Gore Is A Hypocrite

Jefferson · 02-26-2007, 09:09 PM

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

tristanrobin · 02-26-2007, 09:24 PM

whether or not he uses more power than the average American is irrelevant.

one should find out if he uses more/less/same power than other 20-room 8-bath mansions.

he's asking people to save energy - not live in grass huts

(I don't believe this is a non-biased organization - comparing a 20-room 8-bath mansion with 'the average American' home is an ABSURD comparison)

Katczinsky · 02-26-2007, 09:34 PM

This is an obvious red herring. It's irrelevant ad hominem that is attempting to divert attention away from the debate and it's seriousness. I wouldn't say this all that much if this was but mentioned, but this is all you use Jefferson. And you further take it in an attempt at rationalizing the opposition to the acknowledgment of global warming. Which really doesn't make much sense.

But as for the validity of the article you present, it holds little water. Even if you're able to produce valid figures about the carbon emissions caused by energy consumption of Al Gore's home (*sigh* I can't believe I'm debating this), and including the emissions caused by his transportation, he says he was still able to neutralize those emissions by buying "carbon offsets" by investing in projects and technologies that seek to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. He's even gone to the extent to offset 100% of the carbon dioxide emissions used in all transportation in promotion of his film. 100% of the profits of his book and movie goes to a bipartisan campaign in educating people about global warming.

I don't think he's saying that everyone should cease all carbon dioxide-emitting activities to a halt. That would be literally impossible, not only for your livelihood but you release CO2 when you breath. He's just saying that while we partake in energy-saving activities (such as getting compact fluorescent light bulbs, reducing home heating and cooling, etc.), we should invest in programs that replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources by purchasing "carbon offsets", thereby theoretically neutralizing your emissions.

In this regard (that is, what he is actually saying), he isn't hypocritical but has taken all of these steps himself.

Not that it matters to the debate though...

Jefferson · 02-27-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

This is an obvious red herring. It's irrelevant ad hominem that is attempting to divert attention away from the debate and it's seriousness. I wouldn't say this all that much if this was but mentioned, but this is all you use Jefferson. And you further take it in an attempt at rationalizing the opposition to the acknowledgment of global warming. Which really doesn't make much sense.

But as for the validity of the article you present, it holds little water. Even if you're able to produce valid figures about the carbon emissions caused by energy consumption of Al Gore's home (*sigh* I can't believe I'm debating this), and including the emissions caused by his transportation, he says he was still able to neutralize those emissions by buying "carbon offsets" by investing in projects and technologies that seek to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. He's even gone to the extent to offset 100% of the carbon dioxide emissions used in all transportation in promotion of his film. 100% of the profits of his book and movie goes to a bipartisan campaign in educating people about global warming.

I don't think he's saying that everyone should cease all carbon dioxide-emitting activities to a halt. That would be literally impossible, not only for your livelihood but you release CO2 when you breath. He's just saying that while we partake in energy-saving activities (such as getting compact fluorescent light bulbs, reducing home heating and cooling, etc.), we should invest in programs that replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources by purchasing "carbon offsets", thereby theoretically neutralizing your emissions.

In this regard (that is, what he is actually saying), he isn't hypocritical but has taken all of these steps himself.

Not that it matters to the debate though...

How the heck is it a red herring? What it REALLY is is something YOU don't want to talk about!

What this exposes is the sheer and utter hypocrisy of one of the biggest Global Warming worshipers on the planet. YOU JUST DON'T LIKE IT!

Al Gore jr is a liar and a hypocrite!

He flies all over the country in a huge chartered jet - burning up over 65,000 gallons of fuel and blowing the exhaust into the atmosphere - to promote a movie about stopping Global Warming. DO YOU NOT SEE THE ABSURDITY OF THAT?

He lives in an enormous mansion - one that is NOT "green" in any way - and in one month uses more electricity and gas than most people use in almost 2 years. DO YOU NOT SEE THE ABSURDITY OF THAT?

...and you can bet your bottom dollar that he did NOT pull up to the Academy Awards in an Economy Car. FURTHER HYPOCRISY!

Here's the bottom line, Kat: I personally live a far more "green" lifestyle than Al Gore would even imagine living.
- I drive an economy car that gets 30+mpg, and drive a motorcycle when the weather is good.
- We live in a super-insulated house, keep our thermostat at 68, and often use wood to heat it.
- We recycle absolutely everything the city will take.
- Our family rarely travels - though we do drive short distances to see family - so we don't drive thousands of miles in gas-guzzling motor-homes.

Then you contrast that with the way Al Gore lives.

There's no comparison. One guy lives green but doesn't even claim to "be" green. The other guy flies all over the country in a charter jet, pushing the "green agenda" on everybody else, but simply doesn't live it himself.

What do you not understand about this, Kat?

Jaxian · 02-27-2007, 10:17 AM

Al Gore is not asking anyone to reduce the amount of energy they use. He is asking them to reduce the amount of carbon they produce. A more detailed explanation of his energy usage is explained here:

FOXNews.com - Gore Responds to Charges His House Uses Too Much Electricity - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Jefferson · 02-27-2007, 10:32 AM

Where do you think the VAST MAJORITY of electricity comes from? How do you think it's produced?

Do you think it just gets grabbed out of the air?

And where do you think the Natural Gas comes from? And does it not produce pollution?

Too funny! All the liberals and Democrats jump all over this, trying their best to cover over the hypocrisy of Al Gore!

Jaxian · 02-27-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Where do you think the VAST MAJORITY of electricity comes from? How do you think it's produced?

Do you think it just gets grabbed out of the air?

It is true that the vast majority of electricity production causes carbon emissions. However, Al Gore has signed up for 100% green power through an Organization called "Green Power Switch."

This means that Al Gore's electricity comes from three sources:

Solar Power, which does not produce carbon emissions.

Windmill Power, which does not produce carbon emissions.

Landfill Gas Power, which reduces carbon emissions by changing harmful landfill gases into power.

So while most people's electricity produces carbon emissions: Al Gore's power does not. However, by signing up for 100% green power, he pays more money for his electricity.

Quote:

And where do you think the Natural Gas comes from? And does it not produce pollution?

Natural gas does indeed produce pollution. In order to compensate for his natural gas usage (and all of his other carbon emissions, such as vehicle usage), Al Gore purchases "carbon offsets". When you purchase carbon offsets, the money goes toward initiatives which try to reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere. These initiatives include reforestation, and replacing other people's power with green power.

The idea here is that even though Gore did create some carbon emissions, these "carbon offsets" reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere by an amount equal to the carbon he produced.

Gore realizes it is unrealistic to ask people to stop using natural gas and electricity, but he thinks that if people sign up for green power and carbon offsets, it will go a long way toward reducing carbon in our atmosphere.

Quote:

Too funny! All the liberals and Democrats jump all over this, trying their best to cover over the hypocrisy of Al Gore!

I believe you have misrepresented Al Gore by stating his energy usage, without also mentioning the methods he uses to prevent his energy usage from harming the environment. By providing the missing information, I hope to help you better understand Al Gore, and the techniques he asks you to use in order to reduce your carbon emissions.

garysher · 02-27-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxian

It is true that the vast majority of electricity production causes carbon emissions. However, Al Gore has signed up for 100% green power through an Organization called "Green Power Switch."

This means that Al Gore's electricity comes from three sources:

Solar Power, which does not produce carbon emissions.

Windmill Power, which does not produce carbon emissions.

Landfill Gas Power, which reduces carbon emissions by changing harmful landfill gases into power.

So while most people's electricity produces carbon emissions: Al Gore's power does not. However, by signing up for 100% green power, he pays more money for his electricity.

Natural gas does indeed produce pollution. In order to compensate for his natural gas usage (and all of his other carbon emissions, such as vehicle usage), Al Gore purchases "carbon offsets". When you purchase carbon offsets, the money goes toward initiatives which try to reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere. These initiatives include reforestation, and replacing other people's power with green power.

The idea here is that even though Gore did create some carbon emissions, these "carbon offsets" reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere by an amount equal to the carbon he produced.

Gore realizes it is unrealistic to ask people to stop using natural gas and electricity, but he thinks that if people sign up for green power and carbon offsets, it will go a long way toward reducing carbon in our atmosphere.

I believe you have misrepresented Al Gore by stating his energy usage, without also mentioning the methods he uses to prevent his energy usage from harming the environment. By providing the missing information, I hope to help you better understand Al Gore, and the techniques he asks you to use in order to reduce your carbon emissions.

Good answer Jax !

A+

Jefferson · 02-27-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxian

It is true that the vast majority of electricity production causes carbon emissions. However, Al Gore has signed up for 100% green power through an Organization called "Green Power Switch."

This means that Al Gore's electricity comes from three sources:

Solar Power, which does not produce carbon emissions.

Windmill Power, which does not produce carbon emissions.

Landfill Gas Power, which reduces carbon emissions by changing harmful landfill gases into power.

So while most people's electricity produces carbon emissions: Al Gore's power does not. However, by signing up for 100% green power, he pays more money for his electricity.

Natural gas does indeed produce pollution. In order to compensate for his natural gas usage (and all of his other carbon emissions, such as vehicle usage), Al Gore purchases "carbon offsets". When you purchase carbon offsets, the money goes toward initiatives which try to reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere. These initiatives include reforestation, and replacing other people's power with green power.

The idea here is that even though Gore did create some carbon emissions, these "carbon offsets" reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere by an amount equal to the carbon he produced.

Gore realizes it is unrealistic to ask people to stop using natural gas and electricity, but he thinks that if people sign up for green power and carbon offsets, it will go a long way toward reducing carbon in our atmosphere.

I believe you have misrepresented Al Gore by stating his energy usage, without also mentioning the methods he uses to prevent his energy usage from harming the environment. By providing the missing information, I hope to help you better understand Al Gore, and the techniques he asks you to use in order to reduce your carbon emissions.

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.

And rather than "buying carbon offsets", why not just produce less carbon? WHY NOT ECONOMIZE? And what, specifically, do these "carbon offsets" do, besides promote the religion of Global Warming? They don't DO anything! Just because you're a millionaire who can spend money on carbon offsets does NOT mean you can just pollute like there's no tomorrow!

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.

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?

Jaxian · 02-27-2007, 12:06 PM

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.