DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> An Inconvenient Truth
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 39, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/28/2007 10:32:33 AM · #1
I hope it isn't, but if this turns out to be true then I'd say it's pretty inconvenient for Al Gore. I'm neither Dem or Rep but I certainly am anti-hypocrisy. Like Julia Roberts speaking out against wasting water by washing dishes yet she didn't have a problem flying all over the country on a private plane burning jet fuel doing interviews on how special an environmentalist she was.



The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

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, [20-room, eight-bathroom] 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 to 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.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

02/28/2007 11:00:46 AM · #2
Good read, thanks for posting. They should take his Oscar away and make it into electrical cable.
02/28/2007 11:54:10 AM · #3
Before the extreme knee jerking begins, here is a little analysis of that story; Olbermann on Gore’s Energy Use: Setting the Record Straight
02/28/2007 11:58:12 AM · #4
Also if you think 30k is alot, tell that to Dick Cheney who's 2001 bill at the Vice President's mansion was $186,000.
02/28/2007 12:26:53 PM · #5
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Before the extreme knee jerking begins, here is a little analysis of that story; Olbermann on Gore’s Energy Use: Setting the Record Straight


That's very interesting - it appears to demonstrate quite a bit of integrity on the part of Gore (buying energy from renewables, paying carbon credits for non-renewable energy).
02/28/2007 12:41:00 PM · #6
Thanks for posting that up. I watched it and it looks like my cut and paste was truthful so I appreciate you confirming that. I also wonder why Olbermann said that the article left out that the house has over 20 rooms when it says it plain as day? This makes me hardly consider Olbermann a non partisan participant on this issue as well.

The entire gist of the video was to give him a pass for using so much power because his house is so big. Is that not like saying that someone is allowed to use more gas since their Hummer is so big? Oh, but he pays an extra premium for "green power". My buddy is an engineer for TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) who generates the power that Gore uses. He says that green power is made regardless if anyone pays for it and just because you pay a premium for it doesn't mean that you're actually getting green power at all. IOW, there is no way to send only green power to a house. Hey, I'm all about green power and think it's great that Gore pays a higher premium for it but it is hypocritical for him to talk about conservation when he isn't actually conserving. If he is as concerned as he says he is then he doesn't need a home of 20 rooms for him, Tipper and a few secret service agents.

As far as Cheney goes, $186,000 is ridiculous and unexcusable. Like I said earlier, I am not Dem or Rep so I hold them both accountable. I will say this, Cheney didn't help make an Oscar winning movie on the subject.

Let me put this in my perspective before this thread turns into a political rant, which I swear to God is not what this is meant to be.

A man gets busted for having sex with a prostitute. A day later, a preacher who condemns prostitutes and their patrons gets busted for having sex with a prostitute. See the difference?

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Before the extreme knee jerking begins, here is a little analysis of that story; Olbermann on Gore’s Energy Use: Setting the Record Straight

02/28/2007 01:02:26 PM · #7
The article also mentioned that there are offices and security needs at Al Gore's home that is not typical of the American home. I don't think he needs to live in a shack to be a good advocate for the environment. He has an office and staff to run, he appears to use his home for that purpose and he also had made sustainable energy choices for his home. I simply don't see the outrage here. The best environmentalists are not the ones who say we should all return to living in mudhuts and walking everywhere, but the ones who can help us make realistic changes in our lives that will limit our impact on the earth as we live.
02/28/2007 01:06:20 PM · #8
Might explain why it is inconvenient ?
02/28/2007 01:10:02 PM · #9
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Also if you think 30k is alot, tell that to Dick Cheney who's 2001 bill at the Vice President's mansion was $186,000.

Nice try your Madness.

The truth is that the electric BILL wasn't $186,000, it was a mere $135,300 :-). The $186K figure you quoted was the BUDGET figure, not the actual expense.

And if you think that even $135,300 is a lot, try telling that to Al Gore, who used 25% MORE electricity when he was Vice President.

Don't you find that last bit interesting? I do.

FWIW, you can read about it yourself HERE
02/28/2007 02:22:46 PM · #10
Originally posted by frisca:

I don't think he needs to live in a shack to be a good advocate for the environment.


Nor do I. But I do think it's a bit odd to try to come across as a conservationist when you use 20 times the electricity of an average American household. 20 rooms and 8 bathrooms? I think 10 rooms and 4 bathrooms would still be plenty. I would hardly consider that a shack. He has done nothing to conserve, he only pays a higher premium for usage.

I am from Gore's home state frisca. Just think - if he would've carried Tennessee in 2000 he would've won the election. He couldn't even win here because many of us had witnessed his decline in credibility for years.

I have numerous examples but here's one. Gore told us a story about how his sister died from using tobacco and said that since then he has pushed anti-smoking campaigns. Did you know that in the same month his sister died he accepted a speaking fee from US Tobacco - and still accepted monies from them until 1990? Even though his she died in the mid 80s he still accepted federal subsidies for growing tobacco until the mid 90s. So by his way of thinking it's okay to grow and sell tobacco, but just hope that nobody uses it. Tobacco is going away now but in our area it was huge up until recently. Gore would come campaign about how he was proud to have been raised on a tobacco farm, worked hard, planted it, speared it, etc. Then when vying for the Presidency he says, "My family had grown tobacco. It was never actually grown on my farm, but it was on my father’s farm."

So as you can see, when Al Gore speaks it's hard for me to listen. It's not about politics, it's about honesty. I am not so gullible to believe that the majority of politicians are honest but I am also not so gullible to believe that most ex politicians are honest either - especially this guy.

I'm not dismissing his message or saying that we shouldn't do more for the earth. In fact, I believe we should. However, it would be nice to see the self proclaimed leader of this movement to actually practice what he preaches and make some real sacrifices in his own extravagant lifestyle before he expects the common man to do so.

Oh yeah, and this goes for you damned Republicans too! :D

02/28/2007 04:17:00 PM · #11
Here is Colbert's take Colbert Report
02/28/2007 04:24:10 PM · #12
Remember, the 20 times more usage is only from ONE of his THREE houses.
All politicians motto..."Do as I say, not as I do."
02/28/2007 05:04:48 PM · #13
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Before the extreme knee jerking begins, here is a little analysis of that story; Olbermann on Gore’s Energy Use: Setting the Record Straight


Wow. That was hardly a defense offered by Olbermann. He is by no means unbiased himself but I would have expected a better comeback than that. The fact that he immediately attacked the source tells me he had nothing and listening to the rest of it validated that assumption. The problem with the conservation movement is it's poster boy is a joke and always has been.
02/28/2007 06:46:11 PM · #14
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Before the extreme knee jerking begins, here is a little analysis of that story; Olbermann on Gore’s Energy Use: Setting the Record Straight

Seems that Olberman isn't exactly "Setting the Record Straight" either. The slide next to the picture of Olberman shows the math that SHOULD have been used to compute the GREEN POWER SWITCH figures for Gore's electric usage. That slide shows that
a) Green Power = $4 per 150 KWH ( one block of Green Power is 150 KWH )
b) Gore's 221,000 KWH ( his electric use last year ) divided by 150 KWH ( the number of KWH per Green Power Block ) = 1473 Green Power Blocks needed to power his home for the year.

The problem is that according to Gore's spokesperson, he purchases 108 Blocks of Green Power a month. 108 times 12 months in a year yields an annual total of 194,400 Green KWH a year, leaving 26,600 KWH a year of dirty ( NOT Green ) Power.

And 26,600 KWH of dirty power is STILL twice what the average American household uses in a year ( 10,656 KWH ). To be fair, though, at 20 rooms, his Nashville house is more than twice as big as the average American house.

I would like to point out, however, that there is no such thing as environment-neutral "green" power.
1) If you set up a wind powered generator, there is a place somewhere that isn't going to experience the wind that you stole to convert to electricity. If that somewhere is a lake, for example, some evaporation that MIGHT have occurred due to that wind blowing across it, will NOT occur. Could that lead to warmer water? Could that, in turn, lead to algae bloom? Could that, in turn, lead to a fish kill? Who can tell? Does anyone contemplating the construction of a wind farm do downwind impact studies? I doubt it.
2) If you set up solar panels, there is a place somewhere where solar heating or lighting isn't going to occur that would have occurred if you hadn't stolen the sunlight to convert to electricity. Will that lead to cooler temps? We know that if we build a large parking lot, average temperatures in the surrounding area rise. If we blanket a housing development with solar panels, will average temperatures in the surrounding area fall? Will some plants suffer? Will other plants thrive? What impact will there be on the environment? Do those contemplating the installation of solar panels ask about the impact? I doubt it.
3) If you set up methane gas powered generators, that methane is being taken from somewhere where it already had some impact ( and creating its own impact by so doing ) and creating an impact somewhere else. Where would that methane have gone? What would its impact have been? What will the impact be if it now doesn't go there? What will be the impact on the area where it will now be burned to create electricity? Will anyone ask? Will they care? I doubt it.
02/28/2007 07:03:00 PM · #15
If research centers are publishing studies informing the public that politicians are lying hypocrites, I look forward to reading their future publications such as "The Sky Is Blue", "Fish Like Water" and "Dogs Hate Cats".

If Gore motivates someone, anyone, to invent a practical alternative energy source that gets the US off of fossil fuels then good for Gore. He can sit in his back yard and chain smoke Marlboros while kicking puppies for all I care.
03/04/2007 12:07:24 PM · #16
Wow I'm so shocked that the ex vice president of the most powerful nation on the planet uses more energy than the average joe. I mean give me a break!

He buys green energy which may not directly go to his house but it gets put into the grid so someone is using it. He's improved his house to make it more energy efficient. He invests heavily in green technology to make footprint carbon neutral. On top of that he inspires millions to do a better job with their usage. Criticizing him is like criticizing someone who donates to charity but doesn't donate 100% of their income after expenses.

03/10/2007 12:18:09 PM · #17
Gore's average monthly electric bill is about $1200. However, about $432 of that is not for electricity used, it is for green energy credits. ( giving a $432 monthly donation to sponsor green energy production).

Gore's actual monthly electricity consumption is about $800. He has a big house, a large staff, etc. $800 is no big frickin' deal - is it?

What should rankle your bollocks is that you all did not recognize a right-wing smear campaign when it shook you in its big greasy mouth.

The original poster's quote starts with:

"The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday"

There is no such organization. It is merely a bullshite shell face for a known big-money Republican political hit group.

So, how does ( yet again!) a bullshite political smear group get instant coverage in the media, with no one questioning their facts or their motives???

Do you feel used? Do you feel sullied yet??

03/10/2007 12:24:16 PM · #18
Originally posted by gingerbaker:

So, how does ( yet again!) a bullshite political smear group get instant coverage in the media, with no one questioning their facts or their motives???


fox news
03/10/2007 12:37:35 PM · #19
"Gore devoured"
"Gore burned through"
"Gore’s extravagant energy use"

True, false or whatever it looks like the person who wrote this piece has a hard-on for Gore, a mile long.

Not too partisan, I asssume?

Pretty funny stuff.

Message edited by author 2007-03-10 12:47:19.
03/10/2007 12:44:40 PM · #20
Originally posted by RonB:


I would like to point out, however, that there is no such thing as environment-neutral "green" power.
1) If you set up a wind powered generator, there is a place somewhere that isn't going to experience the wind that you stole to convert to electricity. If that somewhere is a lake, for example, some evaporation that MIGHT have occurred due to that wind blowing across it, will NOT occur. Could that lead to warmer water? Could that, in turn, lead to algae bloom? Could that, in turn, lead to a fish kill? Who can tell? Does anyone contemplating the construction of a wind farm do downwind impact studies? I doubt it.
2) If you set up solar panels, there is a place somewhere where solar heating or lighting isn't going to occur that would have occurred if you hadn't stolen the sunlight to convert to electricity. Will that lead to cooler temps? We know that if we build a large parking lot, average temperatures in the surrounding area rise. If we blanket a housing development with solar panels, will average temperatures in the surrounding area fall? Will some plants suffer? Will other plants thrive? What impact will there be on the environment? Do those contemplating the installation of solar panels ask about the impact? I doubt it.
3) If you set up methane gas powered generators, that methane is being taken from somewhere where it already had some impact ( and creating its own impact by so doing ) and creating an impact somewhere else. Where would that methane have gone? What would its impact have been? What will the impact be if it now doesn't go there? What will be the impact on the area where it will now be burned to create electricity? Will anyone ask? Will they care? I doubt it.


All of those are a great deal cleaner than coal-fired power.
03/10/2007 01:17:16 PM · #21
it's certainly true that it's not neutral but it's way better than the alternatives.

Originally posted by RonB:


I would like to point out, however, that there is no such thing as environment-neutral "green" power.
1) If you set up a wind powered generator, there is a place somewhere that isn't going to experience the wind that you stole to convert to electricity. If that somewhere is a lake, for example, some evaporation that MIGHT have occurred due to that wind blowing across it, will NOT occur. Could that lead to warmer water? Could that, in turn, lead to algae bloom? Could that, in turn, lead to a fish kill? Who can tell? Does anyone contemplating the construction of a wind farm do downwind impact studies? I doubt it.


The wind doesn't get stolen, its a big fan the wind goes right through it. In north America they are required to do an environmental impact study before building a wind farm. Usually the biggest argument against wind power is that it tends to be noisy and birds get killed. Though more birds are killed by flying into planes or buildings. Part of the study they are required to do is to ensure the farm isn't in the way of any migration paths.

Originally posted by RonB:

2) If you set up solar panels, there is a place somewhere where solar heating or lighting isn't going to occur that would have occurred if you hadn't stolen the sunlight to convert to electricity. Will that lead to cooler temps? We know that if we build a large parking lot, average temperatures in the surrounding area rise. If we blanket a housing development with solar panels, will average temperatures in the surrounding area fall? Will some plants suffer? Will other plants thrive? What impact will there be on the environment? Do those contemplating the installation of solar panels ask about the impact? I doubt it.


Energy from the sun in any location is independent, the absorption/reflection of energy in point A has no effect on energy being absorbed/reflected at point B. So if you are putting solar panels on areas already developed (like house roofs) you are basically going to make use of the energy that's being absorbed by the roofs.

Originally posted by RonB:

3) If you set up methane gas powered generators, that methane is being taken from somewhere where it already had some impact ( and creating its own impact by so doing ) and creating an impact somewhere else. Where would that methane have gone? What would its impact have been? What will the impact be if it now doesn't go there? What will be the impact on the area where it will now be burned to create electricity? Will anyone ask? Will they care? I doubt it.


You're talking about capturing something that humans have already increased way beyond natural levels. Places where the methane is captured won't be missing it.
03/10/2007 02:13:11 PM · #22
Do you actually take photos anymore or do you just use this site as a soapbox for your rantings?

Once again, I am a fan of the message but hardly the messenger. Scroll on up to my third post and you'll see only one of the reasons why. Gore's hypocrisy has been around for awhile and obviously isn't going anywhere soon.

The moral of the story is this: Don't act like a conservationist if you aren't going to conserve. Let's not forget his gas bill that supposedly equals $1080 per month as well.

Carbon credits are the biggest joke since knock knock was invented. Sure, he may purchase them but he still isn't conserving. He is just paying someone to plant trees to cover for his use of dirty electricity and private jet fuel. Let's change the person to, say, Paris Hilton. Let's say her "Hummer" gets 9 mpg. Now she could actually drive something different but she chooses to continue to pollute the air because she can afford, and buys, carbon credits. Does this make her a hero? No. Then why does Gore get a pass for the exact same thing?

The fact is that planting trees with these carbon credits may just not be the answer as green plants have now been found to emit 10 to 30 percent of the earths methane. Click me!

So as you can see, conservation, not buying your way out, is the key to "saving our planet". Let's not forget too that while GW Bush certainly isn't our hero in this fight, Al Gore had plenty of time while in office to make a difference. Heck, in his own state, he gave less money in 8 years to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park than Bush did in his first 6 months. Now, once again, don't misunderstand me for some mindless sheep as I hardly consider Bush a model spokesman for the environment either.

What we need is a likable, UNBAISED, well spoken individual that practices what s/he preaches.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Gore's average monthly electric bill is about $1200. However, about $432 of that is not for electricity used, it is for green energy credits. ( giving a $432 monthly donation to sponsor green energy production).

Gore's actual monthly electricity consumption is about $800. He has a big house, a large staff, etc. $800 is no big frickin' deal - is it?

What should rankle your bollocks is that you all did not recognize a right-wing smear campaign when it shook you in its big greasy mouth.

The original poster's quote starts with:

"The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday"

There is no such organization. It is merely a bullshite shell face for a known big-money Republican political hit group.

So, how does ( yet again!) a bullshite political smear group get instant coverage in the media, with no one questioning their facts or their motives???

Do you feel used? Do you feel sullied yet??

03/10/2007 02:42:28 PM · #23
Originally posted by dudephil:

Do you actually take photos anymore or do you just use this site as a soapbox for your rantings?

You might well ask this question of more than one poster in this thread ...
03/11/2007 12:04:51 AM · #24
Originally posted by dudephil:

Do you actually take photos anymore or do you just use this site as a soapbox for your rantings?


Are you talking to me? Good grief, I post here about once twice a week, and don't visit here for months at a time, sometimes.. And don't look down - you are on a soapbox too.

Originally posted by dudephil:

The moral of the story is this: Don't act like a conservationist if you aren't going to conserve.
Originally posted by dudephil:

Let's not forget his gas bill that supposedly equals $1080 per month as well.


I have had gas bills of $800.00 a month in the winter up here in Vermont. And my house is 1/5 the size of Gore's. His house sounds fairly efficient. As if anybody should care.

And Al Gore has done more to promote conservation than anyone in America in the past ten years, I reckon. To fall for some disgusting right-wing hatchet job and come away with the idea that his contribution has just been "neutralized" is tragic.

Originally posted by dudephil:

Carbon credits are the biggest joke since knock knock was invented. Sure, he may purchase them but he still isn't conserving. He is just paying someone to plant trees to cover for his use of dirty electricity and private jet fuel. Let's change the person to, say, Paris Hilton. Let's say her "Hummer" gets 9 mpg. Now she could actually drive something different but she chooses to continue to pollute the air because she can afford, and buys, carbon credits. Does this make her a hero? No. Then why does Gore get a pass for the exact same thing?


No person in the entire state pays any where near the green credits that Gore does. His payments alone have had a substantial impact on the ability of green energy producers to expand their infrastructure.

And what is this stuff about "dirty" electricity? You use it, I use it. But when Gore buys electricity suddenly its "dirty"?

Originally posted by dudephil:

So as you can see, conservation, not buying your way out, is the key to "saving our planet".


I think that the way to save our planet has less to do with what individuals do on a local level, and everything to do with policy on a national level. At least Gore is doing a lot to try to change policy (as well as his local contributions).

Originally posted by dudephil:

Let's not forget too that while GW Bush certainly isn't our hero in this fight, Al Gore had plenty of time while in office to make a difference.


He also had a republican-controlled congress for almost all that time, and they squelched evrything they could. Keep your eye on the villians here, eh?

Originally posted by dudephil:

Heck, in his own state, he gave less money in 8 years to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park than Bush did in his first 6 months.


Some how I would bet that he gave to other charities as well, likely to a much larger tune than Bush?? Or are you just cherry-picking something to smear Gore?

Originally posted by dudephil:

Now, once again, don't misunderstand me for some mindless sheep as I hardly consider Bush a model spokesman for the environment either.individual that practices what s/he preaches.


Hey, you are the guy that quoted the 'Tennessee Center for Policy Research' like it was a credible source.

Originally posted by dudephil:

What we need is a likable, UNBAISED, well spoken individual that practices what s/he preaches.


Why do you think he is biased?



Message edited by author 2007-03-11 00:13:41.
03/11/2007 12:31:57 AM · #25
Here is a photo for you. See - I do take pictures. :)

from 2007 Golden Gloves ( VT)
large.jpg
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/18/2018 11:54:02 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/18/2018 11:54:02 PM EDT.