Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

They Love me,they really,really love me!-Oscar winner Ali-Gore


Recommended Posts

I really don't care if poofy farted or gore left his lights on.

If there is a problem, and it has to be fixed, then get down to business and do it. If the government hadn't changed aerosol cans, I would most likely still be putting CFCs into the air, and not using reclaimers on AC units.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And how can Dr. Suzuki be so sure of Mr. Harper's total disregard for the environment? I suppose it's because, when on tour, Dr. Suzuki used the same kind of emission-belching bus the PM uses when campaigning.

Jason Curan, a Suzuki spokesman, confessed to the Winnipeg Sun that the Suzukimobile was "kind of too fancy for our needs." There are at most eight people, including the driver, on a bus built for 30 or more.

Harper uses a 120-seater jet to fly around with 8 or so people, which uses as much fuel in 1 day as Suzuki's bus in a year (or 2).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Harper uses a 120-seater jet to fly around with 8 or so people, which uses as much fuel in 1 day as Suzuki's bus in a year (or 2).

Then again Harper didn't go out of his way to preach to others about the perils of over consumption. Then again, when Gore was VP, his jet was Airforce 2, a B747.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the most cowardly of arguments to avoid the actual issue and resort instead to character assassination and blame-the-messenger tactics. That line of argument closes the door on any debate about the overall direction of society because whoever wants to initiate change is always automatically a hypocrite just by living in that society.

Emancipation wouldn't have been a less noble goal if Lincoln owned slaves.

Not really, you have to practice what you preach if you want people to take you seriously.

Typical right response. Here's the other side of the coin from Gore's spokesman via AP:

...Gore) purchases enough "green power" renewable energy sources such as solar wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs. Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger." Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of "green power" for an extra $4.00 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covereing 16,200 kilowatt hours and helping subsidize renewable enery sources...The Gore home in Nashville is under renovation to add solar panels..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

So as long as you're rich it's ok to use as much energy as you want? I guess it doesn't take any energy to build those solar panels or build those wind generators.

Interestingly Gore just recently decided to buy green energy, Bush was doing it before that:

In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes.

``I'm here to change peoples' minds on the climate crisis and to support Prop 87,'' Gore called to a group of reporters after he emerged from the ``100 miles per gallon'' Toyota Prius that brought him to a noontime rally in a sun-drenched park behind Berkeley's City Hall.

His motorcade also included three motorcycles, two limousines and a Dodge Ram 1500 light duty truck.

hmmm

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

He also owned shares in a zinc mine before it shut down.

"Whether we recognize it or not, we are now engaged in an

epic battle to right the balance of our Earth, and the tide of this battle

will turn on when the majority of people in the world become sufficiently

aroused by shared sense of urgent danger to join an all-out effort."

Applause filed the halls of the Kyoto International Conference Center. "We

must achieve a safe overall concentration level for greenhouse gases in the

Earth's atmosphere."

carbondioxidemethanenitrousoxidehydrofluorocarbonsperfluorocarbonssulfurhexa

chloride.

The message is serious. So serious in fact, the DRUDGE REPORT has

calculated that Vice President Al Gore is burning more than 439,500 pounds

of fuel, or 65,600 gallons, at a cost of more than $131,000 on his 16,000

mile daytrip, just to deliver the warning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying green power to balance your consumption only means you are prepared and able to pay for your pollution. If you are consuming 20 times the average consumption and it is coming from the grid, it is power denied to 19 other "average" consumers regardless of its colour. The only way to reduce emissions is to replace emission producing sources with clean sources or reduce consumption. Simply adding clean sources to existing dirty ones because of growing demand will not reduce emissions.

Installing a comprehensive solar system will save on the energy to heat the house, water etc but I imagine a system for a house with what? 26 rooms including 8 bathrooms could run in the triple digits. A responsible thing to do I suppose but one who consumes at that level could hardly call themselves a conservationist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that makes all of these critisicms hollow is the fact that, if both Suzuki and Al gore were living in Yurts and responsible for 0 emissions, they would not be commended for this by these critics, in fact, they would likely be mocked.

The criticisms are pointless because, as is being demonstrated in prior posts, even when both of them DO attempt to make changes and improve their environmental impact, they are still criticized as its "not enough".

The great thing about being environmentally concious is that everyone CAN do a small part to help out, how far you go is up to personal choice and beliefs (and practicality).

Do you honestly think the Suzuki critics in this thread are going to commend him once he does convert to a bus that uses bio-diesel? Never.

I am doing my own little part for the environment with some conscious consumer choices. Both Suzuki and Al Gore are doing far more to change the world view, and therefore impact, on environment than I can ever do.

This criticism is pointless. Good on them for fighting for change on such a worthwhile cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing that makes all of these critisicms hollow is the fact that, if both Suzuki and Al gore were living in Yurts and responsible for 0 emissions, they would not be commended for this by these critics, in fact, they would likely be mocked.

The criticisms are pointless because, as is being demonstrated in prior posts, even when both of them DO attempt to make changes and improve their environmental impact, they are still criticized as its "not enough".

The great thing about being environmentally concious is that everyone CAN do a small part to help out, how far you go is up to personal choice and beliefs (and practicality).

Do you honestly think the Suzuki critics in this thread are going to commend him once he does convert to a bus that uses bio-diesel? Never.

I am doing my own little part for the environment with some conscious consumer choices. Both Suzuki and Al Gore are doing far more to change the world view, and therefore impact, on environment than I can ever do.

This criticism is pointless. Good on them for fighting for change on such a worthwhile cause.

There is a huge difference between living in a Yurt and consuming a 20 times the rate of your average fellow citizen. Doing so doesn't make their assertions wrong but whatever they are doing regarding public opinion doesn't exempt them from walking the walk. Isn't a primary principle of good leadership setting an example?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevoh, you're right. Gore could be living in a cabin with no electricity and those on the right would still crucify him. Their hatred knows no bounds.

Don't be silly. You just can't go so far beyond what you are preaching in your own personal habits and not expect to take some flack for it.

Stevoh is right in that we should all be thinking about the consequences of what we do and act accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevoh, you're right. Gore could be living in a cabin with no electricity and those on the right would still crucify him. Their hatred knows no bounds.

Not true. I actually don't mind Gore, he's a pretty likable. I'm sure he's a nice person with good intentions. But he is pretty hypocritical. If he were living in a cabin with no electricity I'd still disagree with him but I'd have a lot more respect for him. I'm sorry but I'm not seeing any hatred here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a bigger picture here. Gore appears to be offsetting his usage with more energy efficient products, which is probably more than the rest of us. He does what he can to reduce it and offset the impact. I think credit should be given where credit is due. You can't fault the man for the work he's doing to bring awareness about global climate change. It's real, and it's happening. If we all did a small part to curb our usage of energy, it would really make a difference in the larger scheme of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is a bigger picture here. Gore appears to be offsetting his usage with more energy efficient products, which is probably more than the rest of us. He does what he can to reduce it and offset the impact. I think credit should be given where credit is due. You can't fault the man for the work he's doing to bring awareness about global climate change. It's real, and it's happening. If we all did a small part to curb our usage of energy, it would really make a difference in the larger scheme of things.

We all can't possibly plant enough trees to offset all of our excesses.

Our standard of livings are all going to have to be massively sacrificed in order for us to significantly reduce emissions as a sum.

Based on intensity (a real indicator of progress), it's much easier and productive.

But if we want to keep ourselves at 1990 levels, each time a child is born or an immigrant arrives, we all need to scale back to make up for that. No new business because they add to GHG. Ugh, it's ugly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is a bigger picture here. Gore appears to be offsetting his usage with more energy efficient products, which is probably more than the rest of us. He does what he can to reduce it and offset the impact. I think credit should be given where credit is due. You can't fault the man for the work he's doing to bring awareness about global climate change. It's real, and it's happening. If we all did a small part to curb our usage of energy, it would really make a difference in the larger scheme of things.

We all can't possibly plant enough trees to offset all of our excesses.

Our standard of livings are all going to have to be massively sacrificed in order for us to significantly reduce emissions as a sum.

Based on intensity (a real indicator of progress), it's much easier and productive.

But if we want to keep ourselves at 1990 levels, each time a child is born or an immigrant arrives, we all need to scale back to make up for that. No new business because they add to GHG. Ugh, it's ugly.

We either sacrifice our standard of living or our lives, and our childrens and grandchildren's lives.

What do you mean based on intensity?

New business development has nothing to do with it, unless you x5 tar sands expansion, it is the current industries that using coal fired plants, natural gas burning that are contributing.

We do not need to plant more trees that take 75 years to grow to become suitable sinks for carbon. We need to stop cuttiing them for pulp and paper.

Industry needs to find alternative energy sources or combine for dual use, or triple use of that energy consumption and GHG emissions.

Gore buys equal alternative energy credits for the electricity he uses. Nothing hyprocritical in his position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean based on intensity?

Cutting emissions on a per unit basis instead of as a block.

Instead of cutting emissions to a 1990 level, we should in fact be trying to cut per unit emissions say 25% below a 1990 level.

Example here.

We'll take a hypothetical oil development project.

1990

Produced 1,000,000bbl/year

Produced 1,000,000 tonnes of CO2

So 1 tonne per barrel is there 1990's emissions.

2007

Produced 6,000,000bbl/year

Produced 3,000,000 tonnes of CO2

So now only .5 tonnes per barrel in 2007.

This way we can have economic growth and make our products more environmentally sound. Shell Canada has committed to a 50% intensity reduction over 1990 values by 2012.

Overall emissions may increase, but each individual consuming the same basket of goods in '90 as in '07 will be producing less.

If we limit ourselves by nominal emissions values, we all have to give up our standard of livings in order for any population or economic growth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gore buys equal alternative energy credits for the electricity he uses. Nothing hyprocritical in his position.

Of course it is. If I go out and buy so called green credits and continue to consume at my present rate, I am just as big a part of the problem as I ever was. I'm just paying more for the privilege. It's the same as buying Kyoto credits, paying off others so you don't have to clean up your own act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Fast forward to Oscar night 2008....and the Oscar goes to.......director Martin Durkin.......for....

....best documentary

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...