Post subject: Way to show 'em how its done Al Gore!
Posted: Tue 02-27-2007 2:06AM
Major
Joined: Mon 10-11-2004 8:58AM Posts: 209 Location: Rolla, MO
Source: Fidelity
I thought this was great....
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.
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
###
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.
Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM Posts: 3128 Location: The Bat Cave
Source: Fidelity
Colossians3 wrote:
I'm sure his house is at least 20x as big as the average American's.
So? Conservation is conservation. No toolbag should be writing about conservation, if they are using more than their fair share (average at most). On the other hand, I don't think anyone would have expected more from him...
_________________ Carney Institute of Technology
Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
I hate when people use that phrase in a horrible attempt to sound profound.
Al Gore gets his electricity from the Green Power Switch program, meaning that his electricity comes from renewable power sources. So, although he uses a lot of electricity, his carbon footprint is relatively small.
_________________ "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison
thats not the point. what al gore says is that energy consumption needs to be reduced at all levels. its hard for somebody to make a fair case for me to save energy in my home when he is consuming what my block does in a year.
_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil. Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.
thats not the point. what al gore says is that energy consumption needs to be reduced at all levels. its hard for somebody to make a fair case for me to save energy in my home when he is consuming what my block does in a year.
The point of reducing energy consumption is to reduce carbon emissions, so as not to add to global warming.
He can use as much electricity as he wants, as long as its from green sources then carbon emissions are not a large byproduct of the energy production. So, he's not adding to global warming by indirectly adding to carbon emissions, so I don't see it as being all too hypocritical. Just my opinion.
_________________ "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison
Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM Posts: 3128 Location: The Bat Cave
Source: Fidelity
BigPeeOn wrote:
amd2800barton wrote:
thats not the point. what al gore says is that energy consumption needs to be reduced at all levels. its hard for somebody to make a fair case for me to save energy in my home when he is consuming what my block does in a year.
The point of reducing energy consumption is to reduce carbon emissions, so as not to add to global warming.
He can use as much electricity as he wants, as long as its from green sources then carbon emissions are not a large byproduct of the energy production. So, he's not adding to global warming by indirectly adding to carbon emissions, so I don't see it as being all too hypocritical. Just my opinion.
But see, the asshole part (the part that stinks) of that argument, is that if this stingy fucker wasn't using up all of the green electricity, I could be using it. Therefore, he IS contributing to carbon emissions. Until ALL electricity is produced in an environmentally friendly way, then those abusing electricity are still creating an enhanced carbon output. At least that is the way I see it.
All of this is not to mention the Natural gas usage...
_________________ Carney Institute of Technology
Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?
Joined: Wed 01-26-2005 6:02PM Posts: 99 Location: Somewhere Out There
Source: MST Wireless
"He can use as much electricity as he wants, as long as its from green sources then carbon emissions are not a large byproduct of the energy production. So, he's not adding to global warming by indirectly adding to carbon emissions..."
"Green" energy sources have to come from somewhere, and the demand which can be supplied from these sources is low compared to coal and nuclear productivity. When he detracts from the available amount of green energy it raises the amount of energy which is necessary to be produced in an area.
Regardless of this, if America were to stop using coal to produce electricity then the major part of advancement in Clean Coal Technology would cease. China is enshrouded in constant smog in Beijing with the amount of coal they have been burning in the area lately. Also as shown in the image (http://cait.wri.org/figures/ntn/6-3.jpg), America and Europe's emissions have dropped fairly significantly in recent years while China and India's emissions have doubled. If American Research were to cease then as the new power plants in China and India which are being built would not have the possibility of having low emissions standards.
I'm all for stopping global warming, but banning the "dirty" energy sources is not the solution if a serious attempt is to be made. The other countries of the world will continue to use coal, and if Americans have pressure to better the cleaning of coal burning then maybe the global impact will be more significant.
_________________ "The hardest part is letting go of your dreams ."
Joined: Sun 08-24-2003 3:47PM Posts: 1049 Location: Behind YOU!
Source: Kelly Hall
BigPeeOn wrote:
Incidently, it seems to not matter:
Al Gore gets his electricity from the Green Power Switch program, meaning that his electricity comes from renewable power sources. So, although he uses a lot of electricity, his carbon footprint is relatively small.
When did he do that? As of last week he was still sucking energy off the main power grid. I believe that the official statement was that they were "investigating" the so called 'green energy' sources available in the area.
Note that still does not address his other residences in Arlington, Va. or Carthage, Tenn. Nor does this address the ridiculous amount of travel he does in private jets.
_________________ "Why is it that we must always choose between certain death and probable death?" ~ Clank, Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
"He can use as much electricity as he wants, as long as its from green sources then carbon emissions are not a large byproduct of the energy production. So, he's not adding to global warming by indirectly adding to carbon emissions..."
"Green" energy sources have to come from somewhere, and the demand which can be supplied from these sources is low compared to coal and nuclear productivity. When he detracts from the available amount of green energy it raises the amount of energy which is necessary to be produced in an area.
Regardless of this, if America were to stop using coal to produce electricity then the major part of advancement in Clean Coal Technology would cease. China is enshrouded in constant smog in Beijing with the amount of coal they have been burning in the area lately. Also as shown in the image (http://cait.wri.org/figures/ntn/6-3.jpg), America and Europe's emissions have dropped fairly significantly in recent years while China and India's emissions have doubled. If American Research were to cease then as the new power plants in China and India which are being built would not have the possibility of having low emissions standards.
I'm all for stopping global warming, but banning the "dirty" energy sources is not the solution if a serious attempt is to be made. The other countries of the world will continue to use coal, and if Americans have pressure to better the cleaning of coal burning then maybe the global impact will be more significant.
So you are saying that if we stop using dirty coal things will get worse cause we'll stop trying to make the dirty coal clean?
This makes no sense. Do you think that if we stop using coal we will just forget everything we have learned up to this point about the technology? Dumb. I think its pretty obvious that china just doesnt enforce rigid enviromental standards. This is how they get a one up on other nations in industry. Processing coal burning to make it cleaner lowers the profit margin, and if government isnt forcing you why bother? If a rogue company tried to be 'ethical' and do it when they werent forced to, they would probably be swallowed up by competition pretty quick. I really dont think it has to do with lack of technology at all.
Except the PSC basically does force you to use clean coal technology. My dad's coal plant has a ton of environmental regulations they have to do to add on the new unit. Basically, banning coal would cause any current research into clean coal to stop, new techs (unless they finaly let nuclear go with rational regulations) would be put out before economically ready, etc. Agreed, China doesn't do shit for the environment, but killing the US coal plants would do very little, long term. All that coal is still going to be burned, either in cleaner US plants or in crap Chinese plants. Coal is still here, and isn't going away for a long time.
_________________ The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.
Joined: Wed 01-26-2005 6:02PM Posts: 99 Location: Somewhere Out There
Source: MST Wireless
Half of today’s power comes from coal in the US, and as it is almost the cheapest way to generate power per kwh that is understandable. The emissions have been dropping over the past 10 - 15 years thanks to research into clean coal tech, and within 11 years they plan on dropping the emissions by an additional 70%.
Realistically, China and India are going to use coal because for them it is cheapest to use it, however they do not have the social conscience to investigate the clean coal tech. America has the resources and the motivation to research the solution, and if we were to develop this then other countries would have the opportunity to install the plants.
If America were to turn its back on coal we would be unable to prove the clean coal tech, we would stop investigating new methods for scrubbing, and other countries would not have the research done for them, which would keep them from considering using clean coal. And I know we still could investigate clean coal if we weren’t going to use it however that would be very unlikely as we wouldn’t be using it.
In summary, Yes I do believe that if we stop using coal for energy that we will cause more harm than if we had continued using it in good conscience (This does not make me dumb). And with regards to China’s unethical standards, if the technology was in place and proven then it would be an easier sell.
(And I’m in favor of nuclear power, green sources, and all the other methods of not damaging the environment however I’m willing to accept that coal can be a safe method of producing power.)
_________________ "The hardest part is letting go of your dreams ."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum