The Al Gore discussion, split from GOP/DEM

[Rex Kickass]

There's an inappropriate Ted Nugent joke to be made here about the difference between carpets and rugs but I'm not gonna make it.

[EvilMonkey]

Just out of curiosity, do you actually understand how those credit systems work?

Several ways. One of the ones is where a business has to reduce its output by 20% or some such number., They succeed in lowering by 30%. They can sell their 'overs' to others who failed to meet their goal, or just want to make themselves feel better. Another way is by sponsoring the planting of trees and other such enviro-friendly things. Not everyone can afford to plant a forest. Wanna buy some carbon credits yourself? Buy enery effiecient bulbs for a Jamacian village, that counts!

 

http://www.carbonneutral.com/pages/carbontrading.asp

 

Hell, I could plant a forest, and then sell the carbon credits to al myself! If I owned a huge tract of land already, I could sell those credits! It's just like rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic, only The Goracle gets to have a clean conscience when he snuggles up next to Tipper.

[Balta1701]

So, I guess someone actually has to put some comparison data to this problem, and I guess that for some reason, it always winds up being the scientist. You guys never help a guy be lazy, do you?

 

Anyway, every 5 years, the DOE does a statistical survey of average energy consumption per household across the U.S. The last one was published in 2001; they performed another survey last year, but those numbers will not be published until this summer, so you'll pardon me if the numbers I'm comparing here are 5 years old; they are the best that the DOE has published so far. If someone reminds me like in July perhaps I can do this analysis again. Please note that 1 kilowatt hour = 3413 BTU. In your head, if you want to evaluate these numbers, just sort of think whether the average household uses more or less energy in 2006 than in 2001 (my guess is more based on the increasing average size of new households, but I have no way to prove that without data).

 

According to the Original press release from the Tennessee Policy Center (which as we pointed out earlier is not recognized by anyone as an actual group ) Al Gore's house used 221,000 KWH last year. According to Mr. Gore's electric bill, which was obtained by a local news station (Here), Mr Gore's household used about 190,000 KWH of electricity in 1 December to December period last year. Assuming that his house is 10,000 square feet (press reports keep saying it is over 10,000 square feet, but I've been unable to find an exact number through about 2 min on Google).

 

Using those numbers, that translates to an energy usage for Mr. Gore's family last year of 65059.6 BTU/Square Foot of house space. Now, any person with a hint of rationality is going to realize that it doesn't cost as much energy to heat a 500 square foot apartment as it does to heat/cool a 10,000 square foot home, so comparing Mr. Gore's total energy usage to the average american's total energy usage is simply stupid. Normalizing by the square footage of the house seems to me to be a good step.

 

When one takes that step, and compares with the 2001 data, the average household in 2001 uses 46700 BTU/square foot of space. In other words, per square foot, Mr. Gore uses 1.39 times the normal amount of electricity, which first of all is hardly a factor of 20.

 

But there is even more complexity to this data. Mr. Gore's household is in Tennessee, and the data is happily divided into regions of the country. It turns out, possibly as a function of either the climate or of the availability of other fuel sources (electricity vs. Gas, for example) Out of all of the divisions surveyed within the U.S., this area of the country, within the East South Central division of the South region...uses by far the most electricity on average. The electricity usage throughout the South is high, and this particular region is the highest. In fact, the electricity usage by this region per household is 150%, or 1.5 times the national average.

 

Based on the 2001 numbers, Mr. Gore's house uses 1.39 times the normal amount of energy per square foot, and the average house in that area consumes 1.5 times the average national amount of electricty overall. Furthermore, the average house in that area consumed 157 million BTU's of electricity during the survey period. Mr. Gore's total consumption of electricity for his house was 650 million BTU. Therefore, Mr. Gore's house used a factor of 4 times the electricity of the average household in that area...but of course, it's worth asking what the average square footage in that region is. Honestly, despite searching, I have been unable to find this data within that compilation, so I can't give you that answer, but ask yourself this; do you think it is greater than or less than 2500 square feet?

 

There are some issues I am unable to resolve without actually getting my hands on Mr. Gore's full utility bill, specifically, I am unable to break down his usage between natural gas and electricity, so it is difficult to determine exactly how Mr. Gore's household compares in every single aspect (most notably gas usage)

 

To be completely fair, it is also worth noting that according to that data, the average household energy use per square foot should decline as the size of the house increases, which is to be expected as not all energy goes to heating/cooling, and Mr. Gore's household does not show as significant of a drop as one would expect. However, this is where the further complexities come in, as Mr. Gore's family also runs multiple home offices in their household, which usually generates some extra consumption based on added appliances, along with having extra people around. Mr. Gore also has a guest house on his property. And, Mr. Gore appears to, due to him having been Vice President, have extra people around, if nothing else for security. And finally, Mr. Gore's house has also been under renovation within the past year, which I have difficulty believing does not consume additional energy.

 

So, overall, there are 2 issues here; critics of Mr. Gore can feel free to pick one. The first one would be; is Mr. Gore carbon-neutral or not? Based on his purchasing of green power from the TVA and his purchasing of carbon offsets which fund renewable energy, I believe he is following his own advice. The best objection I've heard to this so far is "B.S", so I'll leave it at that.

 

In terms of Mr. Gore's house, is his house large? Yes. Significantly. Compared to other houses of that size, does Mr. Gore's house use more energy? Yes, but the margin is much, much slimmer than the factor of 20 or so which the original press release gave, some of this can possibly be explained by the specific circumstances of renovations and activity at the lcation. And compared per square foot with the houses in that area, or in fact throughout the rest of the country, is Mr. Gore's house using more energy? Based on the energy department data, for 2001, the answer appears to be no.

 

Link 1

Link 2.

Spreadsheet 1

Spreadsheet 2.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

LMFAO!

 

You could see the direction this thread was taking a long time ago, which is why it got pointless in a hurry. There will be research up the ass to make sure that AlGoracle is protected and righteous, and ZERO on anyone else that might be "environmental" of another political persuasion. Of course... it's always different (southsider ™ ).

 

Most of us even said that WE OURSELVES try to be conscious of it, and that even got turned around. Dodge, deflect, and leave. Hmmm, just like an Iraq plan.

[mr_genius]

LMFAO!

 

You could see the direction this thread was taking a long time ago, which is why it got pointless in a hurry. There will be research up the ass to make sure that AlGoracle is protected and righteous, and ZERO on anyone else that might be "environmental" of another political persuasion.

 

 

obviously you are not a scientist like Balta, if you were you would realize the mighty Goracle can not be housed in a simple 8 room / 3 bath home. He must dwell in a energy devouring mansion. no less then 20 rooms, AC on 24/7. And one mansion will not do, 2 is a must else his life force weakens.

 

So you see, his mass energy use is not hypocritical at all. He is a true enviromentalist, a prophet, a savior.

Edited March 1, 2007 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

So, overall, there are 2 issues here; critics of Mr. Gore can feel free to pick one. The first one would be; is Mr. Gore carbon-neutral or not? Based on his purchasing of green power from the TVA and his purchasing of carbon offsets which fund renewable energy, I believe he is following his own advice. The best objection I've heard to this so far is "B.S", so I'll leave it at that.

Actually, we don't know what his carbon offsets are. They could be funding renewable energy, they could be buying energy efficient bulbs for poor people, we don't know. Is he trying to be greener? Sure. But since he is the Goracle, he should be doing more. No limos, no private jets. Simply buying 'offsets' so he can continue to live his extravagant lifestyle is a shell game. I'm not saying he needs to bike to the office, but he should show a little more discretion when criticizing people who drive SUV's. That's what the BS is for. Also, 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. Now, if the offsets were used to purchase a coal-fired plant and then shut it down, THAT would be contributing to the long term health of the planet.

[southsideirish71]

obviously you are not a scientist like Balta, if you were you would realize the mighty Goracle can not be housed in a simple 8 room / 3 bath home. He must dwell in a energy devouring mansion. no less then 20 rooms, AC on 24/7. And one mansion will not due, 2 is a must else his life force weakens.

 

So you see, his mass energy use is not hypocritical at all.

 

 

This whole global warming and internet thing is keeping the goracle from his life work, finding and destroying the true menace to the world.

 

Edited March 1, 2007 by southsideirish71

[Texsox]

obviously you are not a scientist like Balta, if you were you would realize the mighty Goracle can not be housed in a simple 8 room / 3 bath home. He must dwell in a energy devouring mansion. no less then 20 rooms, AC on 24/7. And one mansion will not do, 2 is a must else his life force weakens.

 

So you see, his mass energy use is not hypocritical at all. He is a true enviromentalist, a prophet, a savior.

 

Interesting. Are you saying that it is wrong for people to be successful and own a bigger home?

 

BTW, does he deserve any kudos for having his office in his home, instead of driving to an office?

 

BALTA, at least here in south Texas, almost every home is 100% electric. Not many areas that have natural gas. What little gas usage here is propane tanks.

 

Just wondering, are there any leading Republicans involved in any environmental issues? Is there any facet of our environment that Republicans think need improving? Are they 100% happy with how clean our air is? How clean our water is? The so called "Superfund Sites" are getting cleaned up fast enough? We have good long term storage for our spent nuclear materials?

 

Someone tell me, if we followed the advice in this movie, how would our children suffer? How would it be better for future generations if we ignore Goracles message?

[Cknolls]

More room to count his Google wealth; though that house is still too small.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24

[mr_genius]

Interesting. Are you saying that it is wrong for people to be successful and own a bigger home?

 

 

I certainly am. No tax cuts for the wealthy!

 

Mass wealth redistribution is the only true answer. Also, the only reason other socialist states have failed is because the evil white male oppressor (the United States) has caused them to fail. Cuba, the former Soviet Union, ect. would have been perfect and just if not for the cold hearted United States.

 

Yes, the Goracle will live in a mansion, but he deserves one. He is one of the elite ruling class which will collect all resources and distribute them as he deems worthy.

 

Duh

Edited March 3, 2007 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

Since the usual suspects here could not find a conservative who was also a environmentalist, I went looking. I am alarmed that something as basic as our air, water, and energy production and usage has been hijacked on both sides for political gain.

 

The left: do everything to save the environment, we need to save ourselves from ourselves (and Republicans). Make the problem seem worse to get their attention and action.

 

The right: consumption is fine, burn it, strip mine it, drill it, this is all a ploy by the Dems to get votes. Discredit anyone who disagrees, and use that oil!

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Over my lifetime we have made tremendous strides in cleaning our environment. Just look at the Chicago river. From a terribly polluted waterway to something that can be used for recreation. Smokestacks at factories are not billowing poisons into our lungs as badly as before.

 

But Dems are going to have to take a more realistic approach to how bad the situation is and the solutions and Reps are going to have to admit that there are still problems and challenges that confront us. Since when does every issue have to be contested?

[southsider2k5]

No, I think most of the conservatives quit having this conversation, because no one was listening anyways, which is why your "questions" haven't been getting answered.

[Texsox]

No, I think most of the conservatives quit having this conversation, because no one was listening anyways, which is why your "questions" haven't been getting answered.

 

First asked about 50 posts ago.

 

Leading conservative environmentalists?

Which is better, follow Goracles example or his message?

Are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Air and water clean enough?

How is Goracles message harming the environment?

 

So far it seems the GOP's position on the environment is everything is ok, keep using oil, coil, etc. and discrediting anyone who preaches conservation, alternate fuels, and especially talks about climate changes.

 

I'm wondering what energy gobbling devices that the Goracle installed to boost his energy consumption.

[southsider2k5]

Pfft. Let me put it this way. I have a better chance at answering my wife asking "Do these pants make me look fat" than debating this stuff with this crowd again. At least I have a chance of discussion with my wife.

[kapkomet]

Since the usual suspects here could not find a conservative who was also a environmentalist, I went looking. I am alarmed that something as basic as our air, water, and energy production and usage has been hijacked on both sides for political gain.

 

The left: do everything to save the environment, we need to save ourselves from ourselves (and Republicans). Make the problem seem worse to get their attention and action.

 

The right: consumption is fine, burn it, strip mine it, drill it, this is all a ploy by the Dems to get votes. Discredit anyone who disagrees, and use that oil!

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Over my lifetime we have made tremendous strides in cleaning our environment. Just look at the Chicago river. From a terribly polluted waterway to something that can be used for recreation. Smokestacks at factories are not billowing poisons into our lungs as badly as before.

 

But Dems are going to have to take a more realistic approach to how bad the situation is and the solutions and Reps are going to have to admit that there are still problems and challenges that confront us. Since when does every issue have to be contested?

What the hell ever, Tex. Let it go. The rest of us did when we realized that the Goracle could walk on polluted water.

 

I'm sure every conservative is anti-environmental. It just has to be, because otherwise the Goracle wouldn't have to be an elitist wanker who buys his way to a good conscious.

[EvilMonkey]

First asked about 50 posts ago.

 

Leading conservative environmentalists?

Which is better, follow Goracles example or his message?

Are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Air and water clean enough?

How is Goracles message harming the environment?

 

So far it seems the GOP's position on the environment is everything is ok, keep using oil, coil, etc. and discrediting anyone who preaches conservation, alternate fuels, and especially talks about climate changes.

 

I'm wondering what energy gobbling devices that the Goracle installed to boost his energy consumption.

Maybe you shoudl add:

Is the Goracle practicing a do as I say, not as I do approach to conservationism by buying his way to neutrality which is not an option for most of the population?

Is there ever a reason that he should take a private jet to a function when a commerical airliner would do?

Does he need a limo because his body is fat, his ego is fat, or both?

[kapkomet]

I'll just shoot down the "commercial airliner" thing, which I brought up one other time, but I was wrong to do so. He is a dignitary of our country, and cannot fly commercially due to the security risk. I can respect that.

 

However, as an "inventor of the internet", he could certainly get video conference equipment, right? Oh, well, then he wouldn't get his $150,000 to $200,000 per speech appearance fees. Keep burning the gulfstream oil, baby!

[Texsox]

I keep trying to discuss the environment, y'all prefer to debate Goracle's usage.

 

So I keep asking, are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Do we need to make any changes to our consumption? Are the steps that are outlined in the movie harmful to the environment? Should we reject the steps that the movie outlines because our environment will be harmed? And who is/are the conservative leaders on environmental issues?

 

 

 

What the hell ever, Tex. Let it go. The rest of us did when we realized that the Goracle could walk on polluted water.

 

I'm sure every conservative is anti-environmental. It just has to be, because otherwise the Goracle wouldn't have to be an elitist wanker who buys his way to a good conscious.

 

Of course the environment isn't as important as restoring Conservatives to power. So let it go Kap. The rest of us did when we realized that Al Gore was the single most threatening environmental challenge facing conservatives. Not water quality, not air quality, but Al Gore. What a wonderful world conservatives live in.

[vandy125]

I keep trying to discuss the environment, y'all prefer to debate Goracle's usage.

 

So I keep asking, are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Do we need to make any changes to our consumption? Are the steps that are outlined in the movie harmful to the environment? Should we reject the steps that the movie outlines because our environment will be harmed? And who is/are the conservative leaders on environmental issues?

Of course the environment isn't as important as restoring Conservatives to power. So let it go Kap. The rest of us did when we realized that Al Gore was the single most threatening environmental challenge facing conservatives. Not water quality, not air quality, but Al Gore. What a wonderful world conservatives live in.

It has been said before by a few conservatives already (I believe), but I will say it again as a conservative. I agree completely with Al Gore's environmental message. We do need to act on it. I wish that the messenger got all of his ducks in a row before putting out such a message. That is what the debate is on. This thread was started to talk about the Goracle and his lifestyle. It is not debating about his message.

 

I agree with his message, but everytime we try to talk about the messenger, we get shoved back onto the other track and get questions like, "So, since you don't like the Goracle, you must hate the environment?".

 

Give me a break.

[Texsox]

Actually Vandy, it was started as two separate threads, in the biased threads. I believe the GOP thread was started to call Gore a douche, at least that was the first post over there, which is fine and why we have those two threads started.

 

After they were merged and anyone tried to move it away from character assassination to the message of the movie, it went back to calling Gore names. Perhaps it was because scientists on the board were defending him and economic and business people were attacking him.

[vandy125]

Actually Vandy, it was started as two separate threads, in the biased threads. I believe the GOP thread was started to call Gore a douche, at least that was the first post over there, which is fine and why we have those two threads started.

 

After they were merged and anyone tried to move it away from character assassination to the message of the movie, it went back to calling Gore names. Perhaps it was because scientists on the board were defending him and economic and business people were attacking him.

 

That appears to be the problem with merging the two threads. The GOP wants to keep talking about Gore, and the other thread wants to talk about his film.

 

Since I answered your question about the environment, can we all get back to calling Goracle a douche?

[southsider2k5]

Actually Vandy, it was started as two separate threads, in the biased threads. I believe the GOP thread was started to call Gore a douche, at least that was the first post over there, which is fine and why we have those two threads started.

 

After they were merged and anyone tried to move it away from character assassination to the message of the movie, it went back to calling Gore names. Perhaps it was because scientists on the board were defending him and economic and business people were attacking him.

 

Yep, I can't see at all why the conservatives don't want to post in this thread....

 

Good to see you are staying in line Tex

[Rex Kickass]

Then why do they keep posting? The last serious post by a lib in this thread was two pages ago. The rest were all jokes about Ted Nugent and the difference between rugs and carpets.

[Texsox]

Yep, I can't see at all why the conservatives don't want to post in this thread....

 

Good to see you are staying in line Tex

 

Well I asked some serious questions regarding what direction the GOP sees in the environment. How happy they are and who are the conservative leaders on the environment.

 

I guess there is some value to conservatives to try and build parallels to Child Molesting Priests and Al Gore