A blog about Business & Finance.
|
Al Qaeda's Message Spreading Through English-Language Sites Very sad news from a blogger friend Live from New York, a terror trial we'll regret - Jacoby Fox gets interview with obama Lou Dobbs explains why he left CNN Obama and 'The Great I Am' Fresno State Bulldog Football game on at 1 PM today, Channel 45 Would you like a joint with your fries? A joke for you, may be old, I dunno. Don't stop me if you've heard it. What's going in at the old 3Way Chevrolet place on California? August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
This really is "An Inconvenient Truth" Tennessee Center for Policy Research
Want to see someone who doesn't practice what he preaches? Read this article from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. By the way, they claim to be a non partisan orginization. 62 comments from 12 users
posted by
groovy
on Feb 27, 2007 at 07:16 AM
it always amazes me how these bogus organizations like TCPR which serve as fronts for religion loving science hating zealots [analogous to the swift boat vets] can drum up research to malign people who work against their stupid idealogies. Gore maybe paying $1800 for electricity but he probably saves millions of tons of CO2 from reaching the atmosphere. infact that is what is meant by going "green" i.e. you offset your habits which pollute with those that prevent pollution. comprende!
posted by
NancyII
on Feb 27, 2007 at 07:26 AM
He "probably" saves millions? Is that personally or just in his speeches? Are you disputing the facts or the organization? Check the kw hours and not the amount of money because in TN elecricity is a lot cheaper than it is in CA so dollars don't count. They also don't cause environmental issues. And yes, I do understand. And I use English. posted by
anonymous
on Feb 27, 2007 at 07:29 AM
Gore asks others to reduce their consumption, yet he increases his consumption. That is why he is a hypocrite. I don't care if he does buy all his energy from renewables. By wasting so much energy, he is preventing at least 12 other homes from purchasing renewable energy, and forcing them to use coal powered energy. Typical limosine liberal.
posted by
NancyII
on Feb 27, 2007 at 07:35 AM
Agreed Annonymous. People usually miss the point when you bring up hypocrisy in one of "theirs." groovy...Before you condemn the "bogus organization" just because that article didn't suit you, you should read some of the other articles like the one on Democrats and spending. After that you'd probably glorify the organization. posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:02 AM
They can claim whatever they want, but its curious they put out a press release on the man's personal energy usage. Gore is a private citizen and not running for public office. Its a rightwing think tank that released the information the day after Gore won an Oscar. Here is Al's response:1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero. At least the man attempts to reduce his ‘footprint’. I am sure most people do not go to the extreme of purchasing ‘offsets’ to negate their energy usage.How many members of the TCPR do that one might ask? How is this hypocritical on Gore's part? posted by
NancyII
on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:25 AM
Gore may be a private citizen but he has continued to make himself a public figure and as so, is going to be held up to public scrutiny, especially since he made the movie. Whether or not he is running for office is irrelevant. I'm curious as to what "offsets" Gore has made to reduce his personal footprint. In a house the size of his, I would think solar panels would make a big difference in his utility usage. Is he using them? His gas consumption was mentioned too. When I lived back there everything in my apartment, including heat, was electric. I honestly don't know if one could consider gas more damaging to the environment or not but on the surface, it would seem so. I have to head out to work but will come back this evening and read Gores response. Dang jobs always get in the way. posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:31 AM
Nancy, I was getting ready to blog this this morning. I'm glad it got put up here. This is sort of the point that this generation of environmentalists are making is that you don't need to live in a cave to be green. Yes it is about reducing consumption but it's also about offsetting your environmental impact. You ask a lot of good questions about what green power he uses. I think that would make a great story. It's too bad the people who wrote this one didn't take the time to find out. But yeah, Gore buys offsets for every drop of power he uses.
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:36 AM
Offsets can be read about here onUS Energy Commission .gov site Nancy. Gore has consistantly left a negative footprint by purchasing offsets, so..no matter how you bash him..he has his ass covered on this one..sorry to break it to you.
posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:54 AM
Anon wrote: By wasting so much energy, he is preventing at least 12 other homes from purchasing renewable energy, and forcing them to use coal powered energy.How does that work? My understanding of green power offsets is that they covered the cost of new development. Also, how do we know Gore is wasting power? I think it would be hypocritical if he was doing things that are wasteful, but I haven't seen any evidence of this. As I said to Nancy, being green doesn't mean living in a cave. I assume that all of us are waiting for the documentation to come out about this. God forbid we should judge someone based on an internet rumor. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:01 AM
How do you suppose this laughably "non-partisan" group got a hold of Al Gore's utility bill? Of course most non-partisan groups only have links to other conservative sites like the american enterprise institute, cato institute, etc.Interesting that this is supposedly some important group, yet their website gets no traffic, well at least before yesterday. More like it's a front for someone trying to smear Al. Sounds like some people are a little jealous of his latest award. So are you conservatives that suddenly care about energy usage saying that nobody should turn on their lights? I do have to hand it to you though, you *got* the memo and are now officially part of the noise machine. posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:05 AM
Actually, Pete, from my brief reading up, the organization has already been suspended because they pulled something like this before in Tennessee. Of course, it's too bad the liberal media won't pick up this story. Oh, wait: http://news.google.com/nwsh...
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:06 AM
posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:10 AM
Edit: See Dusty's post above on Al Gore's response.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:10 AM
They're not even considered a legitimate organization because they commonly misrepresent themselves. Here's an article from the nashville city paper that goes into more detail.
posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:13 AM
Sweet. Great link, Pete. So does that cover all the bases?
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:18 AM
I put up Gore's response at the beginning of the comments.. Aren't we bashing people over the head by repeating it? The war between the TN governor's office and TCPR is more of a pissing contest Pete. The newspaper also called out the Governor's office for not responding to the request from TCPR in their next edition. Its a "he said".."she said" scenario.
posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:22 AM
Sorry, Dusty, I got caught up in the heat of the moment. Though I do feel like bashing people over the head with this. :)
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:25 AM
I just don't want 'us' to appear as "nutjobs",something we accuse the right of being Tom..thats all I am saying. The rabid right is all over this story of course..google has more rightwing articles on it than anything else. They all use the word hypocite..there is nothing hypocritical about Gore's energy consumption and his offsetting said usage. He also invests in green companies and started an investment firm which does the same for others of like mind.
posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Dusty, you're absolutely right on all counts, except the part about accusing the right of being nutjobs. I let people accuse themselves, and simply provide evidence for the trials.
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:32 AM
My bad Tom :P I stand corrected sir! :)
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:38 AM
We're simply correcting these dumb fabricated rumors. I hardly see it as appearing like "nutjobs" or hammering people. Sorry about the repost there dusty, but I'll put it up all day if people are going to continue pushing this lie about Gore.
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:43 AM
Repeating the same info doesn't strengthen our position Pete. Putting up new info that is hard to dispute does cement our position. Sorry, but thats just my POV.
posted by
adampayne
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:47 AM
Jeepers, Nancy. I guess we know now you are no fan of Al Gore. The arguments against him are always of a personal nature, never about the facts from his presentation. It is the same now with the distortions regarding Barack Obama. The "right" now routinely assails him as either a Rodney King clone, or as "Hussein Osama" in their very small minded attempts to smear his reputation. The liberals all gave this administration, after 9/11, an opportunity to make their case on a variety of policy issues. Why so hostile to Al Gore? Is it because he actually won the election in 2000, and in a gentlemanly fashion stepped away, rather than pursue The Office to which he was entitled? Is it because he dared to publicly criticize our current President for ignoring the facts in pursuit of a private agenda? The fact that this Administration abused the trust the American people had extended by covertly using media plants, selectively using inaccurate and faulty intelligence to bolster their points of view for war, outting a CIA agent for purely vindictive political purposes and totally ignoring the warnings that we had inadequate troops to control the very volatile areas we were engaged in calls for a lot of questions on behalf of all the public. It calls for an accounting, which apparently the people in charge of government contracts in Iraq could not quite fathom in dispersing billions of lost dollars on the failed reconstruction efforts. Al Gore is not responsible for our current climate woes, our current economic woes and our current geo-political woes. We are! posted by
adampayne
on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:49 AM
Thanks for all the great links Dusty, Pete and Tom!
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Nancy, here is the Investment company Gore co-founded which only invests in "long-only, global, public equities with a concentrated portfolio of 30-50 companies. We aim to buy high quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns. Sustainability research plays an important role in forming our views on the quality of the business, the quality of management and valuation."Wiki has this about the company: Generation Investment Management is a London based investment firm which has been set up to tap growing demand for an investment style that blends traditional equity research with a focus on other factors such as social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance. David Blood is another cofounder and they have dubbed the group: Blood and Gore..an interesting play on words if there ever was one. posted by
anonymous
on Feb 27, 2007 at 10:55 AM
****crickets chirping******
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Feb 27, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Great rebuttal anonymous.
posted by
mattloch
on Feb 27, 2007 at 11:27 AM
It would be great if people called up to the Reich-wing talk shows and asked for "clarification" from the talking-heads that will be pushing this story today. You know they'll also be bringing up their whole "Huffington flew on private jets all the time" -angle as well. Of course, facts were never their strong point.....
posted by
anonymous
on Feb 27, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Fact. Al Gore uses 20 time more energy than the average household in America. So I guess what I can take from this blog is that it is ok to drive my Hummer as long as I buy offsets?? Its ok to heat my pool, as long as I buy offsets?? It is ok to use 20 times the energy as the average person, as long as I buy offsets?? Gore has not reduced his energy consmption, yet he preaches to everyone else that they should reduce consumption.. Don't you think we should tax people that use 20 times more energy than the average household?? To me, that is wasteful. Why does he get to use 20 times more energy than Joe Average?? posted by
anonymous
on Feb 27, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Maybe Tipper should switch to martinis and give up the blended margaritas.. Those blenders are energy hogs. And maybe Junior could back off the gas pedal a touch and bring it down from 100 mph to perhaps 80 or 90.. Course, since daddy is paying for the carbon offset, to heck with it. Put the pedal to the metal and pass me another 'rita.... posted by
irv
on Feb 27, 2007 at 12:29 PM
anonymous, haven't you figured out the liberal mindset. The Clean Air Act was enacted in 1963. It has been amended several times. In 1990 it was amended to include emission trading, the buying and trading of credits to "offset" the inability to meet those standards set by the original bill. Quite a piece of legislation. Hence, you have Al Gore, the guru of green, jetting around the globe, "offsetting" his Saskatchewan carbon footprint. How convenient for him. Hmmm. Where was Al Gore doing his life's calling in 1990? Oh yeah, the US Senate. posted by
irv
on Feb 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Offsets are like being a vegetarian who eats a big fat Whopper while easing his conscience by convincing his carnivorous pal to eat a salad. Well, maybe not quite the same, but you get my drift.
posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM
OK Anon, let's look at your fact. Al Gore uses 20 times more power than the average Ameircan household. First, where does that number come from? Here's the link that they got it from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu...This is a study from 2001 and includes every studio apartment in San Diego and every house in Bakersfield. Where does Tennessee rank? According to this 1999 survey, they were number 1: http://www.incontext.indian... Residential electricity sales per household in Indiana averaged 13,018 kwh in 1999, which was the 20th highest usage level in the nation. Annual cost per household in Indiana was $900, which ranked 26th. At 16,790 kwh, Tennessee led the nation in usage, while South Carolina, at $1,229 per household, had the highest annual cost of electricity. So why the drop in energy usage from 99 to 2001, which is a pretty low number? Because the chart from 2001 was designed as an estimate of where power goes in a house, not how much is actually being used. So this whole 20 times thing is made up. Let's look at a bit of reality and say he uses 10 times the normal amount of electricity. Sound good? First, the guy has a huge house and is in contact with world leaders almost daily. No one would say the President should travel in a Cessna. When you have a home and guest house that presumably is being used by a staff and is hosting a lot of events, you're bound to have a couple of extra lights on. I've got an idea for Al Gore though: Maybe he should just rent a floor of a hotel somewhere where he can externalize the costs of energy. Would that make everyone happy? posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Actually, irv, buying offsets is like being someone who only eats local food or local meat or raises what they eat.
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 12:56 PM
irv..your point is what on Gore's senatorial career? Gore flies commercial btw. Except of course when he hired two jets to fly almost 300 Katrina victims out of NOLA that were sick and infirmed. BushCo attempted to prohibit his jets from landing too..nice.I do give credit to Bush41 for his environmental work irv. posted by
mattloch
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:19 PM
Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen Gore's power bill? Or are we taking these farkwit's "word" for it? Anybody? Smoking Gun? Drudge? Anybody? Bueler? Bueler? Or should we just assume the worst from these right-wing nutjobs that they actually have his bill? Not like the right-wing media circus has ever fabricated evidence or stories before.....
posted by
irv
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:22 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, Dusty, but I believe Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote in the senate in 1990 when the Clean Air Act was amended. If that bill was such a raging success, why is our atmosphere so laden with CO2 today, seventeen years later? It is counter productive to our environment to "offset" pollution with "credits". If congress hadn't caved to special interests on this issue, we would be much better off today. Al Gore is not the environmental saint some would like us to believe. As a career politician, he knows the ropes all to well.
posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:23 PM
Given the response of Al Gore, I'd say that this info is close to true. Thinking on it though, maybe they should have asked someone to produce the documents. Maybe we can leak a fake copy of them to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. ; )
posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:29 PM
IRV, you're wrong. The bill passed 89-10-1. http://www.senate.gov/legis...
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:29 PM
We are taking these farkwits word evidently, but the Tennessean did a piece on it today..but I can't find it now. Rushie is going nuts over this too.
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Funny irv, but I don't recall anyone calling him a saint..even moi. As for skeletons every politician has them. Even the Occidental hype was aimed at Al, but he was only a VP..and Bill Richardson who IS running for President touted that debacle more than anyone in the Clinton WH.
posted by
irv
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:36 PM
Thanks, Tom. My memory gets fuzzy sometimes. Must have been the Whopper.
posted by
mattloch
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:37 PM
Just like they went nuts over Pelosi's plane, Dusty? Or about Hillary's camp leaking a story about Obama attending a madrasa? Or when Clinton was offered bin Laden? Or perhaps like... oh forget it. These zipperheads have zero credibility. They cherry-pick evidence and fabricate the rest. I'll be waiting for them to issue a retraction or a correction in six months when nobody remembers anymore....
posted by
TomW
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:39 PM
No sweat, irv. Happy to get it out there.
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:39 PM
yes Mattloch..just like those stories..amazing isn't it?
posted by
dusty1215
on Feb 27, 2007 at 01:42 PM
Matt, the Tennessean has an article up..they actually got ahold of his bill according to the article here.
posted by
mattloch
on Feb 27, 2007 at 02:15 PM
So the "$1200/mo." includes approximately $432 worth of "green" energy? So the actual bill was $768/mo. Does that also include the energy that the renovators are using for their power tools ("(Gore is) in the midst of a renovation project that includes having solar panels installed on their home to reduce fossil fuel consumption")? Was that bill they got before they installed the solar panels? And how much of the remaining ~$768 is taxes, fees, etc.? In other words, how much of his bill is actual energy use, and how much is bulls#it hype?
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Feb 27, 2007 at 03:39 PM
This isn't quite right.Offsets are like being a vegetarian who eats a big fat Whopper while easing his conscience by convincing his carnivorous pal to eat a salad. It's more like Eating a whopper jr while easing his conscience by investing in companies that are trying to make something that tastes just like a whopper, but doesn't kill any cows. posted by
motopoet
on Feb 27, 2007 at 04:07 PM
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....whoppers...aaaaarrrrlllllgg gghhhhhhh.
posted by
mattloch
on Feb 27, 2007 at 04:25 PM
Why would you want something that tastes like a Whopper and isn't made from cows, Pete? Why not something that tastes better than a whopper and isn't made from cows.... But then again, if you're eating whoppers you really don't care about taste in the first place, so its constituent makeup (and any potential animals harmed in the making of the product) really doesn't concern you anyways. (Why do steaks taste so good? It's the karma, baby! Sweet, juicy, animal-slaughtering karma.) You want better taste and clean karma? Eat a freakin' mushroom, hippie...
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
