<p>[Tennessee</a> Center for Policy Research](<a href=“http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764]Tennessee”>http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764)</p>
<p>I love when people attack Al Gore and claim he’s being hypocritical because he uses more energy than others. What do you want him to do? Live in a garbage can? The man is rich: now if the information presented compared the usage of people with similar earnings to Al Gore, I bet he’d be significantly lower. The fact is, even if he does use more energy, that amount is so microscopic compared to the real problem.</p>
<p>I may not agree with Al Gore on many issues, but I agree with him on global warming. At least he is attempting to disseminate information about global warming, rather than pretending it doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>BTW, [Crooks</a> and Liars Olbermann on Gore’s Energy Use: Setting the Record Straight](<a href=“Page not found | Crooks and Liars”>Olbermann On Gore's Energy Use: Setting The Record Straight | Crooks and Liars)</p>
<p>All those “facts” debunked</p>
<p>Oh, boy, now we don’t have to care about global warming any more!!!</p>
<p>Great scientific debunking, barrons!!!</p>
<p>Ahh, the true believers. So 10 times normal use is not enough? 20? 50?? Sacrifices must be made he says. Guess he does not start at home. This is just another in a long line of “scientific” hysteria.</p>
<p>Wow, you don’t even bother to counter my arguments, and instead just reiterate your point. </p>
<p>Please watch my video, Olbermann debunks everything that your link is claiming. If you are too lazy to watch, then here are some general points. Al Gore’s house has some 20 rooms, including an office for him and his wife. You are comparing his energy usage to the typical 5 room home. Therefore, you CANNOT compare his energy consumption to the TYPICAL home, instead you must compare his energy consumption to ENORMOUS homes. And, as Olbermann states, most of the money costs from “going green”. He is increasing his ELECTRICITY bill in order to REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS.</p>
<p>There, I capitalized key words so you can at least try to argue them.</p>
<p>And also, what are you doing to stop global warming? Did you make a movie to get the information out, oh that’s right you didn’t. You’d rather just attack people who are trying to make a difference. Or maybe you don’t believe in global warming, and if that is the case, I truly feel sorry for you.</p>
<p>When considering the size of the house and how it’s used (home-based offices, and, I’d think, a large number of people coming through the building), the energy-saving measures and construction probably make a real difference. I’d want to poke more at the statement that the home is using more energy now, post-green-remodelling. That simply doesn’t make sense out of context. I feel like when I’m comparing our electricity use from one year to another, where one year our summer was filled with temperatures going up to 110, while for the other the temps stayed closer to the low 90’s. Or comparing our water bill between months when the teen is at home, and when she’s gone. There can also be real oddities in people’s energy usage that won’t show up until you do a careful audit. For example, someone with a plug-in electric car, or a vehicle that uses compressed natural gas, will show significantly higher electricity and/or natural gas usage than an “average” household. No idea if this applies to Gore specifically, but it’s another note of caution in how to do the analysis. </p>
<p>Now, there’s a different point to be made about lifestyle in general: should such a prominent green activist be chided for living in such a large house? Should he and his family be expected to downsize significantly? That’s not just an issue to ask Gore, it’s something that affects many of us, even if we’re not living in 20-room mansions. I can keep the heat down in winter, mandate short showers, use flourescent bulbs, put electronics on power strips that get switched off, etc etc etc, but my family home energy use is still a total energy hog when compared to the rest of the world. </p>
<p>I was irked by how the TCPR article’s headline compared Gore’s annual home energy use to other household’s MONTHLY energy use. Making the point that the Gore homestead is using 20 times (AP says it’s closer to 10 times, but still) more energy is a strong enough point on its own. Making the apples and oranges comparison weakens the point, and the credibility of the source.</p>
<p>Since his assets are between 30 and 100 times that of the median American, it does look like he is doing a pretty good job of personal energy conservation.</p>
<p>My problem is not with his personal energy use, but that he is, more than virtually anyone else on the face of the planet, political responsible for global pollution/global warming as a result of policies that pushed American companies offshore to places which allowed maximization of both.</p>
<p>Of course, if Barrons prefers that the 20plus-room mansions of the rich be turned into homeless shelters for vets, I don’t have a problem with it.</p>
<p>I saw the video am I’m not convinced either way. I suspect both reports contain partial truths and that neither contain the complete truth. I won’t attack any posters but will discuss some of my thoughts on the arguments about Al G. presented. There are so many angles to consider. Examples:
The implied idea that if a person is rich its ok(environmentally) to have more, use more. It may be that Al’s 20+ room house is better environmentally than his neighbor’s 20+ room house, but is that good enough? TCPR may not be totally unbiased. Olbermann may not be completely unbiased. I’m not convinced by the implied argument that since Al’s rich and can afford the bill, then its ok. Yet, if I were rich I’d likely do the same thing. No one questions Al has the right to spend big and extravagantly, but is he completely credible if he does? As an example, If I chose to buy a moderately equipped Lincoln Navigator rather than a loaded Escalade, then pointed out my gas mileage was superior to the Escalade and said “see how much I’m saving, by buying a big vehicle that uses less gas than the biggest!” [remember that is used only as an example] That wouldn’t be a very convincing argument. Too many people would ask- did I really need a huge Suv? Would a smaller one have served my needs? Did I even need an Suv? Could a more ordinary car suit my needs? If I were to be preaching sacrifice for the good of our country and the world, I’d need good answers to those questions. A 20+ room house or a garbage can… is there no in-between?
I am sure Al uses far far more energy than I do. I don’t think he’s a bad guy for that. As I said, I’d use plenty if I were rich; I won’t pretend otherwise. But I’m not going to tv, radio, newspaper, magazine, movie, espousing the idea that we all need to using less for the good of all. We all have heard the joke about “never trust a skinny cook”. Just a joke of course, yet it might have some validity if one applies it broadly to those who speak out for the benefit of others.
So many things are connected- do I buy a foreign car to help my fuel economy, but in doing so American owned car plants shut down? Americans lose jobs. Communities suffer, formerly working people now get government(my taxes) assistance? No clear answer there.
I think the biggest issue here is not- is Al burning less than others with his income level? It’s not what would I do if I were rich as Al. I think the question is- is he burning an appropriate level for someone preaching to the U.S. and the world about conserving and sacrificing energy to save civilization? I think he’d be considered more sincere if he downsized more, AND used less.</p>
<p>Very good arguments brought up, and like I said I disagree with Al Gore on many issues, especially since he is a politician, and is inevitably corrupt as almost all politicians are. Yet, I say he is doing far more good than bad for the cause of global warming understanding. Again, at least he isn’t pretending it doesn’t exist. </p>
<p>Factoring in his 20+ room home that exhibits many visitors daily and houses offices, the claim that he is an energy HOG as brought up by OP is totally uncalled for. The OP didn’t post this to debate the issues brought up by SlitheyTove regarding lifestyle, but instead he clearly intended to attack Al Gore.</p>
<p>If Al Gore thinks we should all give something up, then he should set the example - maybe a smaller house? How about solar panels? Surely he can afford the 60,000 or more they would cost for a house his size? Do as I do, not as I say is my motto. one he hasn’t learned about.</p>
<p>Funny how I interpreted it so differently. I read the TCPR article and interpreted it as their attempt to point out that Al isn’t practicing the sacrifices he is preaching. I don’t consider that personal- that a matter of policy he has chosen to speak out on.
As far as calling him an energy hog, well I think thats true as we compare his usage to so many others. But, some would argue his energy use is justified given the many uses of his home. I think there is a distinction there.</p>
<p>Wow, ejr1 did you even read the previous posts?</p>
<p>First off, I’d like to see you downsize after having a 20+ room house.
Secondly, his home also serves as his job, housing multiple offices. He really couldn’t downsize or else he wold have to buy another building for his job. Then, he would probably be spending the same on energy.
Thirdly, Al Gore has utilized solar panels.
Fourthly, Al Gore spends much money attempting to go green, from purchasing all compact fluorescent light bulbs to even trading in his Lexus for a hybrid. [Al</a> Gore Dumps His Lexus For A Hybrid Mercury - AutoSpies Auto News](<a href=“http://www.autospies.com/news/Al-Gore-Dumps-His-Lexus-For-A-Hybrid-Mercury-13797/]Al”>Al Gore Dumps His Lexus For A Hybrid Mercury - AutoSpies Auto News)</p>
<p>Wow, I hate defending Al Gore like this because I still disagree with him on many issues, but this attack really has no basis. If you wanted to attack Al Gore on his energy policies, at least attack his environmental policies during the Clinton administration that led to many negative effects for the environment. (1997 California incident)</p>
<p>Al Gore is advocating a radical change in the way people in the US and around the world live to save the planet. I don’t know what is more arrogant, to believe that man caused global warming or that man can stop global warming. Is this the example he really wishes to set for the rest of us? Those that defend his hypocrisy lose credibility in my eyes.</p>
<p>That man (specifically, Al Gore) caused global warming (more than any other single individual). If he is to stop it, it won’t have anything to do with his personal energy consumption.</p>
<p>I’ve always been meaning to ask you this Mini. You’ve most likely already thoroughly explain this before, but somehow, I missed it: How is it that Al Gore, more than Bill Clinton, or anyone else in the Clinton Administration, bring about a dramatic increase in global warming, and the emission of green house gases? That’s an incredible amount of power, and normally (with the exception of our current VP), Vice Presidents don’t wield a great deal of policy setting power.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you know he’s not in a smaller house? Maybe he can afford a much larger house, but has chosen this house? </p>
<p>And somehow I don’t think some people would ever be happy until he was living in a one-bedroom apartment.</p>
<p>Many of the greatest people who ever lived, lived humbly. Al Gore obviously could downsize in many ways in his housing and general lifestyle, and be an example for others. </p>
<p>His food consumption obviously is higher than necessary, and this burns energy to supply him. I am not being facetious, this really is an issue in terms of the world’s energy supply. My guess is that he loads up on meat and carbs, by the way he looks and acts, and these are very energy-intense products.</p>
<p>He is a hypocrite in my eyes because he does not live what he preaches, and this makes him not what he could be in terms of greatness.</p>
<p>I just wish that the State of Washington spends some money so that my S can get to work without getting stuck on the “freeway” burning foreign oil.</p>
<p>'Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month"
Anyone else spot the slight of hand with that ‘statistic’? Using that logic I could find the most energy efficient home in the country and say “Energy Guzzled by Joe Blogs’ Home in Past Year Could Power 12 U.S. Homes for a Month”</p>
<p>Once I saw that headline it was clear the article was being biased and was only interested in presenting some stats in a skewed context to make a political jab. Sure enough, the title says “Energy” but the article only cites electricity usage. I don’t know all the details of how the Gore home is setup but what about all other types of energy? How do the authors of this article know that he doesn’t use much less energy in other areas to more than compensate for the increased electricity usage? They don’t… but they casually forgot to mention that bit. </p>
<p>They also casually forgot to mention that the Gores purchase their electricity produced only from renewable and environmentally friendly methods (e.g. wind) and thus pay a lot more for their electricity usage. Ooops. </p>
<p>They also casually forgot to mention that the Gore “home” is not only a home, but also functions as an office building, includes a separate guest house (so a additional ‘home’ on their bill) and additional security measures. Ooops. </p>
<p>I mean if they truly were presenting a non-partisan and impartial assessment of the situation then why on earth would they possibly hide these important facts? Would it be because it would kind of make them look like a couple of disgruntled right wing nutjobs with an axe to grind? Awww shucks… yeah it probably would. </p>
<p>The Tennessee Center for Policy Research clearly just wanted to make a political jab and figured that the average American was either too dumb or too naive to actually read what the text of the article really says. What a load of nonsense.</p>
<p>I’ve got a headline… Nonsense Axe Grinding Deceptive ‘Stories’ Vomited Up by the Tennessee Center for Police Research Could Replace the Volume Produced by 12 Other ‘Nonpartisan’ Thinktanks for a Month!"</p>
<p>I admit I believe Gore is a hypocrite…I still remember the pic of him on a runway with a private jet going to the Oscars. I know there are security issues, but than stand by your beliefs and have your acceptance speech taped at your house and fed to the Oscars, saying I am at home to put less of a carbon mark. Thank you for this award!</p>
<p>I also agree and understand that this is a compound and people work there, but he could put solar panels in, he could afford it. I am sure since this made headlines everywhere and there is no retort by his people they have no defense. </p>
<p>I do give him credit b/c his son drives a Prius, who would have thought Priuses can get up to 100 mph. I wonder if he bought it thinking he couldn’t drive it that fast. Remember his son got a speeding ticket in the 00 campaign</p>