Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson  Bull Crap! Gore's electricity comes right off the "grid" - just like everybody else's! Nashville Electric does NOT have two separate sets of lines - one running from coal-fired plants, the other coming from wind generators & solar collectors. That's horse crap. |
You are correct that there are not two seperate sets of lines. The power generated by Gore's money is added to the community power grid, replacing power generated by other sources. Gore's power still does not produce carbon emissions...I do not understand your complaint.
Quote:
|
And rather than "buying carbon offsets", why not just produce less carbon? WHY NOT ECONOMIZE?
|
According to Gore, he has gone through efforts to economize, though obviously he could still do more, such as reducing the size of his house.
I am guessing Gore does not find such an extreme lifestyle change necessary, since he is paying for carbon offsets. Remember that Gore is not asking people to make extreme changes to their lifestyle, only to make efforts to reduce their "carbon footprint" to zero.
Legitimate debate could be centered around whether these carbon offsets truly excuse producing carbon emissions, but it is certainly better to purchase these carbon offsets than to leave them unpurhcased.
Quote:
|
And what, specifically, do these "carbon offsets" do, besides promote the religion of Global Warming? They don't DO anything!
|
As I had stated, the money funds efforts to reduce carbon in our atmosphere, such as reforestation, and it replaces additional electricity in power grids with "green power".
These things certainly do produce measurable reductions in carbon in the atmosphere, and their cost relates to the amount of carbon reduced. That is, Gore pays for enough carbon offsets to reduce the carbon in our atmosphere by same amount he created.
Quote:
|
And I am NOT misrepresenting Al "the hypocrite" Gore at all! The guy preaches against Global Warming, while at the same time contributing to it in ENORMOUS WAYS.
|
You are misrepresenting him, though you may not have meant to. You implied that his electricity usage was bad for the environment. It is not.
You further mentioned his natural gas usage, which is indeed bad for the environment, but you failed to mention that Gore also helps the environment in an amount equal to this harm. By failing to mention that, you have misrepresented him.
Quote:
Now... would you like to explain why it was okay for Gore to fly all over the country, burning over 65,000 gallons of fuel in a private jet, while promoting a movie about pollution?  |
As I had explained in a previous thread, Gore used carbon offsets to accomodate this jet flight. So while he harmed the environment in an amount equal to 65,000 gallons of fuel, he also helped the environment in an amount equal to 65,000 gallons of fuel.
Why didn't he just conserve? Well, it is his hope that promoting his movie led more people to see the movie, which would teach those people to conserve, and in the end, it would hopefully save a lot more than 65,000 gallons of jet fuel.