[quote]Gore Lives Carbon-Neutral, Fat-Neutral Lifestyle
by Scott Ott
b[/b] — Oscar-winning filmmaker Al Gore today expanded his call for Americans to reduce their output of greenhouse gases — the so-called carbon-footprint — adding a demand to cut the rate of adult-onset obesity, which he termed “your gluteal fatprint.”
Speaking to fellow Oscar winners who flew in to Nashville last night for a banquet at his 10,000 square-foot residence, Mr. Gore explained that Americans burn too much carbon-rich fuel, and eat too much fatty food.
While conservative groups have attacked Mr. Gore’s “hypocrisy” on the global-warming issue, since his Tennessee home burns 15 times the electricity of the average home and he often flies on corporate jets, Mr. Gore maintains that he lives a “carbon-neutral” lifestyle because he also invests in solar and wind energy projects to counterbalance his own substantial carbon-footprint.
“Many people don’t realize that I also live a fat-neutral lifestyle,” Mr. Gore said. “While the inconvenient truth is that I’ve gained a few pounds since I beat George Bush at the polls in 2000, I also make large investments in companies that produce bran, sprouts and legumes, thereby reducing my “real feel” weight to around 175.”
I find it amusing to see Bob and the wing-nuts on the right joining the circle , holding hands in a communist orgy over Gore’s supposed high energy use…calling for him to have a smaller house! The shrillness is anti American, against the American dream. :loco:
Republican logic is truly confused. And I thought they’d care about the environment? No, sold out to oil and big business a long time ago…
A pointed quote:
[quote]Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it’s clear that Gore’s energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow “hypocritical” for Al Gore to live in a large house.
That’s awfully weak. Gore’s a former Senator and Vice President of the United States. Does he have to move into a studio apartment before he has the right to talk about climate change?
And more importantly, as Think Progress reports, even this watered-down hypocrisy charge entirely misses the point. What Al Gore wants people to do is reduce the carbon footprint of their residence as much as possible and then purchase carbon offsets to reduce the remaining footprint to zero. Gore has installed solar panels in his home, he uses fluorescent light bulbs and other energy saving technology, and he purchases his energy from Green Power Switch, a provider which utilizes solar and wind power. He then purchases carbon offsets to reduce his remaining carbon footprint to zero.[/quote]
[quote]It’s nice to see the conservative media taking the message of conservation and energy efficiency seriously. Hopefully they will hold their own leaders and readers to the same high standards.
The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the “Tennessee Center for Policy Research,” which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It’s run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore’s electricity use at face value?
Gore’s electricity company has no record of being contacted about his bills.
The “average” home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore’s climatic zone, the East South Central (Dept. of Energy PDF), the average is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore’s usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average. (anonymousliberal.com/2007/02 … y-use.html) The Gores are not an average family. He’s an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house. (What about extended family memebers as well…)
Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.
Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn’t generate all that much CO2 anyway. [/quote]
Gore is never home, so while his residence may be a model of environmental stewardship the places he spends the rest of his time are a tribute to exactly the sort of excesses that cause global warming. Or does he purchase credits to offset all of that as well? Honest question.
Bob,
Good posts regarding Gore. If someone is going to preach, they better damn well have their own house (pun intended) in order. However, I would say in Gore’s defense that he has not just jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon, and that he does seem to have a long-standing and genuine interest in the environment.
“I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.”
[/i](When asked what the heck that statement meant) Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event."
I just don’t get you TC. You love to go on about how great Bush is and how the War in Iraq is wonderful progress for the US.
Someone puts a reasonable effort into getting the climate change message out there, and you start wriggling in your chair with efforts to rubbish the man and his message. Why? Because he has a different political leaning to your esteemed leader?
It’s just idiotic to undermine this message. What exactly do you have against reduction in global emissions etc? What do you want to acheive here?
The way I see it, you support the occupation of an oil rich nation resulting in the deaths on 1000s of civilians and military personnel (which is just getting WORSE)…and what is the purpose again? World stability or something? and THEN, you are doing your best to criticize a message that the world needs to hear.
From one nation, we have 2 messages. One is greedy, destructive and negative. The other is the opposite. Why or earth do you not get behind your fellow american with this message? Can’t you see beyond left or right?
Because his findings are highly politicized and not in fact very accurate. Check out the global warming thread for all the reasons why. He is using this cynically to give him a shot at running for president again in 2008.
undermine a message? That is of the greatest importance to you? Do you understand what the UN report on global warming has stated? and how this is very different from the scenarios that Gore is trumpeting. Is that not important?
Obviously, your “faith” in the global warming religion is highly important to you. Best not to let facts muddy up the effort. And why isn’t Gore’s carbon footprint relevant. I mean if he is going to anoint himself as messenger in chief, why shouldn’t he be expected to do something about his carbon foot print and to a far greater degree than others?
That is funny, but not in the one you probably intended.
Why don’t you tell us how factually correct Gore’s message is and then we will determine whether we need to be behind that message. Faith-based science is something that the left seems to be very opposed to. Aren’t you?
OK. I am not an expert on Climate Change, and even those who dedicate their lives to it disagree.
But my point basically boils down to 2 very different outcomes depending on what we do about this issue.
If this message is largely true, without getting into the sematics of debated facts, then the global population needs to do something about it, and now. Years of debate are only going to make the problem harder to fix.
If this message is largely false, then what harm is going to come from a global shift in attitude towards emissions? The water will get cleaner, the air fresher and the planet will get healthier - how can this be something to discredit?
As far as your comment about political motivation. That may be true and I guess we will find out soon enough…however that may not be the end of the story. Becoming president of the world biggest emissions offender might be the best opportunity to do something about it, wouldn’t you think?
So why not read up more about it in the global warming thread? and if there is in fact disagreement about the message, why does Tainan Cowboy need to get behind it?
There are many variables involved. Economic considerations are of major importance as is our ability to do anything about this at all.
First of all, is there a problem? Second, can we do anything about it? Third, what would this cost? I think that more debate is required and I do not subscribe to the views of Gore and his ilk. Given that I seem to know something about the subject and given that you have admitted that you do not, why then should we fall in line behind your chosen messenger?
The economic cost would be very substantial.
This has nothing to do with global warming.
CO2 is hardly making the air unfresh. It is a natural component of our atmosphere and one that is accounted for naturally in excess of 97 percent.
Hoo boy. A true believer aren’t you? Read the global warming thread FIRST and then start demanding that we follow your Messenger Gore. Deal?
The US is the biggest emitter, yes, but not for long. Also, why not change the dynamics a bit. Why not look at emissions per square kilometer and not per capita? Then, Europe comes out far worse, but do you think that the governments in Europe knew this when they chose to look instead at total emissions? I mean we have Canada, Australia and the US with their vast spaces. Why not allow for carbon sinkholes as part of the equation? I am sure that economic considerations had nothing to do with how these debates about who pollutes and how much were framed. What do you think?
Also, for all the hew and cry, why is Europe not meeting its treaty commitments on Kyoto? One would imagine that those who signed up for this deal would at the very least try to meet their own commitments before demanding others do so. Strange that this is not the case though, eh?
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there, however that is an assumption that may not be correct either. I do believe that the biggest economic influence in the US is oil, and the climate change issue is the biggest threat to the US’s dependence on it.
I sure will do some reading on it Fred, but you only have to open your eyes in a place like Taiwan to see the impact of excessive pollution. Some days I wonder if i will make it out of this place without getting induced cancer or something…not sure about you.
CO2 is hardly making the air unfresh. It is a natural component of our atmosphere and one that is accounted for naturally in excess of 97 percent.[/quote]
I could quote and argue with everything else you just said, FS. But not today.
I’ll make one comment: As a nature enthusiast, the great outdoors, I like a clean environment. If you’d bothered to watch AIT, you’d see that it’s not just about global warming, but about the environment as well. I know you guys like to segment (see endless quoting) and attack perceived weaknesses (divide and conquer), but aligning with Bush has in many areas has taken Repubs over the line of sensibility and into idiotness, cutting off their noses and everyone elses in mockable attempts to look tough. True, the Democrats are weak in many ways-that’s why Gore is a such breath of ‘fresh air’.
Have you repeatedly (not just a few occasions a long time ago) experienced the fresh air that Truant means, not the haze of America and Asia? Water that you can drink and know it’s pure when hiking in the mountains? (I think JDS knows what I mean, such a gorgeous part of America) Can you feel the difference in your own body when you eat organic food (unlikely, I know), compared to when you eat crap (albeit expensive delicious crap)/drink/smoke? (keep doing what you want, by all means…) Can you not see that we have a duty to preserve this world before it gets any worse due to the egregious abuses of mankind?
And, you blustering here, there, and everywhere does not make us forget that:
-US is a vast producer for the arms industry, which produces untold pollutants
-US people use most of the resources of the world, and pollute it as much as they want while avoiding Kyoto or making fresh initiatives of their own,
-US chooses to rely on oil and inefficiencies when it could do otherwise
(I said nothing about the rest of the world for comparison since it’s off topic. But it’s clear that America is by no means the worst per capita…)
On a positive note, why don’t you align yourself with clean green industry and do your small bit to help America lead the world towards efficient solutions to climate and environmental problems? Can’t you see that it helps your (exagerated) concerns about American security (off topic, but funny isn’t it, the strongest country, remote from most others, yet making itself sick by fretting about ant bites-there’s a parable there…about an elephant, btw…)
???[/quote]
Baffling to me as well Fred. But its clear that as with the Clinton* apologistas, the
concept of truth is quite conditional to these two.
algore trivia: Did you know that algore requested and received an “early out” from his US Army enlistment to attend Seminary School?
Now guess how long he lasted and why he was asked to leave!
So given that most US cities are far cleaner now and the water and air quality is also far better, you would want to credit Bush with all of this?
So, you unlike the UN report believe that we can do something about global warming?
Given that his facts are so faulty, how does that make him right? Shouldn’t we be discussing the realities of this matter not engaging in emotional diatribes? And if Gore is not factually accurate, is this not relevant? and given that he uses so much energy personally does that not make him a huge hypocrite?
Clearly, all that granola is not providing your brain with sufficient nutrition. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Also, did you know that the US has far more forest cover now than 100 years ago? Did you know that most of Europe’s rivers are far cleaner now than at any time in the past 500 years or more?
blustering to you is supplying facts and sensible arguments? Okay, pass the muesli…
You people and US arms. What do you think would happen to you if the US were not the world’s policeman? Some asswipe like Mugabe would be ensuring that you all live very environmentally simple lives. But then you probably do not want to discuss that. You would like to be very sanctimonious in your denunciations of US energy and resource usage while failing to observe that any citizen in any developed nation is far closer to the US in terms of usage than say an African. But hey, less is still less and that gives you the moral crutch to stand on. Laughable. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your argument.
Much better to use those per capita statistics rather than per square kilometer ones. Right? And also much better to sign the treaty and then disregard its requirements to prove that your hearts are in the right place? right… What has Kyoto cost? What has it delivered so far? You can check out the clock on www.junkscience.com to see if your tradeoffs are making much difference and at what price. Check it out. You may be surprised.
EVERY developed nation relies on oil and will do so for the next 30 to 50 years. Don’t be jejeune.
Actually, it is one of the worst. That is why the European nations like to point to per capita rather than the more unfortunate for them per square kilometer. Think that just happened along on its own? No, this is a very deliberate stance. Just don’t expect us to symphathize.
I have no problem with technological improvements and moves to cleaner energy. I just think Kyoto is ridiculous.
Of course, but you should be careful about making arguments or statements about geostrategic matters. Clearly, you cannot seem to make a very good point on a subject that obviously concerns you. I would shy away from attempting to do so on one that you have nary a clue about. Trust me. I am trying to help you. haha
you’re starting to whine. Again.[/quote]
No one is stopping you from voting for algore…Oh…wait…that’s right…you’re not a US citizen…I guess you can’t vote for algore…although he is a Democrat and there is the Santa Ana precinct in southern California…citizanship is not a big issue there…hmmm…maybe you can vote for him…
, holding hands in a communist orgy over Gore’s supposed high energy use…calling for him to have a smaller house! The shrillness is anti American, against the American dream. :loco:
I just don’t get you TC. You love to go on about how great Bush is and how the War in Iraq is wonderful progress for the US.