I can't not post this. - Al Gore
Some googling confirmed my suspicion that the average household spends at least $100/mo on electricity. At 20 times that, Gore is spending about $2000/mo for his household. Cheney is spending over 7 times that, and we're footing that bill to boot:
Cheney Calls on Navy to Pay Rising Bill to Light His Home (2001) :
Al Gore has used global warming as the issue to catapult him back into the national spotlight and into the White House. He's got a degree in journalism (IIRC) which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the environment, yet everyone looks to him as an expert on the issue. He doesn't care about this issue, and his actions prove it. Actions always speak louder than words.
And Al Gore's mansion pales in comparison to the Hollywood types who take private jets to events blasting you and me from driving cars that aren't hybrids. Here's a link to Robert Kennedy, Jr. http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/Media/2005/12/19/rfk_jr_diss...
Here's a story listing the modes of travel for several celebs: http://www.tmz.com/2006/10/18/celebs-who-claim-theyre-green-but-guzzle-gas
A good story a few months back listed the types of vehicles congressmen and senators used to go to a global warming press conference 3 blocks from their offices in DC. Almost all of them made the trip in an SUV.
I still will not listen to anything Al Gore tells me when he speaks of the evils of Global Warming.
He was a top Senator in the 80's, He was the 2nd most powerful man in the country for 8 years and is still very influential.
He could have done something in those 15+ years. Especially when he was VP. Unfortuntately getting reelected to him was more important so excuse me if I don't view him as "credible source".
I view his movie as more of a way to spread his "popularity" and further develope his smug sense of self satisfaction. When the reality is he has the effectiveness of a garden slug.
Whoa Fraud, you're getting a little out of your realm here. You and Brain only cover "local" issues. Once you start covering "global" issues, you'd have to start covering the crimes of Bush and his Repubic buddies and thus mix the message.
Gore has responded to it. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html
According to the story he has signed up for 100% green power. He has gotten solar panels, florescent bulbs, and carbon offsets.
Then his office says they'd like us to reduce our carbon footprint.
What I don't see anywhere in that is where he will reduce his energy use though his direct actions. Sure he buys things that will reduce his energy use but many of us can't afford that type of stuff.
A new solar panel costs $700 and only produces 120 watts barely enough to light 2 dim lightbulbs(http://www.guide4home.com/rem-himp/solar-panels.htm) Now I'm sure with the type of money Mr. Gore has doing this is a reality. However I live on a budget. $700 out of my pocket means my family doesn't eat for a month. So the best way for me to cut my usage is to change my lifestyle.
Now Mr. Gore hasn't made changes to his lifestyle. He just installed new equipment so he can still live his lifestyle at the cost of a little bit more out of his already fat wallet.
Mr. Gore there's only one way to lead and that's by setting example. If you want me to change my lifestyle you should change yours. By just paying more out of pocket doesn't convince me to do the same on my considerably less budget because it means more food out of my family's mouth.
Want to realistically impact the nation's energy use? Try to make this crap you bought cheaper.
I don't buy the whole purchase green power credits. Like MikeyA says, put your words where your actions are. Mr. Gore, there are plenty of 11xx square foot houses in my neighborhood for sale and around Toledo. I only used $54 in electric last month and $150 dollars in gas. You and Mr. Edwards can sell your mansions and move next to me, with the common folk and decrease your pollution by 10 fold. I would welcome you two to the neighborhood. You could even use my reel mower, which gives off no emissions (unless you drink beer, eat beans and cabbage before you start).
Also, I don't know where people get off bashing America so much. OK, so America turns green overnight, China and India are pumping out greenhouse gases like there are no tomorrow so the world is not going to change. When I was in China in 97, most small rivers were black, most ponds were black, and my throat would hurt after getting back from a long bike ride. America is like a hospital compared to some of these other countries but I guess it is not fashionable to bash your country in China-actually you will get arrested.
I don't mind people pushing for cleaner environment and technologies; I just don't like people telling everyone to be clean then go back to their mansions or board their jets. At least Leonardo Dicaprio practices what he preaches-drives a hybrid, flies economy-so he has more respect in my book.
Actually maybe Mr. Gore should sell his house, get a smaller house, get enough alternative energy going to put power back into the grid, and then give some of his money to people to purchase solar panels for their house.
As far as China (and India) are concerned, we have the power to write environmental standards into our trade agreements with these countries by urging our Congressmen to deny fast-track authority to the President--so that Congress can do their jobs by reviewing these agreements.
America is simply exporting their pollution to China and other countries that are cashing in on the increased manufacturing in these countries with US consumers buying their products at cheaper costs because these countries don't have the environmental laws that at least reduce US levels of pollution, although not nearly tough enough in my book as are needed. There is only one planet and it is going to take just so much abuse before it says enough and ecosystems collapse.
China and India are definitely big polluters but they too are beginning to see the light and realize that they can't take much more of this before they poison all their citizens. They too will now look for another area to off load their pollution and create the next cesspool. And the cycle continues! This problem is complex but critical if we will have a healthy world for ourselves and our children. This is not just about greenhouse gases, but making sure our planet can sustain and nurture life!
His Gorebal Warming (tm) horseshit is really getting old. I read an article a while back where he claimed smokers were causing Gorebal Warming (tm). I shudder when I think how close this maniac came to being prez (and, once again, I did not vote for Bush either) I like Darryl Hannah, myself, who actually puts her money where her mouth is on alternate energy(plus she's easy to look at).
In World War 2 we fought (and defeated) the Axis. Today we're afraid of cellphones, smokers, and cheeseburgers. It's about at the end, people.
'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!
but I think we could be much better about caring for the planet. And even though it may be that this man isn't practicing all that he preaches - who does?
But I'd like to see a meaningful dialogue from the moderates on the topic. On how we can realistically go about being good stewards of the planet.
If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.
I meant to post this link yesterday...it's from the Green Energy Ohio site. It includes some good info
you'd think robert redford, barbara streisand, julia roberts, george clooney, cameron diaz,leo dicaprio and the like would police their own industry. they must be too busy flying around the globe on their private jets.
if it doesn't work and you want to see it, look on cnn's entertainment section (or it could be still listed on their main page).
Do you just read the Drudge headline and take it as gospel?
The TVA sells "Green Power" -- mostly hydroelectric -- and anyone that has power supplied by the TVA can elect to pay a premium for the energy. Think of this is the guy out west selling "Terror Free Gasoline."
Furthermore, Gore has explained his use of carbon offsets. This is not hokey psuedo-science. It's very simple. The number of trees needed to offset your carbon footprint is calculated. The cost to plant a tree is multiplied by the number of trees needed, and that's how much money you pay.
It's the height of stupidity to jump up and down on this guy for this, ESPECIALLY when nobody cared to actually check the facts. Yes, Chris Meyer, that means you.
Besides, Gores efforts have probably contributed to the prevention of MILLIONS OF TONS of Co2 being released into the atmosphere. Probably more. It doesn't take very long to put a ton of Co2 into the atmosphere: For every gallon of gas you burn, 19lbs of Co2 are released.
So if you add all the savings that Gores evangelizing has produced, and even if you ignore the carbon offsets he's bought and subtract the footprint of his home, he's still contributed to the betterment of our atmosphere by MILLIONS OF TONS OF Co2.
So... what have YOU done that somehow gives you credibility to attack Gore on this front?
since you are having difficulty with focus, i'll put it down again. it just shows al can buy his indulgences. he simply uses his money to wash his hands of hypocrisy.
he lives a life of excess and extravagance, but you seem to think that's fine because of offsets. he doesn't make sacrifices in lifestyle, such as a mr. ed begley. by planting some trees in india, you seem to think gore doesn't need to change his personal habits and lifestyle.
..and, no, i don't think emissions are a sin, as you incorrectly ascertain. i simply have no place for his hypocrisy and his political motive.
You don't care about the environment. You don't care about the children and grand children that will inherit this earth. You only care about partisan squabbling.
that just shows how big of a boob you are.
you may find this interesting....
...and I hope someone can explain it better.
For example: if I have a carbon footprint of 26 (I don't, but let's use this example) and John Doe has a carbon footprint of 10, together we have a combined total of 36. Now, I can 'buy' carbon offsets and reduce my number to (what I believe is the targeted number of) 18...But I'm buying John Doe's unused 8 units.
So we're still using the same total number of 36...how does this reduce usage?
it's long, but interesting.
Bush is a closet Green. Finally, a hypocrite in a good way. Well, as good as one can be and still be a hypocrite. Better than John "Two Americas" Edwards with his 29,000 Sq. Ft. new mansion and his views on how evil Walmart is unless they have the PS3 in stock and his son wants one.
"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt
There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at
al gore is the one accepting the oscar and he is one leading the global warming hypocrites.
note: there was an error and a correction was noted. the error, though, was not whether he profited from the zinc mine; it was a matter of the time line.
i think i posted this link on another thread, but his crap needs to be called just that.
Actually the article from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (an anti-regulation site) doesn't tell the whole story.
According to an article from the Tennessean.com (an actual news site with actual journalists):
Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.
That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.
The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site.
The Green Power Switch program isn't all that Gore and his wife, Tipper, are doing, Krider said.
They use compact fluorescent light bulbs and are in the midst of a renovation project that includes having solar panels installed on their home to reduce fossil fuel consumption, she said.
Their car? A Lexis hybrid SUV.
"They, of course, also do the carbon emissions offset," she said.
That means figuring out how much carbon is emitted from home power use, and vehicle and plane travel, then paying for projects that will offset that with use of renewable energy, such as solar power.
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said.
Oh, and here a little info on the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:
Tennessee Center's President Drew Johnson comes straight out of the right's network, coming from Exxon-funded American Enterprise Institute and the right-wing-funded National Taxpayers Foundation.
They are part of the right's State Policy Network. According to PFAW,
"SPN is a national network of state-based right-wing organizations in 37 states as well as prominent nationwide right-wing organizations. Through its network SPN advances the public policy ideas of the expansive right-wing political movement on the state and local level."
As of Feb. 16, the Tennessee tax dept. considers them "not a legitimate organization" because of their misrepresenting themselves involving questions about the group's opposition to a state crackdown on drug dealers
I think I understand now after looking at the TVA website. Al uses as much as he wants but then because he can afford it gives money to another group that in their own words "tries" to lower emissions in other parts of the country and world. So Al feels less guilty about using the energy since he's paying someone else to feel the guilt. This is just like the Roman Catholic church in years gone by offering sinners a chance to remove thier sins by making monetary donations to the local church and it's leaders so they could help the poor. What a great system. Does Al pay these credits on all his homes or just the mansion? What other cars does Al use when someone isn't watching? And how much hair spray is he using?
Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.
Pink_slip - China is the largest purchaser of US treasury bonds and second only to Japan last time I looked as a holder of US bonds. Truth is we only have so much power to tell China what to do. If we tick them off enough, they stop buying our bonds; sell their other US bonds, the dollar drops in value, inflation increases dramatically and the Federal Reserve will have to raise interest rates to entice foreigners to buy US bonds. What does that mean? A US economy that goes into recession as interest rates rise to keep inflation from exploding. You say that this would hurt China too. Yes, but likely only cool their rate of expansion in their economy from double digit gains to much slower growth. However, the Chinese government is already concerned about such fast growth and has been looking at how they can manage the growth at a more sustainable level without causing the strains and problems that goes with rapid and in some cases unregulated growth.
We are running huge deficits and it has been foreigners that have supplied the capital to buy the bonds and thus keep interest rates down. This makes us vulnerable to those we owe!
If it was that easy, you can be sure someone would have already been successful at it. You don't tell your biggest creditor what to do. They tell you what to do. And don't think for a minute the Chinese don't understand the power they have and would use it if it was in their best interests!
... that the Chinese will start to shift THEIR polluting industries to the US (as a freshly minted Second World nation) in the future, under threat to stop supporting our debt and to avoid using the Euro to buy oil. The EPA laws in the US would have to change, of course, but given the willingness of Americans to dismantle such laws with the least threat of financial instability, that's not much of a barrier, eh? Just look to the Congresses of the 2010s and 2020s to perhaps continue the dismantling of the EPA protections that we only started to enjoy at the end of the 20th Century.
he'd get my vote.
"do as i say, not as i do" says al. keep trying to justify his hypocrisy. he shouldn't be let off the hook because he can afford offsets.
what have YOU done that somehow gives you credibility to attack Gore on this front?
in regards to my personal lifestyle, the answer is "more than al", "more than most people", and/ or a good chance of "more than you".
Seriously, you have trouble making a point without resorting to simple attacks, don't you?
And your "planting trees in india" comment shows that you really don't understand offsets. Trees are planted in developed, highly polluting countries.
And once again, you ignore facts and spew useless dogma.
Gore isn't a hypocrite because he never asked or suggested anyone live like they're Amish or Eskimo. He asked only one thing in I.T: Reduce your carbon foot print. Period. One of the primary ways he suggest you do that is... wait for it... buying carbon offsets.
So please, tell me again how this is hypocritical. I'm thinking that "hypocrite" doesn't mean what you think it means.
And you forget the fact that Gore pushed Global Warming and the term "carbon footprint" into the forefront of American conscience. He's done his bid to king and country. Especially when you factor into the equation that he's done EXACTLY what he's asked you or me and our friends and relatives to do: He's reduced his carbon foot print.
Please, dude. Maybe your repetitious attacks, fallacious claims and general cluelessness about this particular topic work to deter the people you usually talk to from challenging you, but it's not working against me. Sorry =(
And from the liberal NY Times no less!
"...But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.
you should probably ask the folks at Generation Investment Management. that's the private investment company in which al gore has an ownership stake. it turns out THE COMPANY paid for the offsets of al gore's personal consumption (including his private jet usage). this was announced by richard campbell, GIM's spokesperson.
i wish i was lucky enough to have my company pay for this. additionally, i wish i was wealthy enough so i wouldn't have to sacrifice.
sorry, back to the point....
i saw this basic explanation of the offsets....
"Climate campaigners have established a procedure which allows an individual, business or institution responsible for high levels of CO2 emissions to buy "offsets." They pay a levy that will go towards renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power or for planting trees - so-called "carbon sinks" that remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Thus, according to advocates, high energy users can be considered "carbon neutral," because they are making up for the amount of CO2 they produce by funding eco-friendly projects elsewhere."
maggie,i think what you described was carbon trading or exchange. i imagine shane should be able to provide a more accurate explanation.
Here are some interesting articles on the "debunkers":
Media Matters: But of the sources cited in the article, at least four have records of misinformation on the issue. Though three of these were identified as skeptics or as having expressed skepticism, in all four cases, their past statements or studies questioning global warming theory have been debunked or discredited by the scientific community -- which Broad did not report.
Real Climate: The first rule when criticizing popular science presentations for inaccuracies should be to double check any 'facts' you use. It is rather ironic then that William Broad's latest piece on Al Gore plays just as loose with them as he accuses Gore of doing.
We criticized William Broad previously (Broadly Misleading) for a piece that misrepresented the scientific understanding of the factors that drive climate change over millions of years, systematically understating the scientifically-established role of greenhouse gases, and over-stating the role of natural factors including those as speculative as cosmic rays (see our recent discussion here). In this piece, Broad attempts to discredit Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" by exaggerating the legitimate, but minor, criticisms of his treatment of the science by experts on climate science, and presenting specious or unsubstantiated criticisms by a small number of the usual, well-known contrarians who wouldn't agree even if Gore read aloud from the latest IPCC report.
Broad starts out by quoting Don Easterbrook (Western Washington University) with a statement,
there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.
Thrown in for good measure is a similarly poorly-supported quote by Kevin Vranes (who is referred to as a climatologist, but who now works on science policy) that
questioned whether his [Gore's] presentations were overselling our certainty about knowing the future.
Unfortunately, neither Easterbrook's inaccuracies nor Vranes oversold certainties are mentioned. We reviewed the movie ourselves, looking hard for such 'inaccuracies', and could only find one minor area (the explanation of the complex relationship between the global surface temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations over glacial/interglacial cycles) where justified criticism might be levied (and here, the accusation was only that Gore simplified a complicated relationship, something that is arguably unavoidable in a movie intended for mass popular consumption).
Grist Things start promisingly, as the article names one of these critics: Don J. Easterbrook, professor of geology. Easterbrook said, "there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing [from Gore], and we have to temper that with real data." What inaccuracies? Astoundingly, the article doesn't cite a single alleged inaccuracy until 28 paragraphs later. It's this:
[Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
But Gore never said (as far as I know, no one has ever said) that the temperature swing in the last century is the widest temperature swing ever. Gore's point is that the global average temperature has never shifted so much so quickly -- about ten times faster than previous swings. That speed, after all, is the primary evidence of human involvement.
So we have exactly one "inaccuracy," and it's based on a thuddingly obvious misunderstanding.
Clear as mud, perhaps. Why quibble when Gore, Edwards, Cheney, Bush, Kerry and all the rest of the leading national politicians are the ruling class that cares very little for the plight of the working class in America. So, Gore blows through 20 times the energy per year as the average American household does. That's terrible, sure, and doubly so since he's an allegedly "green" advocate. He's more than wealthy enough to install existing (even innovative!) heating, cooling and lighting systems in his mansion. That he does not is an indicator-and-a-half that he's the ruling class FIRST, and a green SECOND.*
But they ALL DO IT. Greens, browns, reds ... whatever philosophical shirt is worn by a national politician (except Bernie Sanders and perhaps Ron Paul -- notable exceptions) they tend to accumulate power and use it like merchant princes of ye olde tymes. This power is used without consideration for others or Constitutional law.
Of course, lest we leave this topic without the requisite introspection, Gore is even MORE of a wastrel ... since his 20x usage is not based upon a sensible average. The average $100+/mo for electricity in America is simply appalling. We've become addicted to air conditioning, style lighting, numerous gadgets/appliances, and of course our laziness in leaving all these things ON when we're not using them. Gore is only the leading one of a nation of environmental hypocrites, who buy organic food just to dump these plastic grocery bags into a huge SUV and then take them a few miles to their 3000-sq-foot McMansion which in the middle of summer is practically refrigerated inside from the central AC unit, and then they plop said groceries into a huge, stainless-steel, trendy 'fridge that gulps down one of the largest shares of the monthly e-bill.
[ * ] I have a lot of fights with a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal friend of mine about Gore. Gore like Bubba Clinton commands a lot of Liberal loyalty that is simply unwarranted. Gore is no Democrat, that's for sure, but the Democrats simply don't care (well, the DLC cares, since they think Gore's a loser and they'll never sponsor him for office again). It's this "don't care" thing that produces the fatal wound of the Democratic Party. If it wasn't for the existence of the Republican Party, the Dems would have folded some decades ago ... and vice versa.
I understand your point. However like you say, I don't think China would risk devaluing the bonds they hold. Plus, they need our markets. Don't you think we would eventually have to try to level the playing field?
so al's been enrolled in the green power switch progam for a whopping 3 months? i wonder why he didn't participate earlier. after all, the program is the first and largest in the southeast. i tried to get a date when NES became a participating distributor of the green power switch program, but didn't locate anything on their site. i actually called NES customer service (615-736-6900, if you want to try), but couldn't get a firm date. the phone rep couldn't do any better than "about two years". other google attempts have shown some dates as far back as summer of '04, but it didn't specify a residential program.
regardless, gore was screaming approval of kyoto in the late '90's and he conducted his first congressional hearings on environmental issues in the late '70's. i wonder why his solar panel project has been completed as of yet. not enough time? maybe he was short on the cash needed for the renovation.
well, better late than never, al....but it's never too late to spin, huh?
ps....for your own good, al, i hope your soapbox is made out of recycled materials.
When the manufacturing can be shifted to emerging nations in SE Asia, Central Asia, and Africa? Moving dirty manufacturing to these nations can be done easily and there are no regulations to dismantle. It's already happening, as 30 million manufacturing jobs in China have been lost to other countries with lower standards of living in the last year alone.
How is buying offsets any less of a fix than reducing emissions? Here's a hint: It's NOT!
This paradigm can be seen every day with any non-profit. Some people volunteer. Some people donate. Both are invaluable and both contribute the same to a good cause.
This is the same thing.
The idea is to reduce your foot print. Period. You're making up fake issues just to use them to try to hang Gore.
If his carbon footprint is reduced, why do you CARE how he did it?
And seriously, "more than al?" So you single handedly have caused this issue to be catapulted to the front of the world conscience, resulting in reduction of millions and millions of tons of greenhouse gasses? Seriously?
And "more than most people" is easy. That's nothing to hang your hat on.
And "more than [me]?" Well, you wouldn't really know much about that, would you? So please, save it....
What's so "awesome" about the NY Times article in discrediting Gore?
It was very balanced and even those who are critical of Gore give him credit in general for at least getting the message out.
it's funny how you'll reference sites like media matters, tompaine.com, prospect.org, and some blog called grist on this and other threads. yet, you always play the "biased" or partisan card when anyone mentions cato.
Of course this would entail risk for the Chinese. The question would be who would suffer larger consequences. If the economy for China slowed considerably but still showed growth, the Chinese have already acknowledged that they need slower more manageable growth. Then any loss in value of their bonds is all paper. They still are exporting and earning hard currency to buy other securities. In addition, they would not lose all the value of the assets and could still sell should the need arise.
It would be a case of relative hurt and given the governments and how the populace would react America is at a huge disadvantage in managing the hurt better than China.
We got a real problem and it is going to require negotiations as opposed to threatening sanctions. We lost that option a long time ago unless we want to take them on in a game of chicken and I think we just might cry uncle first.
It is a tough decision and one I would hope the Bush administration would handle with more planning and foresight than they have with military matters.
your paradigm? i think a better correlation would be a man volunteering for the ywca and then going home and beating his wife.
more than al? as i said, from a the perspective of personal lifestyle, it isn't such a reach. i don't fly on a private jet. i don't own multiple homes. i don't own mansions. i don't have people driving me around in large suv's....etc, etc, etc.
so, enlighten me, what does the great shane do to save the world?
instead of al gore, the global warming crowd should look to ed begley (or others like him). he leads by example.
NES joined the TVA program in 2000 to give power customers a way to support environmentally sound sources of electricity. The Tennessean could not determine when Gore signed up for green power.
al gore has been participating for only the last few months.
it's never too late for spin.
Some people just like to bash President Gore.
It is kinda funny....but they should still be read.
So you're completely dismissing the fact that he pays more specifically for envionmentally friendly electricity and also purchases carbon offsets?
So basically you're dismissing carbon offsets outright?
Why? Explain this to me.
Furthermore, your characterization of Gore is just LAUGHABLE. By now I'm sure you're regretting putting yourself on such an indefensible side of an argument.
If the united way hires a guy and pays him $100k a year but his efforts raise $1MM a year, by your logic, he's a hypocrite. In reality, by making a small "investment" he's creating significant returns. Gore is "spending" carbon in order to create a larger return, and that has worked very well so far. The icing on the cake, of course, is that he also purchases carbon offsets for his jet & SUV travel.
And this isn't about me. I didn't bring me into it. You did because you couldn't defend your moronic criticism of Gore so you tried to steer this into an ad hominem attack. Sorry. I'm not going to follow you there.
Right on, Pink...
you're right and it should go both ways.
he's been participating in the green power switch program for 3 months. yippppeeee. the program has been around for 2+ years for NES. why didn't he do something sooner? don't you wonder about that?
same thing goes with his solar cells.
he's just trying to cover his political backside. it isn't the act of a conscientious and prinicpled man.
He's been buying carbon offsets since before the publicity campaign for I.T. started. Probably before then.
I love that you're SOOO interested in crucifying someone who has dedicated the past 7 years of his life to a good cause that you'd go research an issue just to find a way to attack him.
It smacks of your pettiness.
Go research how much he's spent in carbon offsets, then come back and tell me.
Gore has done more to advance environmental causes over the last 20 years than, as far as I know, any other American. The EU is looking at a carbon tax right now. Gore was pushing a similar proposal in 1993. Gore was an advocate for the electric car program in California that, if still in existence today, would mandate that 20% of cars sold in 2007 be zero-emissions-vehicles. If this standard had been adopted, our reliance on foreign oil would be eliminated today.
Gore is a patriot and humanitarian and for some reason you just can't stand that, can you? Bush has just this past year acknowledged global warming as a problem. Gore would've tackled this issue beginning on the first day of his administration over six years ago.
this smacks of a girlish infatuation.
i really don't care how much he's spent on carbon offsets. it just shows al can buy his indulgences. he simply uses his money to wash his hands of hypocrisy. the catholic church used to allow this, too.
he can preach and propose all he wants. i'm sure plenty of the blind and naive will follow, as your rants have shown. until he exhibits a behavorial change within his own bubble, he deserves no respect or admiration.
You can't actually explain to me why carbon offsets are a bad thing, so you just result to more ad hominem attacks and mis-characterizations.
Your logic is a joke. It's not even logic. It's dogma. You buy-in and repeat dogma without filtering it through your intelligence first, which is what I railed about in my post that started this thread.
You've repeatedly demonized Gore for buying carbon offsets but you have yet to explain why carbon offsets are a bad thing.
Co2 emissions aren't "sins" and it's indicative of your POV that you'd label them as such. It's a simple equation. Are YOU causing more Co2 to enter the atmosphere. That's the question. That's the only test that matters.
Gore has never asked anyone to live a Luddites lifestyle. Carbon offsets have always been a major part of his proposals. It's just not realistic to cripple our own economy by, in effect, shutting down industry. So we look for alternatives. Ways to treat the problem while protecting our way of life. Carbon offsets is one of those ways. That you'd dismiss it really shows that you don't care about the Science. You don't care about the environment. You don't care about the children and grand children that will inherit this earth. You only care about partisan squabbling.
Follow me on Twitter at: thechrismyers