Posted February 28, 200718 yr More energy for him :-D Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. For more, see link below www.cnn.com
February 28, 200718 yr Or should we crucify him for living in one of the most sprawled-out and non-pedestrian friendly cities in the country?
February 28, 200718 yr The energy savings we could achieve nationwide if every household just did something simple--like installing one compact flourscent --to save energy are amazing.
February 28, 200718 yr I wonder what his per square footage usage is? I'm sure is has an ENORMOUS home, and therefore it will use more energy. But does it use more or less per square foot of living space? His home could be way ahead of the national average. This is another example of incomplete journalism!
February 28, 200718 yr I wonder what his per square footage usage is? I'm sure is has an ENORMOUS home, and therefore it will use more energy. But does it use more or less per square foot of living space? His home could be way ahead of the national average. This is another example of incomplete journalism! The point is that he could be doing a lot to reduce his $30,000/year electric bill. I don't care how big your house is...nobody needs that much energy. Hell, why doesn't he just close off a couple wings of his mansion and close the heater vents? That could probably shave off $5,000/year. It's no different than driving a Hummer. Does anyone need a house or car that big? Should he be preaching about conservation when his footprint is the size of 30 of mine? I don't care if he's buying green energy...he's adding to the overall energy demand.
February 28, 200718 yr The most relevent point is that his energy usage is increasing, not the amount or proportion to the average home.
February 28, 200718 yr where was this published? It's a press release from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, whoever that is. (Link)
February 28, 200718 yr The most relevent point is that his energy usage is increasing, not the amount or proportion to the average home. Yes, but if (as a journalist) you are going to compare his home energy costs to the average home energy costs...its not an equal comparison. He does not live in the average home (whether that is right or wrong is not my point). Sure he should be working to reduce his ecological footprint, but don't show me some data that is comparing apples to oranges. How about this...and elephant on average consumes about 300-350 lbs of food per day http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9475(197621)97%3A1%3C93%3ATEITGA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L A human being consumes about 4 lbs per day. http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question25165.html WOW....that elephant uses up sooo much more food. Well no crap!!! The elephant also weighs 10,000 pounds. Is that a reasonable comparison as well. I don't see much difference.
February 28, 200718 yr So what fundamental difference is there between Al Gore (a human) and me (also a human). We both consume energy...he just consumes much, much more.
February 28, 200718 yr The comparison is not between Al Gore and You...it is between what his home requires and what the average home requires. One is a mansion...one is not. Compare his home to other mansions...or other homes equivalent in size and I'm fine. Just don't compare different things. Here is another example: A 50 story skyscraper I'm sure uses a hell of a lot more energy than a single family dwelling. But that 50 story skyscraper may be Platinum LEED Certified, while the other is normal run of the mill track housing. Like I said not equal.
February 28, 200718 yr I don't get it...why would a single family live in a skyscraper? You need to work on your analogies. My whole point is...don't preach what others should do, and then live in a MANSION!
February 28, 200718 yr My point still stands, his energy useage is going up!! Lets say the elephants makes a movie about dieting: -The person cuts back and eats 3 lbs of food a day (1 lb less), losing weight. -The elephant eats 410 lbs a day (10 lbs more), gaining weight. DOES THE ELEPHANT HAVE THE EXCUSE OF BEING BIGGER TO BEGIN WITH??? No, he is a hypocrite!
February 28, 200718 yr where was this published? It's a press release from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, whoever that is. (Link) Conservative Think Tank. Here: http://mediamatters.org/items/search/200702270009 More here: http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Global+Warming By the way, we switched all of our incadescent bulbs to compact flourescent bulbs back in November. Even with subsequent the cold weather, we've seen an average decrease in our electric bill of $15 per month. And yes, zero-carbon footprint or no, Al Gore's house is indefensibly large.
February 28, 200718 yr Its a bldg v. bldg comparison. The article states nothing of the sort about how many/little people live in the bldg. A skyscraper is much bigger than a track house and therefore will use more energy regardless of its energy efficiencies. Just like a huge 10,000 sq ft mansion will use more energy than a typical 2,000 sq ft home.
February 28, 200718 yr Just to clarify...I do find it hypocritical of Gore to say one thing and do another. But the home comparison that was drawn upon is not right. Yes his usage is increasing and that is valid, but to compare what a massive bldg consumes compare to the average size bldg consumes is not equal. It is wrong of him to live that way, but thats not what I'm talking about.
February 28, 200718 yr I thought Gore's response in the article Brewmaster posted was interesting -- that he lives a "carbon neutral" life by contributing to other project geared towards reduced energy consumption. I think that's valid thing to do given that it'll be impossible to get everyone working on the same principals of energy consumption -- some people will just want to live in large, energy hungry homes as a lifestyle choice. However, keeping an eye on the sum total emissions/consumption is really what matters. Isn't this the whole concept behind Kyoto?
February 28, 200718 yr ^^Agreed, but next time lets attack the hypocritical energy hog and not the careless journalist. :)
February 28, 200718 yr I wonder what his per square footage usage is? I'm sure is has an ENORMOUS home, and therefore it will use more energy. 10,000 Sq ft. = 1.59 kw per sq ft per mo.
February 28, 200718 yr I'm sorry, I lost about 90 percent respect for Al Gore. I admire people like Cincinnati City Council member Jim Tarbell, who lives in OTR and rides a bike to city hall. I admire Light rail and street car advocate John Scneider who takes public transit everywhere and rents cars. If you believe that strongly in something, you'll practice what you preach, and I think it's obvious Al Gore has other reasons for his global warming agenda (not that global warming shouldn't be addressed, it just shouldn't be addressed by someone living in the "all about me house" with a 30k a year energy bill or even a guy running multiple houses.
February 28, 200718 yr WOW. I just did the math, I use 0.05 kw per month per sq ft. This in South Florida with air conditioning running nearly 12 mos out of the year. 1.59 is nearly 32 times the amount of kw I use per sq ft per mo.
February 28, 200718 yr Hey...easy guys. If it weren't for him we wouldn't be on this forum today discussing this issue. He did invent the internet you know :speech:
February 28, 200718 yr Actually I was looking at a bill from another property that I own that is not occupied but the air, refrigerator, etc. are running. I use 0.15 per sq ft, per mo. The difference is still more than 10 times my amount but I guess we don't know how many people live there. That would need to be factored in as well. Maybe not as bad (but still not good) as I first thought.
February 28, 200718 yr Hey...easy guys. If it weren't for him we wouldn't be on this forum today discussing this issue. He did invent the internet you know :speech: We all know hes a computer genius.
February 28, 200718 yr I'm looking at my last electric bill and calculate that I used 0.239 kWh/sqft last month...and that was one of my highest bills in awhile. So he uses 6 times as much per sq. ft. and has 7 times as many sq. ft.
March 1, 200718 yr It all makes sense now...........how else could Al keep the internet up and running without a large power supply?! LOL :)
March 5, 200718 yr Don't forget about all the fuel his private jet and entourage of SUV's consumes. In the meantime, he want's Americans to do whatever we can to cut back on our fuel usage.
March 5, 200718 yr Well atleast jets have relatively clean emissions. Only because it's highly regulated.
March 5, 200718 yr i'm confused, should I be killing elephants? We should all eat more elephants! Anybody got a recipe?
March 7, 200718 yr ^See this month's NGM....sad news still for elephants Yes. I read that article. It's actually relevant to this discussion; the elephants are losing out to humans in the competition for resources that are insufficient to sustain the human overpopulation. If elephants were carnivores, the problem might partially rectify itself. The accusations of hypocrisy directed against Al Gore seem somewhat justified, but that doesn't change the facts of his message, or the need for Americans to conserve. Whether or not you accept global warming as fact, I don't think anyone denies that America's oil and gas supplies have peaked and are not capable of meeting our demand. It's a fact that we're dependent upon Middle Eastern countries for oil and our dependency will continue to increase. Whether or not their supplies are near peak or overstated is only marginally relevant. They control the supply, and we're not making much effort to control our demand. We cannot afford the oil imports and we cannot afford the military interventions, and most Americans are still in denial about both.
March 7, 200718 yr ^See this month's NGM....sad news still for elephants Yes. I read that article. It's actually relevant to this discussion; the elephants are losing out to humans in the competition for resources that are insufficient to sustain the human overpopulation. If elephants were carnivores, the problem might partially rectify itself. well that's not quite true, the way you phrased it is that we and the elephants are in competition for the same resources; when the elephants are loosing out to our vanity (they have something attached to them that we want, but don't need)
March 7, 200718 yr Sorry; I should have been more specific. I was referring to the loss of elephant habitat due to illegal logging and destruction of forest by impoverished people who share their territory and who have no way to feed themselves and their families other than by subsistence farming and by the sale of timber (and ivory, too; I agree with what you said about that).
Create an account or sign in to comment