Comments on: Here We Go Again: Right-Wing Group Slams Gore’s Energy Consumption, Avoids Big Picture

By: 75fxe

75fxe — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 04:00:18 +0000

Remember when President C sent Mr G to Turkish Conference as our Environmental Rep? He ranted about thirsty cars, meanwhile using a fleet of the largest SUVs at home. I heard the comment attributed to him at that conference: “We’ve got to get the people out of their cars-it gives them too much independence”. Wasn’t there so can’t personaly verify the comment, but certainly seems in character. We need to shepherd our environment, but I fear Mr. Gore is not the Guru needed, he is too easily discounted by his own actions. By the way, whose smog-belching ‘57 DeSoto is causing the polar melting on all the planets from Mars through Neptune?

By: S. Klassen

S. Klassen — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:47:09 +0000

Very good…if you can’t refute the facts, blame it on the extreme right. Even if you were right,and your probably not, here’s a great example of the upper class leaving an enormous footprint and using his wealth to “buy credits.” Of course the middle and lower classes don’t have that option; for them it’s, “Pardon me for breathing!” What a joke!

By: Newsmax again. This time about Gore. — Single Malt Skull Sessions

Newsmax again. This time about Gore. — Single Malt Skull Sessions — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 06:20:56 +0000

[...] I’ve heard the right wing attack Al Gore because of his big, energy guzzling house since “An Inconvenient Truth” came out, and have to admit I was a little nonplussed that he used so much energy. Then when I got another Newsmax “expose” about Gore’s energy INCREASE, I thought I should investigate. A quick trip to Digg (which showed the 10-day old article to have only 3 diggs) allowed a digg commenter to reveal that it’s not only obsessive, but inaccurate. [...]

By: bnL

bnL — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:24:33 +0000

So Al Gore lowered his bills over 2007 year form the 2006 year, but please take into account that he wasn’t living there (nor was his family) for a large part of years 2006 & 2007. Much of the energy consumed in both of those years was for the renovations. Also it should be noted that the time the Gore’s spent in the house in 2007 and renovations done in 2007 was significantly less than in 2006, so in proportion his consumption was up by 10%. All that being said he should as a responsible advocate of environmental issues considered a small carbon footprint, before the purchase of offset credits. This seems like a very Bushlike tactic, except he would not purchase the credits, he would propose adding resources to ANWR by adding iron pumps and pipelines!

By: michael

michael — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:06:03 +0000

First off, I’m always in favor of reduced energy consumption. I mentioned it before when this story was around last year, and I’ll say it again here.

I firmly believe that Gore’s ‘mansion’ will forever haunt him as long as he owns the place — regardless of how ‘green’ it is. That being said, this is an attack and TCPR is being unfair in their ‘objective’ look at Gore’s residence. Invariably, this attack then somehow demerits the topic of climate change — which just makes no sense and further hold back public opinion on address environmental issues — all because of some guy’s house.

So, let’s review a few points:

For Contfrk, you’re misinterpreting the statements. According to Gore’s spokesperson, it’s true that since renovations were completed in November 2007, energy consumption has been reduced by 40%. In terms of the green power program that Gore subscribes to, it costs MORE (since renewable energy is still in its infancy) per KWh than conventional sources. So, when a group like TCPR says that Gore’s energy bills in terms of dollars are SO much more than the average American’s, part of this reason is because he’s paying more per KWh than the majority of the nation not participating in such plans. I apologize if this wasn’t clearer above.

For MarkG: I see this as a bit different. Organizations rounding off numbers to increase funding is one thing, but when you’re attacking a single person and using numbers from their utility bills to justify a point, you probably don’t want to float the values — especially when you’re headline is dealing with something in the range of 10%.

Here’s the breakdown of Gore’s energy use: heating is now 90% Geothermal, 10% Natural Gas. The electricity is 4% solar, and 96% renewable from the local utility company.

Will this group report is numbers next year? Doubtful. Unless the headline is something like “Al Gore Increases Consumption Of Renewable Energy.”

By: Willy

Willy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:12:37 +0000

Seriously? You people can’t get over your Messiah being a hypocrite after all this time? Let me guess, you also ignore current figures that say the Earth’s warming trend is pretty much over? Are you also ignoring research to indicate solar irradiation and volcanic activity have FAR more to do with global temperatures than the level of ANY atmospheric gas? Get over it. Global warming is a scam. Al Gore is an idiot who just happened to have a great idea to get even richer, and meanwhile, real environmental issues get completely ignored in favor of political BS. Awesome.

By: Contfrk

Contfrk — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:07:54 +0000

According to YOUR article:

“According to Gore’s spokesperson Kalee Kreider, coupled with the green renovations, the family actually decreased their electricity and natural gas bills by 40% in 2008.”

Then how is this possible:

“the utility certified that although they are paying a bit more for their power—it is green power”

I presume you know how dishonest you look with such stupidity!!!

By: website design

website design — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:53:04 +0000

Now, that same Tennessee group is claiming that Gore s energy consumption increased by 10%. According to Gore s spokesperson Kalee Kreider, coupled with the green renovations, the family actually decreased their electricity and natural gas bills by 40% in 2008. Since TCRP is being vague as to when their numbers were calculated, we re not really getting a fair view of the big picture here — which, obviously, is not a big surprise.

By: Rose Monzas

Rose Monzas — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:08:30 +0000

Hi Michael, I love your site, but beg to differ on your conclusions regarding Al Gore and his environmental efforts. Reducing ones energy footprint is a worthy cause, but the amount of energy a person like Al Gore uses borders on the insane… several houses, all heated, cooled, refrigerators running, security systems! Give me a break… how many appliances does one person need? He did some good things… and I do respect the man… but sometimes you have to wonder!

By: Brook

Brook — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:33:29 +0000

Al Gore lives a few miles from me, so I can speak with authority here. First, his geothermal unit installation required the destruction of over a dozen old growth trees that were absorbing carbon from the air, so we have to add them to the mix. He just added a thousand years of carbon stored in these trees to the atmosphere to install this system.

Second, these units are astronomically expensive and only the wealthy can afford them. The savings in your heating bill would take 20 years or more to realize.

Third, Al Gore only took these measures in response to criticism. It seems to me, a man who believes the Earth is on the verge of a crisis due to our activities would be much more vigilant in reducing his own footprint. How many of us would trust a church pastor that visits a brothel every Sat night, before his Sunday sermon? At some point, you have to question if he really belives this!!!

Fourth, Tipper drives a gas-guzzling muscle car. FYI