"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

You're missing the point. He pays money to someone else who builds solar/wind farms that produce as much power as he uses, thus he nets 0 tonnes of carbon dioxide from his electricity consumption. There was a link to the website with this program right at the end of the movie.

I may be missing the point. That article is kind of sketchy and I haven't seen the movie. The way I took it, the excuse given by his spokesperson was "his house burns a lot of electricity, but he invests in green energy, so it's okay". If that's not the situation then I have missed something.

If he wants to be a role-model or a spokesperson for this cause, he should not be burning so much energy even if he ponies up some extra cash to cover his pollution. Very few people in the world are in the position to drop 1500 bucks a month on electricity no matter where it comes from. A better message, especially from someone who is getting so much mileage out of this issue, would be "I use very little energy, and what I do use I get from a windfarm". With this story the message is "my old house goes through a lot of electricity but I pay extra to a windfarm so I'm good".

[arsenal]

All Gore is doing is buying "green" energy from a retailer. The retailer then purchases that amount of "green" energy to be put into a pool to cover the energy consumption that Gore uses. That's it, that's all. His electricity could still be (and most likely) coming from traditional sources.

If he wanted to be truly "green", he should be off the grid and supply his own electricity from "green" sources (ie: solar panels).

[badnarik]

destroying bat populations? i hadn't heard about that.
prepare for new headline:
"Swarms of insects tied to global warming"

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by arsenal

All Gore is doing is buying "green" energy from a retailer. The retailer then purchases that amount of "green" energy to be put into a pool to cover the energy consumption that Gore uses. That's it, that's all. His electricity could still be (and most likely) coming from traditional sources. If he wanted to be truly "green", he should be off the grid and supply his own electricity from "green" sources (ie: solar panels).

I don't see it that way. I live in an apartment building. Really not quite allowed to install a windmill out on the balcony. So I purchase my electricity from Bullfrog Power, a company that produces its energy 100% from renewable resources (hydro, wind and a small percentage from solar). Yes, it is more expensive, but I feel better about doing it that way. Without my (and all the other fellow customers) paying a little bit more, that green energy would not be being added to the grid. Yes, the electricity coming into my apartment is likely from other sources (coal, oil, nuclear), but someone else paying Ottawa Hydro is getting wind energy that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for me signing up with Bullfrog.

Calling Gore a hypocrite is calling me a hypocrite because I'm doing the exact same thing.

-=-=-=-=-=-

They have really reduced the number of birds being killed by the wind turbines, but bats have seemed far harder to deter. They are working on the problem just as they did with the birds, with little success as of yet. I do find it interesting that conservatives who don't give a flying F' about the polar bears are latching onto a "Save the Bats" campaign.

[Daradon]

There should not be credits given to green living. Or if their are, it should at least be at a scale. Maybe 2-1?

Cause I make more, shouldn't allow me to buy my way to polluting more.

Dumb

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't see it that way. I live in an apartment building. Really not quite allowed to install a windmill out on the balcony. So I purchase my electricity from Bullfrog Power, a company that produces its energy 100% from renewable resources (hydro, wind and a small percentage from solar). Yes, it is more expensive, but I feel better about doing it that way. Without my (and all the other fellow customers) paying a little bit more, that green energy would not be being added to the grid. Yes, the electricity coming into my apartment is likely from other sources (coal, oil, nuclear), but someone else paying Ottawa Hydro is getting wind energy that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for me signing up with Bullfrog.

Calling Gore a hypocrite is calling me a hypocrite because I'm doing the exact same thing.

No one will call you a hypocrite for what you are doing.

The issue w/ Gore (and Suzuki) is that there lifestyle is not environmentally sustainable. Even with offsetting his carbon, wouldn't it be wiser, environmentally speaking, to reduce the consumption in the first place seeing as that energy he used (wasted) will never be replaced.

Many of us make sacrifices to reduce our impact on the environment, however i hope some day that I might be able to sacrifice enough to need to offset my 10,000 sq ft home's electricity... and then tell everyone else how they need to reduce their impact.

~bug

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Al Gore's average electric bill is $1359/month.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17382210/?GT1=9033

I almost fell off my chair when I read how much his electric bill was. Makes mine look like small potatoes. His house is nine times bigger than mine, but still.

I believe Gore runs 2 home offices out of his home, which adds significantly to the bill.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't see it that way. I live in an apartment building. Really not quite allowed to install a windmill out on the balcony. So I purchase my electricity from Bullfrog Power, a company that produces its energy 100% from renewable resources (hydro, wind and a small percentage from solar). Yes, it is more expensive, but I feel better about doing it that way. Without my (and all the other fellow customers) paying a little bit more, that green energy would not be being added to the grid. Yes, the electricity coming into my apartment is likely from other sources (coal, oil, nuclear), but someone else paying Ottawa Hydro is getting wind energy that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for me signing up with Bullfrog.

Not quite the same situation. Where you don't really have a choice but to purchase electricity from someone, Gore has the means and ability to go fully green, off the grid, where as you do not.

[Burninator]

You people that are calling Gore a hypocrite are not looking at the big picture. He said in his movie that if everyone used energy efficient appliances, light bulbs and green energy through their power company etc. It would help the problem not solve it. Someone that is in a postion like Gore or Suzuki are the ones that can help the problem globally.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by firebug

No one will call you a hypocrite for what you are doing.

The issue w/ Gore (and Suzuki) is that there lifestyle is not environmentally sustainable. Even with offsetting his carbon, wouldn't it be wiser, environmentally speaking, to reduce the consumption in the first place seeing as that energy he used (wasted) will never be replaced.

Many of us make sacrifices to reduce our impact on the environment, however i hope some day that I might be able to sacrifice enough to need to offset my 10,000 sq ft home's electricity... and then tell everyone else how they need to reduce their impact.

~bug

Let's not lose sight of who the REAL hypocrites are in this situation. A right-wing think tank whose STATED agenda is to contradict global warming science is criticizing Gore for.... wait for it..... not doing enough to prevent the global crisis that they don't believe in! Seriously, this is a weak ad hominem argument that represents everything that is wrong with politics, where people aren't held accountable for their attacks. That's why politics in the U.S. is so disgusting, by comparison to Canada. The only way to stop this strategy is if we stop being fooled by it.

Consider that this attack comes in spite of the fact that Gore IS doing something to minimize his own carbon usage--which is one of the reasons his energy bill is so high--he pays more per kilowatt hour than someone who is on the grid in a conventional sense.

You may believe that he should do more: fine. That doesn't contradict Gore's message--it enhances it. But I will say this: Gore is doing something that all of us, in theory, could do. If he were to go off-grid, he would be implementing a plan that isn't feasible for the average person. Setting an example?

I think so.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Al Gore's average electric bill is $1359/month.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17382210/?GT1=9033

I almost fell off my chair when I read how much his electric bill was. Makes mine look like small potatoes. His house is nine times bigger than mine, but still.

Of course he spends that much. How else is a robot supposed to fuel his nuclear-powered titanium heart?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Not quite the same situation. Where you don't really have a choice but to purchase electricity from someone, Gore has the means and ability to go fully green, off the grid, where as you do not.

YES IT IS!!!

Lets look at it this way:

Scenario 1: Al Gore covers his mansion in solar panels and takes himself off the grid. He uses 10 billion kwh but no one cares because they can see solar panels on his roof, so its okay.

Scenario 2: Al Gore pays someone else to throw a bunch of solar panels in a field that generate 10 billion kwh of electricity. He buys these 10 billion kwh for his mansion. People bitch and moan because he's a hippocrite.

Seriously, what is the difference???

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

YES IT IS!!!

Lets look at it this way:

Scenario 1: Al Gore covers his mansion in solar panels and takes himself off the grid. He uses 10 billion kwh but no one cares because they can see solar panels on his roof, so its okay.

Scenario 2: Al Gore pays someone else to throw a bunch of solar panels in a field that generate 10 billion kwh of electricity. He buys these 10 billion kwh for his mansion. People bitch and moan because he's a hippocrite.

Seriously, what is the difference???

Gore uses 10 billion kwh worth of electricty, and purchases that electricity from a retailer, paying a premium for electricity from a renewable resource.
All that is guaranteed is the retailer will purchase 10 billion kwh worth of electricity from a power producer that uses renewable resources (wind, solar, etc) and puts it in the electricty pool to be distributed. Weither or not Gore sees any of the "green" electrons is anyones guess.

If he used solar panels connected to his house, there is the guarantee that his electricity is coming directly from renewable source, and not going into a pool.

I guess if you wanted to be picky there is a difference. Its mainly semantics.

Is Gore using "green" electricity? Technically speaking, no. Theoretically, yes.

Is he guaranteeing that his portion of the electricity pool is being produced from a renewable resource, rather than a standard method? yes.

If he was off the grid and using solar panels, wind mill, water, etc only for powering his house, it would be yes to both questions.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Of course he spends that much. How else is a robot supposed to fuel his nuclear-powered titanium heart?

A little off topic, but does anyone remember the old Simpsons episode where Lisa buys Al Gore's book.... the above post just reminded me of that.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by fotze

How about Scenario 2 and only have a 3000 sq foot house? And ya it is obviously trying to direct attention to something else. I bet he eats meat which is also worse for the environment than being a vegetarian and all sorts of little insignificant things. I think Rouge is just saying that the 10,000 thing is a tad excessive. It is only an appearance thing not a hypocritical thing.

I'd say it is hypocritical. After all, what he's asking - demand governments enforce even - is that we all consume less but he himself does not. It's like buying indulgences. Doesn't undo the sin, just makes you feel better about it.

Incidentally, nor does he donate a penny of the hundreds of thousands he gets for each speaking engagement to the cause he's supposedly promoting.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Incidentally, nor does he donate a penny of the hundreds of thousands he gets for each speaking engagement to the cause he's supposedly promoting.

Link?

Gore could be a hypocrite, but we shouldn't ignore what he is saying. A bit extreme perhaps, but at least something to pay attention too.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I'd say it is hypocritical. After all, what he's asking - demand governments enforce even - is that we all consume less but he himself does not. It's like buying indulgences. Doesn't undo the sin, just makes you feel better about it.

Incidentally, nor does he donate a penny of the hundreds of thousands he gets for each speaking engagement to the cause he's supposedly promoting.

He isn't saying consume less. He's saying produce less C02. Which he does.

If you take the flying required by what he does out of the equation I'm willing to bet his C02 output is much lower than yours.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

He isn't saying consume less. He's saying produce less C02. Which he does.

If you take the flying required by what he does out of the equation I'm willing to bet his C02 output is much lower than yours.

How can we produce less CO2 without somehow consuming less - smaller cars, smaller houses, fewer trips, more expensive goods, simply buying less goods - has to be somethign like that.

As for the CO2 output, on face value that's a ridiculous statement but I'll assume there's some catch to this that makes you right or you wouldn't have said it. I'm actually interested to hear

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Azure

Link?

Gore could be a hypocrite, but we shouldn't ignore what he is saying. A bit extreme perhaps, but at least something to pay attention too.

Fair enough. Though I often wonder if people like that do their cause more harm then good.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

How can we produce less CO2 without somehow consuming less - smaller cars, smaller houses, fewer trips, more expensive goods, simply buying less goods - has to be somethign like that.

As for the CO2 output, on face value that's a ridiculous statement but I'll assume there's some catch to this that makes you right or you wouldn't have said it. I'm actually interested to hear

RENEWABLE ENERGY.

Solar, wind, and hydro power for example, don't produce C02 when making electricity. When using electricity from these sources no emissions, C02 or otherwise, are produced. No matter how obscene the amount of electricity you use.

Al Gore has paid for the renewable energy infrastructure to provide his entire home with electricity.

How can I make this more clear?

I've done the same thing with Greenmax from Enmax.

Infact, my electricity use is so low because I have a small place that I pay for more renewable energy infrastructure than I use. That means some of you chumps are getting wind power thanks to me. That is what we call NEGATIVE carbon dioxide output.

Of course I make up for that by burning natural gas and driving my car among other things.