Al Gore, the eco warrior, cum hypocrite.
Yes folks, the eco warrior that is telling everyone how to live, and how to save the planet, might need a bit of his own advice.
It was widely reported in the last 24 hours that Al Gore's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours during 2006. This amount of consumption is more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
Now, I couldn't care less if someone wants to own a mansion and spend thirty grand a year on utilities (more than a great many Americans earn in an entire year.) But when the person that has that mansion, and that utilities bill, is none other than the eco warrior himself, Al "the inconvenient truth" Gore, well the hypocritical nature of his lifestyle, compared to his political rhetoric is amazing.
Nashville Electric Services indicate the Gores averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours in 2006, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005.
Broken down, the family averaged of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.
It is pretty clear, Al Gore doesn't really put into practice what he preaches.
GW Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas on the other hand, is an ecological wonder, consuming on average, about 25% less energy than the national average.
Let's face it, the faith based science of global warming is being led by a hypocrite. He apparently wants all the little people to do their "fair share," but Al evidently reserves the right to "purchase" his "right" to pollute more than the next guy.
That's right, since Al Gore is filthy rich, he can buy "credits" for his excessive energy consumption. These "credits" are purchased from others, than don't use all of their allotted "carbon foot print."
Pathetic. Al Gore isn't interested in reducing pollution HIMSELF, but he is highly motivated to get YOU to use less energy, so that he can buy his credits from YOU and go right on polluting the eco system that his elitist lifestyle requires.
Yet another reason to heap scorn on Al Gore, the would be emperor with no clothes.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
Gore doesn't drive a hybrid and doesn't take mass transit.
He has to personally attend all of the awards ceremonies or speeches he gives. Why couldn't he "telecommute" and seriously reduce his carbon footprint?
The list goes on and on and on and on.........
Delete *ROFL* how much you want for those "hypocrite credits?"
He makes suggestions of ways individuals can help to curb the damage we humans do to our environment. These right-wing "think tanks" like the Tennessee Center for Policy Research always try to make it sound like he's mandating some draconian new laws that we'll all have to live by or be thrown in jail.
Some parts of the ABC article that you left out:
"... the [Gore] family tries to offset that carbon fooyprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program -- electricity generated through renewable sources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. 'In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power,' Kreider added."
"... The press release from Johnson's group [Tennessee Center for Policy Research], an obscure conservative think tank founded by Johnson in 2004 when he was 24, was givlen splashy attention on the highly trafficked Drudge Report Monday evening, and former Gore aides saw it as part of a piece, along with a Fox News Channel investigation from earlier this month on Gore's use of private planes in 2000. Last year, a seemingly amateurish YouTube video mocking "An Inconvenient Truth" turned out to have been produced by a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client."
"GW Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas on the other hand, is an ecological wonder, consuming on average, about 25% less energy than the national average."
Well, I would hope so; considering that he's only there about 3 months out of the year.
Say... that's about 75% less time than the "national average." And he only uses 25% energy?
You're right; that is an "ecological wonder."
And why does Al Gore -- who's only the "would be emporer with no clothes" --deserve to have us "heap scorn" on him any more than the actual foolish naked emporer?
They're all hypocrites. Gore is trying to preserve our environment; Bush and Cheney are destroying America's credibility and prestige, fueling anti-American terrorism, continuing to mismanage a war that never should have been waged, deteriorating our military, secretly working to subvert our democracy and sovereignty for the benefit of multi-national corporations (see: North American Union), destroying the Middle Class, and dismantling the Bill of Rights.
But you're right. Let's attack Al Gore for wanting people to make a positive difference in the world.
Partisanship before reason in all things.
Sorry.
That's because that's exactly what this moron is advocating.
Some parts of the ABC article that you left out
I didn't leave that out---- and I quote:
Let's face it, the faith based science of global warming is being led by a hypocrite. He apparently wants all the little people to do their "fair share," but Al evidently reserves the right to "purchase" his "right" to pollute more than the next guy.
That's right, since Al Gore is filthy rich, he can buy "credits" for his excessive energy consumption. These "credits" are purchased from others, than don't use all of their allotted "carbon foot print."
Maybe you just didn't comprehend what you read???
Last year, a seemingly amateurish YouTube video mocking "An Inconvenient Truth" turned out to have been produced by a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client."
So what ?? I don't care who points out the hypocritical nature of AlBore's rhetoric.
I would hope so; considering that he's only there about 3 months out of the year.
Just because Bush isn't there, doesn't mean energy isn't being consumed. He has a full time staff that lives in, and maintains the property year round. Your comment is moot.
And why does Al Gore -- who's only the "would be emporer with no clothes" --deserve to have us "heap scorn" on him any more than the actual foolish naked emporer?
And who would that be, in YOUR opinion ??? The "evil" Bush I suppose. *chuckle*
Gore is trying to preserve our environment
No, he isn't, as you can see by his hypocritical lifestyle, despite his green meanie rhetoric.
Bush and Cheney are destroying America's credibility and prestige
I don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us, and I don't care what you think of Bush or Cheney. I didn't vote for Bush, or his daddy, and I can't stand his domestic policies, however, I stand firmly behind him with the global war on terror.
a war that never should have been waged
Just your silly opinion, as I find the war in Iraq was about 10 years late. Clinton should have done something his first couple of years on office.
secretly working to subvert our democracy and sovereignty for the benefit of multi-national corporations (see: North American Union),
What a joke. The NAU is a conspiracy theory of left wing lunatics like you. There's NOTHING to it. I've already debunked the ENTIRE NAU silliness on a thread from Liz.
dismantling the Bill of Rights
Yet another joke from the fringe left kooks.
Partisanship before reason in all things.
Well, your belief in such things explains your blatant, willful ignorance on the subject.
Bawa Stressland, AC in her huge, empty horse barn.
Pelosi, her grape pickers and whine-makers, and restaurant workers, NOT paid min. wage.
Noam Chomsky, extraordinary Elitist-American and Jew-hater has made MILLIONS on Pentagon and Govt contracts offered to his department at MIT, even as he decries the military-industrial complex and the American Imperialism.
Read the most excellent book by Peter Schweizer, 'Do As I Say (Not As I Do) -Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.
It is delighful to read the schniagans and outright lies of those of the ilk of Michael, Fat-Back, Moore; Al (Senator Wannabe in a state as insane as Mn. ONLY) Franken; Ted (How long can you tread water baby) Kennedy, Nancy (I AM the most powerful woman in the world) Pelosi; Ralph (Blow-Up) Nader; and of course the lying, morally bankrupt Clintons.
Well worth the small price of admission to the Liberal Twilight Zone!
Why's that ??? I simply don't believe human beings can destroy the world. The faith based science of global warming is a joke.
By the way China and India put more crap in the air than the USA.
Precisely why Bush refused to sign Kyoto. I don't know if they actually "put more" crap in the air, but they are certainly MAJOR contributors, and they would have been excluded from draconian Kyoto measures.
a real abuse of this planet by one species
Exploiting a world created for us, doesn't equal "real abuse." The world's resources are here because we need them, and not to be "saved."
Mother Nature certainly doesn't require the help of mere mortals to survive.
Yes, they are.
God did not create those resources in seven days just so we could use them up and discard them like a candy wrapper
You pretend to know the mind of G-d???
If we choose to use more than our share and leave too little for the next generations
This assumes there is a "fair share" to be found, as well as the assumption the "next generations" will require all of the same "resources" we currently use and need.
Both assumptions are easily questioned.
George Bush who you hold up as a shining example of consistency
I did no such thing. In fact, Bush is a boob in most respects. I simply pointed out Bush walks the walk on the environment, even if he doesn't talk the talk, whereas AlBore sure can talk the talk, but refuses to walk the walk.
...has actively pushed policies that have resulted in increases in CO2 emissions of many millions of tons per year
Such as ??? He refused to sign Kyoto, I know that-- but that was smart as it would have left China and India unaffected.
"the "world's resources" are not "here because we need them."
Yes, they are."
That is by far the most ignorant statement I've heard today.
They say great minds think alike, evidently so do IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!
Don't be so afraid of Mr. Gore he's not running anyway.
And one you can't refute---
Don't be so afraid of Mr. Gore
Afraid ??? *ROFL* Why would I fear a Disney Animatron ???? *ROFL*
Ummmmm...you have no idea what "science" is...do you????
Scientists don't rely on "faith"......you are silly BTW...how much energy you consume has nothing to do with the science behind global warming....LOL......so silly
No, not REAL scientists, but the charlatans promoting the mythology of global warming have no conclusive PROOF mankind is causing the current warming cycle, much less any evidence we could DO ANYTHING to reverse the warming cycle.
They simply suggest global warming is all mankind's fault, and use silly computer models to "prove" their silly theories.
To believe their mere theories are infallible truth, requires the very same type of faith required to believe in a G=d without any evidence.
Hence, global warming is very accurately called "faith based science."
how much energy you consume has nothing to do with the science behind global warming
Well, according to AlBore, it certainly DOES have EVERYTHING to do with global warming. AlBore tell us the coal used to generate electricity is killing our atmosphere. AlBore tells us the natural gas we burn is finite, and also poisons our atmosphere. AlBore also tells us when we use energy in the form of gasoline to power our cars, we are polluting the atmosphere.
The consumption of energy is what the liberal loons are all about--- decreasing the use of so called "fossil fuels."
I know exactly what "science" is, and the global warming crowd is anything BUT "scientists."
They no longer rely on what they "observe," they are now forced to PROJECT--- estimate, guess--- what the future holds.
Anyone that believes they can predict the future of ANYTHING cannot, by definition, be a "scientist" as they are offering CONJECTURE about what they believe will happen, and NOT anything they can actually PROVE.
I'm glad you think I'm silly, because now we're even.
Amber - ditto what jJack said.
Twenty times more ??? *ROFL*
He buys electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority, "credits
Which is it ??? Both perhaps ??? Yes, I mentioned that.
He's also looking at installing some Solar Panels on the Mansion! :-)
Yes, I read that too, "we're using energy now, in the hope we use less energy in the future" *chuckle*
But what if everyone did something to off-set what they consumed?
I'm not sure why I should. I don't believe the conjecture of the faith based global warming scientists.
Yes, good morning ace.
Make up your mind.
Though, I'd hardly call Gore "Liberal" as that is insulting to the good that comes from a true ideology intent on diversity, pluralism and compassion- none of which Gore seems to represent.
"Carbon Credits" are the equivalent of a socialist tax on electricity that does nothing for the environment nor does it convince the ruling class to cut down on their consumption. If nothing it oppresses others into either submission or "glass ceiling" restitution that in the end renders a person financially mediocre.
I lived in an ashram for a while, hiked many miles through this and many other countries- if indeed we need to "reduce our carbon footprint" I for one need to "increase" mine in an effort to come even remotely close to the national average.
I've noticed there's no "kickbacks" or dividends for leaving a "carbon footprint" that's smaller than everyone elses...
"The reality" of the situation, Chris, is that this concept of global warming and eco-credits and carbon footprints is a socialist driven Secular Progressive incrimental set of steps in further dominating the class/social landscape of America.
Personally, I could care less that he's got the fires burning hotter than Aushwitz when it comes to his "foortprint". I do care that his agenda is far more than a greener earth.
I find it interesting that Gore's fianancial analysis is being garnerd from a sportscaster- and thusly is being touted as fiscal fact...
As to the "faith" or "religion" of science- if one places theri trust and blind condolense in the quested knowledge of man, what is that, if not "faith".
If you ask an Aboriginal Tribesman in Austalia why birds fly south for the winter, he's likely to tell you a wonderful tale that enlightens and entrances one in its beauty- but he'd also be the first to tell you that beyond the story he really doesn't know why.
If you ask a Nobel Lauriete in applied animal habitation why birds fly south for the winter, he'd most likely have incredible research data and models to explain the birds inate ability at determining its needs for food, warmth and survival- in the end he'd give us the bonafide reason why- "instinct". Here's the funny thing...
Instinct:
1] An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2] A powerful motivation or impulse.
3] An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.
adj. (ĭn-stĭngkt')
1] Deeply filled or imbued: words instinct with love.
2] Obsolete: Impelled from within.
In a nutshell? "Instinct" is just another word for "I don't know".
In many ways one could look from the outside in and note that "Science is the new pagen faith."
It must really suck hard to be a mindless wingnut twit and see the president elect of 2000 shining in utter glory, while the dimwit who stole the white house is being kicked around by the world like an old tin can. No wonder, the "right" has so much uncontrollable hatred for people like Carter, Clinton, and Gore. Look at what disastrous failures and shameful embarassments their presidents and high officials have become.
Thank God, I was born with a working brain, so I don't have to ever worry about myself becoming a mindless twit wingnut, left to ignore my own party's colossal failures while flailing around, slinging hatred and contempt and anyone and everyone that I disagree with.
Sorry, your post is the one filled with hatred and ignorence.
Amber- -Yeah, I know what science is. Do you?
http://www.chatham.edu/pti/Pgh_Env_History/Real01.htm
Look particularly at the figures. Now tell me why what is happening now is so different than what happened a million years ago or 1/2 million years ago. Notice how sharp (that's 'high first derivsative', since you're as scientist) and how laege the increases in temp were at 13,000 and 10,000 years back. Do you know when the stean engine was invented? Do you know what the oldest known city is and when it could be called a city? Do you know where the absorption peaks of CO2 and CH4 are? Do you know the where the peak of the sun's emission spectrum of the sun is? Do you know what a spectrum is?
Just to make sure you have a fair chance to answer these questions, I'll mail this post to you.
Superman doesn't have a chance, so I won't bother with him.
When speaking of Gore, what I believe is irrelevant. A hypocrite is a hypocrite, no matter what I believe about his hypocritical activities.
I thought the wacky wingnuts were all about people having as much wealth as they could gather?
That's true, I don't care how much money a person makes, as long as they keep their mouth shut about other people's behavior. It isn't Gore's wealth here that is the issue, it is the fact Gore says one thing, and does another.
president elect of 2000 shining in utter glory,
Winning an Oscar for a freakin' documentary is "shining in utter glory?" *ROFL*
I was born with a working brain
Another claim you can't prove, particularly given your idiotic posts.
Not only is the post mindless, it reeks of insults and put downs.
Every time I've ever seen a post from the pseudo super hero it has been mindless and reeked of insults and put downs.
What's the use????????????????
I have no idea why idiots like you continue to persist in your idiotic ways, indeed, what is the use ???
Sorry, your post is the one filled with hatred and ignorence. "
Don't sweat it, Dale. I owed him a little taste of his own vitriol. Trust me, I was far less offensive and far brighter in my commentary than he was in any of his offensive bile.
Aside from that, however, surely you must admit that it's just a teensy bit hypocritical for anyone on the "right" to be attempting to condemn Gore for being wealthy. Gore has a big house. Guess what? It takes a lot more energy to light it than it does to light the average house.
According to the "right," he should apparently be living in a one room trailer, with no electricity. Mansions are reserved for the folks like Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and the Bush crime family, so that they can look down on the rest of America, as they're rightfully responsible for doing.
So, while the "right"wing pundits sit in their glorious mansions casting disparaging remarks about an American hero once again, they once again come off as the pompous, ridiculous, hypocritical asses that they are.
What these geniuses somehow fail to comprehend is that there is no requirement for those who propose alternative energy sources to live in caves without light. This is where the "Right" has been dead wrong on this issue from day one. I remember the obese drug addict saying, many years ago, that those who propose alternative energy sources want us to live like cavemen. This has ALWAYS been the knee-jerk reaction from the "right," whenever the words "global warming," or "climate change" are mentioned.
In fact, there is nothing about the anti-fossil fuel movement that requires denouncing all technology and comfort. One could actually argue that the opposite is so. How much more comfortable and technologically advanced will we become once we've weaned ourselves from the polluting, politically damning, costly shackles of oil?
Gore buys more in "green energy credits" each year than his house uses. That's more than the vast majority of us can say about their contributions to "walk the walk," with regard to taking a stance against global warming.
That the "right" has to resort to something so pathetic and weak in order to attempt to somehow demonize Mr. Gore speaks volumes for the character and stature that this great man has forged. I, for one, am damn proud that he's a progressive, and damned proud that the country elected him president in 2000. Thank God, for Al Gore. Keep attacking him, rightwing. You only give him further validity and strength in doing so.
Clark, do you realize your own hypocrisy? Or are you really just a mindless twit wingnut, left to ignore my own party's colossal failures while flailing around, slinging hatred and contempt and anyone and everyone that I disagree with.
Clark, do you realize your own hypocrisy? Or are you really just a mindless twit wingnut, left to ignore my own party's colossal failures while flailing around, slinging hatred and contempt and anyone and everyone that I disagree with. "
I don't see it as hypocritical for Gore to use green energy credits to MORE than offset the energy that his house uses. I see that as "responsible." Why do you feel that it's mandatory for him to live in a dark cave, simply because he's preaching the reality of global warming?
What exactly is Gore supposed to be "abusing" in this story?
I do, however, see it as hypocritical for the "right" to rail against wealth, simply because, in this particular case, it's owned by a liberal. Apparently, you think that's a form of hypocrisy that is A-Ok.
Not at all. I have no real issue with his lifestyle, he has been successful and he obviously enjoys it. I do find it odd that he preaches conservation, but obviously does not practice it (20X's the normal consumption).
I do find it odd that you are in favor of 'green energy credits' though. So the rich can just BUY their way out of climate responsibility? And you, of all people, are ok with this?
I would feel the same about a 'right winger' who preached climate control to us and then bought his way out of doing his part.
Keyword is AND.
Trust me, this loser is a bald faced liar.
you must admit that it's just a teensy bit hypocritical for anyone on the "right" to be attempting to condemn Gore for being wealthy
No one is attempting to condemn AlBore for being wealthy you idiot. I'm condemning him for being a hypocrite. You twit.
According to the "right," he should apparently be living in a one room trailer, with no electricity.
Wrong again you dildo, I don't care where he lives or how big his house is, all I care about is the hypocrite telling us how we should live, while he ignores his own edicts about what is "the only moral and right thing to do."
an American hero
AlBore a "hero?" *ROFL*
What these geniuses somehow fail to comprehend is that there is no requirement for those who propose alternative energy sources to live in caves without light.
There is no requirement for AlBore to go around the world telling the world about his faith based religion of "man made global warming" either. Yet the idiot takes it upon himself to "educate" the public about his mythology and religion as if he is promoting irrefutable fact. Big difference you stupid idiot.
How much more comfortable and technologically advanced will we become once we've weaned ourselves from the polluting, politically damning, costly shackles of oil?
It's only your opinion we would be more "comfortable" or more "technologically advanced." It is also only your opinion that oil is a fossil fuel, and is finite.
this great man
Great man ???? *ROFL* I'd hardly qualify this weenie as a man, much less "great." *ROFL*
the country elected him president in 2000
*ROFL* what a moron *ROFL*
I don't see it as hypocritical for Gore to use green energy credits to MORE than offset the energy that his house uses.
It isn't--- and uh, that's a "fact" you haven't bothered to establish yet, you just suggest it is the truth and hope we buy it. It is however, highly hypocritical to pretend to be saving the world, yet you don't even abide by your own silly "voluntary" ideas about how to go about that salvation.
Why do you feel that it's mandatory for him to live in a dark cave
It isn't--- but if the loser is going to talk the talk, he certainly should walk the walk.
the reality of global warming
Yes, global warming is a "reality." However, there is no proof whatsoever that such a "reality" is being caused by mankind. You MORON.
I do, however, see it as hypocritical for the "right" to rail against wealth
No one is railing against wealth, you idiot, we are repulsed by a scum bag that wants us to consume less, so he can continue to consume twenty times the energy of the average American household.
So the rich can just BUY their way out of climate responsibility?
Sure, if their name is AlBore *chuckle*
I think that if someone were to find a member of the right who lived as extravagantly (and there are some) that you jJack would not have a thing to say about it.
You're right, I wouldn't--- I don't care how rich a person's abilities make them, or how they chose to spend that money.
I've said it repeatedly, and I'll say it again, my complaint is with his mansion, or his money, it is with his hypocritical rhetoric that flys in the face of his mansion and money.
I also think that those who are quick to criticize ought to look in their own backyards first.
Why's that ??? I'm not winning an Oscar for suggesting theories are fact.
Joe - find a member of the right who lives as extravagantly AND trys to tell everybody else they must conserve
Yeah, if you dare, or are able.
Suppose a female anti-abortion activist were going around trying to get all abortion (except to save the mother's life) banned, and had written books and created documentaries supporting her purported view that abortion is murder (which, of course, it is not). What should people think (particularly those who support abortion rights, as I do), were they to find out that she had just had an elective abortion (ie not necessitated by any health risk to her)? Would they not be very justified in calling her the worst kind of hypocrite? Would it be the least bit convincing if the religious right responded by (1) defending her on the basis that "well, she saved so many babies, that she's entitled to one abortion," or (2) attacking pro-choicers for complaining about the activist's abortion but not other women's abortions?
D***, man, you are STUPID!
If you REALLY fail to understand the issue, look at the post by Genie Lemos. He put the problem rather well, I think.