Gore Refuses to take The Pledge

[Dirt McGirt]

Inhofe might be dead wrong about pork - but that does not mean he can't comment on Gore's environmental issues.

Inhofe is questioning how much energy Gore uses while he travels around the world telling people how vitally important it is to the survival of our species that we reduce our "carbon footprint." He may be doing it for political reasons, in fact, its pretty damn obvious that this is exactly why he is doing it...but nevertheless its a valid question.

I think it's a little more than just political reasons. Inhofe has received more than a million dollars in political contributions from oil companies over the years.

Here's a list of some campaign contributions. Turns out big oil contributed $590,219 to his campaign in 2004 alone.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00005582&cycle=2004

 

[Avatar4321]

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R - SURPRISE!) tried to upstage Gore with this pledge crap...

If Sen. Inhofe will pledge to accept no more pork than the average Senator... he'd have a leg to stand on.

Nice grandstanding Senator... Sean Hannity loved your little stunt and went on and on about it... which is the kind of crowd you were playing to.

Senator Inhofe, whatever his faults, is absolutely right here. Attacking him doesnt change the fact that Gore is an utter hypocrite who wants the poor people to change this life but has no problem when him and his rich friends don't. Atleast as long as they pay him to commit their sins.

Global warming is an absolute farce. That is why the proponents try to shut down any scientist with evidence otherwise. That's why it doesnt matter if the tempature goes up or down and it always seems to be evidence of this global warming that will never happen.

If it was real, you wouldnt need to shut down debate.

 

[red states rule]

Could it be because their is no conclusive evidence of man made global warming, and he knows it?

I had an interesting thought about this the other night as well. Doesn't it strike anybody as odd that the person at the forefront of the man made global warming debate is not a scientist?

You expect libs to live their lives like they tell us to? Where have you been for the last 40 years?

 

[maineman]

the fact remains: Gore's electric use at home is green....it does not contribute to global warming. He pays a high premium for green power but, given the fact that he does, all the power he uses does not add to the problem one iota. His home electric bill is not an example of hypocrisy in the least, but actually walking the walk.

 

[red states rule]

Not according to his utility bill or the utility company





Al Gore's Electric Bill

In the wake of Al Gore's Oscar win on Monday night, some folks over at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research decided to have some fun at the former Vice President's expense by printing a detailed analysis of the electric use at his Nashville home:

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.
Wow. Gore fired back this morning through the progressive politics site, Think Progress, noting that he and his family try to soften the impact of their electricity use by purchasing green power and buying carbon offsets.

All I could think when I saw the original note is how much larger Gore's carbon footprint would have been if he had lived in a state that gets generates less of its electricity from nuclear energy? After all, Tennessee gets 28.6% of its electricity from nuclear energy (PDF), almost 10% more than the national average.

Plenty of folks are unconvinced at the sincerity of his response. As for me, I just think this whole episode points out how difficult it's really going to be to cut carbon emissions while continuing to provide reliable and affordable electricity. Feel good bromides alone aren't going to get the job done. For more, visit our friends over at NAM Blog and Wizbang.
Labels: carbon, climate change, electricity, energy, greenhouse gases, Nuclear Energy, nuclear power, technology


http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/02/al-gores-electric-bill.html

 

[maineman]

RSR...that article does not refute my position in the least. Gore's utility has the option for customers to buy green electricity. He does. Green electricity is environmentally neutral. All the kilowatts used at the Gore home are green.... therefore, it doesn't MATTER how many he uses, none of them were produced in an environmentally harmful manner. Can you understand that?

 

[red states rule]

RSR...that article does not refute my position in the least. Gore's utility has the option for customers to buy green electricity. He does. Green electricity is environmentally neutral. All the kilowatts used at the Gore home are green.... therefore, it doesn't MATTER how many he uses, none of them were produced in an environmentally harmful manner. Can you understand that?

Keep trying MM - you spin is not working


Al Gore's Inconvenient Electric Bill
Monday, March 12, 2007

By Steven Milloy

The March 1863 Enrollment Act permitted wealthy men to legally dodge the Civil War draft by paying a $300 commutation fee to the U.S. Government. This controversial loophole fueled public perception of a “rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight.”

The sight of well-dressed men during the 1863 New York City draft riots prompted angry crowds to derisively call out, “There goes a $300-man.”

It is, therefore, somewhat odd that Al Gore has ventured to become a latter-day $300-man in his crusade against global warming, especially since he touts himself as courageously leading the charge for wide-spread personal sacrifice.

At the end of Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” viewers are asked, “Are you ready to change the way you live”? Following this line of thinking, the movie’s web site suggests many ways that you can “reduce your impact at home,” including using less heating and air conditioning, buying expensive fluorescent light bulbs, using less hot water, using a clothesline rather than a dryer, carpooling, flying less and buying cost-inefficient hybrid cars.

Given that Gore calls the fight against global warming a “moral imperative” in the movie, you might reasonably think that he practices what his movie’s web site preaches. But you’d be wrong.

In the wake of the movie winning an Oscar last month, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported that Gore’s Nashville mansion consumed more than 20 times the electricity than the national average. Last August, the Gore mansion burned more than twice the electricity in a single month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Gore’s heated pool house alone uses more than $500 in electricity every month.

These latest revelations are reason enough to rent the movie just to see Gore standing before an enormous bar-graph comparison of individual carbon emissions by nationality while sanctimoniously tut-tutting about how the average American’s energy use is greedily off the charts.

A Gore spokesman tried to deflect the charges of “do as I say, not as I do” by stating that the Gores “purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.” Gore himself has been very public about this approach to carbon neutrality, but not only is this claim not exactly true, it’s quite meaningless in terms of global warming.

First, Al Gore doesn’t purchase carbon offsets out of his own pocket and the actual economic cost, if any, to him is unknown.

The actual offset purchaser is a London-based investment firm, Generation Investment Management (GIM), that Al Gore co-founded with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood and others in 2004.

GIM supposedly purchases carbon offsets for all 23 of its employees to cover their personal energy use, according to a March 7 CNSNews.com report. These offsets, then, would be provided to Gore more as an employee benefit, thus requiring very little sacrifice on his or his family's part.

Trading and or purchasing carbon offsets is an emerging business, and CNSNews is also pursuing an investigative story into whether Gore or his company are making money from these offsets. It’s quite possible, for example, that GIM’s offsets actually produce financial benefits for the Gores either through tax deductions or even business profits.

A Gore spokesman refused to shed light on the personal net financial impacts to Gore, instead telling CNSNews that Mr. Gore, "as a private citizen, does not release his private income.”

Financial matters aside, what are the environmental impacts of Gore’s offsets?

I was surprised to find that even a leading advocate of carbon offsets acknowledge that they have no impact on global climate.

The Carbon Neutral Company – one of the two vendors that sell offsets to GIM – says that offset purchases “will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions… in the short term.”

Instead, they merely: (1) demonstrate commitment to taking action on climate change; (2) add an economic component to climate change; (3) help engage and educate the public; and (4) may provide local social and environmental benefits that help to encourage the use of low-carbon technologies.

The real design behind offsetting, then, is to impact the public debate, not to avert the dreaded global warming. This purpose is consistent with what I heard Al Gore say about the Kyoto Protocol following a private presentation of his climate slide show I attended at the Americans for Tax Reform offices in January, 2006.

“Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it [in 1997]?… Hell no!” said Gore. He then explained that the actual point of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on environmental issues.

But it’s the carbon offset purchases through which Gore really validates application of the $300-man epithet to him. His company buys the offsets for their employees. There’s no cost to him. He benefits politically – and perhaps financially, as well – from them. He then advocates that the rest of us who cannot so easily offset are carbon production suffer myriad personal sacrifices.

While Gore relaxes in his posh pool house and heated pool, you should be taking shorter and colder showers, and hanging your laundry outside to dry. As Gore jets around the world in first-class comfort to hob-nob with society’s elites about his self-declared “moral imperative”, you should travel less and bike to work. You should use less electricity while Al and his wife, Tipper, use 20 times the national average. Now that’s a real carbon offset.

“Are you ready to change the way you live?” Gore literally meant you – and only you.


Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html

 

[red states rule]

Gore's 930-square-metre home is about four times larger than the average American home built in 2006, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

The home is also powered by natural gas, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research said, noting that the Gore family spent $1,080 US a month on natural gas in 2006.

 

[maineman]

RSR...that article does not refute my position in the least. Gore's utility has the option for customers to buy green electricity. He does. Green electricity is environmentally neutral. All the kilowatts used at the Gore home are green.... therefore, it doesn't MATTER how many he uses, none of them were produced in an environmentally harmful manner. Can you understand that?

I ask again:

can you actually answer my question with your own words? Are you capable of independent intellectual thought processes? I work for the power industry. green power is just that: it is environmentally neutral. it doesn't matter how much green power you use - it will not negatively impact the environment. If everyone were willing to pay a premium and buy green energy, the supply of it would naturally increase, which would be GOOD for the environment. That is how the energy market works

 

[red states rule]

I ask again:

can you actually answer my question with your own words? Are you capable of independent intellectual thought processes? I work for the power industry. green power is just that: it is environmentally neutral. it doesn't matter how much green power you use - it will not negatively impact the environment. If everyone were willing to pay a premium and buy green energy, the supply of it would naturally increase, which would be GOOD for the environment. That is how the energy market works

OMG - I have. Once again, one of your liberal heros has been caught red handed and you continue to carry the water for him

Public records from the Nashville Electric Service shows he is not living his life as he lectures the rest of us to live ours

Since when is natural gas green power?

 

[maineman]

OMG - I have. Once again, one of your liberal heros has been caught red handed and you continue to carry the water for him

Public records from the Nashville Electric Service shows he is not living his life as he lectures the rest of us to live ours

Since when is natural gas green power?

the mere fact that you can type the sentence I bolded indicates that you do not understand a word I am saying.

Nashville Electric Service sells Gore GREEN power.... it doesn't matter if he uses a thousand times more electricity than the average homeowner...it is GREEN.

And my comments are confined to his electric bill.... which, if you are going to continue to misrepresent, I will continue to point out your idiocy.

 

[red states rule]

the mere fact that you can type the sentence I bolded indicates that you do not understand a word I am saying.

Nashville Electric Service sells Gore GREEN power.... it doesn't matter if he uses a thousand times more electricity than the average homeowner...it is GREEN.

And my comments are confined to his electric bill.... which, if you are going to continue to misrepresent, I will continue to point out your idiocy.

an Uncle Al is making alot of money off the idiocy of people like you


Gore's power usage an inconvenient truth, think-tank claims
But critics reject report as smear campaign by Republican supporters

Al Gore is well schooled at manipulating the levers of power and money to his benefit. Heads or tails Al Gore almost never loses. It's been this way pretty much all his life. Starting when Daddy Al set up him in fine style, including an annuity from a Zinc Mine Pop finagled with Armand Hammer, the Communists' favorite capitalist, Al's always been well taken care of. By hook or crook, Gore has reputedly piled up more than $200 million in his bank account since his 2000 Presidential run.


It has been said that Donald Trump is an excellent example of what a shrewd man can accomplish when he inherits $40 million. Al Gore is also an excellent example of what one can accomplish with unusually good hereditary access to capital, of the monetary and political sort.


Mr. Gore's Capital Hill encore is the culmination of a long and well-financed campaign. Ostensibly, his purpose Wednesday was to outline a 10 point plan to combat what he declares is the coming catastrophe, more about which in due course. While his accomplices in the drive-by media slickly packaged up his appearance with fawning praise just in time for the evening news, the actual event was a far different story.


Frankly, he needs new writers. Hopping from one cliché to another like his mascot polar bears clambering from one sinking ice flow to the next, with lines like "the proof is in the pudding" and "the greatest generation" just to name a few. I could be mistaken, but it looked to me like Al enlisted William Shatner to coach him on this one. Shatner, famous for totally overacting every part he ever played, just had to be giving him pointers. (Spock..., I'm...dying...uh..uh...I...can'..nt...hold...on...uh). When the audience was warmed up, Gore served up the best messianic oratory he could muster. Although, in his case it always seems like a cheap imitation.


"The time will come, I promise you, (voice quaking) when a future generation will look back and they will ask one of two questions either they will ask, what in God's name were they doing? (recited in sanctimonious staccato) didn't they see the evidence? (progressively raising voice in anger) didn't they here the warnings? didn't they see the mountain glaciers melting in every part of this earth? didn't they see the polar ice caps melting? didn't they here the scientists say it may be gone in as little as 34 years? didn't they here the seismographers tell the earth is shaking because of the glacial earth quakes on Greenland? 32 of em this year up to 5.1 on the Richter scale. didn't they the see the evidence of nature on the run?..."
And it went on like this for several hours. Democrats praising him as the new prophet and a few Republicans, namely James Inhofe, confronting the hysteria Gore has been trying to incite for the last several years.


Interposing his passionate pleas with his 10 point plan to save the world, Gore outlined a veritable grab bag of proposals that somehow all ended with the same solution, more government power, especially by raising taxes. Surrounded by old Washington hands, Gore and his gang demonstrated great ingenuity in the variety of ideas presented, all with one goal in mind, picking the public's pocket. Perhaps the boldest of them all, was his call for the creation of a new government agency "Connie Mae" to create and trade "carbon credits" ala Fannie Mae. Helpfully, he fantasized out loud about a future in which consumers would get out their checkbooks and write checks to Connie Mae right along with paying their mortgages. You could almost see the dollar signs gleaming in his eyes. Cha ching.


So where did this come from? Were Tipper and Al engaged in pillow talk in one of their four mansions one night and suddenly Al the prophet leaps up from the bed crying: "By Zeus, I've got it! Connie Mae!"


I think not. No, this has been in the works for a very long time. Back in November 2006, Fannie Mae was granted a patent for a system to trade greenhouse gas-reduction credits paid by homeowners. The application was filed in April 2005. Fannie is just now getting out from under a huge scandal that threatened the safety and soundness of the housing finance system. In the wake of this, it is unlikely Congress and the regulators will go along with this scheme. Although, I wouldn't make book on it.


Ousted Chief Executive Franklin Raines is listed in the patent as an inventor of a system for verifying cuts in household emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The patent, granted on Nov. 7 and held jointly with a subsidiary of New York-based Cantor Fitzgerald LP, gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over a method for pooling and selling credits to companies that can't meet emission reduction targets. According to Bloomberg, Connie Russell, a spokeswoman for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight that regulates Fannie Mae, said the agency is reviewing the patent and wouldn't comment further.

Besides Bloomberg, the patent award was lightly reported by the Washington Post and Marketwatch. There appear to be no press releases from Fannie Mae on this either.


I have not examined the patent award closely but the Patent Office has a lot problems, granting patents when they shouldn't and denying patents they should grant. This is a patent that should not have been granted. It's utility is entirely dependent on a government regulation. Where's the invention in that?


Al Gore and his guys have been very busy laying the groundwork for sweeping policy changes that they can profit from. There is no real value being created here, just a host for a rapacious nest of parasites.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/28/gore-electricity.html

 

[maineman]

you really are profoundly boring. I do not come to the site to read conservative op-ed pieces...I come to discuss with intelligent individuals. If you are incapable of answering my questions and carrying on a dialog in your own words without resorting to posting lengthy op-ed pieces with only tangential relevance to our discussion, I really will have to put you on ignore again. Why can't you just use your words? WHy must you hide behind mountains of words of others?

I just saw someone else - 5stringjeff, I think - castigate you for the same thing last night and you admitted that the point was valid. IT still is.

Now... do you want to carry on a discussion or don't you?

 

[red states rule]

you really are profoundly boring. I do not come to the site to read conservative op-ed pieces...I come to discuss with intelligent individuals. If you are incapable of answering my questions and carrying on a dialog in your own words without resorting to posting lengthy op-ed pieces with only tangential relevance to our discussion, I really will have to put you on ignore again. Why can't you just use your words? WHy must you hide behind mountains of words of others?

I just saw someone else - 5stringjeff, I think - castigate you for the same thing last night and you admitted that the point was valid. IT still is.

Now... do you want to carry on a discussion or don't you?

Try this one then............

Cutting carbon
Posted by: Economist.com | NEW YORK
Categories: Environment
THE Oscar win for Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth has touched off a minor firestorm over the Green Giant's own energy usage policies:

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.
Al Gore's people have fired back:

Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

1) 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.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

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.

Some of this response seems flatly silly. The electricity usage is what Mr Gore consumes after things like solar panels and CFLs are taken into account; it's hardly comforting that he could be emitting even more carbon, since that is true of almost all of us, yet has not stopped Mr Gore from hectoring us to reduce our carbon output still further. Similarly, I find it hard to believe that Mr Gore has actually reduced his carbon output "as much as possible"—and if Mr Gore so believes, I invite him to take a train up to New York, where I will show him what a more carbon efficient lifestyle looks like.

The carbon offsets, on the other hand, sound like a very reasonable plan. That is, they did until I began thinking about them.

Most carbon offsets seem to work on one of a few principles: they plant trees, invest in renewable energy sources, or pay someone in a developing country to use some less-polluting technology, like a CFL.

It turns out that a lot of websites have already devoted quite a lot of space to discussing why these plans don't work particularly well. Calculating one's carbon output, and the carbon savings from various offsets, is very tricky and may be manipulated by unscrupulous offset firms. Trees take quite a long time to get to the stage where they are actually absorbing all that carbon—and tend to die shortly thereafter, releasing all that carbon back into the atmosphere, there to wreak havoc. By legitimating carbon usage, offset companies may actually be increasing it.

But surprisingly few make what, to me, seems like a more basic point: energy is a tradable market good. It is not as if there is some fixed demand for energy, so that by using less carbon-emitting energy, you actually decrease the amount of carbon emitted.

This is, of course, ridiculous. When you donate money to build a new windfarm, you don't take any of the old, polluting power offline; you increase the supply of power, reducing the price until others are encouraged to buy more carbon-emitting power. On the margin, it may make some difference, since demand for electricity is not perfectly elastic, but nowhere near the one-for-one equivalence that carbon offsets would seem to suggest. Especially since the worst offenders, big coal-fired plants, are not the ones that renewables will substitute for; solar and wind power are not good replacements for baseload power. Instead, renewables are likely to take relatively clean (and expensive) natural gas plants offline, since those are the ones that provide "extra" power to the system. Similarly, by giving villagers in Goa energy-saving CFL bulbs, you do not lessen the amount of electricity consumed; rather, you make it possible for other people to purchase the extra energy freed up by more efficient lightbulbs. This may be excellent poverty policy, but it does not lessen the carbon footprint of your international flight.

Obviously, the same is true of individual conservation efforst. Thats why any attempt to abate global warming has to be massive. Huge numbers of people in the rich world have to fly less, drive less, consume less, and live in smaller houses. If Mr Gore really wants to encourage this (as I do), then it would be nice to see him setting an example.


http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexchange/2007/02/the_oscar_win_for_al.cfm

 

[maineman]

I'll take that as a no.

I gave you a second chance.....

it will be some time before I give you another.

sorry.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

In his Oscar Winning Docu-Drama, "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore asks people if they are willing to change they way they live. Apparently, he is not. He refused to take the pledge:

As a believer:
· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.

I am not at all surprised. The Goracle is just another case of "Do as I say, not as I do". If this really were a "Planetary Emergency", he should have to be asked.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca

Fox News' Garrett and others mischaracterized or omitted Gore's response to Inhofe on his energy use

Summary: During a report on Al Gore's testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Fox News' Major Garrett reported that, in response to Sen. James Inhofe's question, "Are you ready to change the way you live?" a reference to Gore's documentary, Gore replied that "he didn't have to because he purchases a variety of environmental credits." In fact, Gore indicated in his response that he had changed his lifestyle and is continuing to do so.

On the March 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett mischaracterized an exchange between Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-OK) and former Vice President Al Gore during Gore's testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Garrett reported that Inhofe "posed a question to Gore that Gore himself poses at the end of his documentary [An Inconvenient Truth], quote, 'Are you ready to change the way you live?' a reference to Gore's Tennessee compound." According to Garrett, Gore replied that "he didn't have to because he purchases a variety of environmental credits, meaning, though his compound consumes a lot more energy than the average home in America, it's global warming neutral, he said." In fact, Gore said that he and his family "purchase wind energy and other green energy that does not produce carbon dioxide," that his personal life and his two businesses are already "carbon neutral," and that he is "in the midst of installing solar panels" at his home.

Contrary to Garrett's claim that Gore said "he didn't have to" change his lifestyle, Gore actually indicated in his response that he had changed his lifestyle and is continuing to do so. Responding to Inhofe, Gore added that, in addition to living a "carbon neutral life" and purchasing "green energy," he was "in the midst of installing solar panels" at his house. Gore suggested he was prohibited from doing so at an earlier time because his community "prevent[ed]" him from installing the panels. Gore stated that he "never made that public, by the way. The community where I live, it's a city within a city," which evidently had regulations prohibiting the installation of solar panels, but "I asked them to change it and they said, 'We will. It just takes time.' "

Inhofe asked Gore to "agree to consume no more energy in your residence than the average American household by one year from today." In response, Gore noted that he and his wife "purchase wind energy and other green energy that does not produce carbon dioxide." Gore continued, asserting, "[T]hat does cost a little more, now, and that is one of the reasons why" his home's utility bills "cost[] a little more." In a recent release that received widespread attention, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about Gore's home energy bills.

Numerous other print media reports noted the challenge Inhofe posed to Gore -- to "agree[] to consume no more energy in your residence than the average American household by one year from today" -- but failed to note Gore's response. For instance:

* On March 22, The Washington Post reported that "Inhofe ... criticized Gore for using too much energy in his Tennessee home," but did not include Gore's response that he purchases "green energy" and is renovating his home to incorporate more alternative sources of energy, like solar panels.

* In a March 21 wire report, McClatchy Newspapers also reported Inhofe's question about Gore's home energy consumption and noted only that, in his response, "Gore sought to give a more detailed answer[]," but "Inhofe cut him off or talked over him."

* Similarly, the Associated Press reported on March 21: "Inhofe then grilled Gore about his personal energy use at his Tennessee mansion and showed the final frame of Gore's film that read, 'Are you ready to change the way you live?' But the article only allowed that "[w]hen Gore tried to respond at length, Inhofe cut him off."

From the March 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

GARRETT: Later in the day, Gore offered similar testimony to a Senate committee, encountering stiffer GOP skepticism about climate change science.

INHOFE: Now, if you put up chart number three, there are literally hundreds of scientists on this chart. All of these scientists disagree with you.

GARRETT: Inhofe used to chair the very committee that sought Gore's testimony, and he grilled Gore on the amount of energy his Tennessee home consumes, said to be many times higher than the national average. The clash led to a dust-up with the new chairman, California's Barbara Boxer.

INHOFE: Why don't we do this?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): You are asking him questions --

INHOFE: Why don't we do this? At the end, you can have as much time as you want to answer all of the questions.

BOXER: No, that isn't the rule of -- you're not making the rules. You used to when you did this. You don't do this anymore. Elections have consequences.

GARRETT: Senator Inhofe also posed a question to Gore that Gore himself poses at the end of his documentary, quote, "Are you ready to change the way you live?" a reference to Gore's Tennessee compound.

Gore said he didn't have to because he purchases a variety of environmental credits, meaning, though his compound consumes a lot more energy than the average home in America, it's global warming neutral, he said. Brit.

From the March 21 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on global warming:

INHOFE: All right. Now, I'd like to put up the little pledge thing here. I'm going to ask you if you would like to commit here, today. You know how many hundreds of thousands of fans you have out there that would like to follow your lead? And this pledge merely says -- as you can read it up there -- that you're agreeing to consume no more energy in your residence than the average American household by one year from today, not right now, but you've got a whole year to try to do this.

Now, the one thing I'd like to have you not use in response to this question, which is a yes or no question, is the various gimmicks. Now, I have something I want to submit for the record, Madame Chairman, that talks about the effects -- the offsets and the credits are gimmicks used by the wealthy so they don't have to change their lifestyles. This -- and I have an article that is last Sunday's United Kingdom Times, I'd like to add -- to submit for the record at this time.

BOXER: You may.

INHOFE: All right, what's your answer?

GORE: Well, first of all, Senator, thank you so much for your question. I --

INHOFE: Sure. I noticed Tipper didn't say thank you for the question.

GORE: Oh, I'm sure she would, but -- you know, one of the other recommendations that I would have is that we -- is that you also set standards for green energy produced by utilities. And, one reason I say that, in response to what you're saying here, is that that's what we purchase, and we pay more for it because it's still relatively --

INHOFE: OK.

GORE: -- uncommon. If I may --

INHOFE: Senator Gore --

GORE: If I could just finish my --

INHOFE: Well, you can't --

BOXER: If you could allow -- you've asked the Senator an important question. He's answering it. Give him a minute or so to answer it.

[...]

GORE: We purchase wind energy and other green energy that does not produce carbon dioxide, and that does cost a little more, now, and that is one of the reasons why it costs a little more. We're also in the process of renovating an old home, and I live -- we live not far from where [Sen.] Lamar [R-TN] and [his wife] Honey Alexander do and we --

INHOFE: All right, Senator Gore, you've had so much more time. I'm going to have to have my --

GORE: Can I make one other point because a lot of communities actually have laws preventing the installation of solar photovoltaic cells?

INHOFE: So, I assume the answer's no. Let's go to the next question.

GORE: And, if I could continue --

INHOFE: No, you can't.

GORE: I do believe that there should be a federal provision that overrides any local restrictions.

[...]

INHOFE: But, what I'm going to do in the last time, since my time has expired, I'm going to ask you, on your film -- the last frame on your film -- and it's kind of interesting because yesterday, I ran into a parent of a student at school in Maryland that said that her students were, in an elementary school, were watching your movie, under the instructions once every month.

The last frame in that movie was -- would you put that frame up? You're asking and you've asked people all over America, "Are you ready to change your way of life? Are you ready to change the way you live?" I would have to ask you that same question, because we started my term on "Would you take a pledge to do that?" I think the answer to that is no. But in terms of changing the way you live, I think it's very difficult for you to ask other people to do it, unless you are willing to do it. Are you willing to do it?

GORE: We live a carbon neutral life, Senator, and both of my businesses are carbon neutral. We buy green energy. We do not contribute to the problem that I'm joining with others to try to help solve. We pay more for clean energy, and I think that utilities ought to provide more green energy that doesn't produce CO2, and we are in the midst of installing solar panels.

Again, I think that we ought to have a law that says communities and localities ought not to be able to prevent that. I never made that public, by the way. The community where I live, it's a city within a city, I didn't want to -- because I asked them to change it and they said, "We will. It just takes time." So, these kinds of things are what people are going through all over this country: They're buying the new light bulbs; they're putting in more insulation. People are changing. People are changing.

The American people are ready to help solve this problem, but we have to have legislation that takes away the right to pollute without any accountability or without paying a price for it because when we have cap-and-trade, when we have laws that make it -- that allow us to use the market in our favor, then those of us who are part of the solution rather than part of the problem will be able to leverage what we're doing.

—J.M.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220015

 

[red states rule]

I'll take that as a no.

I gave you a second chance.....

it will be some time before I give you another.

sorry.

So now the Economist is a right wing source?

Give it up MM - Al has been busted

 

[red states rule]

Fox News' Garrett and others mischaracterized or omitted Gore's response to Inhofe on his energy use

Summary: During a report on Al Gore's testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Fox News' Major Garrett reported that, in response to Sen. James Inhofe's question, "Are you ready to change the way you live?" a reference to Gore's documentary, Gore replied that "he didn't have to because he purchases a variety of environmental credits." In fact, Gore indicated in his response that he had changed his lifestyle and is continuing to do so.

On the March 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett mischaracterized an exchange between Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-OK) and former Vice President Al Gore during Gore's testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Garrett reported that Inhofe "posed a question to Gore that Gore himself poses at the end of his documentary [An Inconvenient Truth], quote, 'Are you ready to change the way you live?' a reference to Gore's Tennessee compound." According to Garrett, Gore replied that "he didn't have to because he purchases a variety of environmental credits, meaning, though his compound consumes a lot more energy than the average home in America, it's global warming neutral, he said." In fact, Gore said that he and his family "purchase wind energy and other green energy that does not produce carbon dioxide," that his personal life and his two businesses are already "carbon neutral," and that he is "in the midst of installing solar panels" at his home.

Contrary to Garrett's claim that Gore said "he didn't have to" change his lifestyle, Gore actually indicated in his response that he had changed his lifestyle and is continuing to do so. Responding to Inhofe, Gore added that, in addition to living a "carbon neutral life" and purchasing "green energy," he was "in the midst of installing solar panels" at his house. Gore suggested he was prohibited from doing so at an earlier time because his community "prevent[ed]" him from installing the panels. Gore stated that he "never made that public, by the way. The community where I live, it's a city within a city," which evidently had regulations prohibiting the installation of solar panels, but "I asked them to change it and they said, 'We will. It just takes time.' "

Inhofe asked Gore to "agree to consume no more energy in your residence than the average American household by one year from today." In response, Gore noted that he and his wife "purchase wind energy and other green energy that does not produce carbon dioxide." Gore continued, asserting, "[T]hat does cost a little more, now, and that is one of the reasons why" his home's utility bills "cost[] a little more." In a recent release that received widespread attention, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about Gore's home energy bills.

Numerous other print media reports noted the challenge Inhofe posed to Gore -- to "agree[] to consume no more energy in your residence than the average American household by one year from today" -- but failed to note Gore's response. For instance:

* On March 22, The Washington Post reported that "Inhofe ... criticized Gore for using too much energy in his Tennessee home," but did not include Gore's response that he purchases "green energy" and is renovating his home to incorporate more alternative sources of energy, like solar panels.

* In a March 21 wire report, McClatchy Newspapers also reported Inhofe's question about Gore's home energy consumption and noted only that, in his response, "Gore sought to give a more detailed answer[]," but "Inhofe cut him off or talked over him."

* Similarly, the Associated Press reported on March 21: "Inhofe then grilled Gore about his personal energy use at his Tennessee mansion and showed the final frame of Gore's film that read, 'Are you ready to change the way you live?' But the article only allowed that "[w]hen Gore tried to respond at length, Inhofe cut him off."

From the March 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

GARRETT: Later in the day, Gore offered similar testimony to a Senate committee, encountering stiffer GOP skepticism about climate change science.

INHOFE: Now, if you put up chart number three, there are literally hundreds of scientists on this chart. All of these scientists disagree with you.

GARRETT: Inhofe used to chair the very committee that sought Gore's testimony, and he grilled Gore on the amount of energy his Tennessee home consumes, said to be many times higher than the national average. The clash led to a dust-up with the new chairman, California's Barbara Boxer.

INHOFE: Why don't we do this?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): You are asking him questions --

INHOFE: Why don't we do this? At the end, you can have as much time as you want to answer all of the questions.

BOXER: No, that isn't the rule of -- you're not making the rules. You used to when you did this. You don't do this anymore. Elections have consequences.

GARRETT: Senator Inhofe also posed a question to Gore that Gore himself poses at the end of his documentary, quote, "Are you ready to change the way you live?" a reference to Gore's Tennessee compound.

Gore said he didn't have to because he purchases a variety of environmental credits, meaning, though his compound consumes a lot more energy than the average home in America, it's global warming neutral, he said. Brit.

From the March 21 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on global warming:

INHOFE: All right. Now, I'd like to put up the little pledge thing here. I'm going to ask you if you would like to commit here, today. You know how many hundreds of thousands of fans you have out there that would like to follow your lead? And this pledge merely says -- as you can read it up there -- that you're agreeing to consume no more energy in your residence than the average American household by one year from today, not right now, but you've got a whole year to try to do this.

Now, the one thing I'd like to have you not use in response to this question, which is a yes or no question, is the various gimmicks. Now, I have something I want to submit for the record, Madame Chairman, that talks about the effects -- the offsets and the credits are gimmicks used by the wealthy so they don't have to change their lifestyles. This -- and I have an article that is last Sunday's United Kingdom Times, I'd like to add -- to submit for the record at this time.

BOXER: You may.

INHOFE: All right, what's your answer?

GORE: Well, first of all, Senator, thank you so much for your question. I --

INHOFE: Sure. I noticed Tipper didn't say thank you for the question.

GORE: Oh, I'm sure she would, but -- you know, one of the other recommendations that I would have is that we -- is that you also set standards for green energy produced by utilities. And, one reason I say that, in response to what you're saying here, is that that's what we purchase, and we pay more for it because it's still relatively --

INHOFE: OK.

GORE: -- uncommon. If I may --

INHOFE: Senator Gore --

GORE: If I could just finish my --

INHOFE: Well, you can't --

BOXER: If you could allow -- you've asked the Senator an important question. He's answering it. Give him a minute or so to answer it.

[...]

GORE: We purchase wind energy and other green energy that does not produce carbon dioxide, and that does cost a little more, now, and that is one of the reasons why it costs a little more. We're also in the process of renovating an old home, and I live -- we live not far from where [Sen.] Lamar [R-TN] and [his wife] Honey Alexander do and we --

INHOFE: All right, Senator Gore, you've had so much more time. I'm going to have to have my --

GORE: Can I make one other point because a lot of communities actually have laws preventing the installation of solar photovoltaic cells?

INHOFE: So, I assume the answer's no. Let's go to the next question.

GORE: And, if I could continue --

INHOFE: No, you can't.

GORE: I do believe that there should be a federal provision that overrides any local restrictions.

[...]

INHOFE: But, what I'm going to do in the last time, since my time has expired, I'm going to ask you, on your film -- the last frame on your film -- and it's kind of interesting because yesterday, I ran into a parent of a student at school in Maryland that said that her students were, in an elementary school, were watching your movie, under the instructions once every month.

The last frame in that movie was -- would you put that frame up? You're asking and you've asked people all over America, "Are you ready to change your way of life? Are you ready to change the way you live?" I would have to ask you that same question, because we started my term on "Would you take a pledge to do that?" I think the answer to that is no. But in terms of changing the way you live, I think it's very difficult for you to ask other people to do it, unless you are willing to do it. Are you willing to do it?

GORE: We live a carbon neutral life, Senator, and both of my businesses are carbon neutral. We buy green energy. We do not contribute to the problem that I'm joining with others to try to help solve. We pay more for clean energy, and I think that utilities ought to provide more green energy that doesn't produce CO2, and we are in the midst of installing solar panels.

Again, I think that we ought to have a law that says communities and localities ought not to be able to prevent that. I never made that public, by the way. The community where I live, it's a city within a city, I didn't want to -- because I asked them to change it and they said, "We will. It just takes time." So, these kinds of things are what people are going through all over this country: They're buying the new light bulbs; they're putting in more insulation. People are changing. People are changing.

The American people are ready to help solve this problem, but we have to have legislation that takes away the right to pollute without any accountability or without paying a price for it because when we have cap-and-trade, when we have laws that make it -- that allow us to use the market in our favor, then those of us who are part of the solution rather than part of the problem will be able to leverage what we're doing.

—J.M.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220015

When nailed, libs will always fall on on the talking point how their comments and/or actions were taken out of context or mischaracterized

 

[maineman]

you really are profoundly boring. I do not come to the site to read conservative op-ed pieces...I come to discuss with intelligent individuals. If you are incapable of answering my questions and carrying on a dialog in your own words without resorting to posting lengthy op-ed pieces with only tangential relevance to our discussion, I really will have to put you on ignore again. Why can't you just use your words? Why must you hide behind mountains of words of others?

I just saw someone else - 5stringjeff, I think - castigate you for the same thing last night and you admitted that the point was valid. IT still is.

Now... do you want to carry on a discussion or don't you?

last chance.

your call.

 

[red states rule]

All them money Uncle Al is spending of "carbon offsets" is not doing a thing. (He is also buying them from himself and making a huge profit)

Libs like Al can do and say anything, and get a pass from the sheep that follow him

Another Inconvenient Truth
Behind the feel-good hype of carbon offsets, some of the deals don't deliver

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_13/b4027057.htm