Al Gore's electricity bill goes through the roof

[jolinar of malkshor]

According to the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research, the annual electricity usage at the former US Vice President's large home in Nashville has risen by 10 per cent.
Mr Gore's environmental activism inspired the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
But the TCPR branded him a "hypocrite" in February 2007 after discovering that his eight-bathroom house in the Tennessee city consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in the previous year – more than 20 times the national average.

It says the figures show the Gore residence uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month

By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ted)-roof.html

Keep up the good work Mr. Gore.

[STeeLy]

There was another thread on here about two houses, one of which was Al Gore and the other was the one of George Bush.

George Bush's house is a lot more environmentally friendly than the hypocrite Al Gore's. If you want to be an environmentalist, maybe you should start living/acting like one first Mr. Gore... lead by example.

[Mike F]

A spokesman for Mr Gore disputed the claims, saying his total utility bills had gone down by 40 per cent since the "green" refit, much of that down to the new heating system.

Explaining the electricity consumption, she said the three-year renovation of the house wasn't finished until November so it was too early to draw a before-and-after comparison.

She also stressed that the Gores participate in a local "green power switch" programme which allows them to buy electricity from renewable resources such as wind power and methane gas.

You know you'll never hear about it if it turns out the Gore camp's explanation is right.

"Environmental Advocate Is Environmentally Conscious" just doesn`t sell papers.

[Flashpoint]

Yeah...

...we should all try to be more like George Bush instead.

Here's a good Snopes article on this:

Snopes

Most salient from the article is the fact Gore doesn't advocate a power free lifestyle - just a lifestyle where you can offset your carbon usage. Gore pays over $400 per month extra to buy from "green" power sources to reduce his own carbon footprint.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its easy to offset your carbon footprint when your wealthy and your making a ton of money off of environmental industries.

Ask some poor or middle class slub to increase his utility bill by a couple of hundred percent to offset his footprint.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Keep up the good work Mr. Gore.

Yeah, the millions of people he inspired to use less energy was a complete waste of time.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Yeah...

...we should all try to be more like George Bush instead.

Here's a good Snopes article on this:

Snopes

Most salient from the article is the fact Gore doesn't advocate a power free lifestyle - just a lifestyle where you can offset your carbon usage. Gore pays over $400 per month extra to buy from "green" power sources to reduce his own carbon footprint.

I think that's the crux of his arguement. Of course he doesn't want to talk about his own holdings in companies that collect money for carbon offsets and 'invest' in green technology. Each carbon offset you buy, a protion of each dollar goes directly into his pocket. If you want to save the world, reduce your own consumption in measurable levels and don't give clowns like Gore a cent.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by troutman

Yeah, the millions of people he inspired to use less energy was a complete waste of time.

Exactly. I'm sure in the long run his impact on the Earth is far more positive than it is negative.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Yeah, the millions of people he inspired to use less energy was a complete waste of time.

Is that at all quantifiable?

[mykalberta]

With respect, isnt it a breach of Gore's privacy to release his electrical useage stats - he should sue.

I dispise the man cause he is a two faced leftist prick but that being said, why is his electrical useage public knowledge, his is currently a private citizen is he not?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

With respect, isnt it a breach of Gore's privacy to release his electrical useage stats - he should sue.

I dispise the man cause he is a two faced leftist prick but that being said, why is his electrical useage public knowledge, his is currently a private citizen is he not?

dunno if i can read your electric meter from the street would it be illegal for me to do so?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is that at all quantifiable?

Even if it was 10 people, hasn't he done more good than bad?

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by troutman

Even if it was 10 people, hasn't he done more good than bad?

Not if his 'carbon footprint' is greater than the reduction in the people he has affected. This could also serve to disillusion the sheeple, errr, people... that followed Gore on the green path.

[Bobblehead]

But this article doesn't get any mention.

What's new is that Gore has gotten LEED gold certification from the Green Building Council - the 10,000-square-foot home is one of only 14 in the U.S. to achieve this rating, and the only home in Tennessee that's gotten any certification at all, according to the Associated Press. (There is also a platinum standard) Solar panels, solar roof fans, a rainwater collection system, and geothermal heating were all installed at the house. All incandescent lights - including those on the Christmas tree! - were replaced with either compact fluorescents or light-emitting diodes.

Here is the description of LEED:

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides a suite of standards for environmentally sustainable construction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders...nmental_Design

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by troutman

Even if it was 10 people, hasn't he done more good than bad?

Well, if it was only 10 people, I'd suggest that the energy he consumed to deliver the message far exceeds any savings those 10 people will have in the course of their lifetimes.

I agree that Gore doesn't advocate an energy free lifestyle, just that you buy carbon offsets to theoretically make you feel better about the energy you did consume. No mention by Gore about his investments in those carbon offset companies and the fact that he is making millions of dollars for all the people that have bought those offsets.

Similar story with the famous zoologist David Suzuki. He owns several homes, all that consume copious amounts of electricity. He also seems to have no problems driving across the country in a diesel belching bus, because he bought some carbon credits from a company..... wonder how much stock he owns in said company.....

[troutman]

My wife (architect) just went to a LEED conference in Toronto. She is certified in LEED.

[Gozer]

I don't understand this offset crap at all.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I don't understand this offset crap at all.

They offset their guilt in consuming ######ed amounts of power to help the sleep better at night.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think the reduce consumption message is great, I have never been convinced though, how rich people buying more expensive energy to "offset" emissions is going to do anything. That one just never has made much sense to me.

Oil going to $130 is probably doing as much as anything to reduce consumption and send research dollars to alternative fuels.

Agreed. If the goal is to reduce overall consumption (or, even better, to develop newer cleaner technologies that are sustainable longterm), carbon footprint offsets are not going to remotely help. All it is doing is shifting money into the pockets of those that own stock in the carbon trading scam companies.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I don't understand this offset crap at all.

Look up "Buying Indulgences" from medieval Europe. Back in those times the church would accept money in exchange for forgiveness of sins. So in theory if you were rich you could sin all you wanted as long as you paid the church money for them.


It's the exact same principle with "carbon offsets." The organizations that offer these things uses the money given to them to fund projects that reduce carbon in our atmosphere either through cleaner energy proposals (Wind, Tidal, etc.), planting trees in South America, etc. Where the whole thing falls apart in my opinion is that these projects are not taken to task to ensure that the money is spent wisely (Ie not going into the hands of some corrupt government official in a third world country) or that said projects even reduce carbon by the amount that the purchaser of such an offset would need to actually offset the activities that they purchased the offset for.