J says:

TheGlobalWarmer

I live in an area just outside Chicago where everybody drives an SUV. I don’t see any of them carrying 6 4×8 sheets of plywood nor a refrigerator. That’s what they pay undereducated people to do.

Heavy cargo moving is not a normal activity for a good majority of the America. Most Americans just need to get from point A to point B. Lets not pretend that you decide to buy a refrigerator and 6 4×8 pieces of plywood ON A WHIM every other day either. If it is part of your business then it wouldn’t be “on a whim”.

However you do raise a good point. There are people who need these larger vehicles. I have no problem with that. They should buy them use them and be happy I do disagree with Mark that a decent sized pickup truck is the same as a SUV monster. Sometimes power and size are needed. I have no problem with those who actually need it having it. But you and I both know this isn’t the case!

What is wrong with the auto manufactures producing vehicles that get better mileage and are large enough to carry a small home? Or are you against getting better mileage because it goes against your manly nature?

Odyssey67 says:

@ Dvorak: “Gore isn’t running for anything. So a “hit piece” is pointless.”

You’ve never heard of a “pre-emptive strike” in politics? C’mon, you aren’t that naive.

Gore is the one possible candidate that ALL the candidates are afraid of right now, Dems and GOPers alike. He’s been right since day one about the major issues people are talking about right now (Iraq & energy primarily), and has a lot of people wondering just how different the world would be today if not for a rather unique Supreme Court decision. The wind is strong at Gore’s back. So the earlier that anyone worried about facing him can implant in the public consciousness the old canard that ‘Gore lies’ (remember the mileage they got out of their FUD about him claiming to invent the internet?) on is signature issue, the further ahead of the game they are if he does throw his hat into the ring.

Given his stated – and I think sincere – aversion to getting into the muddier aspects of politics, a smear like this also could be designed to remind him of that aversion. Either way, this has ‘political strategy’ written all over it.

“As for the idea that Republicans are all hot for making money — so Gore is doing the same — good for him! What kind of rationale is that?”

You didn’t read what I was saying, or missed the sarcasm. The ARTICLE is what called him to task for the ‘money making’ aspects of his carbon offsetting business, not me. My point was exactly yours: So what? Quoting myself: “I guess, now that … [this anti-Gore sympathizer who wrote the article has] established it as a bad thing with Gore, every stock option issued to every CEO/founder/board member/employee of every publically traded company in America will have to be returned now.” Should I have added /snark/ to be more clear?

“Besides, I don’t think the blog has been pushing greed on the part of Republicans or do you actually ever read our perspective? This is not a Republican blog by any means.”

I thought I acknowledged that. I’ll quote myself again: “Frankly, I’m surprised at you John. I would have thought you, of all people, would have a better handle on these things. Your reaction here is so obviously knee-jerk that it baffles me…” I wouldn’t have said that if I thought that you are normally partisan in any way.

“The fact is, if you are going to take the high road, as Gore does, at least be on that road. He’s not. ”

Hence my ‘bafflement’. Gore is doing most of what anyone – rich or poor – currently can do to reduce his/her carbon footprint. He’s buying green power from his utility. He’s buying carbon offsets. He’s made modifications to his (admittedly huge) home/office in order to make it more energy efficient. And he’s never once – in any interview, speech, or documentary – advocated a lifestyle of ‘hermitage for the cause’; only for people to take common-sense, cost effective steps towards alleviating our common problem in their day-to-day lives. Jeezus, exactly what more do you want from the guy – loaves & fishes?

I’ll say it again – you have a problem with Gore that has nothing to do with the particulars of this issue, because even a cursorsy glance at those make plain that this IS a politically induced hatchet job, most likely by the Tennessee arm of the GOP.

And you, for whatever reason, are cheering it on. Nice work.

J says:

Jim

Are you familiar with network or news broadcasting? No? Really? I couldn’t tell by the dribble you just posted.

J says:

No. You just make no sense.

Gwendle says:

John you were right, I did jump the gun. At around post #60 I should have tossed that in. I will try to be a little more patient next time, but I knew it was going to turn into mudslinging just seeing the title.

MikeN says:

Gore’s energy use doesn’t seem all that high, despite what the article says about ten times the average. If he’s in a 10000 square foot home, then he’s going to use plenty of energy. And if his utility is some sort of GreenPower company, then the bill canbe expected to be even higher.

J says:

#76

Can you point out where I said China’s growth should be ignored? How do you know they can’t be brought on board? Are you an expert in diplomatic negotiations? So based on your opinion about China we should just carry on as usual?

Nice try with the world resource number. World resource include many things that do not emit CO2 Minerals, Metals, Water, Food. I am sure you can see why world resource consumption is not accurate in this discussion. So lets just stick to emissions. besides You are disingenuous or just plane ignorant when you compare our percentage of use and say our per capita is dropping. If our emissions increased every year but the rest of the world increased faster our percentage would still go down. So lets not throw out numbers before you work out the possibilities of how that number was reached. Percentage has no meaning. It is how much tonnage of CO2 we emit per person that is important.

1967 U.S. Population 200 million
1967 World Population 3.3 billion (this number is conservative)

~6% of the world population

2006 U.S. population 300 million
2006 World Population 6.5 Billion

~4% of the world population

Now if you can do math you can see that the U.S. to World population ratio has increased. Yet while we become a smaller part of the world population we still emit more CO2 than any other country. As a matter of fact more than the 3 next highest countries combined. Per capita or flat out tonnage we produce more! Per capita we just look crude but according to you we are doing much better in controlling our CO2 emissions because other countries have increased their output. Nice logic!

Odyssey67 says:

@ wordkyle:

I agree with your sentiment, but there are some practical roadblocks to it. Simply ‘using less’ is a hard sell to the average Joe/Jane, just because people become accustomed to a certain lifestyle. Right or wrong, it’s very tough to get the majority to ‘do the right thing’, when doing what they’ve always done is so easy, and incurs no costs that they can see right in front of their faces.

Pushing energy efficiency is a better method – raising CAFE standards, enforcing efficiency rules & regs on industries & businesses, giving tax breaks for consumers who ‘buy green’ (compact flourescant lights, better insulation, etc …). All these things can be done with so little impact on anyone’s lifestyle that it’s near criminal that we haven’t made such moves in a bigger way already. However, there is a chance that such things would also make energy cheaper (efficiency means less demand, which typically means lower prices), and this will in turn encourage more usage. Its a familar pattern that’s taught within the first couple of semesters of economics.

In both of those cases then (which are frankly the most likely we’ll see – at first – in today’s society), offsets do indeed serve a legitimate purpose. If we can’t reduce the amount of CO2 we produce by any appreciable amount, then offsetting its effects by other means, if just to keep global warming somewhat under control, is a perfectly reasonable tactic. At least in the short-to-medium term.

Long term, what it will likely come down to is a major push by the government to make the contruction of utility level renewable energy generation (wind & solar) a national priority. That could bring the manufacturing costs down enough to make installing both in each home more feasible too. And, personally, I’d also like to see hydrogen replace natural gas as a cleaner burning, pipeline deliverable fuel. Trying to make that stuff run in cars is stupidly inefficient and costly, but piping H2 into each home – as we already do with natural gas – for use in heaters & stoves, or to generate electricty onsite once affordable fuel cells arrive, is a great way to go. It will cost a fortune to convert all the gas lines & gas burning appliances, but nowhere near as much as trying to create a parallel gasoline distribution infrastructure for hydrogen. By the time the H2 got into your vehicle, the costs of getting it there will make it waaay more expensive per unit than gasoline ever will (plus, the price of a fuel cell car w/H2 containment is an even bigger expense still, for the consumer).

The fossil fuel lobbies will fight such things tooth & nail (notice they are the ones pushing fuel cell cars? That’s them trying to keep their present money-making distribution methods intact), but it’s really the only way to make a dent in either global warming or energy security. And the latter – getting off the MidEast MerryGoRound – is, to me, just as important as the former. And it probably will be the only thing that will enable such a project to make any headway against these most entrenched interests.

In the meantime, offsets are OK. They’re at least addressing part of the problem.

Odyssey67 says:

@ wordkyle: “But there IS no “offset.” You consume what you consume, invest in what you invest in. Trying to say that the concept of offsets is “more complex” is just obfuscation. “Useage” and “investing in so-called ‘green’ technologies” are independent of one another. One does not affect the other.”

Your mistaken on this, but I understand why. Carbon offsets have been intertwined with carbon trading and carbon reduction in the minds of the public. So much so that often even ‘green advocates’ have begun treating them all as essentially the same thing, when speaking about them and even strategizing. However, if you read my above post #32, I think you’ll see that – strictly speaking – offsets are not, or weren’t in the beginning, designed for energy reduction or efficiency per se. Yes, “you consume what you consume”. Yet, if what you consume results in, say, 100lbs of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, and you in turn (either yourself, or by investing in a company that will do it for you, ala Gore) plant enough trees (or do some other thing) that will consume 100lbs of CO2 in a similar time frame, you have ‘offset’ the impact of emiting the CO2.

That’s how carbon offsets are supposed to work. I have no doubt that some carbon offsetting plans blur the lines by including solar or wind generation as an offset tactic, but that still doesn’t mean that offsets themselves are a bad idea. As I said, in the absense of meaningful change in how we use & generate power in this country, it may be a necessary 1st step to take on the way that larger goal.

“Al Gore is the leading spokesman … of those who would force his lifestyle recommendations on those who don’t want to live it… Al Gore insists that others modify their lifestyles while he has done little modifying of his own (other than cosmetic, “boutique”-style steps.) Of course he is going to catch hell. What happened to Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker?”

I think you’re letting your fear of what Gore /might/ be doing to interfere with assimilating the info on what we know he /is/ doing. There are certain facts we know that don’t jibe with what you claim he’s failing at. Quoting myself from above, “Gore is doing most of what anyone – rich or poor – currently can do to reduce his/her carbon footprint. He’s buying green power from his utility. He’s buying carbon offsets. He’s made modifications to his (admittedly huge) home/office in order to make it more energy efficient. And he’s never once – in any interview, speech, or documentary – advocated a lifestyle of ‘hermitage for the cause’ …” He has used his celebrity to encourage people to take common-sense, cost effective steps towards alleviating our national/worldwide problem. To the extent he’s even called for government involvement, it’s been to raise CAFE, enforce somewhat tougher emissions stds on industry (stuff we’ve been doing since the 70s), and – most ambitious – to get the government itself to be more ‘green’ and pass tax laws encouraging utilities and business to do the same. I see nothing radical or hypocrytical in any of that.

“The fact that it’s a “hard sell” does not give radical environmentalists carte blanc to use underhanded tactics to win. Companies are prosecuted for such things. Just make your point better.”

Gore has never engaged in, or excused for that matter, the tactics of radical environmentalists (by whom I assume you mean those who destroy property and such as a form of protest). Besides, that issue has nothing to do with what we’ve been talking about here. Again, it seems you’re letting your assumptions about Gore’s public persona (one created by the his enemies as much as by the man himself) drive your thinking on this.

Which leads to the ‘inconvenient truth’ about the story that inspired these comments; it’s a political ‘chop-block’, designed to slow Gore down before he might even consider getting into the presidential race. The people who planted it could be conservatives, or they could be dems who are running already – both groups hate what his popularity might to do them in the future. Just realize, that in so doing they are playing on every charicature ever painted about Gore or his supposed ‘allies’. In other words, they are trying to play you and me and everyone else who might read the story.

Yet an objective reading, and just a little homework (like going to Nashville Electric’s website to see whether the programs they offer jibe with what Gore says he’s doing), shows there are no facts against him here – just FUD.

Odyssey67 says:

“In your gentle, genteel way you’re basically saying I’m too ignorant to understand. Because of your tone, I won’t blast you the way I normally would someone who did such a thing.”

Um … thanks … I think. For the record, I was not saying you’re ignorant, even subliminally. Ignorance has nothing to do with it. I do however think that people – all of us, no matter how well informed – often let preconceived notions color our interpretation of facts too much. And yes, I was saying I think this is what you are doing in this case. What we know of Gore’s behavior doesn’t match your criticism of it. For example, you say:

“The highest-minded, most sincere environmentalist would purse option #1… Al Gore chose option #3: He is an energy hog. His lifestyle … consumes incredible amounts of energy and contributes huge amounts of pollutants into the environment.”

First, what basis do you have for claiming he’s contributing huge amounts of pollutants, if he’s reduced the energy requirments for his larger-than-average home, /and/ is buying green power from his utility? The latter alone makes your assertion suspect – no need to bring his purchase of carbon offsets into it at all. There is no escaping the logic; no matter how far above the average Joe’s energy use his home is responsible for, by using the renewable power his utility provides, Gore can’t be polluting the way you claim. It’s not possible.

“For this, I don’t fault him. However, as THE leading spokesman touting manmade global warming, he should be expected to live his own life to the highest environmentalist principles, which he does not.”

But you ARE faulting him – the second statement invalidates the first! And in his defense, this is a guy who once was a heartbeat away from the presidency, has all the secret service protection that goes with that, and who also now does quite a bit of advocacy work across the globe, which – I’d imagine – requires a larger than average home office … I’m just saying, if you compared his lifestyle to other’s in his position, I’d bet my first born he isn’t living much different than they. Finally, as I mentioned in the previous post, Gore himself has never said we needed to make radical changes – just common-sense ones. So he’s clearly not being contrary to his principles.

I believe that he’s saying it’s “the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced” simply b/c he knows how tough it’s going to be to convince enough people to change things.

“As for what he COULD do, for starters, how about: 1) Live in a smaller house; 2) Turn off the friggin’ lights; 3) Travel less; 4) Use something besides private aircraft for travel. He can check his own website for more hints.”

Your first suggestion may not be possible, for the reasons I laid out above. I’m not saying it’s impossible for the Gore’s to live in a smaller home, but I am saying it isn’t realistic to expect them to do so as if there are no other considerations. Your second suggestion leaves me wondering how exactly you know that he doesn’t do this already. If you have some surveillance tape I’d love to see it. Otherwise, you’re making a supposition based on … what? And this also inevitably comes back around to him using all renewable energy from his utility, which means that even if he IS leaving all the lights on, he’s not doing the harm to the environment (or our national security) that you claim. Suggestions 3 & 4 … Again, how do you know he’s travelling any more than he has to? Do you have an itinerary we can examine? Do you know what’s involved in him living his life as an ex-VP? Are you aware that flying is one of the most energy efficient modes of travel over long distances, even assuming a relatively empty commerical plane? Also, I can tell you that Gore himself claims to usually fly commercially (I heard him say it on Oprah … don’t ask), so unless you have proof that he’s lying about it you can strike that one off your list too.

Now, whether or not you buy all my rebuttals, the fact that I can make them (and that they aren’t at all unrealistic) should at least cause you to consider how valid the ‘Gore is a hypocrite’ position really is.

“He is asking us to judge him on what … he says, rather than what he does. Conservatives are crucified in the media for the same offense. And this is all besides the fact that he may very well be completely wrong, according to a growing number of scientists.”

And this is where I risk offending you again. Sorry. Yet what you say here is from an evident ideological slant. From my perspective, conservatives are no more crucified than liberals by the Unholy Media – the MSM only cares about who the power brokers are that it needs to saddle up next to in NY/DC/wherever. And no matter how fast the number of scientists who deny global warming are growing, they are still a very small minority. Not that it matters to me – I think the national security implications of using fossil fuels are equally important.

Hey, maybe I’m completely wrong. Its been known to happen. And I’ve certainly enjoyed the debate. But at the end of the day I’d still rather that Gore be judged by what he’s doing, instead of what the Right is convinced (without evidence) he’s not doing. Then, I’d love to see solar panels so cheap I could actually afford to put them on MY house. And frankly, regardless of whether he lives up to it or not (and I think he is), Gore’s philosophy will get us to that point better than the ideas espoused by most conservatives (right now).

Take care

(I’ll read again, but unless you insult my mom or something I think we’ve probably about beat this horse to death)