Now that Al Gore's home was exposed as not-exactly-green-and-energy-efficient, he is making the changes (flourescent bulbs, e.g.) to make it use less energy and serve as an example to others. I applaud that, honestly. It's nice to see someone practice what (s)he preaches, even if they need to be pushed into it.
Now I hear that Sen. Gore plans to spend $300 million to push environment-friendly legislation which, on the surface, sounds like a noble effort as well.
However, rather than pouring money into the pockets of lobbyists and politicians, wouldn't that money be better spent on research and development of a viable, marketable alternative to the fossil fuels that we've been using for the past 100+ years?
How about offering the money as a reward to the person or team that develops and successfully markets such a product or fuel?
That would be out of the question, because as long a there are unresolved concerns with energy supply and the environment, the "Gore Machine" keeps on running.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 54
If you see my widget it means you got a "10" :O)
http://www.theclimateproject.org/
http://www.liveearth.org/
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
http://www.generationim.com/
YES, yes indeed ! { " Al Gore is a Self-Serving Political Hack " }
Obviously, you do not have any answers or the will to seek solution so
you must tear down another man's efforts.
I don't have the answers, and neither do you. What I'm saying is that dumping $300 million into politicans pockets isn't going to get it done, either. What we need is real research that will result in viable, marketable products.
Research that either supports or contradicts beliefs about the environment, climate and energy situations doesn't help either. If we're so sure that there is a problem, stop trying to prove it and start trying to REALLY solve it.
Sorry, I'm just laughing at Richard.
Actually, the way I hear it is that the $300 million will be used for advertisements, etc., in magazines and mailers and the like. You know, using trees - what we are supposed to be trying to protect. Although, maybe he'll use recycled paper. But then, someone brought up the question - what's the carbon footprint of the recycling plant that produces that paper?
I'm not exactly eloquent of speech at the moment - but I hope I got my idea across.
(By the way, I used to believe in the Global Warming. Really. And I'm a stubborn woman who rarely changes her mind. I no longer believe in it, and think the whole thing is a joke. The oceans are supposed to be the most accurate indicators of Global Warming, yet the temperature has not changed at ALL in nearly 5 years, per the robots that record such information) I'm actually suspicious with Al Gore - especially with how much money he made on the war so far, but I won't get into that - and wonder if he's the owner of one of the many pockets that are being lined with the 'carbon credits' program.)
I'm all for alternative energy sources, and cutting down on pollution, etc etc. Nic and I are gradually making 'green' changes in our lives. I do that, not based on Global Warming, but because I believe we are damaging our own health with our technology and think we need to get back to the basics and simplify - using methods that won't harm us and our communities.
What has happened to him since then is beyond me, but he sure has profited by it. Maybe that's where all of his motivation is coming from. Hopefully not.
This (my article) is not a democrat/republican or liberal/conservative thing, as much as you may believe that it is.
I honestly don't know whether there is a problem, and if there is, what's the extent of the problem. I can admit that. Can you?
It's very frustrating relying on so-called experts when the experts are constantly contradicting each other.
The problem is that experts from both sides of the arguments seem to be more interested in proving themselves right or wrong than they are in addressing the issues.
"Hahahahahahahaha!!
Sorry, I'm just laughing at Richard."
And yet, apparently you did not bother to open even one of the links I provided, did you ?
I don't have the answers, and neither do you.
You say that as if it were FACT, that you have intimate knowlege of my efforts or solutions which I have offered both my readers and Congress. You Sir, speak with ignorance.
Please, do tell us all exactly how you know for a fact I do not have answers.
What about the oil companies saying they deserve their profits and aren't exploring alternatives?!!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9268.html
http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/78/
You call yourself open-minded and yet all the articles I see from you are negative and one-sided.
This isn't about me, Dan. I didn't publish an article with a first sentence that could have been easily discredited in a simple google.
Yes, Michelle we all got your point ! You don't have a clue what you are talking about yet felt compelled to jump in with both feet in your mouth.
The Alliance for Climate Protection's "we" campaign will employ online organizing and television advertisements on shows ranging from "American Idol" to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."
Hell, I provided clickable links !
a) use
b) afford.
Dan (open minded conservative) K.,
Yes, enough with the books and the awards. Now, let's get on with the work ahead.
Richard, I did follow the links. Every one. But I surely wasn't going to watch Gore's movie again.
Again Scientists Claim Global Warming Not Caused by Humans
Hang on, did you say research before publishing? Now there's a concept that more than a few of our fellow Gatherers might want to look into. Thanks for the tip, Sandy!
"In addition to the ads on television, in print and online, the campaign will include a huge grass-roots mobilization effort. "
I see the 'in print' part of that, don't you?
Anyway, it goes on further to mention that, "Gore talked about his effort to redefine climate change as a moral and spiritual issue. "
and
"It's much more expensive not to solve it," Gore said. "We don't have any choice. We just don't have any choice. I wish I knew a better way to do it. I constantly ask myself, 'How can I be more effective in getting this message across?' It's so clear. It's so compelling. And yet it takes time to get the facts out."
Solve what?? Something that occurs naturally in nature and has been going on since God created the Earth? I'm sorry, I don't like Al Gore. I believe in implementing changes, and working towards more environmentally friendly alternatives, but I also believe in practicing what you preach. I'm glad he's putting in those fluorescent bulbs, but I'm sorry - that's just not enough. That's a bandaid on a bullet wound.
Snopes discusses the circulating email comparing Al Gore's natural gas guzzling house (4 times the size of the average american home, yet "consumes electricity at a rate of about 12 times the average for a typical house".
Sorry. But I won't listen to a man who tells us how to live our lives while putting himself on a pedestal where the rules don't apply to him.
I think we all have the right to be suspicious about Gore's schemes. And you have to ask yourself, why is he using some of his own money on this? Uh - because if the Global Warming scheme doesn't take off, then he LOSES money in the long run.
"Gore's company, GIM was specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming. The Global Warming crowd has told us that just recently new science emerged confirming the alleged fact that Global Warming is man made. So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004? Is it possible Gore knew what the science would say before it was out? And even if not, can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be trusted as an honest broker on that topic? Talk about giving the fox the keys to the hen penthouse."
Hmmm . . . new science emerging to PROVE Global Warming? Really? We hear that, but what is it? Because just recently it came to light that these robots that track the oceans temperatures have reported that there has NOT been a change for nearly 5 years now . . . and the ocean is the most accurate indicator for Global Warming.
And then . . . shortly following this, we hear that Al Gore is setting up this $300 million plan to promote environmental-friendly legislation? It doesn't sound fishy to anyone else? Like he's panicking and trying to keep his plan from falling under?
Really? Hmmmm . . .
I need to rely on their research and findings. The problem is that they all contradict each other. Depending on which source you use, you get different answers.
In the little time that I have available to learn, I listen -- mostly to radio -- conservative (not Hannity or Limbaugh) and liberal and CSPAN. There are experts-a-plenty appearing as guests all over radio. A two-hour commute each way eats up my time for other types of research, but gives me a lot of time to listen.
Let's be clear ...
1. I never said that global warming does not exist.
2. I never said that pollution is not a problem.
3. I never said that the earth is in the midst of an energy crisis.
4. I never said the opposite of any of the above.
My point is ... and I'll try to use small words so that you won't be confused ...
Al Gore DOES believe that global warming is an issue. I tend to believe that this is an issue as well. I'm just not fully convinced that the human factor has had much to do with the cause or can have much to do with the solution.
He and I AGREE (do you see this everybody?) that it is time to come up with alternative sources of energy as well as machines that can use these new sources. I was saying that the $300,000,000.00 dollars that he plans to spend could be better spent on research and development rather on trying to convince people that there is a problem.
If you don't think I'm open-minded, that's your concern.
I don't know the exact facts on this, but at least he has a goal to push for clean energy. I don't want legislation to make us do that.. I want industry to provide it for us.....
Gore and Branson announce a $25 million prize for reducing global warming-International Herald Tribune Feb 12, 2007
From CNN: The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs -- even on his Christmas tree.
"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
I hear cow poop has done as much damage to the freak'n ozone as humans have. :O/
If we all jerked when guys like Gore pulled our chain we'd have nothing, wouldn't be able to do anything and we would be nothing. Oh, that sounds like a plan to me!!
I don't know the details of the $25 million award, but is it for coming up with another "theory" or for an actual product? That's what I'm looking for.
I believe that I did acknowledge and applaud him for making the modifications to his home. Maybe I need to go kiss his feet, too?
Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one and some really stink!