157 replies to this topic

[biknut]

Al Gore. What a nincompoop hypocrite. This is so very typical of a rich Democrat. They don't want you to have a gun, but they have a gun. They don't want you to have a big car, but they have a big car. They want you to pay high taxes, but they want to get out of paying them. They want you to cut energy consumption, but they don't want to cut them.

Gore Responds to Charges His House Uses Too Much Electricity

Last Edited: Tuesday, 27 Feb 2007, 10:00 AM EST
Created: Tuesday, 27 Feb 2007, 9:00 AM EST
02/27/2007 --
Al Gore responded to charges that his house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, with the new Oscar winner saying he has taken many steps to reduce the carbon footprint in his home.

The former vice president and former presidential candidate told Thinkprogress.org that he has signed up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installed solar panels and uses compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy-saving technology. He said he also buys carbon offsets — a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies that reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.

"What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible," said Thinkprogress.org. "Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gores do, to bring their footprint down to zero."

A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced. It is measured in units of carbon dioxide.

Gore was responding to a report issued by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, which, citing figures from the Nashville Electric Service, said that since last August, Gore burned through 22,619 kilowatt-hours at his house — more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. His average monthly electric bill topped $1,359, the report said.

Click here to read the research center's press release on the report.

The report also cited the release of his global-warming documentary for which he won an Oscar over the weekend, "An Inconvenient Truth." In this film — which has won fountains of praise from many circles, including many in Hollywood — Gore calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

Since the release of "An Inconvenient Truth," the report said,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. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year, the research center said.

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


http://www.myfoxdc.c...Y&pageId=3.11.1

[niner]

Biknut, who do you think benefits from this article? Why do you think it was written? Do you know what goes on at Gore's house? What are the aims of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research?

[bgwowk]

You don't need to be the Tennessee Center for Policy Research or Al Gore's electric company to know that Al Gore, as a wealthy frequent traveller, uses more more energy than the average person on planet Earth. Heck, the average person reading this message uses more energy than the average person on planet Earth.

What this story implicitly rails against is the ridiculous personalization of the global warming issue by highlighting the hypocrisy of elites that call for personal sacrifice and personal blame for global warming. The fact is that Al Gore's personal use of energy, and your personal use of energy, is irrelevant to the issue. Global warming is a national and international energy policy issue, not an issue of personal environmental sin, sacraments, and absolution by carbon offset credits. The problem cannot and will not be dealt with until nations take a hard look at energy production, not token reductions in personal useage.

[Mind]

No matter who issued the report (this type issue is always political), it is obviously true that Gore is a hypocrite. He shouldn't go around telling everyone they are terrible consumers of energy and are destroying the planet while his house uses more electricity in 2 weeks than the average American home uses in a whole year! Holy crap. That is just wrong.

[eternaltraveler]

The problem cannot and will not be dealt with until nations take a hard look at energy production, not token reductions in personal useage.

the problem will be dealt with once energry from non-carbon sources is cheaper. Period. The only reasonable long term solution is nuclear power. But thats ok, it's a great solution.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Haha. Yeah, agree about nuclear power. Honestly, I could burn a football field of oil, it would be utter peanuts in comparison to the emissions that would be saved by building a single nuclear power plant.

Gore burning through $1K+ of electricity a month reminds me of how John Edwards talks about the rich-poor gap and has the largest home in his entire goddam county.

Not that I'm against all Democrats. As a moderate, I think that people should avoid the coalitional psychology of right-vs-left and look at each issue using dispassionate cost-benefit analysis, not the party line.

[niner]

Would it be better if Edwards' position was "screw the poor, more tax cuts for the wealthy"? Would it be better if Gore was a global warming denialist? Ok, Gore is hypocritical. What the hell is he doing on his estate, running a gaseous diffusion plant? An aluminum smelter? We really don't know what goes on there, but I suspect it's more than just two people sleeping nights. Anyway, the source is a right wing organization and Fox News, the American Pravda. It will primarily benefit Exxon Mobil and the coal industry, who may have funded the production of this report.

[biknut]

For those that don't like Fox, here's ABC News

http://abclocal.go.c...orld&id=5072659

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill

Johnson. "I appreciate the solar panels," he said, "but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."

[Live Forever]

As a Libertarian, I love Gore's social environmental policies, and hate Gore's environmental economic (fiscal) policies.

That being said, I do think the amount of energy Gore uses on a yearly basis is more than made up for in the awareness that he spreads and the movement of society to be more eco-friendly that he has pushed. (in other words, the good he has done has far outweighed the harm)

[bgwowk]

That being said, I do think the amount of energy Gore uses on a yearly basis is more than made up for in the awareness that he spreads and the movement of society to be more eco-friendly that he has pushed. (in other words, the good he has done has far outweighed the harm)

Where do I go to be judged whether or not I'm a good enough person to be entitled to the CO2 I produce?

This personalization of global environmental issues is ridiculous.

[niner]

For those that don't like Fox, here's ABC News

That's the ABC affiliate in Houston TX, (oil country) not the national ABC News.

The article did have this, though.

The press release from Johnson's group, an obscure conservative think tank founded by Johnson in 2004 when he was 24, was given splashy attention on the highly-trafficked Drudge Report Monday evening, and former Gore aides saw it as part of a piece, along with an Fox News Channel investigation from earlier this month of Gore's use of private planes in 2000. Last year, a seemingly amateurish Youtube video mocking the "An Inconvenient Truth" turned out to have been produced by slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.

[mitkat]

That being said, I do think the amount of energy Gore uses on a yearly basis is more than made up for in the awareness that he spreads and the movement of society to be more eco-friendly that he has pushed. (in other words, the good he has done has far outweighed the harm)

Where do I go to be judged whether or not I'm a good enough person to be entitled to the CO2 I produce?

This personalization of global environmental issues is ridiculous.

Here here. I do like Gore, and support what he stands for, be he's not going to make me look like a jackass for supporting him 110% (which I don't). I know there are some global warming naysayers here, but I'm sure we can all agree that power conservation through domestic and general carbon use reduction is a good thing regardless of the reasoning behind it. I'm willing to have him push the idea around rather than not.



Making me look like a jackass is my job anyways.

[eternaltraveler]

but I'm sure we can all agree that power conservation through domestic and general carbon use reduction is a good thing regardless of the reasoning behind it

I disagree. Global warming is real. It is also something that humanity can easily deal with. As I said before. Humans thrive in every enviroment on earth. We'll be fine. I drive a somewhat fuel efficient car because it's cheaper (actually I don't drive at all these days, but thats not the point).

the problem with fossil fuels (as well as any chemical energy source) is that they have an extraordainarily low energy density compared to nuclear energy sources which approach extraction of 2% of the absolute energy density present in matter. Fossil fuels are also not reliable. A few nations control most of the world's fossil fuels. And fossil fuels will run out sooner or later.

Once we leave the fossil fuel era and move fully into the nuclear era, power is something we're never going to have to worry about again. Then there will be no CO2 generation. Of course eventually we'll probably move to an energy consumption level where we have to worry about heat pollution.

[niner]

I disagree. Global warming is real. It is also something that humanity can easily deal with. As I said before. Humans thrive in every enviroment on earth. We'll be fine.

Speaking as someone who might be around for a long time, and also as someone who has kids, I think it gets hot enough in the summertime already, and there are already enough bothersome insects where I live. The only way to know for sure what will happen if we keep burning a thousand barrels of oil a second (actual world oil consumption) is to run the experiment. The reason I don't want to run that experiment is because of the low probability worst case scenario: A runaway warming that makes Earth uninhabitable. Also, we are slowly destroying our country by running a persistent trade deficit, much of which is due to all the oil we buy. Coal is filthy, putting tons of lethal particulates, heavy metals, radionuclides, and other crap into our atmosphere. So I think there are lots of good reasons to go low-carbon.

[eternaltraveler]

So I think there are lots of good reasons to go low-carbon.

I agree with this statement. Just not a few of your reasons. Nuclear energy is the solution for both of us.

[mitkat]

I disagree.  Global warming is real.  It is also something that humanity can easily deal with.  As I said before.  Humans thrive in every enviroment on earth.  We'll be fine.  I drive a somewhat fuel efficient car because it's cheaper (actually I don't drive at all these days, but thats not the point). 

the problem with fossil fuels (as well as any chemical energy source) is that they have an extraordainarily low energy density compared to nuclear energy sources which approach extraction of 2% of the absolute energy density present in matter.  Fossil fuels are also not reliable.  A few nations control most of the world's fossil fuels.  And fossil fuels will run out sooner or later.

Once we leave the fossil fuel era and move fully into the nuclear era, power is something we're never going to have to worry about again.  Then there will be no CO2 generation.  Of course eventually we'll probably move to an energy consumption level where we have to worry about heat pollution.

You may of misunderstood me. I think global warming is very, very real and I agree it is something we can deal with head on. I was just saying for the naysayers that there are many reasons to reduce carbon use besides global warming (if it is viewed as fiction), one of the most obvious being economy. I think nuclear power holds much promise.

[eternaltraveler]

I disagree.  Global warming is real.  It is also something that humanity can easily deal with.  As I said before.  Humans thrive in every enviroment on earth.  We'll be fine.  I drive a somewhat fuel efficient car because it's cheaper (actually I don't drive at all these days, but thats not the point). 

the problem with fossil fuels (as well as any chemical energy source) is that they have an extraordainarily low energy density compared to nuclear energy sources which approach extraction of 2% of the absolute energy density present in matter.  Fossil fuels are also not reliable.  A few nations control most of the world's fossil fuels.  And fossil fuels will run out sooner or later.

Once we leave the fossil fuel era and move fully into the nuclear era, power is something we're never going to have to worry about again.  Then there will be no CO2 generation.  Of course eventually we'll probably move to an energy consumption level where we have to worry about heat pollution.

You may of misunderstood me. I think global warming is very, very real and I agree it is something we can deal with head on. I was just saying for the naysayers that there are many reasons to reduce carbon use besides global warming (if it is viewed as fiction), one of the most obvious being economy. I think nuclear power holds much promise.

Ah, no worries Mitkat.

I jump the gun a bit on this issue as I am often confronted with people who think we're going to make up the thousands of barrels of oil burned a second with wind power or some such.

[niner]

So I think there are lots of good reasons to go low-carbon.

I agree with this statement. Just not a few of your reasons. Nuclear energy is the solution for both of us.

I agree that nukes are a reasonable near term solution. Seems like a lot of pro nuclear people around here... I used to be against nukes, primarily on the basis on economics, but when it became clear that the alternative was going to be coal, that was the end of that. Global warming is yet another reason to like them, as far as I'm concerned. There are some really cool new technologies coming down the pike; nanostructured Li-ion batteries, ultracaps, solid oxide fuel cells, cheaper PVs... and some stuff you might not even believe. The next twenty years are going to be real interesting.

[bgwowk]

The reason I don't want to run that experiment is because of the low probability worst case scenario:  A runaway warming that makes Earth uninhabitable.

That scenario is not on the table. We know from the geological record that there are stable equilibrium states in which the earth can be much warmer than today with many times the present CO2 level. In fact most of the last billion years has been spent in such a state, with sea level hundreds of feet higher than today. It's the sudden transition that would be a bitch.

Of course the long-term future is grim because the sun is naturally brightening by 1% every hundred million years. In the long term we must control not only atmospheric CO2, but additionally (or perhaps instead) it will be necessary to control the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. If not, all life on Earth is doomed in one billion years, tops.

[lunarsolarpower]

Of course the long-term future is grim because the sun is naturally brightening by 1% every hundred million years.  In the long term we must control not only atmospheric CO2, but additionally (or perhaps instead) it will be necessary to control the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.  If not, all life on Earth is doomed in one billion years, tops.

Where is this from? It seems that if true, it should be given more promotion when speculating on the deep future along with the proposed ~5 billion remaining years of main sequence fusion for the sun.

[niner]

That scenario is not on the table. We know from the geological record that there are stable equilibrium states in which the earth can be much warmer than today with many times the present CO2 level. In fact most of the last billion years has been spent in such a state, with sea level hundreds of feet higher than today. It's the sudden transition that would be a bitch.

We don't really know that scenario is not on the table. We just know it has not happened yet. What if in the intervening period since the last warm period, there has been enough methane stored in clathrates and other metastable formations to tip us over the edge? I still don't want to run the experiment. I'm just being, y'know, conservative. Isn't it funny how people who call themselves "conservatives" want to gamble with the inhabitability of the biosphere?

[JonesGuy]

he has signed up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installed solar panels and uses compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy-saving technology. He said he also buys carbon offsets — a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies that reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.

The original article (which this one is replying to) is a deliberate hitjob. The original authors should have known about Gore's offset policy, because a similar hitjob was tried last year.

The fact is that Gore pays a premium for green energy and (as well) purchases carbon offsets to bring down his footprint. His excessive consumption is actually benefitting the green industry by being such an excellent customer. It doesn't matter how much he consumes, if it's GREEN, now does it?

The original article is a hitjob, and it's relying on ignorance to propagate. People are deliberately ignoring the bits about 'green offsets', even though they're key to the entire debate.

[biknut]

The original article (which this one is replying to) is a deliberate hitjob.  The original authors should have known about Gore's offset policy, because a similar hitjob was tried last year.

The fact is that Gore pays a premium for green energy and (as well) purchases carbon offsets to bring down his footprint.  His excessive consumption is actually benefitting the green industry by being such an excellent customer.  It doesn't matter how much he consumes, if it's GREEN, now does it?

The original article is a hitjob, and it's relying on ignorance to propagate.  People are deliberately ignoring the bits about 'green offsets', even though they're key to the entire debate.

It's true that this article is probably a hit job, however it's deserved. Al Gore never claims how green he is, only that he's trying. He also doesn't deny or dispute any of the figures. There's no way he's fully offsetting this much consumption. Gas lights burning in his yard 24/7 are just stupid. If he was offsetting even half of his consumption he's probably stupid enough to brag about. He's not bragging. His offset could be as little as 10% for all anyone knows, he's not saying.

[biknut]

How about this. We build coal fired power plants all over the country, and then have them buy energy offsets in the same proportions as Al Gore does. Problem solved. Let the coal burning begin, right? Why not? That's what Al Gore does.

[bgwowk]

Of course the long-term future is grim because the sun is naturally brightening by 1% every hundred million years.  In the long term we must control not only atmospheric CO2, but additionally (or perhaps instead) it will be necessary to control the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.  If not, all life on Earth is doomed in one billion years, tops.

Where is this from? It seems that if true, it should be given more promotion when speculating on the deep future along with the proposed ~5 billion remaining years of main sequence fusion for the sun.

Without technological intervention, life on Earth has only hundreds of millions of years left, not billions. Alarming, isn't it?

http://www.spaceref....pr.html?pid=908

http://www.jrmooneyh.../spprs7ref.html

[xanadu]

How does anyone know exactly what Gore's power and gas bills are? I don't think that is public information. Can I find out anyone's power bill, how about their phone bill, credit card bill and so on? Something is funny about that. Yes, it's a political hatchet job like what we've seen before. As far as I know, Gore is not telling anyone they must keep their energy usage below a certain level. He tells people to conserve. Maybe he could do a better job of conserving but that article was to torpedo the conservation movement and any present or future white house bid by Gore, not because the person was concerned about global warming, far from it.

Wind power is nothing to sneer at. Likewise with recycling, reducing and reusing. I recycle plastic bags, newspapers and foam cartons. I use a small fuel efficient car and don't drive any more than I need to. I use florescent bulbs instead of incandescent where practical and I still probably use more energy than the global average but that's averaging in a village in Zimbabwe where they live in stick huts and hunt yak for dinner. Also, there are biorenewables including biodiesel and biomass methane production. Making full use of these technologies can make a big difference which is what the writer of the article is trying to prevent.

[JonesGuy]

It's true that this article is probably a hit job, however it's deserved. Al Gore  never claims how green he is, only that he's trying. He also doesn't deny or dispute any of the figures. There's no way he's fully offsetting this much consumption. Gas lights burning in his yard 24/7 are just stupid. If he was offsetting even half of his consumption he's probably stupid enough to brag about. He's not bragging. His offset could be as little as 10% for all anyone knows, he's not saying.

He purchases 108 energy offsets a month, at $4 each. That means that he spends $432 a month offsetting his electrical consumption.

These offsets in fact purchases more green power than he spends. His carbon footprint is effectively zero.

[bgwowk]

Maybe he could do a better job of conserving but that article was to torpedo the conservation movement and any present or future white house bid by Gore, not because the person was concerned about global warming, far from it.

How about just torpedoing the ridiculous idea of assigning PERSONAL GUILT for world environmental problems? All this your-CO2-footprint-is-bigger-than-my-CO2-footprint talk is ridiculous. Cleaner power plants need to be built, not interminable arguments about who uses more energy on a personal level.

For a sensible environmentalist, an article that villifies Al Gore for personal energy consumption is a reductio ad absurdum proof that personal energy consumption is a bad metric by which to judge world progress against global warming.

Everybody who goes on about how the story is actually wrong about Gore's personal net CO2 production is actually proving the underlying premise of the story, which is that environmentalists inappropriately personalize the global warming issue. I can almost hear the chuckles of the story authors as they read people arguing about Gore's energy habits, knowing full well that such arguments cannot solve global warming regardless of one's position on the issue.

Edited by bgwowk, 28 February 2007 - 08:40 PM.

[xanadu]

How about just torpedoing the ridiculous idea of assigning PERSONAL GUILT for world environmental problems?  All this your-CO2-footprint-is-bigger-than-my-CO2-footprint talk is ridiculous.  Cleaner power plants need to be built, not interminable arguments about who uses more energy on a personal level.

Unfortunately, it IS ultimately on the personal level that conservation will be brought about. Gore is correct to emphasize this. We all want to say let the other guy conserve, what I use is no one's business. Cleaner power plants do need to be developed and built, that much is true. But that is only part of the problem, a small part. We know of no way to produce power without creating global warming and pollution. Even wind power creates noise pollution and the equipment takes energy to produce and so on. Hoping for some gee-whiz technology to come along and save us from making any personal sacrifices is head in the sand thinking. One person's conservation efforts are not going to save the planet all by themselves but if an appreciable fraction of the big energy users (us) do it, it has a big, big impact. Likewise, one person's vote means very little in an election but those votes are what determine the outcome. Vote for a green world!

[biknut]

It's true that this article is probably a hit job, however it's deserved. Al Gore  never claims how green he is, only that he's trying. He also doesn't deny or dispute any of the figures. There's no way he's fully offsetting this much consumption. Gas lights burning in his yard 24/7 are just stupid. If he was offsetting even half of his consumption he's probably stupid enough to brag about. He's not bragging. His offset could be as little as 10% for all anyone knows, he's not saying.

He purchases 108 energy offsets a month, at $4 each. That means that he spends $432 a month offsetting his electrical consumption.

These offsets in fact purchases more green power than he spends. His carbon footprint is effectively zero.

You must be talking about the wrong house. The article says his average monthly electric bill is $1359. Gore didn't deny it. That's just the electricity, don't forget about the $1080 per month gas bill.