"An Inconvenient Truth."

Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
10,119
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
wasilla alaska
#1
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

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
[email protected]
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
94,266
Likes
3
Points
36
Location
Where the selas blooms
#2
Doesn't surprise some of us who live here. We saw what he did when the people living on the Little Pigeon River begged for relief from the dioxin dumping by Champion Paper just over the North Carolina border . . .

For someone so concerned about the environment, he's shown precious little concern for the increasingly dangerous levels of pollution threatening the Great Smokey Mountains.

Eastman Kodak is still dumping into the Nolichucky River.
 

Groch

Gadget Hound
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
270
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Denver Colorado
#3
A very convenient smear

Of course everything Drudge says is gospel truth and the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" sure sounds scientific.

Odd at all that Drew Johnson, the president of the "institute"'s previous employment was with the American Enterprise Institute, a lobby group largely funded by Exxon? Or that the Tennessee state government does not give the group tax exempt status as they have deemed it "not a legitimate organization"?

Can you say "Swift Boat".

Perhaps in delving through Gore's personal bills a legitimate research institute might have mentioned that 100% of this electricity was GREEN POWER paid for with an additional $400 plus paid by Gore each month to the "Green Power Switch" program.

Anyway, here is an article that provides the other side of this story:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

What really bothers me about this is that global warming is a tremendously important issue. An issue that if looked at logically and scientifically all decent people will take seriously and try to solve. What will stop this from happening is if the oil companies can pay their mouthpieces like Drudge try to turn this into a partisan issue. Its not, its a global issue that conservatives and liberals Republicans and Democrats should all take seriously. I resent it when slimeballs like Drudge put out this garbage for the benefit of big oil.
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
42
Location
Lancaster, PA
#4
Yes and after 2010 we will never hear another thing about global warming.

Just like acid rain and the whole in the ozone layer.
 
W

whatszmatter

Guest
#5
Isn't it amazing how the picture changes when you look at the whole thing and not just the parts?
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
94,266
Likes
3
Points
36
Location
Where the selas blooms
#6
It still doesn't change what those of us who live in East Tennessee saw Gore do. It was more advantageous to him - or so he thought - to ignore the pollution going on in his own backyard and give a wink and a nod to the corporate polluters than it was to back his own talk.

I have no doubt that the first article cited is skewed - they probably both are to a certain extent. It would be hard to find any sort of "news" that wasn't, but why do you think Gore didn't carry his own state when he ran for President? People here know him.
 

Groch

Gadget Hound
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
270
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Denver Colorado
#7
Yes and after 2010 we will never hear another thing about global warming.
Just like acid rain and the whole in the ozone layer.
I sure hope you are right about that Sparks,

The ozone issue is a tremendous example of people world-wide acting together in a non-partisan way to eliminate the flourocarbons that were causing the problem and reverse our impact on Ozone.

Acid rain is still an issue, but clean air bills aimed at the coal fueled electricity plants in the midwest have cleaned a lot of it up.

The problem is that carbon emissions that cause global warming are a lot more pervasive than either of these problems. The solution is the same though, working as a group to make real changes before it is too late.

Rene, Al Gore has a long history and you will either like him or you won't. I certainly will not try to change your view.

I just think it is beside the point of what really matters. John McCain, Al Gore, and the vast majority of Americans agree on this issue.

Please do not lose the message because you dislike the messenger.
 

Puckstop31

Super-Genius
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
5,847
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
#10
I resent it when slimeballs like Drudge put out this garbage for the benefit of big oil.
:rolleyes:

Drudge just tells it like it is. There is almost never any opinion on his website, simply links to other sources.

Just sayin... Still, ALL sides of every issue spin. Thisis why we need to get news from as many sources as possible. And for me, any 'news' site that ends in ".org" begs to be CAREFULLY diagnosed. Ya think they might be inclined to publish "news" that benefits the people who donate? Better yet, read the simply AWESOME and intelligent comments at the bottom of your link. :lol-sign:

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 

bubbatd

Moderator
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
64,812
Likes
1
Points
0
Age
90
#11
........ don't forget that Gore said he invented the commuter too ! Forest Gump ? ...he talks like him !
 

SharkyX

Back of the Pack
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,381
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Ottawa On
#12
Ok, here is my take on the issue (yay I finally get to be an authority on something).
I work for a company that has two business units, Green Power generation on one side, and energy reduction and conservation on the other side.
It is much MUCH easier to reduce energy consumption (referred to as Negawatts) then it is to create new generation, even Green Power. It is also much less expensive.

IF Al Gore and others with these large extravagent homes were to reduce there own energy consumption, the Green Power he is sucking up would simply be fed into the grid and used to power something else.

If you don't know, the way the electrical distribution system in North America works is that all power is simply fed into the "grid" (the distribution system). The power that you are consuming may not necesarily have been generated at the green power facility you have paid the extra for, you are simply paying and that green power is being dumped into the distribution system.
You are paying the extra premium to guarantee that power gets generated and put into the system.

Now if energy consumption were to decrease of course you don't need as much production. The green power producers have contracts to sell all your electricity or block of electricty (depending on the contract).
Other power producers such as coal, natural gas and such do not have these things, they survive off spot market and the fact that the demand is require, and they survive very well because they have to power the homes and business of people who haven't guaranteed green power.
The green will slowly phase out the coal and what not production over time anyways, however it's much easier to do so if the demand is something closer to what the green power producers in North America can generate. Allowing for closure of coal, natural gas and other more polutant heavy production methods.

So yes it's wonderful that mister Gore buys all his electricity through a green power company... however his house uses as much energy as a small commercial building.
If he reduced his energy consumption by even 10%, that's less energy that has to come from another source other then green energy.
 

SharkyX

Back of the Pack
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,381
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Ottawa On
#14
Well I do try to be as sensitive and understanding towards these types of issues as I can.
You know, things that are important to people that reacting with hysterics normally makes you look silly.

But anyways, different types of green power are not always a fantastic source.
Solar only works in effectively in southern US, and even at that it still costs more to generate then what electricity is currently sold at, the cost is offset by things like coal which are cheap.
Wind is intermitent(sp?), meaning it's only generating when the wing is blowing or generation is reduced based on wind speed, so while it's nice, clean and relatively inexpensive, it's not reliable. Also when you build a wind farm to large it changes the wind currents and will actually contribute to global warming by forcing the warmer air up.
Small hydro is the most reliable and effective using run of the river currents to drive turbines. Large existing hydro isn't bad either, however building new damns to create a resevoir of water floods land and causes the trees and plant life now drowned under water to biodegrate creating green house gases and your also removing trees etc that would have helped clean up some of those gases.
Landfill and Biomass aren't bad either, however they are dependant on waste. While we do generate ALOT of that it'd be nice to think that someday that won't be the case... although by that point we will probably have alternative means of generation.
Geothermal is also a great way to generate, however we don't know what the side effects of punching all kinds of holes etc that would be required for it, will have on the earth. And some areas require you go much deeper in order to be able to produce power. Areas like Hawii where you don't have to drill down very far before it starts getting hot are ideal.
Tidal I don't really know much about other then it uses tidal currents to generate electricity... but as I understand it, that technology is years before we'll see it making a very significant contribution.

The best, most effective and least expensive way to stop using things like fossil fuels etc, is to simply reduce your energy consumption.
To build 1 Megawatt of generation (5 Megawatts powers about 2000 homes in Canad use this much more) costs approximately 1 million dollars. Or 1 dollar per watt.
To save this much, costs significantly less.
I'll use an example we're all familiar with, the compact fluorescent lightbulb.
You can buy them now for about $3.50 for a 13w bulb, that replaces 1 60watt bulb... which costs about 60 cents.
So by spending the extra $2.90 you have saved 47 watts, which will benefit you in multiple ways.

1: Your own energy bills will be lower as you are using less electricity.
2: You energy provider will not have to build as much new generation, causing your rates to remain where they are or even decrease as they are able to turn off generation stations, reducing there own operating costs.
3: you don't have to change that lightbulb as often as the compact fluorescent lamps last much longer.

Now that's one example around the home.

There are literally dozens more things people can do, depending on your home, to reduce your own energy consumption.

So to recap, green power generation and buying all your energy through a green power provider is great... but nothing saves like not having to generate that power in the first place.
 

Groch

Gadget Hound
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
270
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Denver Colorado
#15
SharkyX, I also think you made a great post.

Conservation is best, and offsetting our environmental impact with things like Green Power and Purchasing Carbon footprint offsets comes after you have conserved.
In fact, Gore said as much:

"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."

If you followed my link you would see that Gore has installed solar panels, and uses energy saving lighting as well as drives a hybrid vehicle. By purchasing carbon offsets his net impact on global warming is zero.

Could he do more, absolutely. He has a gyenormous house, as do all ex Vice Presidents/Senators etc. But SharkyX, as a professional in the industry I trust you agree that this issue is far bigger than Al Gore. If Americans think that in order to make a difference in global warming we all have to live in tents and ride horses, that's not true.

The mainstream press is beginning to cover this story with a more fair and balanced approach. Here is a link to a well written article:

http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=1710

I just hope more Americans focus on the issue than get caught up in this "attack the messenger because we cannot attack the message" nonsense.
 

SharkyX

Back of the Pack
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,381
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Ottawa On
#16
Most certainly it is bigger then Al Gore.
The problem is less Al Gore and more people who don't believe it's a problem at all.

The Canadian Government (well the former Liberal Government, the program was cancelled after the conservatives took over) used to have a program known as the 1 Tonne challenge, by which the government challenege everybody in Canada to reduce there carbon emissions by 1 tonne.
You could even get your home assesed and recieve small amounts of grant money for improvements you make on your home.

The governement and distribution companies here in Ontario also offer grant money for home owners and to business' who make energy saving improvements to there buildings.

These are the kinds of things we need to be doing.
Al Gore has the right idea, and while his house may be energy efficient fed by green power while driving around in his hybrid... at the end of the day his message is still going to get skewed and harpooned by critics for reasons like his house does consume alot of electricity.
It could be the most efficient house of it's size on the planet... but that information won't be released or as publicated.
Al Gore needs the assistance of people who work the other end of the spectrum to become a co-voice to go with him to be able to dust off many of these critics.
 

keyodie

Keyozilla
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
5,749
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Wonkiki
#17
NOTE: This is not directed at anyone in this thread AT ALL. I'm talking about the media in general. I'm not defending Gore, either.

Oh, hmm. Gore is looking good. He even got an oscar. We should make an article about it to ruin his reputation. Not only his reputation, but the spirit that was created to improve the situation on global warming and kill the inspiration.

Can we please stop attacking Gore and think about the actual point here? Our planet is in danger, no doubt about it. Even if it wasn't (though there's many facts and research that contradict that statement that our world is fine), shouldn't we make an effort to make this world a better place?

I am in no way defending Gore, though the media IS known to twist things around to get more attention.

But what's the point in calling him a hypocrite if all it accomplishes is worsen his reputation and the inspiration that was created with this film? This is not the issue, people. The real issue here is GLOBAL WARMING. Who cares if the person who inspired so many people is a big fat hypocrite? That's not the issue. We all need to work together as inhabitants of this Earth and fight against global warming. That's what he accomplished with the documentary, and it should have only created a positive reaction. Instead, we look into the person who created the film, tell everyone about it. That is being inconsiderate to the earth.

The issue is not Gore. It's GLOBAL WARMING. Why don't we use the effort that we need to make Gore look bad for saving this planet?
 

Groch

Gadget Hound
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
270
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Denver Colorado
#18
Why don't we use the effort that we need to make Gore look bad for saving this planet?
Very good points.

The problem is not just the media, but also the political pressure groups and pacs that know how to manipulate the media for their own agendas.

This "press release" from a so-called "research institute" is a perfect example.
They cook up this factual but incomplete and purposely misleading press release knowing that if they time it right after the Oscars that the press will jump all over it looking for dirt. They hope the dirt will lessen the impact of the really important message on global warming.

The left wing political pacs are just as complicite as the right wing ones on this kind of thing. We spent too much time in the last election hearing about Kerry's Swift Boats and Bushes national guard service, fake issues.
Their was little time to discuss things that matter, and look where we are now.

I do not know what the solution is to all this media manipulation, but it is a terrible problem and its getting worse.
 

SharkyX

Back of the Pack
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,381
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Ottawa On
#19
Why don't we use the effort that we need to make Gore look bad for saving this planet?
Are you serious in this question or just making a statement here?

Because I can tell you right now, there is one very obvious answer to all of this. MONEY

The number one resistance I have to getting improvements done to buildings, it's going to cost them money.
It'll save the environment, and long term save you money... but not enough people look long term or that it's going to save you money in 3 years... it's what is this going to cost me today.

Same thing with oil industry.

If electric cars were main stream thats going to cost oil billions.

Who funds politcal parties, the people who have the power to legislate against energy waste and oil? and who pays media for advertising time?

Now as public opinion slowly changes being green is becoming more and more popular... but were still a ways off.

Although the fact that these kinds of companies are starting to take pot shots at Gore says something... they are more then a little worried or they wouldn't bother.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
10,119
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
wasilla alaska
#20
I still wanna know what happened to the ice age we should be enjoying right now, even though we reduced our emisions since the 70's.

Gore also travels on a private Gulfstream. If he drives a hybrid what does his security detail travel in, other hybrids or Secret Service approved and equiped SUVs and Vans? How good can that hybrid be if it met SS standards.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top