Al Gore: Hero or Hypocrite?

Is Al Gore a Hero or Hypocrite?

  • Total voters
    101
Irish Caesar said:
I respect their commitment to renewable energy sources, but I don't think they should be anti-nuclear; I have yet to understand why environmentalists bash the most viable wide-scale form of emissionless power.
Click to expand...

Because you've gotta find a place for all that nuclear waste that practically never degrades.
 
Pasi Nurminen said:
Because you've gotta find a place for all that nuclear waste that practically never degrades.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy putting it back in the reactor and giving us more energy, but if you don't throw the stuff away, people assume you're building a bomb...

I believe France reprocesses its spent fuel, eliminating most of the problem.
 
Mobby said:
I would like to know exactly how someone can offset a 30k a year energy bill in Tennesee of all places.
Click to expand...

That was on page 4. I answered your question on page 2. That was quite a few pages ago. Here's you on page 4 again:

To me, that does not indicate that he is operating in a null carbon footprint at all.
Click to expand...

Not only is he at null carbon, he's past that, he has a NEGATIVE footprint. i.e. he is a net conserver of energy.

You continue on page 5. And page 6, 7, and well, all the pages. Please, read my posts. I can't help you otherwise.

Page 5:

it appears an offset is a sort of self-imposed/voluntary fine/cost (or investment with no immediate return).
Click to expand...

Sure, in the same way that sorting my trash into recycling bags is a self-imposed cost (I could be playing video games instead you know) ;)

It's not a self-imposed cost, it's a pledge, somewhat similar to how a company sometimes pledges to match dollar to dollar when their employees donate to charity.

I think you are drawing a single false conclusion that his energy bill includes the cost of such offsets.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, and only you have made that assertion in this thread so far. His real energy expenditure comes to not $30,000 but more than $60,000 per annum (a lot more, I'll bet).

Nor do we actually know the full extent of how many offsets he buys in comparison to his footprint - all we know is that 'he buys some'.
Click to expand...

He buys all his carbon "back" i.e. he pays for as much carbon retention as he emits. In fact he buys back more, so he's a net conserver. Can't really explain it simpler.

Anyway, Gore has burned far more energy over all his travels around the world than he is able to offset.
Click to expand...

True.

And he's convinced more people to donate money to the cause of alternative energy research, to start working towards a greener economy, and to change their personal lifestyles, by flying around in a nasty carbon-emitting jet, than the damage actually done by his carbon emissions. What's your point here? Do the math, Mob.

Actually, what we have is a $30,000 a year electric bill that has a lot of questions regarding it. And not really a lot of specific answers so far. What I see is scrambling for damage control on the Gore side.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. This press release is factually misleading and released by a Swift-Boat type group and you're already giving them the benefit of the doubt and insinuating that Gore is a liar? Does anyone out there buy this, please, let me know.

Actually, you have just proven that he is only about 30% compliant. If he is only spending $432 dollars on offsets, and his total energy bill is $1200 - $1300, then about 2/3s of his energy costs are not offset.
Click to expand...

He matches himself in energy output not in dollars.

Please, for Christ's sake go to the wiki article on carbon offsets and educate yourself. Look, I'll even give you a link. See? That wasn't so hard. And that, kids, is called hyperlinking.

Hypocrite pwned.
Click to expand...

If your standard is that Gore is a hypocrite for pointing out scientific fact for 6 years while taking steps to seriously zero his effect on global warming in the last half-year or so, while you have done neither, this "discussion" is finished, you're just tar-and-feathering not debating.

So does that mean we have a consensus that Al Gore has indeed been hyporitical in his energy usage
Click to expand...

No, I think we have a consensus that you still have no real clue about the technical details of the subject of the thread you posted.

Maybe I'll hunt up some more links for you later.

Frankly, I could give a rats arse about his purchasing of carbon credits or any of that nonsense. Fact is, he could still put his big bucks into energy research and the like and still limit his expensive take-offs and landings and reduce the size of his home a few thousand square feet.

What the hell does a carbon footprint have to do with the hundreds of trees chopped down to craft his wainscoat chair-rail in his 16 seat dining room? Nothing!

~Chris
Click to expand...

And you, clearly. It's interesting that you guys trumpet free market economics so much but can't understand the concept of subsidization and net cost. That's all this is. What's the problem here, the evil liberal arithmetic?

Hell, I am going to buy carbon credits and then go burn down all the trees on my north 40. I am going to detune all my cars and let some pressure out of the tires. I am going to do burnouts down my street and then burn the tires in my backyard when they get bald. But if I buy the credits, I can pat myself on the back as a "green man".
Click to expand...

If you plant enough trees and subsidize enough wind power to make up for that, you're living a perfectly green life. You would, ironically, be far greener than Mobboss is living right now, and probably a little greener than I'm living.

What's the deal here? Perhaps you're surprised by how easy it is to live green?
 
El_Machinae said:
I can't believe that part of your debate/attack is that the man shouldn't need security. I mean, wasn't there a Nicolas Cage movie where he's SS protecting the ex-First Lady? Isn't it kinda given that upper level politicians/ex-politicians get security?
Click to expand...

Two things. Dont ever base reality upon stupid hollywood movies. Secondly, I never said the man didnt need security, but that he wasnt some high priority target for terrorists.
El_Machinae said:
Read the thread: he actually has a zero carbon footprint now.
Click to expand...

I dont think that has been proven beyond a doubt yet. Just like the real truth he didnt even purchase electricity offsets until last November. I for one, would like to see real proof of his offsets as opposed to some off-cuff comment via his spokesperson.

I know how much the man flies, and I have a good idea how much crap that puts into the air. I would like to see proof of these 'offsets' and exactly how much he has paid for them.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
Not only is he at null carbon, he's past that, he has a NEGATIVE footprint. i.e. he is a net conserver of energy.
Click to expand...

Only correct for his use of electrical energy. His use of gas, and/or oil has no proof of said offsets.

It's not a self-imposed cost, it's a pledge, somewhat similar to how a company sometimes pledges to match dollar to dollar when their employees donate to charity.



It doesn't, and only you have made that assertion in this thread so far. His real energy expenditure comes to not $30,000 but more than $60,000 per annum (a lot more, I'll bet).

True.
Click to expand...

By all means make sure Carloss hears that one.

And he's convinced more people to donate money to the cause of alternative energy research, to start working towards a greener economy, and to change their personal lifestyles, by flying around in a nasty carbon-emitting jet, than the damage actually done by his carbon emissions. What's your point here? Do the math, Mob.
Click to expand...

I think thats a safe assumption, but I am not as sure that the math weighs in his favor of the good he is done compared to the waste he has contributed.

Don't be ridiculous. This press release is factually misleading and released by a Swift-Boat type group and you're already giving them the benefit of the doubt and insinuating that Gore is a liar? Does anyone out there buy this, please, let me know.
Click to expand...

1 simple question for you PP. How long as Gore been Mr. Conservation? Because he only just started buying his offsets last Nov. So, if he has indeed been a major hypocrite for the last several years (until USAToday ran a story about it this last summer) why not just admit that and move on?

If your standard is that Gore is a hypocrite for pointing out scientific fact for 6 years while taking steps to seriously zero his effect on global warming in the last half-year or so, while you have done neither, this "discussion" is finished, you're just tar-and-feathering not debating.
Click to expand...

No, he is a hypocrite for saying such things for the last 6 years, but only started to buy offsets just over three months ago.

Question: How long will it take for Gore to make up his carbon footprint for the last six years if he only started just recently? I would say he has a lot of ground to make up.

If you plant enough trees and subsidize enough wind power to make up for that, you're living a perfectly green life. You would, ironically, be far greener than Mobboss is living right now, and probably a little greener than I'm living.
Click to expand...

Actually, you have no idea how green I live. Nice try though.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
And you, clearly. It's interesting that you guys trumpet free market economics so much but can't understand the concept of subsidization and net cost. That's all this is. What's the problem here, the evil liberal arithmetic?

If you plant enough trees and subsidize enough wind power to make up for that, you're living a perfectly green life. You would, ironically, be far greener than Mobboss is living right now, and probably a little greener than I'm living.

What's the deal here? Perhaps you're surprised by how easy it is to live green?
Click to expand...

Alright, apparently this argument has evolved from whether or not Al Gore is hypocritical with his lifestyle to the feasiblity and effectiveness of carbon credits. Okay. I will respond to this, but not before reiterating that Al Gore is a hypocrite. :)

The whole idea of carbon credits is absurd. First, it simply allows people (or governments) to use wealth to transfer the burden of responsiblity. This really does nothing for the bigger picture of combating this newly found terror of global warming. While I am for free market economics, I am also a proponent of responsiblity. Paris Hilton can build her whole house out of Brazilian old growth lumber, right down to the 2X6's, and if she buys some credits everything is okay. Hogwash.

Here is another point: carbon offsetting and its impact towards the environment cannot be modeled. With Al Gore, for example, buzzing around the world with a few friends and collegues in an aircraft that holds dozens, he is producing a vast amount of emissions that is harmful to the environment. Easily measured. However, while Al Gore's donation to the Build Green program does some to promote green awareness, the net result of said promotion cannot possibly be measured in terms of emission output reduction. This is key for all you leftist folks: prove that carbon offsetting actually does anything for reducing man's burden on the environment. Sure, if I burn down 15 trees on my north 40, and I plant 15 more on my south 160, the net impact is zero. But Al promoting financially the development of solar technology doesn't actually produce measured results. I know it may be hard for some to understand, but without the ability to measure the effects of carbon offsetting you can never make the determination whether ones' carbon footprint is small or extra large. Is this what you call liberal arithmitic?

So go ahead, be complacent, buy your little carbon stickers, and feel good about yourself! Live a little! Cut down that tree!

Meanwhile...back on earth...

~Chris
 
So, if he has indeed been a major hypocrite
Click to expand...

Even if he didn't purchase offsets until November, he still has a better record than you on this issue because he's been out there publicizing the scientific findings, whereas you iirc have spent the past year on this forum DENYING the scientific findings.

So if he's a hypocrite, what are you?
 
Well, the other thing that I dont like about these 'offsets' is that it creates those that can afford to burn energy like crazy....and those that cant. I would have far, far more respect for Al Gore if he flew commercial, had improved his house to save energy YEARS ago instead of trying to right now (solar panels arent up yet), and generally lived like he says people should live.

However, since he is basically rich, he can afford to do what the hell he wants, and basically pays 'offsets' to ease his conscience and give him a talking point when asked about his energy consumption.

Its like minor fines and crimes are nothing for rich people to commit since they can essentially 'buy' their way out of the charge. Want to speed in your car? No problem...just cut a check for an 'offset'.

I agree 100% with sonorakitch that 'offsets' are nothing more than a responsibility shifting tool and is a pure crap way of avoiding personal responsibility on the issue.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
Even if he didn't purchase offsets until November, he still has a better record than you on this issue because he's been out there publicizing the scientific findings, whereas you iirc have spent the past year on this forum DENYING the scientific findings.
Click to expand...

I...dont....think...so. The mans personal travel has essentially put more pollutants into the atmosphere than me and hundreds of people like me combined. I could pollute to my hearts content at my current level for the rest of my life and I would still be a mere fraction of what Al Gore has put forth.

So if he's a hypocrite, what are you?
Click to expand...

I am not a hypocrite because I am not out there telling people how to live.
 
First, it simply allows people (or governments) to use wealth to transfer the burden of responsiblity.
Click to expand...
Moderator Action: Trolling pic removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

By the same token, a share transfers the burden of responsibility from a business to a shareholder. By the same token, a futures contract transfers responsibility from the producer or consumer to the holder of the contract. And what about debt markets, where people buy and sell portions of other entities' debts?

A carbon offset is basically a bond. Are bond markets economically irresponsible?

I question your grasp of economics if you follow this line of argument seriously.

This really does nothing for the bigger picture of combating this newly found terror of global warming.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it is a net payment from the purchaser of the offset, to the producer of carbon-soaking or emissions-minimizing services. In essence, it boils down to paying someone to plant trees and use solar power.

Here is another point: carbon offsetting and its impact towards the environment cannot be modeled
Click to expand...

Just plain wrong, and misinformed. It is trivial to measure the average per-day carbon uptake of a particular plant - we did that in my undergraduate botany class last year. You just stick a plant in a closed container with a fixed amount of CO2 and a device to measure the decay over time.

The same method can be applied by extrapolation to systems as large as a forest. Believe me, we have an excellent estimate of the carbon uptake of planted trees.

For one thing, since biomass is mostly carbon and a plant builds pretty much ALL of its material by breathing (not through the roots!) we can just chop a few trees down and do a mass analysis to see how a forest is growing.

Regardless of the fact that you're misinformed, even if you were right, it would still be a stupid argument to say that Gore shouldn't purchase offsets if we can't estimate how efficient they are. Doing something is better than doing nothing. Which, last time I checked, is what you were doing. Please let me know if I'm wrong.

This is key for all you leftist folks: prove that carbon offsetting actually does anything for reducing man's burden on the environment.
Click to expand...

It pays people to plant trees who otherwise wouldn't have the money to do that. It gives people money for using solar power, so that it becomes more cost-efficient relative to coal.

It's really, really, really straightforward. PEBKAC, I'm afraid.
 
'offsets' are nothing more than a responsibility shifting tool and is a pure crap way of avoiding personal responsibility on the issue.
Click to expand...

Well, if you agree with that, clearly you must agree that stock markets are an unfair economic tool because rich people have more disposable income and greater savings, which gives them both a greater ability to invest and a lesser risk disincentive.

If not, Aragorn wants to have a word with you.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
It pays people to plant trees who otherwise wouldn't have the money to do that. It gives people money for using solar power, so that it becomes more cost-efficient relative to coal.
Click to expand...

In other words, paying other people to fix the problems you make. Great strategy. :thumbsup:
 
I voted hero just for the hell of it.

He also may be a hypocrite but who cares? You want steps to take or a hero to worship? I know what I want.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
Just plain wrong, and misinformed. It is trivial to measure the average per-day carbon uptake of a particular plant - we did that in my undergraduate botany class last year. You just stick a plant in a closed container with a fixed amount of CO2 and a device to measure the decay over time.

The same method can be applied by extrapolation to systems as large as a forest. Believe me, we have an excellent estimate of the carbon uptake of planted trees.

For one thing, since biomass is mostly carbon and a plant builds pretty much ALL of its material by breathing (not through the roots!) we can just chop a few trees down and do a mass analysis to see how a forest is growing.
Click to expand...
Trees are not sequestration. Carbon isn't locked-up there permanently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Formaldehyde
Is Propositioning a Licensed Masseuse a Crime?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
civ_king
C
Formaldehyde
What If Gore Had Won?
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
6K
mitsho
mitsho
C
Is solar power a good alternative?
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
6K
Fugitive Sisyphus
Fugitive Sisyphus
RedRalph
Rick Perry
12 13 14
Replies
277
Views
16K
Quackers
Quackers
J
Blood, Gore and Profit in Global Warming
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
Perfection
Perfection
Back
Top Bottom