<p>I wonder whether it’s only Al and Tipper who live in that house, or whether part of it is used as offices not only for them but also for other members of their staff. In that case, it would be fairer not to compare their energy use with that of residential houses.</p>
<p>As for Al gore’s food consumption, gimme a break. It’s mean-spirited to be scolding someone who has a weight problem.</p>
<p>Gore’s home does have solar panels, but he had to deal with zoning issues in his neighborhood before he could install them.</p>
<p>[Gore</a> makes Nashville home more ‘green’ - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html]Gore”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html)</p>
<p>I’m with poetsheart. Please explain how Al Gore is the devil behind global warming!</p>
<p>I don’t challenge Gore’s right to live as he wants. However, the do as I say, not as I do approach is repugnant. I don’t think a self appointed spokesperson for the environment should use private aircraft, live “large”, etc. etc. All the politicians who call for “sacrifices” but live “large” are shameful. I’ll sacrifice when you do. Be a leader, and go first. Don’t push others to do what you can’t or won’t do yourself. </p>
<p>This goes for senators, congresspersons, state legislators, local legislators et al ad infinitum. It is such a disgrace. Just because a man was vice president, does not convert him to royalty. We are all citizens, not subjects. Do what you want with your money, but stop telling others how to live if you can’t do it yourself. Don’t justify a large lifestyle for any so called spokesperson. This goes for “Hollywood” types as well. They can live as large as they want, after all they are stars, but You should live in a shack without plumbing.</p>
<p>That was my point about the Oscars for a movie about Global Warming, show that you are serious, and stay at home.</p>
<p>It reminded me of NBC when they went green, and shut off the lights for half time, but yet went to te Artic Circle…am I the only one who laughed at this? You are telling Americans you are saving energy in the broadcast and lowering your carbon footing, but you travel all the way to the Artic to illustrate it! Last time I checked it is not easy to get up there on foot with camera equipment.</p>
<p>Being green does not mean you have to wear a hairshirt and subsist on bread and water. Such killjoys!</p>
<p>thank you for expanding on one of my points(post 8), anothermom2, well said!</p>
<p>I don’t expect big Al to ride a bicycle, but is anyone else here pleased to hear he traded a Lexus in for 2 hybrid Mercurys? I don’t mean mpg, or green footprint, I mean now our former U.S. VP drives a car made by an American manufacturer! I like that.</p>
<p>“I’m with poetsheart. Please explain how Al Gore is the devil behind global warming!”</p>
<p>Why, sure. Gore, both as a Senator and then as point man for Clinton, was the lead architect behind a series of globalization-related trade deals that enabled American companies to set up their most polluting, most global-warming-related industrial combines in countries which had the least in the way of environmental and worker protections, and pollution controls. There are entire sections of Asia and Central America (I can take you there) that have been turned into virtual industrial and agricultural wastelands by the predations of multinationals promoted by Al Gore through multilateral trade deals.</p>
<p>
And politicians who pander to personal irresponsibility and greed and exemplify those traits aren’t? Why do only politicians working for good have to deprive themselves and their families of the comforts and luxuries they can afford? To me, the attitude of envy and spite exemplified by this expression is “shameful.”</p>
<p>On another point: Yes, Mini holds Gore personally responsible for the rise of international trade. Apparently it never would have happened without him. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>There are no reasons to hold Al Gore, the private citizen, accountable for his lifestyle. He is a rich person and has to right to enjoy the trappings of his recent good fortune. In this regard, he is probably not different from his peers, except for the same hypocrisy that has dominated his entire life.</p>
<p>The reality is that Al Gore is now entitled to live how he pleases. The scrutiny of the public should have started when he was a public citizen; a public citizen who never delivered of the many expectations placed upon him by the “environmental” movement. People ought to know WHY he did so little when he was in a position to seek changes. In particular, his presence at the side of the Clintons coincided with a period when the renewable energy industry regressed more than ever. </p>
<p>The Clintons and the Gore financial windfall resulting from their “environmental support” is entirely in line with their eight years reign: hypocritical, misleading, and morally despicable. The only mitigating factor is that they are … politicians. Why would we expect them to be different from other politicians? Of course, THEY would like us to believe that!</p>
<p>“On another point: Yes, Mini holds Gore personally responsible for the rise of international trade. Apparently it never would have happened without him.”</p>
<p>It would not have happened nearly as quickly, nor without considerations of the global impacts of unrestricted pollution, lack of labor protections, or discharge of greenhouse gases without him. </p>
<p>Yes, individuals really DO make a difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could be argued a little misleading but the larger number was probably utilized as more of a headline grabber. It’s still the amount of energy utilized, by more than 19 US homes. Even with his wealth and offices, it still seems excessive for one asking “joe homeowner” to cut back his consumption. </p>
<p>Mnay of you are familiar with the cliche’, “you can show me better than you can tell me.” Well in this example, Al G’s talking trumps his showing us. He’s a politician, and as with many of their positions on education, retirement funding, salaries, health care, etc, their taxpayer options are a lot better than the “avg joe.” I don’t see them scaling back much.</p>
<p>Sorry, just not buying it.</p>
<p>So I guess President Bush is not a hypocrite because his ranch in Texas is a model of energy-efficiency, yet his administration tried to suppress scientific evidence that raised legitimate concerns about the dangers of global warming?</p>
<p>Maybe he could be called a “reverse hypocrite.”</p>
<p>Since I love playing devil’s advocate with myself: the problem with downsizing to set an example is that you can never really downsize enough. If Gore were to downsize to, say, a 10 room house, with half the square footage of his current home, I’m guessing it would still be far larger than the average american home. There would still be complaints that he was living large, and wasn’t sacrificing. Gore could downsize to a one-bedroom apartment, and he’d still be living larger than most of the world. </p>
<p>On the one hand yes, I’d think it a worthwhile “statement” to move to a smaller home. But in practical terms, someone else will then buy the 20-room mansion; it’s not as if it’s being taken out of commission.</p>
<p>I do not begrudge Gore going to attend the Oscars one little teeny tiny bit, even in a private jet. Ditto going to Oslo for the Nobel presentation. As fun as the Oscars and their parties sound, what I’ve read of the week leading up to the Nobel sounds even better, including a seemingly constant supply of cold smoked fish. Plus, the Nobel winners don’t have to worry about putting on their game face when waiting to hear who won, they don’t have to worry about giving a short speech so they’re not cut off for a commercial break, AND there’s that nice check and a customized certificate as part of the package.</p>
<p>Re: post #28. Thanks, mini.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The difference is that NOBODY expects an “awl” president to be an weekend enevironmentalist. The Bush ranch in Crawford is equipped with technology that makes sense. I doubt that the Bush family is trying to impress the hard core “green” organizations. </p>
<p>On the other hand, EVERYONE should hold someone who has spent a career making evangelical claims to do MORE than the average citizen. Al Gore has the means and he is supposed to have the “intelligence” to understand the differences between being a follower and a pioneer. His choices and the level of invesment he made (under quasi duress) have been lackluster, at best. </p>
<p>The hypocisy is directly proportional to the failed “Great Expectations.” The country EXPECTED Bill Clinton to be the education president and Al Gore the “green” VP. The sad reality is that Clinton did nothing except freeze the education budgets and Gore did absolutely nothing POSITIVE for the environment. </p>
<p>Since 2000, we are paying for the lack of investments in education, we are paying for the lack of correctly and forcefully addressing our defense, and we have only started to pay for a lack of interest in supporting the commercialization of modern energy technologies. While we can’t expect much from the conservatives and fossil fuels supporters, we could have expected and demanded more from the good ol’ liberals. </p>
<p>Sadly enough, when it comes to workable solutions, the liberals are much worse than the conservatives … unless we can use lip service and blowing hot air as remedies.</p>