Al Gore: Power Hungry
Brian Doherty | February 26, 2007, 8:59pm
Is this sort of hypocrisy too cheap to meter, um, to take note of? Mmmaybe. Still, Drudge reports that Al Gore's Nashville mansion consumes more than 20 times the average amount of power for an American household.
Since Gore's whole deal is that civilization-saving absolutely and vitally requires an action on everyone's part that he seems to refuse to do himself, it leads one to wonder about how this whole global warming thing is going to play out with the public and with the government. (Unless Gore's house is powered completely or partially off a conventional coal-burning grid, which doesn't seem to be true based on Drudge's piece.)
Does Gore's seeming inability to curb his power consumption--which has apparently grown since the release of his Oscar-winning flick--mean it isn't true that we really do all have to scrupulously use less carbon-burning energy or doom the planet? No. But it does make it a little hard to believe that he really believes it--or that if even the biggest believer in global warming of all can't control himself in this regard, that a serious planetwide reduction in the short or medium term short of draconian outside controls has much hope. I'm curious as to how many anecdotes of serious behavior-change when it comes to greenhouse gas production our commenters can relate, or are living through themselves.
Doug | February 27, 2007, 8:32am | #
I guess I don't understand what's going on here. Gore uses a lot of electricity, and he buys carbon off-sets of some kind. This seems like exactly the efficient thing to do. In a sense, it is a great example because it says that we don't have to all live in solar-powered yurts: we can maintain a normal (to us) way of life, but still push in the "right" direction by spending money for carbon offsets. I see no hypocracy here.
The house is probably very big and very old. Big, old houses use more energy than smaller, newer houses. I guess since now that we are interested in the environment, we should tear down all the big old houses and build newer houses. Or, Gore could sell his family's house to someone else (who won't be buying a carbon offset) and live in an efficiency in downtown Nashville.
I mean, come on! Rich people have big houses. Rich people use more energy. This rich person does that, pays for carbon offsets and spends alot of time and effort trying to move policy in a direction he believes is good.
Now, many of the people who read Reason probably think that his policy stances are bad ones. I honestly don't know what his policy stances are, so I can't say. It seems to me that it is not obviously ridiculous that global warming may be a problem, and if it is a problem, it is likely that some form of government intervention could help solve it, unless someone has a great idea on how to assign property rights to the "global climate".
I suspect that if Milton Friedman had been caught in a similar inconsistency (he did work at a non-profit institution that recieved substantial federal dollars), the blog would not be in such a state of shocked awe and delight.
If you don't like Al Gore, that is fine by me. But trying to trump up a story about an old mansion that uses alot of energy into some sort of probing of his inner soul is really just silly. Just say you hate him and leave all this faux evidentiary bologna asaide, please.
Loundry | February 27, 2007, 3:34pm | #
Lamar,
Are you seriously suggesting that a quick glance at Al Gore's electric bill is enough to label him a hypocrite?
No. I am seriously suggesting that an honest examination of his choices and comparing it to the dogma that he imposes on those he deems lesser than him is enough to label him a hypocrite.
The short answer and the long answer are the same: Al Gore has money and he spends it how he wants.
As predicted! Suddenly, the "progressive" is cast as a ardent supporter of capitalism once HIS property comes into question. (I'm referring to Al Gore, not you.)
Honestly Loundry, Al Gore is not a communist hippie. You wish it to be so, you assume it, you revel in it, but it really isn't true.
Bullshit. Obviously Al Gore not a communist hippie, otherwise he wouldn't be such a blatant hypocrite. He would live on a commune somewhere, growing his own food. Despite the image he tries to project, Al Gore is a creep who exploits the feelings of wealth envy and misanthropy to accumulate wealth and political power. That is what he is about, not "saving the earth" or whatever mystical garbage he vomits.
He's a rich, fat man from the South who believes in capitalism, as evidence by his big house.
Simply being rich doesn't mean one believes in capitalism. The funders of the communist magazines The Nation and Harpers are all filthy rich and they hate capitalism.
I suppose you think being from the South is evil? Very shallow of you.
More importantly, who are these Gaia-loving commies who suddenly turn capitalist?
You are conflating two different groups with two different ends that happen to ally with eachother because they have the same enemies.
Why didn't you bother to address my previous post?
Because I was spending far too much time rolling in the schadenfreude. Al Gore is a fraud, tee hee! Your prophet is a scam artist, tee hee!
Instead of assuming that Al Gore wants to shut off the world's energy supply, why don't you look at what Al Gore does for cues on how to live efficiently?
I don't think Al Gore wants to shut off the world's energy supply. I think he wants to accumulate money and power. I think that if the underclass who didn't grow up rich, privileged, and elite like he did in his pretty hotel room, then they can all go to hell as far as he's concerned. Remember, not everyone in the Soviet Union was poor. The Soviets who ran the Gulags could finance a nice, pretty retirement.
And how can you call Al Gore's mansion "efficient", particularly when he is rarely ever there?
If you're rich and successful, buy a damn mansion, but keep it efficient. Is there something inherently anti-capitalist about buying a mansion?
No, there is something inherently anti-"progressive" about buying a mansion when children are starving. Al Gore's priorities are in order: those children should starve if feeding them would turn Al Gore's 20-room mansion into a 19-room mansion.
I like you, Lamar. :)
bigbigslacker | February 28, 2007, 10:29am | #
Gore lights his 20,000 square foot mansion with CFLs. Well, Duh. He'd need to get a 400 amp service upgrade if he didn't. No joke. Incandescent lighting for 20,000 sq/ft amounts to an electrical plan for 40,000 watts of lighting. That's 333 amps (~165A per leg) just for the bulbs. With CFLs, that number is roughly cut in half. The plan for outlets per square foot calls for even more than 2 watts per. Hmmmm, come to think of it, he already has AT LEAST a 400 amp service.
BTW, each CFL has mercury in it. If the power comes from coal, then no big deal as the mercury in the bulb MAY be less than the mercury put into the air by the coal plant powering the equivalent incandescent. But, as in this case, if the energy is from nuclear or hydro, then you are now messin with mercury that was not present in the incandescent lights or in the enrgy production process. Congratulations. And not to mentions, opps too late, the other planet-unfriendly components in CFLs that are not in incandescents, stuff like capacitors, enamel coated inductors, printed circuit boards and their coatings, and various plastics. All these parts must be manufactured in addition to what's already present with incandescents. Ah, the things to think about when you live in the real world - if you live in the real world.
Link for power planning if anyone cares:
http://www.lightingplans.com/lightPlansDesign102.html
Now George W Bush, being your typical planet-loving Republican, is greener than shit after saint patties day. He's actually smart enough to figure out you don't need 20,000 square feet to prove manhood. The guy must have a ph of D or something.
I hope this source is liberal enough fore Gore's flock:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php
Was that liberal enough? (god, I'm a f'ing asshole!)
from da link:
Only your dispassionate Canadian correspondent could write this without colour or favour, but is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.” Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. “They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it,” Heymann says. “So we bought all this throwaway stone. It’s fabulous. It’s got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.” Hmm, back to that vote about the Greenest President? ::off Grid via ::EcoRazzi
Lamar | February 28, 2007, 2:26pm | #
"I'm concerned about him exhorting people to decrease their ecological footprint as much as possible and pretending that he can get away with not following his own moral mandates since he's rich enough to buy sufficient indulgences to exonerate him from the sins he rails against."
This means that he is hypocritical as a progressive, not as an environmentalist.
"The 'sin' I'm speaking of is the failure to reduce one's ecological footprint as much as possible."
And one has to agree that a literal interpretation necessarily leads to the conclusion that the only way to reduce one's footprint as much as possible is to commit suicide. If we're going to concede, as I think we must, that "as much as possible" is not a literal phrase, then we're stuck with our own individual notions of what "as much as possible" means. I think a lot of people have a difficult time deciding how much is "as much as possible" in their own lives. Now I'm supposed to accept it when people who personally hate Al Gore tell me what decisions the Gore family should come to regarding electricity? Ha. I "get" this whole thing. It's a swiftboat job. Not a lot of substance, but a lot of blabbering on about it.
Let's put this to rest:
(1) Is "as much as possible" supposed to be taken literally?
(2) If yes, what would constitute "as much as possible" short of suicide or living in a mud hut? How is your answer to this not subjective?
(3) If no, who decides how much is enough to fly under the hypocrite radar?
BTW: I like how your last paragraph provides two distinct answers to an "either/or" question. He's a bad enviro
and a bad progressive, all rolled into one slam-dunk case. If the sin is reducing the carbon footprint, then why can't he buy his way out of it? The answer: because that makes him a bad progressive. Maybe that's where the story should be. It has nothing to do with environmentalism. If one can reduce his footprint with money, and one does so, how can you say that he isn't reducing his footprint?
My whole point is that if you are asserting that Gore doesn't do as much as he tells others to do, then you are stuck with quantifying how much you think he should be doing. Given the personal hate of Gore, there will never be "enough" he can do.
From what I've seen, Gore's residences follow all the tips and suggestions he gives other people. The only argument is whether he does "everything possible" to reduce his carbon footprint, and I submit that you are using too wide a definition of "possible."
Sam-hec | March 1, 2007, 5:06am | #
To that end, there is:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/
a 6 short-page list of things he expects us to do. Basically (there are more details but I am not going to plagarize):
1. Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl).
2. Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer.
3. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner.
4. Install a programmable thermostat.
5. Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases.
6. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket.
7. Use less hot water.
8. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible.
9. Turn off electronic devices you’re not using.
10. Unplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them.
11. Only run your dishwasher when there’s a full load and use the energy-saving setting.
12. Insulate and weatherize your home.
13. Be sure you’re recycling at home.
14. Buy recycled paper products.
15. Plant a tree.
16. Get a home energy audit.
17. Switch to green power.
18. Buy locally grown and produced foods.
19. Buy fresh foods instead of frozen.
20. Seek out and support local farmers markets.
21. Buy organic foods as much as possible.
22. Avoid heavily packaged products.
23. Eat less meat.
24. Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possible.
25. Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates.
26. Keep your car tuned up.
27. Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflated.
28. When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle.
29. Try car sharing.
30. Try telecommuting from home.
31. Fly less.
There it is, the 31 basic Gore Walk to Walk...so this seems what he actually means by TCPR's vague reference to "...conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home."
Mud huts and suicide are not mentioned as options...I gotta wonder if he uses a clothes line at all.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
