Al Gore: Hero or Hypocrite?

[JollyRoger]

So you choose to focus on me instead of discussing the fact that he only started buying offsets last Nov and that his offsets dont cover all his energy usage.

About what I expected. You lose the debate.

His current offsets cover his current usage. And if we look at all the points conceded so far in this thread I would say both sides have lost from their most extreme positions. I am not happy that he joined the offset game so late, but what has been revealed in this thread certainly paints a far different picture of where this thread started. And you have yet to explain the $186,000 vs. $30,000 comparison. That points to the fact that Gore is a conserver based on energy use by people in comparable positions.

 

[Atlas14]

Would a complete hypocrite be purchasing carbon offsets?

I wasn't aware there were degrees of hypocracy, either you are one or you aren't. If his energy usage bills are so high, then why would he be making himself out to be the spokesman for Global Warming issues? Sure it is good that he is advocating changes in our inefficiency and wasteful lifestyles, but he needs to take a look at himself first.

 

[El_Machinae]

Atlas: he effectively has a zero carbon footprint at this point.

Sure. /10 char.

Thanks. The $432 is per month, or $5,184 per year. Not chump change, considering it's being spent on electricity.

 

[JollyRoger]

I wasn't aware there were degrees of hypocracy, either you are one or you aren't. If his energy usage bills are so high, then why would he be making himself out to be the spokesman for Global Warming issues? Sure it is good that he is advocating changes in our inefficiency and wasteful lifestyles, but he needs to take a look at himself first.

You are the poster who used the word complete as a qualifier, so that implies that you would think there is such a thing as degrees of hypocrisy. And if you read the thread, you will see that the former Vice President has taken many steps to lower and offset his carbon footprint.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Not offered in my area...but I do buy the lightbulbs.

So does that mean we have a consensus that Al Gore has indeed been hyporitical in his energy usage, at least through last year, but has recently taken steps to mitigate that? Is that a fair enough statement?

no - a hypocrite is someone who says 1 thing and does the opposite. I don't get the impression that qualification fits Mr Gore's energy situation. Au contraire.

And he is not a hero either. The 2 poll options are ridiculously black and white. Why didn't the OP make it: "yes - he's a hypocrite" & "No - he's not a hypocrite" ? This way the poll is not polling what it should poll.

 

[Atlas14]

You are the poster who used the word complete as a qualifier, so that implies that you would think there is such a thing as degrees of hypocrisy. And if you read the thread, you will see that the former Vice President has taken many steps to lower and offset his carbon footprint.

But yet he can't even lower the energy bill in his house to a level that millions of other Americans can live on luxuriously?

 

[JollyRoger]

But yet he can't even lower the energy bill in his house to a level that millions of other Americans can live on luxuriously?

How many millions of Americans run two businesses out of their house?

 

[Mark1031]

Yet another deceptive right wing tactic to stifle debate. The same tactic is used on John Edwards. He is rich so he can;t talk about economic disparity. If you use energy, even green energy, you can;t talk about global warming. It really helps limit the number of people in the debate if the only valid representative for the other side is an impoverished guy living in a solar powered shack.

 

[carlosMM]

So you choose to focus on me instead of discussing the fact that he only started buying offsets last Nov and that his offsets dont cover all his energy usage.

Nope, I focus on the behaviour of right wing hitmen and the people spreading their lies. if that happens to be you, that's your doing.

About what I expected. You lose the debate.

I am not debating you, as I happen to look for facts, not insinuation. If you start bringing the proof for your claims that I have asked for and thus far not gotten, THEN we can have a debate.

 

[JollyRoger]

It really helps limit the number of people in the debate if the only valid representative for the other side is an impoverished guy living in a solar powered shack.

And that guy will be painted as the next Ted Kazenski.

 

[Atlas14]

How many millions of Americans run two businesses out of their house?

Probably not too many, but I happen to know a family in my neighborhood that runs two businesses in their home, and I can assure you they don't make enough to afford a $30K energy bill.

 

[JollyRoger]

Probably not too many, but I happen to know a family in my neighborhood that runs two businesses in their home, and I can assure you they don't make enough to afford a $30K energy bill.

How many large gatherings do they hold at their house to do their business? Do they have to have security onsite because they are former prominent officeholders that need protection? How large of a staff do they have working at their house?

 

[Atlas14]

How many large gatherings do they hold at their house to do their business? How large of a staff do they have working at their house?

Why would large gatherings and a large staff equate to such a huge energy bill, much more than double what the family in my community would pay?

Do they have to have security onsite because they are former prominent officeholders that need protection?

There are more important people than Al Gore that manage just fine without onsite security.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why would large gatherings and a large staff equate to such a huge energy bill, much more than double what the family in my community would pay?



There are more important people than Al Gore that manage just fine without onsite security.

If you have a large staff, you have to have space for them to work and that space and their workday consumes energy. If you are hosting large gatherings, they are generally energy-intensive and also require the space to host. A former Vice President having a security staff is reasonable. You can't advocate for change if you have been kiled by some nutcase.

 

[carlosMM]

Why would large gatherings and a large staff equate to such a huge energy bill, much more than double what the family in my community would pay?

Cook for many, air condition for many... and so on. A hotel has a much higher bill than a B&B.

There are more important people than Al Gore that manage just fine without onsite security.

Please name 5 who happen to be on terrorist hitlists (sorry, I tried to avoid this smiley, but this post really provokes it. Please think again whether you can reasonable demand he kicks the Security out).

 

[Atlas14]

If you have a large staff, you have to have space for them to work and that space and their workday consumes energy. If you are hosting large gatherings, they are generally energy-intensive and also require the space to host. A former Vice President having a security staff is reasonable. You can't advocate for change if you have been kiled by some nutcase.

True and True.

 

[Atlas14]

Please name 5 who happen to be on terrorist hitlists (sorry, I tried to avoid this smiley, but this post really provokes it. Please think again whether you can reasonable demand he kicks the Security out).

How do you know Al Gore is on terrorist hitlists? And is being on a terrorist hitlist all its hyped up to be? There are rich as heck people in neighborhoods about 10 minutes from mine, and I know they don't have onsite security. Or perhaps being an outdated vice President that nobody really cares about anymore (except for his lame movie) qualifies as needing onsite security. Its arrogant if you ask me.

 

[carlosMM]

How do you know Al Gore is on terrorist hitlists?

An ex-VP? Would YOU risk it and assume he is not?

And is being on a terrorist hitlist all its hyped up to be? There are rich as heck people in neighborhoods about 10 minutes from mine, and I know they don't have onsite security.

Killing for money? It is rather about killing for political motives, and I'd say an ex-VP is at risk.

 

[Murky]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659



So, lets discuss this based upon the information above. Is a man who encourages us all to do more for the environment being disengenuous when he himself has a $30,000 a year utility bill?

Poll to follow.

EDIT: Per El_Ms request here is a follow on update story that indicates Gore does indeed purchase energy offsets to the tune of $432 or his overall energy bill, but has only been doing so since Nov 2006. http://www.thestar.com/News/article/186511

I picked Hero for lack of a radioactive monkey option.

Whatever his energy bill he has still done a lot more to influence the debate on climate change than many others. He deserves some recognition for that.

I don't think he's a hypocrite because he pays a lot more to get power from renewable sources of energy rather than whatever is standard is.

 

[MobBoss]

Atlas: he effectively has a zero carbon footprint at this point.

Only where electricity is concerned. It is unclear as to what the rest of his energy bill covers.

Thanks. The $432 is per month, or $5,184 per year. Not chump change, considering it's being spent on electricity.

So he spends about 1/6th of his total bill on offsets. How much larger is his footprint if you consider jet fuel consumption, automobile gas, gas for his home to heat things like his pool, etc.?

Please name 5 who happen to be on terrorist hitlists (sorry, I tried to avoid this smiley, but this post really provokes it. Please think again whether you can reasonable demand he kicks the Security out).

I call BS on this one. There is simply no friggin way you can prove Al Gore is on some terror top 5 list. Hell, I can name 20 people who would probably be higher than him just off the bat, its just common sense. What terrorist in their right mind would care about Al Gore? Hell, Jimmy Carter should/would rate higher than him. If you have proof of such a claim by all means provide it.

By all means even give me some historical proof to back up your claim because for the life of me I cant find an assassination attempt on any Vice President let alone a former one.

An ex-VP? Would YOU risk it and assume he is not? Killing for money? It is rather about killing for political motives, and I'd say an ex-VP is at risk.

At very small risk comparatively. Certainly not enough to merit a ridiculous claim of being on a terrorist top 5 hitlist. Again, there is just no historical evidence to support such a claim.