Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”

[Cremaster77]

So... is it or is it not OK to consume/pollute WAY more than everyone else, so long as you can you use your wealth to buy your way out of it?

Where do you see he pollutes more than everyone else? You don't seem to understand the difference between energy consumption and carbon emission.

 

[Goobieman]

Where do you see he pollutes more than everyone else? You don't seem to understand the difference between energy consumption and carbon emission.

The " / " stands for and/or.
And the fact that he pays for carbon offsets indicates that he does pollute more.

So... is it or is it not OK to consume/pollute WAY more than everyone else, so long as you can you use your wealth to buy your way out of it?

 

[Goobieman]

You're point being? You are accusing Gore of being hypocritical. For him to be so would me he is doing the opposite of what he is telling others to do.

So... Al Gore -isn't- telling people to conserve energy?
You're SURE?

 

[Hatuey]

The " / " stands for and/or.
And the fact that he pays for carbon offsets indicates that he does pollute more.

No it doesnt. I give around $150 every month to pay for carbon offsets and I use my car maybe twice a month(when I drive to the airport cause I have a work trip).

 

[Gibberish]

So what is Gore's message? To not pollute more or to not use more energy?

He is obviously using more energy but it seems he has measures in place to not pollute more.

If his message is to not pollute more then he is not a hypocrite.
If his message is to not consume more energy then he is a hypocrite.

 

[Ikari]

Does it not seem odd to people that the power consumption of Gore's mansion is being compared to the power consumption of an average American home? I mean...no duh! Thermal diffusion isn't linear, the larger the volume you need to temperature regulate, the more power it's going to take. Also, larger homes tend to have more items which use power so of course bigger house + more stuff = greater power consumption. It's not a proper comparison.

 

[Goobieman]

No it doesnt. I give around $150 every month to pay for carbon offsets and I use my car maybe twice a month(when I drive to the airport cause I have a work trip).

YOU'RE just being silly. No offense.
If you want, you can give me that $150/mo and I'll pronmise to drive less. :lol:

The statement re: offsets was that Gore paid for these offsets -because- of the carbon he created.

 

[Gibberish]

Does it not seem odd to people that the power consumption of Gore's mansion is being compared to the power consumption of an average American home? I mean...no duh! Thermal diffusion isn't linear, the larger the volume you need to temperature regulate, the more power it's going to take. Also, larger homes tend to have more items which use power so of course bigger house + more stuff = greater power consumption. It's not a proper comparison.

Why do you have to ruin things and be all logical?

 

[Cremaster77]

The " / " stands for and/or.

Your point being?

And the fact that he pays for carbon offsets indicates that he does pollute more.

That makes no sense at all. He pays for carbon offsets to bring his net carbon emission to zero. EVERY person would have to pay for carbon offsets to do so. Buying offsets does not mean he "pollutes more" since every single person in America would have to buy offsets to get to net zero carbon emissions. He may very well create more carbon emissions, but you have provided ZERO evidence that he does and equated clean energy consumption with carbon emissions which is blatantly false.

So... is it or is it not OK to consume/pollute WAY more than everyone else, so long as you can you use your wealth to buy your way out of it?

It's perfectly okay to consume more if that consumption results in little or not ecological impact. Like I have said before, please find me one quote of Gore's where he has stated that if people use clean energy that they should limit their energy consumption. If he has, then he is a hypocrite as this thread has accused him of. He has limited his carbon emissions and therefore has not been hypocritical.

It is not okay to pollute more, but in Gore's case, his cause has been against carbon pollution, not energy consumption. Where do you have evidence that he has increased carbon pollution?

 

[Kandahar]

So... is it or is it not OK to consume/pollute WAY more than everyone else, so long as you can you use your wealth to buy your way out of it?

Of course it is. Don't you understand what a carbon offset is? He's not just throwing his money into the street; he's paying companies to plant trees (or whatever else reduces carbon emissions) so that the effect is he isn't emitting any carbon at all.

 

[Cremaster77]

It's interesting that those who are trying to use this article against Gore consciously fail to address the question that I have already posed. If all of the energy consumed in the US was created through zero carbon processes (such as through solar power) does anyone honestly think that Gore would be urging people to reduce their energy consumption?

 

[Gitdog]

Does it not seem odd to people that the power consumption of Gore's mansion is being compared to the power consumption of an average American home? I mean...no duh! Thermal diffusion isn't linear, the larger the volume you need to temperature regulate, the more power it's going to take. Also, larger homes tend to have more items which use power so of course bigger house + more stuff = greater power consumption. It's not a proper comparison.

Doesn't it seem odd that he needs a mansion for 2 people to live in? If he wants to change his style of living fine. He should start by closing down the zinc mine on his property if he cares so much. :lol:

 

[Goobieman]

Purchasing offsets only means that Gore doesn't want to make the same kind of sacrifices that he's asking other families to make. He's using a modern form of indulgences in order to avoid doing the penance that global-warming activism demands of others -- such as converving energy. It means that the very rich can continue to suck up energy and raise the price and the demand for electricity and natural gas, while families struggle with their energy costs and face increasing government regulation and taxation. It's a regressive plan that Gore's supporters would decry if the same kind of scheme were applied to a national sales tax, for instance.

 

[Ikari]

Doesn't it seem odd that he needs a mansion for 2 people to live in? If he wants to change his style of living fine. He should start by closing down the zinc mine on his property if he cares so much. :lol:

I'm not saying there isn't a valid critique here. I'm saying that comparing the energy consumption of a mansion to the average American home is an improper comparison.

 

[Goobieman]

I'm not saying there isn't a valid critique here. I'm saying that comparing the energy consumption of a mansion to the average American home is an improper comparison.

Gore's house is ~10,000ft^2, about 4x the size of the average house constructed today. Show that it is reasonable for 4x the house to consume 20x the electicity -- especially given that his is heated by gas.

 

[Ikari]

It's probably much higher because Gore probably has luxury items which consume electricity that average Americans don't have. Also, just by having a larger house has more items which consume electricity than an average American would have (as we are more constrained by space and budget that the rich are). Also in terms of just heating/cooling a house, it's not linear with area. So increasing a house size by 4 doesn't necessarily mean the electricity needed to regulate it is only going to go up by 4.

As I said, there are valid critiques of what technology Gore is using to run his home, and the number of luxuries he is unwilling to do away with so that he may decrease his energy consumption. But an upright comparison between a mansion's energy consumption and the consumption of an average house is not valid as it doesn't account for all the other variables.

 

[Cremaster77]

Gore's house is ~10,000ft^2, about 4x the size of the average house constructed today. Show that it is reasonable for 4x the house to consume 20x the electicity -- especially given that his is heated by gas.

You quote square footage. Heating and cooling are dependent on volume. A house with 4 times the square footage has almost 9x the volume. Still not the 20x, but that only accounts for cooling and heating, and I believe he cools with electric, which in my house is still the majority of my electric bill. Add to that lighting, electrical appliances and computers, and the fact that he works from home which adds at least 1.5x to the house use compared to your average home where people work outside of your house and you're getting close to that 20x number.

The point being that I don't think his electric use is out of whack for a home his size, but if he really wanted to cut back on consumption, he would live in a smaller house. Living in a large house consumes more resources not just from the heating/cooling and daily usage, but the energy and carbon released from building that house and gathering the material to use it. You can certainly fault him from the house, although I'm not sure how long he's lived there. 20 years ago, the ecologic impact of this type of consumption was simply not as well understood as it is today.

 

[Goobieman]

You quote square footage. Heating and cooling are dependent on volume. A house with 4 times the square footage has almost 9x the volume.

Only if the ceilings are >2x as high.
2500ft^2 x 8' ceiling = 20,000ft^3
2500ft^2 x 9' ceiling = 22,500ft^3
10,000ft^2 x 8' ceiling = 80,000ft^3
10,000ft^2 x 10' ceiling = 100,000ft^3

Add to that lighting, electrical appliances and computers, and the fact that he works from home which adds at least 1.5x to the house use compared to your average home where people work outside of your house and you're getting close to that 20x number.

No you arent. Thesse are huge unsupporable generalizations, and are based on the the 4x area = 9x volume ruse.

You can certainly fault him from the house

That's kinda the point...

 

[Cremaster77]

Only if the ceilings are >2x as high.
2500ft^2 x 8' ceiling = 20,000ft^3
2500ft^2 x 9' ceiling = 22,500ft^3
10,000ft^2 x 8' ceiling = 80,000ft^3
10,000ft^2 x 10' ceiling = 100,000ft^3

:3oops: Oops. My bad on the volume.

 

[SgtRock]

Does it not seem odd to people that the power consumption of Gore's mansion is being compared to the power consumption of an average American home? I mean...no duh! Thermal diffusion isn't linear, the larger the volume you need to temperature regulate, the more power it's going to take. Also, larger homes tend to have more items which use power so of course bigger house + more stuff = greater power consumption. It's not a proper comparison.

If E Gore was serious about reducing personal energy consumption, he would cut the power to his mansion and live in a energy efficient modest home. In my opinion he is a hypocrite. If he would slip in the shower and break his neck that would reduce carbon emissions substantially do to all the hot air he expells. ~ Sgt Rock :rock

 

[americanwoman]

The point being that I don't think his electric use is out of whack for a home his size, but if he really wanted to cut back on consumption, he would live in a smaller house. Living in a large house consumes more resources not just from the heating/cooling and daily usage, but the energy and carbon released from building that house and gathering the material to use it. You can certainly fault him from the house, although I'm not sure how long he's lived there. 20 years ago, the ecologic impact of this type of consumption was simply not as well understood as it is today.

That's what I was thinking. I have to say that even though he "offsets" his energy consumption if he really truly cared about the enviroment he would live in a smaller house and not only offset his energy use it but underset (word??) it. I don't know if that's how to put it but you all get what I am saying. And he understands the impact now but it doesn't look like he is moving anytime soon.


Also I saw this here:

Johnson said Gore's home has gas lamps lining his driveway, a heated pool and an electric gate — all of which would be easy to do without.

Group: Gore a hypocrite over power bill - Yahoo! News

Of course for someone who is eco-friendly they probably wouldn't even dream of having those three things yet Gore does. How funny, a guy who makes a movie about global warming but can't even get off his bum and open a gate.

 

[Stinger]

These are the measures he suggests for everyone.

Use 20x the average! Don't think so, he is an abject hypocrite.

 

[Hatuey]

YOU'RE just being silly. No offense.
If you want, you can give me that $150/mo and I'll pronmise to drive less. :lol:

The statement re: offsets was that Gore paid for these offsets -because- of the carbon he created.

So basically he's trying to balance things out more then the everyday person does...and you're critizising him for it? How much money have you payed for carbon offsets lately to balance your carbon production?

 

[Stinger]

So basically he's trying to balance things out more then the everyday person does...and you're critizising him for it? How much money have you payed for carbon offsets lately to balance your carbon production?

If he didn't consider himself on of the annointed and live in a modest house he wouldn't have to "balance" anything out and would use the same amount of electricity as the rest of us.

So rich people can use more and claim specious carbon offsets. Why not plant those trees anyway and use the amount of energy he wants the rest of us to use too?

 

[Goobieman]

So basically he's trying to balance things out more then the everyday person does...and you're critizising him for it? How much money have you payed for carbon offsets lately to balance your carbon production?

I havant paid a dime, and I dont plan to.

But the point remains - he's -paying- for his 'carbon footprint', a benefit derived from his wealth.