Al Gore's Energy Consumption

[dcnativenerd]

Can we just all agree that we need to take better care of our Earth or else we won't have it anymore? Deal?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Can we just all agree that we need to take better care of our Earth or else we won't have it anymore? Deal?

Sure, if we can agree that global warming is a hoax first.

[dcnativenerd]

It doesn't matter if Global Warming is real or not, to me. The Earth is our home and should be looked after and protected. We cannot continue to to abuse it. I'm not sure if Global Warming is the real deal or not, but I do know that if something is good enough to offer shelter, food, and life; we should be damn thankful for it!

[herrmag]

Only in America do we go out of our way to degrade a Nobel Peace Prize winner. I wonder if any other country's citizens have ever come close to attacking a fellow countryman who won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I don't know if his house uses too much energy or not, but he's the only guy in the world trying to get the whole world together to try to do something about climate change. But, that's not good enough. :doh:

Well, leading by example should be the very FIRST step. The old preaching of "do as I say, not as I do" is BS. I'm curious how many defending Gore would do so if he was a Neo-con. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Let's all fall hook, line, and sinker for a hoax created and designed to take money from people who are deemed "blessed" and "more fortunate...<----- read people who work hard and earn a nice income----- and redistribute it to people around the globe who don't have to qualify for it nor deserve it. Screw charity and world relief efforts says the UN and the Liberal Left around the globe.... let's just take money from the rich segment of America and give it to everyone else. No thanks!!! :doh:

Your post makes no sense...

How is global warming related to wealth distribution?

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Only in America do we go out of our way to degrade a Nobel Peace Prize winner. I wonder if any other country's citizens have ever come close to attacking a fellow countryman who won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I don't know if his house uses too much energy or not, but he's the only guy in the world trying to get the whole world together to try to do something about climate change. But, that's not good enough. :doh:

The greeks ostracized thestamacles -- in fact, greek democracy was very well known for ostracizing brilliant men.

Maybe, its a flaw of democracy itself.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

It's much bigger than the average American home, and it was built more than a hundred years ago. Al Gore lives in a 10,000 square-foot mansion. It probably has high ceilings, poor insulation, and there are probably windows all over the place. There's only so much you can do with efficiency to overcome 100-year-old architecture.

No..... Gore could use the building the way it was designed. High ceilings and big windows are good for humid climates. But, with the advent of AC... kinda like trying to keep crack away from a crackhead.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Well, leading by example should be the very FIRST step. The old preaching of "do as I say, not as I do" is BS. I'm curious how many defending Gore would do so if he was a Neo-con. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

Read my above quote. You guys always jump thinking we only pick on neo-cons when its never the freaking case. He does offset is gross energy usage by donating money blah blah. But, the fact of the matter is the building is being used for a purpose it wasn't ever intended for and therefore is inefficient.

Does he leave less of a footprint on planet earth than you? Probably. Should he not air condition his house. Probably.

[herrmag]

Read my above quote. You guys always jump thinking we only pick on neo-cons when its never the freaking case. He does offset is gross energy usage by donating money blah blah. But, the fact of the matter is the building is being used for a purpose it wasn't ever intended for and therefore is inefficient.

Does he leave less of a footprint on planet earth than you? Probably. Should he not air condition his house. Probably.

I'm not sure I understand why you quoted me. I'm neither a liberal nor am I republican. Hence, I get the benefit of calling both hypocrites with no feeling of betrayal to my party. Politicians are hypocrites by nature, and Al is no different. That being said, why would a man that is so worried about conservation purchase a house in which he knew would require so much energy to maintain? Hell, with his money, he could have torn it down and built an energy efficient home, no?

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I'm not sure I understand why you quoted me. I'm neither a liberal nor am I republican. Hence, I get the benefit of calling both hypocrites with no feeling of betrayal to my party. Politicians are hypocrites by nature, and Al is no different. That being said, why would a man that is so worried about conservation purchase a house in which he knew would require so much energy to maintain? Hell, with his money, he could have torn it down and built an energy efficient home, no?

The house would still be there. The big question is whether he actually only uses AC in the rooms that he utilizes or opts to keep his windows open and allow natural ventilation to circulate within the house. Does he turn his lights off when he leaves the house? Does he heat his pool all winter?

Let me see that information.

Also, it doesn't really address how he was using the space either. Maybe he was hosting functions? We don't really know how the space was being utilized so its hard to make any sort of condemnation on him.

[herrmag]

The house would still be there. The big question is whether he actually only uses AC in the rooms that he utilizes or opts to keep his windows open and allow natural ventilation to circulate within the house. Does he turn his lights off when he leaves the house? Does he heat his pool all winter?

Let me see that information.

So I could own the most inefficient home on the planet as long as I turn off my lights when I leave? I don't get it.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

So I could own the most inefficient home on the planet as long as I turn off my lights when I leave? I don't get it.

High ceilings and big windows are good for humid climates.

we don't know how the space was being used is what i'm saying.

and i do also believe in some level of cultural preservation. his house is probably a pretty awesome old house.

[Special K]

Only in America do we go out of our way to degrade a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

What's the difference between pointing out that the Nobel Peace Prize recipient is a big, fat, hypocrite and calling our president names?

How is global warming related to wealth distribution?

Taxes on energy consumption.

Does he leave less of a footprint on planet earth than you? Probably. Should he not air condition his house. Probably.

Um, I'm pretty confident that some who jets around the world in private airplanes leaves a MUCH larger footprint on planet earth than the rest of us...no matter how many trees the dude plants.

Gore's clear hypocrisy regarding energy consumption is disconcerting and further increases my despise for the guy. If he truly believes global warming is a threat, you would think he would do all in his power to decrease his energy consumption and private jet usage....

That being said, while I am certainly not a rabid environmentalist, I do believe in respecting our home. However, no one, and I mean NO ONE, is going to get away with berrating me for driving my gas-guzzling V8 Mustang!! :laugh:

[ChocolateCitySkin]

What's the difference between pointing out that the Nobel Peace Prize recipient is a big, fat, hypocrite and calling our president names?

Taxes on energy consumption.

Um, I'm pretty confident that some who jets around the world in private airplanes leaves a MUCH larger footprint on planet earth than the rest of us...no matter how many trees the dude plants.

Gore's clear hypocrisy regarding energy consumption is disconcerting and further increases my despise for the guy. If he truly believes global warming is a threat, you would think he would do all in his power to decrease his energy consumption and private jet usage....

That being said, while I am certainly not a rabid environmentalist, I do believe in respecting our home. However, no one, and I mean NO ONE, is going to get away with berrating me for driving my gas-guzzling V8 Mustang!! :laugh:

Once again Keastman, you interject your own personal outlandish beliefs without any evidence. Ya, myopically look at one aggregate of an entire system (system being Al Gore's existence) and find fault for the entire system -- it represents nothing but narrow simplemindedness.

[Special K]

Once again Keastman, you interject your own personal outlandish beliefs without any evidence. Ya, myopically look at one aggregate of an entire system (system being Al Gore's existence) and find fault for the entire system -- it represents nothing but narrow simplemindedness.

Once again CCS, you've interjected your own outlandish personal beliefs while reading my post, hence, the non-comprehension on your part.

I said Al Gore was a hypocrite...which he is.

I never once stated that since Al Gore is a hypocrite we should not care about the environment.

[dreamingwolf]

keeastman is hot and smart :swoon:

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Um, I'm pretty confident that some who jets around the world in private airplanes leaves a MUCH larger footprint on planet earth than the rest of us...no matter how many trees the dude plants.

let's see your math on that. al gore has his.

al gore flying in a jet to promote living green concepts and getting other countries to buy into ideas + carbon offsets = overall lowering of carbon production worldwide

or are you more comfortable with this.

al gore flies in a jet (with no purpose is the only way to support your argument) = al gore doesn't care about the environment

[Springfield]

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 3 pages. Al Gore is in it for the almighty dollar.

This is old news anyhow.

[Slacky McSlackAss]

keeastman is hot and smart :swoon:

Agreed.

[The Sisko]

Let's all fall hook, line, and sinker for a hoax created and designed to take money from people who are deemed "blessed" and "more fortunate...<----- read people who work hard and earn a nice income----- and redistribute it to people around the globe who don't have to qualify for it nor deserve it. Screw charity and world relief efforts says the UN and the Liberal Left around the globe.... let's just take money from the rich segment of America and give it to everyone else. No thanks!!! :doh:

Speaking of income redistribution, who do you think pays for all those FEMA post-hurricane bailouts of the fatcats who work hard and earn a nice income so that they can live or have a vacation home near the coastline? Now there's income redistribution we can believe in.

I realize you don't buy into global warming but simply denying it doesn't make it go away. Nor does that pay for fixing damaged homes/communities. Now get along and sign that petition. And don't forget to puff your smokes and spray your CFCs while you sign. After all, there's a lot of scientific controversy about whether the smokes cause lung cancer and whether the (rapidly closing) ozone hole will be affected by getting rid of CFCs.

One more point about income redistribution. Developed countries provide billions in farm subsidies that effectively price farmers out of the market in developing countries. We then turn around and send those developing countries a fraction of that amount in food aid and many of us beyotch and moan about sending even that. Guess who takes it up the rear on both ends of this deal? As with the hurricane rebuilding $$$, if you said the U.S. taxpayer, you're absolutely right.

Subsidized agriculture in the developed world is one of the greatest obstacles to economic growth in the developing world. In 2002, industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) spent a total of $300 billion on crop price supports, production payments and other farm programs....

Prosperous countries give about $50 billion to $55 billion annually in foreign aid to underdeveloped nations. If developed nations reduced their subsidies and eliminated trade barriers — such as import tariffs protecting domestic producers from international competition — this aid would arguably be unnecessary and rural poverty might be significantly reduced.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba547/

Finally, Choc. City and others pointed out the fallacies in the info about Gore's house. However, they forgot to add that the most likely reason Gore's electric bill continued to rise after all the enhancements is that they looked at a small snapshot of data. Hence, the increasing energy usage after the enhancements was most likely due to the onset of hot weather...in Tennessee no less. Nothing like a limited sample size to draw a firm, unbiased conclusion from. :thumbsup:

[Special K]

let's see your math on that. al gore has his.

al gore flying in a jet to promote living green concepts and getting other countries to buy into ideas + carbon offsets = overall lowering of carbon production worldwide

or are you more comfortable with this.

al gore flies in a jet (with no purpose is the only way to support your argument) = al gore doesn't care about the environment

So now it's okay to consume way more energy than the average American if an individual has "good intentions?"

The private jets Al Gore flies release the same amount of carbon emissions whether their occupants have "good" intentions or not. Carbon emissions are not selective.

Furthermore, what are the stats on effectiveness of Gore selling green ideas to other countries? Last I checked oil demand is booming, particularly in other countries like China and India.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

So now it's okay to consume way more energy than the average American if an individual has "good intentions?"

Though Tony Blair has made much of his praiseworthy achievement in putting the issue at the top of the agenda of last year's G8 summit, emissions of carbon dioxide have actually risen since Labour came to power. But now the born-again conversions are coming faster than at a revivalist rally.

Last week The Economist - bible of businessmen and right-of-centre politicians on both sides of the Atlantic - abandoned years of lordly scepticism to call on President Bush to lead the way in taking action.

And on Friday, Gerard Baker - a columnist on The Times much admired by Rupert Murdoch - confessing his own scepticism, concluded, "the only prudent course is to act now to reduce emissions...". The old man's youngest son, James, chief executive of BSkyB, is already on board, pressing for change like an old green campaigner.

And talking of conversions, how about this? An alliance of US Envangelical Christians - God gave humanity dominion to exploit nature as it wished - is calling for action in climate change as "a moral and spiritual issue". The catalyst for much of this is an unlikely box-office success, with an even less likely star. An Inconvenient Truth, fronted by former vice-president Al Gore, which was released in Britain on Friday, has already become the third most-seen documentary in US film history; it has even overtaken Truth or Dare (aka In Bed With Madonna).

So far, some 2.3 million Americans have gone to see a two-hour illustrated lecture by a man with a reputation as one of the most wooden politicians ever to run for public office.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/inconvenient-truths-for-al-gore-and-the-rest-of-the-planet-416376.html

i would define that as more than "good intentions." but, please again tell me how you make an omelete without breaking an egg. moreover, please explain how you promote and give lectures without flying?

[Special K]

CCS -

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't take care of the environment.

I'm not arguing that Gore didn't have box office success with his movie (so I'm not sure why you included that).

I'm arguing that Gore is a hypocrite. Which he is. You don't have to take a private jet everywhere to give lectures that promote your cause.

Finally, your article explicitly stated that carbon emissions have RISEN. Soooo, probably not a good article to quote about Gore's "effectiveness." Also, maybe you should look up what's happening with carbon emissions in some of the biggest polluting countries China and India...again, Al Gore's not too effective there either.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

No Keastman thats not what you were saying:

Gore's clear hypocrisy regarding energy consumption is disconcerting and further increases my despise for the guy. If he truly believes global warming is a threat, you would think he would do all in his power to decrease his energy consumption and private jet usage....

you were alluding to that he doesn't believe global warming to be a threat because you've broken up the sum of his actions into one aggregate part: his private jet usage.

i'm just showing you that its not a strong point.

[Special K]

No Keastman thats not what you were saying:

you were alluding to that he doesn't believe global warming to be a threat because you've broken up the sum of his actions into one aggregate part: his private jet usage.

i'm just showing you that its not a strong point.

CCS, as usual, you fail to interperet correctly what was said.

I am alluding to the fact that if someone preaches about a certain issue then goes out and does the opposite he either

1) doesn't believe what he's saying or

2) is a huge hypocrite.

I chose option #2: He's a big, fat hypocrite.