Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Environmental Issues
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-06-2007, 11:44 AM   #1
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
An "Inconvenient Electric Bill"

I found this very interesting in view of Al Gore's admonitions to the rest of us about SUVs, energy consumption and the like.

Oh well, I guess he's "above the fray" here and needs to use SUVs and private jets to and from his conferences around the world- as well as burning 20 times the national average in his home energy consumption...........

Yes, I know - he is supposedly buying "carbon offsets" which the rest of us can't afford to do and I guess that is assuaging his guilt. Makes you wonder........is it just rank hypocrisy or something even worse?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._his_fron.html
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 12:20 PM   #2
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,239
Well, if you want to know actual facts about the carbon offsets check this site out. That might be a good idea before dismissing it as some cooky scam that enables polluters. And be careful in the casual use of the word "supposedly". That usually means "I can't disprove it, but I dont want to accept that its true".

http://www.terrapass.com/about/faq.html#1

It seems pretty legit to me. They put the money towards renewable energy projects with verifiable CO2 reductions. Of course, not polluting in the first place and also buying carbon credits would be even better.
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 01:07 PM   #3
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
I was thinking of this just yesterday when I caught a small piece on NPR about Carbon Offsets. It is a short listen and describes what offsets really are and briefly describes some of the pros and cons of the system. Find it HERE

Conventional wisdom right now holds that one of the more reasonable ways to reduce your personal contribution to Global Warming without radically changing your life is to start by making whatever small changes you can (such as buying green energy, using compact fluorescents, etc etc) and to then "offset" the rest by buying carbon offsets.

The goal is to get your personal contribution to this problem down to around zero. According to Al, this is what he has done.

Now, one could certainly criticize him, and anyone else, for not taking things farther and moving the family out into a mud hut in the hills that is off the grid... but realistically here, what is more likely to induce change? Being a radical who drastically changes his lifestyle, or showing people that it is possible to do your part practically and reasonably without altering the life you know and selling the house?

I'm not sure there is anything Al Gore could do that wouldn't invite criticism... if he reduces his footprint to zero, well by god he should be in the negative!... but I actually think that what he is doing sets a good example for the way things will have to be done. Let's face it, only a small percentage of Americans would be willing to drastically change the way they live for any reason. So maybe this is a more realistic model for a lot of people.

Whatcha think? I've been torn on the idea of offsetting for a long time now.


oh ps: I did a quick look around this morning to see who or what was behind the "story" about Al's Electric Bill. Here is the sourcewatch page for the conservative think tank that released it. Fairly benign as far as these "think tanks" go, but it is notable that their President, Drew Johnson, worked for a policy research center that was directly funded by Exxon. Doh!
Holdstrong is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 01:34 PM   #4
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
I think the most revealing thing about the accusations id the fear the republicans have of Al gore, and he isn't even running!!

Notice too that the accusations are coming from the same people who called him a "nut case" for his stand on global Warming and then environment.

So, take the remarks from whom they came, the same people who have had their heads in the sand for the past couple of decades, people who have a lot to lose by having to do things responsibly as it concerns the population.

It's the same old story, when you don't have any facts to disprove the message then attack the messenger.

Actually the way things are in Washington today, if you want to elect an honest, ethical person, then elect the one that everyone else iss trying to discredit.

And for all you global warming disbelievers, If Al Gore used $10,000 worth of electricity a month, it would not change the fact that there is global warming.

Incidently, we are a family of two adults. I turn off all my lights when not in use. I have a plug strip that my TV, DVD Player andVCR are plugged into and i turn that off when not in use so as not to use electricity on standby. My refrigerator is set at the highest setting possible to still keep food safe. I have a set back thermostat set to 63 in the day and 50 in the evening. I have oile heat but the blower requires electricity. All my light bulbs are the low energy ones. My Printer, Computer speakers, external dvd drive are all turned off when off when i am not using them. if I leave the puter on and am going to be away from it for a few minutes, I turn the monitor off.

My monthly electric bill average? $130.00!!!!!!

So maybe the amount of electricity Al Gore uses isn't the issue, maybe it's the cost of electricity that's the problem!!

Just something to think about.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 01:38 PM   #5
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post

Now, one could certainly criticize him, and anyone else, for not taking things farther and moving the family out into a mud hut in the hills that is off the grid...
Well, no one is suggesting he move into a mud hut- but 20x the national average? If he wants US to alter OUR lifestyles, couldn't he do the same and maybe reduce that to a paltry 3 or 5 times the national average?

And I find it interesting that these carbon credits are basically being bought from himself as Chairman of Generation Investment Management:

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 01:54 PM   #6
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
And for all you global warming disbelievers, If Al Gore used $10,000 worth of electricity a month, it would not change the fact that there is global warming.
I think everyone realizes global warming is occurring- what is at issue is the cause. Since the icecaps of Mars are apparently melting as well, is it POSSIBLE that the solar cycles in the Sun (a common denominator for Mars AND Earth) may be causing it?

From 950 to 1250 AD, Europe and the North Atlantic experienced considerable warming, allowing the Norse (popularly called Vikings) to colonize Greenland.
Since there were no significant man-made carbon emissions in those times, is it POSSIBLE that some other natural cycles are at work?

I don't think any of us really know the answers to those questions, which is why I won't be stampeded into deciding one way or the other. I'm trying to follow BOTH sides of the debate, and make up my own mind.

BTW : The Economist - not exactly a right-wing publication - calls Gore's response to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's original report on his huge energy consumption "flatly silly." The piece has an excellent discussion of why "carbon offsets" are a shell game that may not actually do anything to help reduce carbon emissions.
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 02:11 PM   #7
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron View Post
I think everyone realizes global warming is occurring- what is at issue is the cause. Since the icecaps of Mars are apparently melting as well, is it POSSIBLE that the solar cycles in the Sun (a common denominator for Mars AND Earth) may be causing it?

From 950 to 1250 AD, Europe and the North Atlantic experienced considerable warming, allowing the Norse (popularly called Vikings) to colonize Greenland.
Since there were no significant man-made carbon emissions in those times, is it POSSIBLE that some other natural cycles are at work?

I don't think any of us really know the answers to those questions, which is why I won't be stampeded into deciding one way or the other. I'm trying to follow BOTH sides of the debate, and make up my own mind.
There are not two sides to the debate, not really, not any more. There are some feeble attempts by those who sold their integrity (if they ever had any) to those to whom it was financially important to debunk global warming, to desperately try to convince us that they are not really what they are. That's one "side".

The other consists of the scientists who not only warned us about global warming, but who, through the FOI Act presented indisputable, documented evidence using the correspondence between Exxon-Mobil, The strategists behind the campaign to put doubt into the minds of the public by distorting the truths, omitting information, making up specialty commissions and studies to disseminate false information, as well as ask the administration to replace officials who were "ecology minded" (which it did). Now some of the very companies who denied Global Warming a few years ago, now admit both the existence and the human cause, and are taking steps to clean up their emissions at great cost to themselves. And finally, if you want the kicker, the proof is so overwhelming, that the man who will never admit to being wrong, now recognizes global warming. None other then George W Bush.

So I don't think it's a question of being railroaded or rushed into anything Ron. If you stop and look at the whole picture and the events that have transpired around this issue over the last five years, especially the turnaround of companies like GE and others, there an be no doubt of that global warming is occurring and that it being caused by the actions of humans.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 02:17 PM   #8
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron View Post
Well, no one is suggesting he move into a mud hut- but 20x the national average?
Ok, so what are you suggesting then?

Are you suggesting he sell the family mansion? Spend millions renovating it and retrofitting it? Move into a smaller house?

What would you have him do to get down to the national average? Rich people all over the country live in bigger houses that consume more energy. Do we ask them all to move into duplexes? (don't answer that hawk )

Al Gore lives in an old southern mansion, this isn't a case of leaving the bathroom lights on over night. There are only so many reasonable things you can do to reduce your consumption of energy in some situations, and by all accounts Al Gore has done all of these things - including installing solar panels and buying energy from green sources. Then, after doing that, he took it further. Seeing that what he could reasonably do to his home was not enough he then decided to offset the rest by purchasing carbon credits.

Without drastically changing his lifestyle he has practically reduced his footprint to zero... that means he is contributing less to the problem than you are... than I am. It doesn't matter how much he is consuming over the national average, he could be 500X times over it, but if his total footprint is close to zero, then his contribution to the problem is close to zero.

Isn't this a more reasonable model for the solution to the problem in America? Or do you think people will eventually be willing to give up or renovate their houses and drastically change the way they do things?

As far as where is buying these credits from, I can't think of a reason why that would matter - so long as the results are the same - unless you are more concerned with saying "ah ha, gotcha!" to Al Gore than you are with addressing the issue at hand. Just curious, which matters more to you?
Holdstrong is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 02:22 PM   #9
Dowser
Member
 
Dowser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Conesus, NY
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Incidently, we are a family of two adults. I turn off all my lights when not in use. I have a plug strip that my TV, DVD Player andVCR are plugged into and i turn that off when not in use so as not to use electricity on standby. My refrigerator is set at the highest setting possible to still keep food safe. I have a set back thermostat set to 63 in the day and 50 in the evening. I have oile heat but the blower requires electricity. All my light bulbs are the low energy ones. My Printer, Computer speakers, external dvd drive are all turned off when off when i am not using them. if I leave the puter on and am going to be away from it for a few minutes, I turn the monitor off.

My monthly electric bill average? $130.00!!!!!!

Interesting, we think alike. My TV, DVD, VCR and Satellite Dish controller are plugged into a power strip that is plugged into an inverter that runs off a battery connected to a solar panel. All my light bulbs in the house are fluorescent except the back door outside light. Itís an incandescent because I want instant on in the cold weather. All my lights are turned on when entering a room and turned off when leaving that room.
I burn wood/very hard coal but have oil backup. The oil burner comes on at night in very cold weather requiring an electric blower to run. I average about $60.00 a month for electric.
If the backwards town of Conesus (where I live) would let me put up a wind turbine I would be off the grid and 100% green.
__________________
Lower your voice,
Walk peacefully,
Youíre in Natures Library.
Dowser is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 02:24 PM   #10
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Ahhh, we are back to the other thread now... shoulda seen that coming when these posts started looking more like a political swift boat job. Was hoping the intent behind the topic was more a lead into a conversation about potential middle ground solutions and the merits and potential of systems like carbon offsets. Bummer.

Last edited by Holdstrong; 03-06-2007 at 02:41 PM..
Holdstrong is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 02:41 PM   #11
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
Spend millions renovating it and retrofitting it?
In a word, yes.

I don't think it would cost millions to retrofit, or upgrade the systems of the home.

If his bill is 20 times the national average, there's plenty he should be able to do to reduce his usage without it costing millions. Does he heat that place with electric heat?

I realize that there's a number of items that are probably gobbling electric on that property, security lights etc. I have to assume that he's not using compact fluorescents throughout the house, nor is he using a minimally efficient heating and cooling system.

I think if he really wants to get peoples' attention he should use this as an opportunity to show people that he can change too. I think it's hypocritical for him to say that he buys carbon offsets, to offset his usage. I was under the impression that he's trying to get people to conserve and be more efficient with their energy use? He's actions seem to say, If your wealthy enough to by the carbon offsets, just keep wasting away.

It's a pretty hollow message when he's not doing it himself.
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 03:13 PM   #12
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
If his bill is 20 times the national average, there's plenty he should be able to do to reduce his usage without it costing millions. Does he heat that place with electric heat?

I realize that there's a number of items that are probably gobbling electric on that property, security lights etc. I have to assume that he's not using compact fluorescents throughout the house, nor is he using a minimally efficient heating and cooling system.
Actually, "Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology."

Quote:
I was under the impression that he's trying to get people to conserve and be more efficient with their energy use?
Actually, "What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero."

The Gore's seem to have done everything within reason to reduce their footprint as much possible. Installing solar panels is a pretty big deal, if they went ahead and did that I am personally satisfied that they probably looked at their heating systems and security lights too, hahah.

But subtract Al Gore from the equation for just a second here. The real question I was trying to raise is, can we expect everyone with a mansion to make million dollar (or how ever much it costs) renovations? More so, is it reasonable to expect them to?

Solutions have to be implementable, and as sad a statement as this is about America, I just don't see people changing drastically no matter what you present them with. Which is why I think Al Gore's approach to his own situation is a much better model for a solution. It involves smaller more practical and reasonable changes that are implementable by most anyone and then a means to offset the rest. Sure, ideally we'd like all of the mansion dwellers to dip into their trust funds and completely renovate their house to only consume as much as the rest of us... but will that happen? Nope. And so lets spend time working on something that will.

Quote:
If your wealthy enough to by the carbon offsets, just keep wasting away.
Now this on the other hand... this is why I have never been a fan of offsets, and why the concept causes controversy on both sides of the political spectrum. I really haven't looked into the new systems enough to comment if this a true problem or not... but I do hear ya. Offsets and credits certainly reak of class privilege - but thus is America I suppose. We're gonna have to find a solution that takes American class privilege into account.
Holdstrong is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 03:27 PM   #13
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
I turn off all my lights when not in use. I have a plug strip that my TV, DVD Player andVCR are plugged into and i turn that off when not in use so as not to use electricity on standby. My refrigerator is set at the highest setting possible to still keep food safe. I have a set back thermostat set to 63 in the day and 50 in the evening. I have oile heat but the blower requires electricity. All my light bulbs are the low energy ones. My Printer, Computer speakers, external dvd drive are all turned off when off when i am not using them. if I leave the puter on and am going to be away from it for a few minutes, I turn the monitor off.

My monthly electric bill average? $130.00!!!!!!
I don't doubt that for a second, Hawk - and I do many of the same things, to the point where people who visit are always "chilly", and I turn it up temporarily.

But I don't think this consensus is as broad as some make it out to be, and that many meteorologists, scientists, etc. are not "on the reservation" on this topic, so to speak:

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming. But now:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...5-fc28f14da388

Also,

Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth — changes in the sun.

One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause, according to one scientist’s l theory.”

Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps” near Mars’ south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive summers.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to the National Geographic article.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.”

The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun — variations in its magnetic field.

Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it maintains that the Earth’s climate is strongly influenced by cosmic rays from exploded stars.

The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, on the committee’s Web site.

"Cosmic ray intensities — and therefore cloudiness — keep changing because the sun’s magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth,” the Danish report by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.

Whenever the sun’s magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age that climaxed 300 years ago.

Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the Earth’s climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense.”


And a new documentary suggests that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun's radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 04:01 PM   #14
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
But subtract Al Gore from the equation for just a second here. The real question I was trying to raise is, can we expect everyone with a mansion to make million dollar (or how ever much it costs) renovations? More so, is it reasonable to expect them to?
Those other people aren't champions for the cause of global warming. Al Gore is and should be held to a much higher standard in my mind since he's taken this role of spokesman.

While I don't expect those people to make the changes, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to make upgrades to the systems in their house in order to be more energy efficient.

I earn less than the median wage in my region. I installed a 95% efficient furnace in my house last year. My previous furnace was around 40% efficient, and was still in working order, there was no real reason to replace it other than to increase the efficiency, it certainly would have been cheeper for me to just keep it and repair it as needed. I probably will not even be in this house long enough for the energy savings to even come close to offsetting the cost of the new furnace. I have CF bulbs in most lights in my house, and in all of the most frequently used lights. I do what I can to save energy. My thermostat goes down to 60 at night.

I think that for people who own million dollar or multi-million dollar homes it's even more important for them to do everything possible to reduce their usage, since their usage is so much higher. Beyond that they have far greater resources to do so than most of the rest of us do.

I still don't believe that the Gores have done everything possible, and I stand by my prior statement that they should be doing more than the regular citizen.

For example, while they are expensive, upgrading to a geothermal heating and cooling system would drastically reduce the energy usage of any building and it would not cost millions or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. From what I recall reading the longterm energy savings would pay for the system over 10-15 years.(probably quicker for a home like the Gores) They wouldn't have to retrofit the house, they can reuse the existing ductwork. The heat exchanger and circulation systems would go in place of their existing HVAC hardware.

... but no, it's easier to just buy the offsets.
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 05:36 PM   #15
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
Ahhh, we are back to the other thread now... shoulda seen that coming when these posts started looking more like a political swift boat job. Was hoping the intent behind the topic was more a lead into a conversation about potential middle ground solutions and the merits and potential of systems like carbon offsets. Bummer.
That would have worked, if the title hadn't been "An Inconvenient Electric Bill" . That automatically shifted the conversation from what you were hoping to discuss to the fact that Al Gore has become a target for some and a threat as far as the republicans are concerned.

Next time try posting just about "Carbon offsets" and then you'll probably get the direction you want. It is a good topic, but on it's own, with no mention of Gore.....

Hawk
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 06:28 PM   #16
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
Those other people aren't champions for the cause of global warming. Al Gore is and should be held to a much higher standard in my mind since he's taken this role of spokesman.
Just out of curiosity (and I don't know the answer), Do we know that the Gore property is just a residence? is there any business run out of it? Anything other then just a living quarters? Something that explains why the bill is what it is? Do you think he leaves all the lights on, has his appliances at the max settings, has electric heat that's cranked to the max?

What kind of heat does he have? if it's electric, then the additional cost in electric for heat is offset by the oil or gas that;'s not used. If he wanted a wind turbine, could he install one? Would the zoning or regulations allow it where he is? Does he run an office out of his home? if so, then isn't some of the cost offset by his maybe not having an office somewhere else?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions. Do you? if not, then how can you be sure that he's not trying to live to a higher standard then others?

Because something is presented by political or economic enemies, it does not mean that all the facts are being presented. On the contrary, many facts are deliberately omitted or distorted.

So my question is...... Can you say for a fact that he is not living to a higher standard then most of us?
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 06:44 PM   #17
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Incidently, we are a family of two adults. I turn off all my lights when not in use. I have a plug strip that my TV, DVD Player andVCR are plugged into and i turn that off when not in use so as not to use electricity on standby. My refrigerator is set at the highest setting possible to still keep food safe. I have a set back thermostat set to 63 in the day and 50 in the evening. I have oil heat but the blower requires electricity. All my light bulbs are the low energy ones. My Printer, Computer speakers, external dvd drive are all turned off when off when i am not using them. if I leave the puter on and am going to be away from it for a few minutes, I turn the monitor off.

My monthly electric bill average? $130.00!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowser View Post
Interesting, we think alike. My TV, DVD, VCR and Satellite Dish controller are plugged into a power strip that is plugged into an inverter that runs off a battery connected to a solar panel. All my light bulbs in the house are fluorescent except the back door outside light. It’s an incandescent because I want instant on in the cold weather. All my lights are turned on when entering a room and turned off when leaving that room.
I burn wood/very hard coal but have oil backup. The oil burner comes on at night in very cold weather requiring an electric blower to run. I average about $60.00 a month for electric.
Even accounting for the fact that you may have newer, more energy efficient appliances then I have, That means my bill is more then double yours with about the same amount of use, which brings to my point that......

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
So maybe the amount of electricity Al Gore uses isn't the issue, maybe it's the cost of electricity that's the problem!!
And your savings in burning coal and wood, is offset by the fact that they put more hydrocarbons into the atmosphere then oil (I think), so looking at $$$ figures does not necessarily give an accurate measurement of how "Green" someone is.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 06:47 PM   #18
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post

So my question is...... Can you say for a fact that he is not living to a higher standard then most of us?
According to a USA Today article dated 12/7/2006:

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.


Now, if man-made global warming is the issue he claims it is, why would he just recently (Dec. 06) be "looking into making the switch"????
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 07:01 PM   #19
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron View Post
Now, if man-made global warming is the issue he claims it is, why would he just recently (Dec. 06) be "looking into making the switch"????
To start answering that you need to check and see when those communities instituted the "Green" programs. Is it possible that it's recent? I don't know myself, but without knowing one cannot come to a correct conclusion.

But back to the point. What Al Gore does or doesn't do, doesn't change one iota whether there is global warming or not. If it exists. it's still there regardless of what he does. And people should be more concerned on what is being done or not done by the major contributors, not Al Gore

The new great strategy is that since you no longer can disprove global warming, then you can hide the lack of credibility with attacks on it's most prominent spokesman. You also take the spotlight off the major sources of the problem. It's one of the oldest ploys in the book, you would think that people would be wise to it by now.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

Last edited by redhawk; 03-06-2007 at 07:26 PM..
redhawk is offline  
Old 03-06-2007, 07:02 PM   #20
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
It doesn't matter how much he is consuming over the national average, he could be 500X times over it, but if his total footprint is close to zero, then his contribution to the problem is close to zero.
So let me get this straight- if a rich guy like Gore consumes power at 500x the national average, you have no problem with this, as long as he pays carbon credits to his (Gore's) own "green" company in order to plant a few trees............

So as long as you are rich and can pay for "carbon credits" , you can pollute to your heart's content......do you really believe that?
What about the average guy who is just barely meeting monthly expenses and can't afford to pay Al Gore's company for the carbon credits? Is he supposed to give away his SUV, or else feel guilty about owning it?

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.