I don't buy this "telling people to conserve doesn't work" crap. That's just patently untue. Not everyone cares, but lots do.
When California had water problems in the late 80's/early 90's, damn near everybody put in half-gallon milk jugs into their toilet tanks to save water. We all buy water-effecient grass (some cities even require it by law). There are all kinds of things we do.
I won't go into all the things I do to save energy, because it's anecdotal. ... But I do it, and like I've said, I'm no super enviromentalist.
Conservation is part of the message.
Buying a 20,000 sq ft house and justifying it with solar panels isn't enough for me. Further, he's just getting them. So he's probably had houses that big for at least 20 years. So if he uses 20x's the energy for 20 years, that's 400 years worth of energy BEFORE he even bought the panels.
Further, was he a hypocrite 10 years ago when he was preaching "save the enviroment" and sucking 20x's the energy off the grid, didn't have panels, and wasn't buy carbon offets? How about then?
---
He didn't go and buy the house... it was family estate. He's from old tobacco money don't forget.
Who gives a damn about 20 years ago? Seriously, did you ever screw up or do something bad
ever in your life? The point isn't what was done in the past, it's what you are doing now and what you plan to do in the future.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^
I totally agree. Going forward matters most. But he was preaching about enviromentalism for how long now? Hasn't it been mentioned it's his life work? And solar panels aren't exactly new technology, either.
---
I guess all I'm saying is I wish I could sit down with the man and ask him some "WTF" type questions about things. We're not really going to resolve my issues with the issue here.
BTW I've never made a mistake in my whole life. If you don't believe me, just ask me.
---
You started talking to me.
That's the first mistake.
RawR!
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
AGuSTiN wrote: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?
Yes I do, when ever I can. Although, sadly, it's getting harder to find things that are American-made.
Quote:
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:
If he is running for president, then you have sort of inside scoop that the rest of the world does not know.
I think there's a very good chance he'll get into the race by next fall. He has the money and name recognition to wait until then and still be able to raise the cash that he'll need.
If he is interested, he's playing it close to the vest.
Either way, it's better to not mess around with the unknown.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I don't think he will. It will muddy his message. People already treat global warming as if it's a political issue.
Liberals: We're causing global warming
Conservatives: Earth goes through cycles.
Generally, that's how it goes.
---
It's about money and sustainability....
Oil and coal are ultimately unsustainable because there is a finite amount of hydrocarbons that can be consumed... renewable energy solutions require a bit more cash and energy upfront, but after that's paid out, they're harvesting basically free power... only thing you need to do after is maintain the grid.
If you also think about it, we're working on 75-50 year old technology in most cases, so it's not as efficient as it could possibly be.
There's no simple cut and dry answer, but doing something to conserve... it's worth it.
If it helps: Think of it like a sober alcoholic telling his kids to stay off the piss.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM, both links you provided say Gore has only been buying green for 3 months now, you yourself said his power company has offered it for years, yet he goes green for 3 months? Also though at one point Colmes says Gore uses 100% green energy in the second link, simple math says he is not buying enough green power blocks to equal all of his energy use, and he still uses more than the average household in carbon energy.
I've read that President Bush's house in Texas is a green house. It has a lot of renewable energy sources built into it. I think even the pick-up he drives around runs on hydrogen.
Eric Esler wrote:GAM, both links you provided say Gore has only been buying green for 3 months now, you yourself said his power company has offered it for years, yet he goes green for 3 months? Also though at one point Colmes says Gore uses 100% green energy in the second link, simple math says he is not buying enough green power blocks to equal all of his energy use, and he still uses more than the average household in carbon energy.
Actually, only one says that, and if you actually took the time to read you'd have seen a link to:
http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/ Which is 100% green power.
You might have also seen:
Quote:
Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year. The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.
But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.
Which lends weight to the fact that TCPR never bothered to look up the information.
There's nothing noted about previous month's green power purchased or when the Green Switch was signed up for... How's about not assuming that he was on straight power without cause. I had said it would follow logically that he bought green power before he started the carbon-neutral kick, but I never stated either way what he did or did not do.
Zero: I'd like to see an article if that's for real... A guy that comes from a long line of Oil Money, and is so deep in the pockets of Saudi-Doodey... I can't see someone like that going green... I mean, honestly, the presidential limousine runs on Gas, and weighs about 5 tons... There are dump trucks in that strata.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM, actually both links if you read them through say 3 months, if he had been paying longer they would have said how long(and they did, 3 months). The blocks of energy he buys are 100% green power,but he consumed more than the average household above that amount in carbon energy. Logically, if he used green power longer than that they would have mentioned it when defending his enormous power usage.
As for the company spokeswoman, it is very possible she simply did not know, it is also possible they simply didn't record they sent the records out. I guess the only way to know is if the group posted them or posts them in the future.
They're from the same article, Eric. They both point back to the same article from the same author and the same paper. Just because 2 people reference the same source doesn't mean that the source was making a broader or narrower claim... It's about scope.
Second: You don't have any information regarding whether or not it was green power or not, and it's already been stated that he is signed up for Green Switch (or 100% renewable green power) power. You can purchase more power, I'm not familiar with the scheme, but here, you can buy power that is renewable if you like, or you can buy blocks of it to offset future consumption, typically in peak hours. It's not explained, and not inferred, so don't overstep what was said without evidence to support.
Third: you think that a company media contact wouldn't be able to get the information with anything more than just a phone call? You're not only talking about a MAJOR CUSTOMER, you're talking about a major media personality and political figure. It would stand to reason that you'd get your ducks in a line before you open your mouth. I'd also say that the TCPR (which is neither a center for policy research, nor a "think-tank") needs to get it's information straight first, read the unbolded portion that I quoted.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Saw the Inconvienient Truth last night on Showtime. I like how Al Gore slaps down that "Earth runs in cycles" excuse. I was glad he did.
---
Sorry I didn't realize your 2 links were the same, in fact I re-read them both and they seem to be different articles all together, one even pulls for several different sources. Several sources, including Gore's spokesman/woman(don't remember) all say 3 months, you have nothing to say any longer but want to ignore the given facts for your personal hopefull veiw with no reason to it.
Second, every article say's Gore buy's blocks of energy, tells you exactly how many and for how long, you choosing to ignore them all doesn't change the facts, we know how much energy he used and how much green power he bought, and even for how much. I also went the the power company's website and it gives you cost and the how to's there.
Third, it has been stated in just about every article that Gore's bills are public record(even if it does seen strange), anyone for any reason can ask for public records, that is why they call it a public record btw.
Okay.. Look mine up.
If you can pull it up, I'll send you a nice shiny quarter
Now.. The first article I posted was about the fall out of the TCPR's fallacious report. The second was about TCPR being a non-credible "think-tank" (or a bunch of GOP funded, pseudo-Carl Roves). I was stating that the allegations against Gore are coming from a questionable (at best) source, and that they haven't even got their numbers straight, or even from the source:
Quote:
The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year. The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359.
So, let me ask this: you're going to take the word of a group that researches under false-pretences, ignores facts that detract from or refute the argument, and publish before they have any true information from source? BRILLIANT!
Pardon the sarcasm.. I'm tuning up for St. Paddy's
Gore's spokesperson didn't comment on it beyond the 3 months, take what was said at what was said. You inferred that he was buying regular coal burning power, but you say that without basis. I had said that since there was a green switch program in 2000 (about 2 years before he wrote the book: An Inconvenient Truth) it might stand to reason that he'd have gone to that option before writing a movie about the subject, I didn't post imperical evidence because I don't have it (beyond the fact that he has signed up for it, no info on the date), and neither do you, nor does TCPR.
Simple point of fact is that no-one's bills are public record. It's a privately held property, his electrical bills are his business. TCPR said they got the "bills" from Tennessee Electrical Service, but the numbers are off by about 15% from the truth.
Here's a simple test to see if your utility bills are public record: Call your Utility company and ask them for your records, give your address, but say you're conducting research, give no account number... When you get shut down, will you buy the hype? Here's a harder test: go to your city's office of public records and ask for the utility bills of your neighbours, again, when you get through the song and dance, let me know when you get shut down. Hell, call up TES and ask them for the Gore's electrical bill. If it's public record, shouldn't be a problem.
BTW: The AP got their information from TES, and would have had to get a release from the Gore's.
Finally: all the articles you're reading are getting their info from the Tennesean article, point of fact: they don't have to do their own research, they point back to the original article. It's called referencing.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Actually 3 months is what every article inculding everything out by the AP says, plus what Gores rep says, you seem to want to really really believe something with no proof what so ever, even if it goes against every single thing you read! WOW, that is all that can be said.
Also, your article shows a corrupt government, not a "non-credible "think-tank" (or a bunch of GOP funded, pseudo-Carl Roves)", in fact the article clearly shows the government officials breaking the law, and says nothing at all about the TCPR being non credible, beyond the corrupt officials wanting to hide things that are public records. Here in Oregon several companies have been fighting the government trying to hide public records, including us here, and Nike also. Anyone can request a public record for any reason at any time, the governement is required by law to provide it, but being the law themselves, it takes a hell of alot of cash to get through them when they break it.
You also seem to want to assume Gore's records are not public, when every media source covering this story says they are, you also assume the AP recieved permision, but they say nothing about this, and there is no mention anywhere they are not a public record, you are just making a wild assumpstion against facts present.
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1
It appears you are smarter than Gore's spokesperson, Gore and every media outlet that has ever covered this story, I think you are really underpaid at your current job and should seek higher!
You seem to want to ignore facts given, and create your own to make your argument seem stronger, but it's not working very well this time. You even attempt to show TCPR as being non legit, when all the article says is politicians trying to hide the truth from the public do not think they are legit, because they are trying to expose their stupidity! That article actually shows they are a legit group, and politicians fear them.
The TCPR is not a legitimate research group. A Legitimate research group will get information prima fascia, and then verify independantly.
If they were legitimate, they'd actually have gotten their numbers correct the first time, and they would make mention of points that are important even if they detract from the argument they're making... This is called due diligence, something I'd ask you to consider before you couch an insult so poorly
Has it not also occurred to you that they are all cribbing from the same AP report filed by the Tennessean? Are you missing the fact that they're all using the same EXACT language?
Please tell me you caught this.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Your right, the Gore's are basing their knowledge of their electric bills on the AP! Is that all you have? Really?
I would think the Gore's aren't taking this seriously because TCPR is not a credible organisation.
By the way, how's it going finding the Gore's bills? They're public domain aren't they? Get that information from TES, and we'll talk. Otherwise, it's a spokes person not bothering with a bunch of nay-sayers...
Get the dejure information from TES before you respond back.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I would think the Gore's aren't taking this seriously because TCPR is not a credible organisation.
By the way, how's it going finding the Gore's bills? They're public domain aren't they? Get that information from TES, and we'll talk. Otherwise, it's a spokes person not bothering with a bunch of nay-sayers...
Get the dejure information from TES before you respond back.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
So why is the TCPR not a legit organization? You seem to have left out any and all facts to your statement? Please do try to find some real facts, and not a politician who was dodging tough questions about their actions said so. BTW, the TCPR was right weren't they, you seem to have left that out. You keep wanting to believe they are not credible with absolutly no proof to support you, and you leave links showing they are credible and I would even say feared by politician.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
I can see why you didn't want to give any facts for your side of this argument, it's alot easier to just say things with no merit what so ever, as that is all that can be said to defend Gore. He was getting royalties up until 2003 on a zinc mine on his property, from a company contaminating a local river. It would aslo appear several other groups and media can obtain his records and call them "public", go figure!
