Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: "Al Gore's Inconvenient Electric Bill"

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062

    "Al Gore's Inconvenient Electric Bill"

    Al Gore's Inconvenient Electric Bill
    Thursday , March 08, 2007

    By Steven Milloy
    (FoxNews.com)

    The March 1863 Enrollment Act permitted wealthy men to legally dodge the Civil War draft by paying a $300 commutation fee to the U.S. Government. This controversial loophole fueled public perception of a “rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight.”

    The sight of well-dressed men during the 1863 New York City draft riots prompted angry crowds to derisively call out, “There goes a $300-man.”

    It is, therefore, somewhat odd that Al Gore has ventured to become a latter-day $300-man in his crusade against global warming, especially since he touts himself as courageously leading the charge for wide-spread personal sacrifice.

    At the end of Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” viewers are asked, “Are you ready to change the way you live”? Following this line of thinking, the movie’s web site suggests many ways that you can “reduce your impact at home,” including using less heating and air conditioning, buying expensive fluorescent light bulbs, using less hot water, using a clothesline rather than a dryer, carpooling, flying less and buying cost-inefficient hybrid cars.

    Given that Gore calls the fight against global warming a “moral imperative” in the movie, you might reasonably think that he practices what his movie’s web site preaches. But you’d be wrong.

    In the wake of the movie winning an Oscar last month, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported that Gore’s Nashville mansion consumed more than 20 times the electricity than the national average. Last August, the Gore mansion burned more than twice the electricity in a single month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Gore’s heated pool house alone uses more than $500 in electricity every month.

    These latest revelations are reason enough to rent the movie just to see Gore standing before an enormous bar-graph comparison of individual carbon emissions by nationality while sanctimoniously tut-tutting about how the average American’s energy use is greedily off the charts.

    A Gore spokesman tried to deflect the charges of “do as I say, not as I do” by stating that the Gores “purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.” Gore himself has been very public about this approach to carbon neutrality, but not only is this claim not exactly true, it’s quite meaningless in terms of global warming.

    First, Al Gore doesn’t purchase carbon offsets out of his own pocket and the actual economic cost, if any, to him is unknown.

    The actual offset purchaser is a London-based investment firm, Generation Investment Management (GIM), that Al Gore co-founded with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood and others in 2004.

    GIM supposedly purchases carbon offsets for all 23 of its employees to cover their personal energy use, according to a March 7 CNSNews.com report. These offsets, then, would be provided to Gore more as an employee benefit, thus requiring very little sacrifice on his or his family's part.

    Trading and or purchasing carbon offsets is an emerging business, and CNSNews is also pursuing an investigative story into whether Gore or his company are making money from these offsets. It’s quite possible, for example, that GIM’s offsets actually produce financial benefits for the Gores either through tax deductions or even business profits.

    A Gore spokesman refused to shed light on the personal net financial impacts to Gore, instead telling CNSNews that Mr. Gore, "as a private citizen, does not release his private income.”

    Financial matters aside, what are the environmental impacts of Gore’s offsets?

    I was surprised to find that even a leading advocate of carbon offsets acknowledge that they have no impact on global climate.

    The Carbon Neutral Company – one of the two vendors that sell offsets to GIM – says that offset purchases “will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions… in the short term.”

    Instead, they merely: (1) demonstrate commitment to taking action on climate change; (2) add an economic component to climate change; (3) help engage and educate the public; and (4) may provide local social and environmental benefits that help to encourage the use of low-carbon technologies.

    The real design behind offsetting, then, is to impact the public debate, not to avert the dreaded global warming. This purpose is consistent with what I heard Al Gore say about the Kyoto Protocol following a private presentation of his climate slide show I attended at the Americans for Tax Reform offices in January, 2006.

    “Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it [in 1997]?… Hell no!” said Gore. He then explained that the actual point of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on environmental issues.

    But it’s the carbon offset purchases through which Gore really validates application of the $300-man epithet to him. His company buys the offsets for their employees. There’s no cost to him. He benefits politically – and perhaps financially, as well – from them. He then advocates that the rest of us who cannot so easily offset are carbon production suffer myriad personal sacrifices.

    While Gore relaxes in his posh pool house and heated pool, you should be taking shorter and colder showers, and hanging your laundry outside to dry. As Gore jets around the world in first-class comfort to hob-nob with society’s elites about his self-declared “moral imperative”, you should travel less and bike to work. You should use less electricity while Al and his wife, Tipper, use 20 times the national average. Now that’s a real carbon offset.

    “Are you ready to change the way you live?” Gore literally meant you – and only you.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
    Nothing new, but a good piece none-the-less.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,984
    Warfish: New Voice of the Right

    Independent, my ass.

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly
    Warfish: New Voice of the Right

    Independent, my ass.

    Really? Just start a Religion thread and teh Right will tell you how Liberal I am.

    Start a Pot legalization thread and you'll see how Liberal I am.

    Start a Prostitution thread and you'll see how Liberal I can be.

    Start a thread on almost anything to do with Science and you'll see how "liberal" I am (for the record, I have no doubt man effects the environment, it's the degree and the cost of change that I see place for debate).

    Me? I am a Social Liberal. Fiscal Conservative. Some-time Libertarian. Some-time Nationalist. All time big mouth.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish
    Start a Pot legalization thread and you'll see how Liberal I am.


    Done.

  5. #5
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    319
    While I do not condone Al Gore being a hypocrite the person who wrote the article clearly has an agenda.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...even_J._Milloy

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by F-4 Phantom
    While I do not condone Al Gore being a hypocrite the person who wrote the article clearly has an agenda.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...even_J._Milloy
    Everyone has an agenda. Doesn't make the point of the article, and the states facts within it, any less valid.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    I trust very little that comes from our mass media, because there is agendas behind who actually owns the mass media, who writes for it, and the lifestyle they promote in order to sell...

    That said, I think Al Gore has an opportunity here to make a big, big, bold statement. If it is all true, and he lives in a large mansion, he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

    In the movie An Inconvenient Truth, he is walking through a mall and discussing about trying to find signs of change, about how we think about consumerism, and he gets disillusioned and frustrated. NOBODY needs a 10,000 square foot house...so if he wants change, he could be the shining example by giving up something that large in order to prove his point that we all need to change.


    I respect those who have the balls to stand up and say such things....but they need to be leading the charge...

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    I don't know what's more of a fraud: gore or MAN MADE global warming.

    Warfish, if I didn't already believe you to be a true moderate, this thread proves it. In the past you've been bashed by the right (me) and now by the left.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit of Weeb
    I don't know what's more of a fraud: gore or MAN MADE global warming.

    Warfish, if I didn't already believe you to be a true moderate, this thread proves it. In the past you've been bashed by the right (me) and now by the left.

    Are some of you guys still of the mindset that global warming has not been contributed to by the way we live our lives on this planet? How is this still debateable? Or are you talking about the view that man-kind is the ONLY reason for global warming?

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaSteve
    Are some of you guys still of the mindset that global warming has not been contributed to by the way we live our lives on this planet? How is this still debateable? Or are you talking about the view that man-kind is the ONLY reason for global warming?

    I think the former, CS. It's cool that somebody as religious as you are, Steve, still has love for the earth. I never could understand how somebody could claim to be religious and then think there was nothing wrong with taking a giant crap all over his most wonderful of creations.

    Check this out, Steve. Even our government is planning for what to do when the Arctic no longer has ice.

    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/icefree/index.htm

    Kinda shows you where their priorities are. The planet no longer has a polar region! How can we use it for war purposes?

    Maybe global catastrophe wouldn't be such a bad idea. Brings to mind a song by Tool...

    Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
    Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
    Followed by fault lines that cannot sit still.
    Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipsh*ts.

    Some say the end is near.
    Some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
    I certainly hope we will cuz
    I sure could use a vacation from this

    Stupid sh*t

    Cuz I'm praying for rain
    And I'm praying for tidal waves
    I wanna see the ground give way.
    I wanna watch it all go down.
    Mom please flush it all away.
    I wanna see it go right in and down.
    I wanna watch it go right in.
    Watch you flush it all away.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us