I'm not anit-green at all. Mr. Gore is as long as he thinks he needs a house of that size. That in itself would be fine if he didn't go around telling everyone how wasteful THEY are without first looking to himself.
How much more simple could it be?
His annual usage is in the article. 221 000 kWhs last year.
Yes his big house justifies the consumption but what justifies his big wasteful house?
PAX
He didn't actually say anything in that video except that the will to act is a renewable resource. They also said about how he has been trying to "bring the issue to light for 30 years"
30 years is a long time to sell off that monster house and purchase something more resonable.
If it really mattered to him, he would scale down, that's all there is to it.
PAX
Why scale down if you have the money to support it?
I point back to the notion that you don't have to live in a tin shack in Borneo to be environmentally friendly. It can be done, he has the money, and he's working to minimize his environmental impact. Using less power and using carbon neutral power generation sources.
Everyone can do their part, but you don't have to hack and slash.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Awesome, a worthwhile topic!
I think everyone has a solid argument here for their take on this, both the topic of global warming and Gore himself as a spokesperson/role model for progress in saving the environment.
As for comparing the information in "An Inconvenient Truth" to that of terrorism, thats a stretch:
Hahahaha wrote:On top of that, actually using fear tactics to drive it home and incite change (that's called terrorism).
Yes, I can see it as "scare tactics", but it is scary. And its true in many ways. So, why not be passionate about progression to something better for everyone? But to lump this in the same category as terrorism? Terrorists try to strike fear into people for the sake of aggression, extreme and biased (mostly religious) reasons. The information and truth about what is going on with the environment affects everyone, no matter if youre black, white, male, female, terrorist, Christian, etc. AND his goal is to educate people.
I think the big thing to remember in this argument is that we are all human. For all the people who are passionate about this, no one is going to approach this perfectly and no one is going to be able to make an impact on this without a great deal of money behind them. I do agree with the notion that he should "practice what he preaches". He should scale down and live more moderately. Live by example, etc. Hell, Leonardo DiCaprio drives a Prius, why shouldnt Gore? However, I am not going to discount his efforts because of his house. First off, it is a subject of progress. He has the ability to invest into newer sources of energy that are renewable as well. He cant just run his whole life on green power right now because it isnt even possible. If he or anyone else attempted to live on JUST green power right now, it would be too expensive and also be like going back to the dark ages, because it isnt fully developed yet. That isnt practical. However, he and many others can play a role, which he is doing and for that I commend him.
At the end of the dissecting of Al Gore's personal life, the fact remains that what he is preaching IS in fact true. And it is scary. Much more scary than any terrorist. Because this truth will inevitably kill everyone and everything. That being said, I'd rather be on the side that is trying to make a difference. But we have all become very comfortable with our conveniences. And to make a difference will require a universal change as well as global government mandate to enforce change. And as long as we have people in power that would rather fight a war that is heavily focused on the very substance that has the largest negative impact on our environment, were sorta screwed. Its sad, cause it is gonna take something big for it to REALLY change. The powers of the world are going to have to give a finger to money, lobbyists, big corporations and just say it: "Were killing the earth. We need to change."
And sadly as a focus, Americans are driven by two things daily: gluttony and greed. We consume too much, we eat too much, we spend too much and above all we DONT care. I'd rather see discussions like this in our media and on boards such as this to see what people think and are doing. I could care less about Britney's latest melt-down or where Anna Nicole will be buried. I mean honestly, ITS NOT IMPORTANT. Its hard to deny the fact that we will probably get a rude awakening in some way.
My dad is an environmental engineer and has been practicing/preaching this stuff to me for literally years. As a kid, it was difficult for me to grasp the importance of it. So much of our generation (18-25) is focused on one thing: themselves. Sure, I was and of course still am to an extent. As an example though, my dad was actually able to get his power bill in Southern California down to less than $10.00 a month during the summer when temperatures were over 100+ degree during the day. He lives in a 2500 sq. ft. home, lol. He has done it numerous times. He is the best advocate for energy saving that I have ever met. But what can we do to impact in our daily lives that is for the betterment of everyone around us? Tons: buy energy efficient products, hybrid cars/electric cars (Toyota, Honda, Tesla Motors, Phoenix Motors), install a central fan instead of AC, carpool, drive less, dont speed (no kidding, it actually helps), plant a freaking tree, lol. Tons.
I guess my point in writing all of this is to say that no one is perfect, no one. The attacks on Gore's personal life, albeit true to some extent, dont change that he is at least making and effort and also dont make you any better than him. To simply have high-profile people with financial backing making this issue extremely visible is a great thing in my mind. Hopefully it helps and we all do something, even if only a little.
-Teske
Reading that, it says Gore has only been buying the green power blocks for the last 3 months, and each month still consumes 3,000kwh a month from traditional fuels, that means in the last 3 months he has been buying green power, he is also using as much traditional power as the average family does in 1 year. Add to that his carbon offset is an investment(he makes money off it) instead of donations or a non profit organization.
I guess following Gore's example I am a far better spokesperson for the global warming movement than he is since I actually conserve power, drive a small car for better gas millage, and have invested in NW Natural Gas(then Scottish Power) far longer than he's been buying green or investing in solar power! And here I don't even believe we are causing global warming!
Eric: Where are you getting 3 months?
His electric bills have been showing Green Switch power block purchases for 2 years. Please, Quote the portion of the article that says this, because I've read it and no-where does it state 3 months.
What's wrong with buying into green tech? Hell making money off it? Would you rather buy into unethical oil companies?
BTW, you do realize that Natural Gas can be made from decompositional methane right? (methane isn't the smelly stuff, it's an iron derrivative iirc) He drives a hybrid SUV as well, and it puts out less emissions than your Cavy.
The point that you've been continually missing is that doing something is better than doing nothing, and he's ramping down the carbon bias of his lifestyle. You're still burning fuel day in and day out, so turning off the lights and letting off on the gas is great, but you can do more, and you don't necessarily have to expend less energy.
BTW part 2, if you don't believe in Rapid Climate Change, well, I suppose that you're going in the face of established science... even double blind (ie funding blinded) research bares out the evidence. If you don't think that it's happening, you're probably also not noticing that we're having more hurricane, extreme temperature swings, and ocean temperature rises... all of which has founded science behind it. The earth is flat anyhow.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
"Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills."
That is in the link Jack provided(in the link labeled much larger electric bill than the average American.) No where in any links in that article or anywhere I have found say he has been buying for 2 years
Also what SUV is he driving? All I can find is it's a Lexus?
I never said I don't believe in global warming, I said I do not believe we are causing it. Also every green energy also has it's pollutants, and Gore's usage is causing a larger impact than most.
Lexus only makes one Hybrid SUV.
And there's nothing noted about previous months in the article. However, "An Inconvenient Truth" filmed in mid-late 2005, and the book was written (by Gore) in 2004-5. It would make sense that he was assiduously following the doctrine he espoused. As well, the power company he bought from has had green-block alternatives since 2000.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
See GAM, AGuSTiN I'm not just out to get all liberals, just the ones that lie
. Eric, good catch I missed that! But I wasn't defending his power druck lifestyle I was merly trying to point out that it would appear he uses green power.
But your right Eric that still doesn't change the fact that he uses more power then 20 of us do. BTW thats only for one of his houses too.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
I've been thinking about this.
I just have to agree that if you're serious about being frugal, you can't live in a mansion. The power required to just make the amount of solar cells is enormous.
Using math that it takes solar cells 8 years to recoupe their cost, and he uses 20x's the energy we do (numbers I haven't verified, I admit), that means he's used 160 years worth of energy JUST getting the panels made. He'd have a hard time making that up. He'd have to buy an awful lot of forest in the end.
But he could of always bought that forest ANYWAY and lived in a smaller house. Most hardcore enviromentalists would never live in a mansion. I'm only a moderately concerned enviromentalist and I'd never live in one!
But the bottom line is no matter how he lives, that doesn't make anything he's said any less true.
---
Agustin: It's not about frugality... it's about offsetting your carbon footprint.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
And how much offsetting do you have to do to offset every single piece of furniture, insulation, dish, toilet, shower head, carpet, wood floor, painted wall in a mansion? How do you calculate that?
Why not just offset others carbon footprints because yours is so small?
Here is how I'm looking at it, and maybe it's a bad analogy....
1) I beat a guy up at the bar for no good reason. So I feel bad, so I feed some homeless.
Or
2) I could feed some homeless.
Which is better if you're preaching about being a good person? A good person isn't someone who simply offsets their bad deeds, but builds a stock of goodwill by being mostly good.
NOW, Gore obviously works hard at doing more than just offsetting what he's using. No doubt. But I'd still be pissed at my pastor if he only "offset" at home even if he did convince others to be better people on Sunday.
i.e. Merle Haggard.
---
AGuSTiN! Oh my GOD you got it! T H A N K Y O U !!!!! Once it was shown that he does in fact use green power it became less bad but he still uses more then all of us discussing it here.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jack, Agustin: that's fine, but, consumption of electrical power by individuals hasn't gone down in 20 years. Again, the point of what Gore is saying is to mitigate your carbon footprint, not decrease your power consumption. It goes hand in hand, I realize, but realistically, telling people to conserve isn't working... turn off all your appliances, and you're still drawing power (it's called parasitic load if I remember right), more appliances mean more power. Unless you want to unplug everything, you're consuming electricity even when you're not doing anything.
The idea is to use methods of power generation that aren't going to contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. CO2 is linked with rapid climate change (global warming is tenuous to prove conclusively, because weather patterns are altering greatly year over year). It would make sense that if we add less CO2 to the atmosphere, we'll see less rapid climate change, right?
It's not meant to be the solution, because the full extent of the problem isn't known yet. Global warming and rapid climate change is a fact, but the root causes are not known specifically. Until we can conclusively prove what does and does not cause the problem, it makes sense to follow the available data and make what impact we can on the problem. Doing nothing is no answer.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^He is correct on these comments.
Quote:
Again, the point of what Gore is saying is to mitigate your carbon footprint, not decrease your power consumption.
&
Quote:
realistically, telling people to conserve isn't working...
^Especially when a country's mentality or culture is: "bigger is better" or "only upgrade" or "don't tell me me how I consume my resource." Conserving energy here is not going to happen, until you get those neanderthals in the pocketbook.
To the people that dislike Gore and go off on a tangent on his topic or skew his words, you should click on the link that I put up there^ and see what he preaches. If you still are hard-headed to click: it is renewable resource.
And who cares if he consumes more, he is using renewable energy and tries to use technology to stay green (just like he recommends everyone to do). Now how many people in his income status is doing that? If fact, how many of you criticizers err... "people that consumes less" is doing that effort?
(Insert cricket sounds)
Give the man a break.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
I find it odd that Al Gore wants you to vote for him for president but he drives an SUV that was built in Japan. Since when does the Japanese vote in American elections? You would think that the least a potential candidate for president of the United States is drive a car that was built by his future constituents.
Also, on the topic of his house, why do Al and Tipper need a 10,000 sq. ft. house (a number I've read in a few places)? Wouldn't having an office in a building where the utilities are shared by many offices and probably hundreds of people be more efficient then having his office in his house? There's only two of them, they could easily get by with around 1,000-1,500 sq. ft, just like the rest of us.
zero wrote:I find it odd that Al Gore wants you to vote for him for president but he drives an SUV that was built in Japan. Since when does the Japanese vote in American elections?
So you only buy American made stuff?
---
zero wrote:I find it odd that Al Gore wants you to vote for him for president but he drives an SUV that was built in Japan. Since when does the Japanese vote in American elections? You would think that the least a potential candidate for president of the United States is drive a car that was built by his future constituents.
Al Gore isn't running for President. That was 6 years, and 2 cars ago. The Lexus RX300H (IIRC) was the first Hybrid SUV in North America, of the others available, none have power trains made in the USA. (If I'm wrong, someone please correct me).
Quote:
Also, on the topic of his house, why do Al and Tipper need a 10,000 sq. ft. house (a number I've read in a few places)? Wouldn't having an office in a building where the utilities are shared by many offices and probably hundreds of people be more efficient then having his office in his house?
Wouldn't you suspect that he had the house for a while longer than he was in Politics? He is from old money, so why would he not keep the family farmstead?
If he uses it as an office, that's business sense... you can deduct portions of that off your tax bill. He isn't stupid.
Quote:
There's only two of them, they could easily get by with around 1,000-1,500 sq. ft, just like the rest of us.
And your point is?
If the guy has the place, why not live and work there if he wants? He's using green power and heat, he's offsetting his carbon footprint (which is what he was talking about in the movie) to almost ZERO, who cares if he owns a large place? It's his right... unless you're a Lenninist ideologue, personal property is still
PERSONAL.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
i wont get into the politics aspect of this or try to argue how much "green" versus how much of the "bad" energy he uses. but one thing is for certain: he has the money and resources to live completely off the grid if he wanted. solar power (such as his solar panels), geothermal power, wind power, and hydro power are all very viable options for him.
i am from WV and i know people who can afford to and who choose to do this, so dont tell me that a multi-millionaire cant. maybe he would need to relocate to be able to take advantage of wind or hydro power....but he lives in TN and there are plenty of mountains and river valleys close by that would work perfectly for something like this.
so until he does something like this, he really cant preach for regular people to change their ways.
