polls for the voting records of military families.
I’m a Navy brat and the brother of a Marine and I would have voted for Al Gore had I not voted for Ralph Nader. I’m fairly sure that’s not what you mean. Please be sure that your definition excludes such as me.
Thank you. After all, the whole point of this is to entertain.
This is kind of a silly hijack, but I was responding to RTFirefly’s post on the last page, implying that families of dead soldiers have Mr. Moto to thank (blame) for their loss, since he didn’t vote for Al Gore. My point was that I’m not sure most of them are looking for someone to blame.
By military families, I mean the immediate relatives of those in the military. And, cite polls that most military families voted Republican in the 2000 election? Really?
I think the definition of “most” can exclude one person. Say there’s 100 people in the group. 99 do A, 1 does B. I think I can safely say that “most” did A without necessarily implicating the guy who did B.
Anyway, I’m not going to spend a bunch of time looking up a cite for polls of military family voting records. If it makes you feel better, fine, RT is right…those dead soldiers can all blame Mr. Moto for the war.
A few follow up questions:
When did Gore purchase this house? This cite says it was in 2002:
http://www.nysun.com/article/49438
I couldn’t find a cite that says he works from home. Can you?
This cite says that he has an office in Nashville:
Last, I notice that one of your articles says "He is . . . installing more energy-efficient light bulbs . . . . "
The article is dated June of 2007. Assuming that Gore purchased the house in 2002, why would it take him 5 years to be “installing more energy-efficient light bulbs”?