The Drudge story on Gore is a from a right-wing organization. But it points out hypocrisy...

[originalpckelly]

However, if its information about Gore's electricity consumption is true, I don't care that it's from them.

It may not have included the information about offsets or his demand that the electricity is produced through clean technologies, but in principle the story is accurate (if the info about the consumption is correct) and raises some interesting questions:

1. Why not move to a smaller house?

2. Why not just donate money to projects, while at the same time reducing his own carbon footprint?

3. Why not use less electricity and let more people use clean sources of energy that Gore uses?

The hypocrisy here stinks to hog heaven.

[stevebreeze]

1. The truth is individual sacrifices by Al Gore or anyone else is chump change

in the global warming picture. We need to change incentives for things. Do you have any idea how much we subsidies gas consumption? Aside for all the tax breaks the extractive industries get, we spend our tax money to continue building roads. This cost is far above any tax collected. Why not instead vastly improve mass transit? high speed rail? light rail for commuting? better land use? The big money republicans don't even want you to think about that!

Aside from that the right has no factual basis to refute what Al has to say, so they say bad things about Al. There is the hypocrisy.

[originalpckelly]

4. No, there is hypocrisy here because Gore is preaching a low carbon lifestyle...

without making the sacrifices we'd all have to make to do so.

Few of us in this nation, where 70% make just enough to survive, can afford to pay for carbon offsets. If we want to reduce our footprint, it must be done through less consumption.

He's asking us to do something he is unwilling to do himself.

[cdnwannabe]

10. Are you suggesting he stay at home and not continue to be....

a messenger for this issue??? Because the air travel is probably his one big carbon footprint. He's making an effort and he is not an average citizen. I don't expect him to live in a studio apartment like I do.

[originalpckelly]

13. And why not? If he's going to ask the rest of us to make sacrifices...

why shouldn't he?

[kestrel91316]

23. I detect a distinct whiff of dislike for anyone who DARES

to suggest you make personal sacrifices.

It's really all about YOUR money, isn't it?

[originalpckelly]

36. I think it's reprehensible that a number of posters are incapable of debating someone...

who is asking a valid question. I don't drive and I walk if I can. I try and minimize my electricity usage. I cannot afford to participate in our clean energy program here in CO, but when I can I will participate. (If I can do it in an apartment, I may not be able to.)

[kestrel91316]

56. The implication would be that you question is valid.

:rofl:

Snarky? Yes. Meanspirited and hateful? Probably. Valid? No, given your own admitted hypocrisy.

The man would rather light a candle than curse the darkness, UNLIKE YOU.

I would think KKKarl's check would more than pay for offsets if you REALLY wanted to buy them, lol.

[kestrel91316]

The implication would be that you question is valid.

:rofl:

Snarky? Yes. Meanspirited and hateful? Probably. Valid? No, given your own admitted hypocrisy.

The man would rather light a candle than curse the darkness, UNLIKE YOU.

I would think KKKarl's check would more than pay for offsets if you REALLY wanted to buy them, lol.

[kestrel91316]

The implication would be that you question is valid.

:rofl:

Snarky? Yes. Meanspirited and hateful? Probably. Valid? No, given your own admitted hypocrisy.

The man would rather light a candle than curse the darkness, UNLIKE YOU.

I would think KKKarl's check would more than pay for offsets if you REALLY wanted to buy them, lol.

[kestrel91316]

57. The implication would be that you question is valid.

:rofl:

Snarky? Yes. Meanspirited and hateful? Probably. Valid? No, given your own admitted hypocrisy.

The man would rather light a candle than curse the darkness, UNLIKE YOU.

I would think KKKarl's check would more than pay for offsets if you REALLY wanted to buy them, lol.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

54. You know for a fact that he isn't?

Do tell, I'm all ears.

[kestrel91316]

21. You know Gore personally? You know for a fact every detail of his

energy usage?

Wow.

Go hate somebody else. At least Gore is doing something.

I sure hope you enjoy that paycheck the RW sent you.

[librechik]

31. Kelly, Al Gore pays for carbon offsets for his use of fuel and other hydrocarbons

he is setting an example for others, not being hypocritical. His RW critics should look into living the carbon-neitral lifestyle Gore sacrifices to do. Do they pay carbon offsets for their SUVs?

[originalpckelly]

41. Yes, but offsets are not really reducing a carbon footprint.

It's a bunch of BS. Why not just continue to contribute the money and still conserve energy?

[librechik]

55. It's not BS, it's a rational new system that has a lot of promise

We can't just throw up our hands and say global warming is inevitable and too hard to fight. We need smart people to come up with solutions, especially small scaled human solutions, and more importantly, for their ideas to spread and become more and more well known. Carbon offsets could wake the right folks up to their impact on the earth, and that would be a good thing.

[cdnwannabe]

6. Amen stevebreeze!

Mass transit is the future!

[don954]

2. well

if he moves to a smaller home, then someone else is just going to waste energy in the big house. Also, as a public figure, he has security 24/7, so he has to have a place for them to set up shop. I understand he has a grid-inter tie renewable power system using solar roof shingles, so that reduces the carbon cost to run the home to equal or even lesser levels than smaller homes.

Oh ya, BTW, this is completely a:



Also, from Think Progress:

Responding to Drudge’s latest attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

1) That his family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

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

These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about how much electricity Al Gore’s house uses — and even then they distort the truth.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

[NYCGirl]

3. Because of the things the Gore family does, their carbon footprint is ZERO.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

I'm sure you can't say the same.

[originalpckelly]

7. I also don't have enough money to buy carbon offsets...

but I bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours.

I use public transportation and I walk whenever possible. Can you say that?

[NYCGirl]

9. I live in Manhattan. I don't own a car. I'm within walking distance to my office.

Yep, I can say that.

[originalpckelly]

15. Good on ya, but why is he not willing to sacrifice like the both of us?

:shrug:

[NYCGirl]

18. I don't sacrifice anything. I live the way I have to live. If I had to travel, I'd

buy offsets. I can't install solar panels like the Gores did, so I use the green energy alternative offered by my local energy company.

[kestrel91316]

27. He has no doubt spent huge amounts of money to achieve

as small a carbon footprint as he surely has. That qualifies as a sacrifice, to me.

You'd have him in sackcloth and ashes, homeless on the street before you'd stop with the hate, I suspect.

[dysfunctional press]

35. his chosen lifestyle/profession doesn't allow it- hence the carbon offsets.

seems pretty simple and NON-hypocritical to me.

btw- how many children do you have?

[dysfunctional press]

37. are you "sacrificing" completely by choice, or out of economic necessity?

just wondering.

[kestrel91316]

25. Until you buy carbon offsets to negate every bit of your

energy use LIKE GORE HAS DONE, I respectfully suggest you STFU.

I don't want to hear how you "can't afford it". It's falling on deaf ears as a direct result of your hateful tone.

[Johonny]

5. This is pointless crap

The movie is about Al Gore and his struggle to bring global warming to a national issue. It's about the issue itself. That Al Gore tries at all to reduce his global foot print is interesting, but really not important. In this case it would appear that attacking the messenger is more important than attacking the message, because frankly the message is true. It's not up to Al Gore to save you from Global warming and if Drudge wants more clean energy sources he's better off electing people that will build the technology then waiting for Al Gore (who's kinda) busy to do it all himself.

[originalpckelly]

8. No, it's important, because if you're going to preach a point of view...

you should be willing to make the sacrifices you're asking of other people. Most people in America do not have enough money to buy carbon offsets.

[Horse with no Name]

14. AND most people don't fly all over the country teaching others how and why to conserve

Which is WHY he buys the offsets.
I guess the closer we get to Gore running we will continue to see others tearing down the INTERNATIONALLY acclaimed work that he does. Just didn't expect for it to be on this website.

[originalpckelly]

16. No, I'm not saying that. I'm calling him a hypocrite for asking the entire world...

to sacrifice while not doing it himself. His large house has nothing to do with him traveling to teach. Nothing at all.

[Horse with no Name]

22. You prefer him to live in a hut?

I'm sorry.
This house-fetish that some have on here is extremely disturbing. It smacks of elitism and a deep down ugliness and bitterness that is beyond reproach. Not only that, it is wearing thin. Fast.

[originalpckelly]

26. How the fuck does it smack of elitism? I live in an apartment!

I don't own a freaking mansion. I've even complained against self-righteousness. However, this isn't being self-righteous. I'm asking valid questions and making valid criticisms, but you just don't like what I'm saying so you're being absurd.

[malaise]

28. It is beyond disturbing n/t

[Quixote1818]

11. Gore has educated perhaps a billion and a half people on this issue

If he has convinced just one million of them to change their habits, his carbon foot print is
negative 999,999.

[originalpckelly]

12. Why is he asking other people to do something he is not willing to do?

It's hypocrisy.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lakeguy]

32. his carbon footprint is 0, what's your?

[kestrel91316]

33. BTW, it's the height of hypocrisy for you to own a computer or be

on the internet if you can't afford to buy carbon offsets for your energy use, don't you think?

I'm just applying your own standards to YOU.

[CATagious]

53. you want to talk about sacrifices???

All of the profits from the movie and book are donated towards fighting Global Warming. How much of you income have your donated?

[The Straight Story]

19. Here's are my thoughts on it:

First - politics and Hollywood are immersed in image, and people in the business should know that. Hence - Gore and others preaching sacrifice to the masses for the good of the planet should be careful of the image they project in the public eye. It's just common sense, you know people will hound your ass if you preach against something while doing the opposite in a public venue (no matter how green you are in the private realm).

Second: In Gore's defense on all this - If he is using the most efficient method to project the problem and that method uses more energy then it needs to one could claim that the investment of that energy will get back a greater savings in the long run - to wit, using a jet to fly all over and educate the masses on global warming may seem hypocritical but is turning the use of fossil fuels into a medium to reduce them long term.

Third: When politicians and the elite start living their lives as we do they may well see that change is not something we don't want to do but are unable to always do given our much smaller resources. Tax the big companies that use the most, as well as the utilities (and control their rates) and use that money to assist people in going green who could not otherwise afford to do so. The money DOES exist, it is just held by the few who are asking the many to change. When they want change, seriously want it, then they might spend the money to make it happen. In the meantime they will sit on their money and continue to fund things which are not helping but hurting.

Overall - it looks bad to the casual observer, and in some ways is, but overall we must (at times) utilize our fossil fuels to be able to use them less in the long term.

[cali]

20. All I'll say about this is carbon trading

is not without controversy.

[greenman3610]

24. Don't buy right wing spin

Right wing spin is, "Environmentalists want you to go back to 5 acres and a mule'.

therefore, if you operate a car, or have ever flown in a jet, you are
a hypocrite to challenge our energy policies.

Too many liberals who fret, rightly, about the energy ALL of us
use, fall into the trap of being paralyzed, feeling like hypocrites,or
as here, condemning Gore as a hypocrite because of the
square footage of his homestead.
Listen up. there are a lot of houses in the world, most of the
inefficient, most of them could use a lot less energy, and most will have to
be upgraded, and eventually replaced. But we are not
going to burn them down.

We will be upgrading gradually, first by replacing our lighting souces,
with CFC bulbs. That has potential to cut 10 or 15 percent of our
total usage. Boom.
Meanwhile, as wind power is the fastest growing new form
of electricity, more fossil fuels will be replace from the supply side.
Today's deal in the Texas coal plant case took 8 new coal plants off the
table. Just as well, they would not be needed any way.
In the meantime, new laws like California's, mandating
carbon caps and a trading system will put a limit on
carbon output and create new incentives for
industries, municipalities, and households to
cut carbon,and even make money doing it.
So -- None of these very real approaches require that
people turn back to pre-industrial lifestyles.
we will LOSE if we take that as our motto.
Now, I myself drive a modest car, and I am looking at
getting something
even more fuel stingy. I recycle, and I keep my heat turned down
I have spent a lot of money making my house more air tight, and
I will spend some more this summer. I expect to make out well
on the deal, between energy saving and increased value.
The main thing is, show people what they can do while
maintaining the modern lifestyle that they are used to.

In Europe, people use much less energy than we do and
they maintain very advanced civilization. Even California,
our most glitzy and speed obssessed state, has managed thru
proper legal action to keep energy per capita consumption
flat over the last 30 year. Vermont's per cap consumption is
actually going down. No massive movement of population back to
communes is required.
educate yourself, start here
http://a4nr.org/news-and-events/10.22.2006-torontostar
and at
http://www.rmi.org

Again, don't do the fascists framing work for them.

[originalpckelly]

30. I'm not doing their work for them. I'm asking questions...

and there is no damage in asking questions.

[trumad]

34. or horsehit....

Drude prints it---you replay it.... not suttle at all.

[CatWoman]

38. LOL

have I told you lately that I love you?

:hi:

:loveya:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[originalpckelly]

40. Not really, that's why I said "if it's true". Can't we discuss something until we find out more info

on it?

[Beaverhausen]

42. You refuse to pay attention to those who are posting what the truth is

Gore is carbon neutral. Period. This story is horseshit. Go read this thread.

[originalpckelly]

47. Why not contribute the money anyway and be carbon negative?

His house has absolutely nothing to do with his traveling to teach people.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trumad]

44. Sure---Pigs fly

so let's have a long drawn out conversation about that.

[CatWoman]

46. BWAHAHAHAHA

marry me, Tru :)

[originalpckelly]

48. Isn't it a little bit more withing the realm of possibility that his house is consuming that much...

energy than pigs flying?

[MindPilot]

43. You could move to a warmer climate

then you won't use so much heat.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

45. Prove to me that this is true first

When you can do that then it's worth discussing. Until then it's a RW rumor from a suspect source which could very likely be a flat out lie.

[originalpckelly]

51. I don't who should have to prove it first...

the accusers of Mr. Gore or Gore himself (by showing his electrical bill I suppose.)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

52. So you're simply attempting to further their allegations w/o any proof?

I get it now and what I said still stands. Come back with proof then we'll talk.

[zulchzulu]

50. Moving to a smaller house does not address carbon footprint necessarily

You can live in a smaller home that is very inefficient. You can live in a large house that is very efficient. Add that you can live in a large house where you only use a fraction of its space, hence making it efficient.

Whether anyone lives in a larger home or not does not address the greater issues of getting legislation and public awareness on turning the perception to greener technologies.

The Do Nothings on Global Climate Change would rather change the subject and talk about whether Gore has a private plane or a large home. That is the usual trappings of people who'd rather think that the problem will just go away or act like the problem doesn't exist.

[Generator]

58. What? Al Gore doesn't live in a solar powered yurt?

When will the outrages end? I weep for the candidate he has no intention of becoming.