Is Gore's response to his "wasteful" use of energy irrelevant? When Inhofe accused him of wasting energy, Gore replied that he lives a "carbon neutral life," he purchases "green energy," and that he was "in the midst of installing solar panels" at his house.

The "carbon neutral" contention is probably in reference to his purchase of those environmental credits, which are arguably insufficient.

The "green energy" refers to his "purchase of wind energy and other green energy that does not produce carbon dioxide."

Solar panels also do not produce carbon dioxide or any other emissions, other than taking up landfill space when the panels stop working sometime in the future.

So, even if t...

Is Gore's response to his "wasteful" use of energy irrelevant? When Inhofe accused him of wasting energy, Gore replied that he lives a "carbon neutral life," he purchases "green energy," and that he was "in the midst of installing solar panels" at his house.

The "carbon neutral" contention is probably in reference to his purchase of those environmental credits, which are arguably insufficient.

The "green energy" refers to his "purchase of wind energy and other green energy that does not produce carbon dioxide."

Solar panels also do not produce carbon dioxide or any other emissions, other than taking up landfill space when the panels stop working sometime in the future.

So, even if the claims of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research about Gore's energy usage were true (which I doubt, because they are unsubstantiated by any reliable source), he (claims he) has made an effort to ensure that his energy comes from non-polluting sources. Isn't that what he's asking you and me to do?

Get Your Facts Correct instead of sounding so ignorant.

Study up on program he participates in that makes use of the buying and selling of "Carbon Credits" to offset the environmental impact of certain activities including the ownership and operation of Gore's large home and private jet.

The spin and smear against Gore is unfounded. His activities are carbon neutral. Typically, however, the conservative slander-sheets have chosen to publish half-truths rather than take the time to educate and inform their readership.

Market Economics: A Two Minute Primer

Economics 101: Markets reward efficiency. Whoever can make Product X with the least expensive inputs can sell Product X at the greates...

Get Your Facts Correct instead of sounding so ignorant.

Study up on program he participates in that makes use of the buying and selling of "Carbon Credits" to offset the environmental impact of certain activities including the ownership and operation of Gore's large home and private jet.

The spin and smear against Gore is unfounded. His activities are carbon neutral. Typically, however, the conservative slander-sheets have chosen to publish half-truths rather than take the time to educate and inform their readership.

Market Economics: A Two Minute Primer

Economics 101: Markets reward efficiency. Whoever can make Product X with the least expensive inputs can sell Product X at the greatest profit margin. Whoever makes the most profit is most rewarded for participation in the market.

Economics 201: All inputs have costs. Not all inputs are paid for by the people that use them. These inputs are called "Externalities." Because players in the market do not pay for Externalities there is no market incentive to reduce them. This results in a tragedy of the commons scenario.

Al Gore has chosen to do just that. By purchasing "Carbon Credits" at the market price, Gore is placing his pollution under the umbrella of Kyoto and making it count towards caps in place by Kyoto though Bush Administration and the US Government refuse to participate in the program.

Gore's activities - Gulfstream Jet - are carbon neutral. Every pound of carbon dioxide generated by his home, his jet, and his touring activities is bought and paid for - representing decreased emissions by the companies and individuals selling Carbon Credits on the international stage.

It is market efficiency at its finest, not the hypocrisy charged by the 2-bit partisan rags trumpeting Gore's electricity bill as some sort of political coup. Gore is voluntarily spending his money and investing his time in a system that actually has a fighting chance of making a real difference. He should be applauded for that.

Just wait a second! Gore's household purchases some of its electricity from renewable energy companies. These companies generate electricity via windmills, waterwheels, etc and then sell it to the local electric grid, where it is added to the energy from coal fire producers sold to consumers. However, state laws, lobbied for by the electricity producers, prohibit any household from buying ALL of their energy from independent producers.
So while he may use more energy than the average household, because he has a millionare's mansion that uses much more energy than the average house, he has taken a step in the right direction.

Remember this, It is possible to speak against a situat...

Just wait a second! Gore's household purchases some of its electricity from renewable energy companies. These companies generate electricity via windmills, waterwheels, etc and then sell it to the local electric grid, where it is added to the energy from coal fire producers sold to consumers. However, state laws, lobbied for by the electricity producers, prohibit any household from buying ALL of their energy from independent producers.
So while he may use more energy than the average household, because he has a millionare's mansion that uses much more energy than the average house, he has taken a step in the right direction.

Remember this, It is possible to speak against a situation that you yourself may be caught in. Many Americans speak against the war, yet still drive cars that create the market for oil that lead to the war in the first place. The fact is that many of us don't have a choice, because escaping a life free of cars is very difficult.

One more example: Many Christians are coffee drinkers, yet if they knew how unfairly taxed and abused coffee farmers are by big coffee bean growing companies and the governments that co-operate with them, those same Christians would be compelled to stop supporting the coffee industry. Jesus wouldn't do something if it meant causing others to suffer, right? Especially if it was something as irrellevant as a cup of coffee in the morning. Yet many Christians do know but still won't do anything about it. Are those Christians hypocrites? No, just people caught in a politics of a situation much larger than them.

Gore is in the same place.

Wind energy is not cheaper than "regular" energy, despite unsupported assertions to the contrary. See here. If a person's bill is lower, that's because the government is subsidizing it.

Only if you calculate the broad savings caused by the reduced pollution (i.e. society won't have to pay as much to combat global warming if nonpolluting sources are used), then you may have an argument that wind energy is economically feasible. See jmackin's comment regarding externalities, above.

But that calculation requires you to acknowledge that man-made global warming is real, and also that damage control is going to be p...

Wind energy is not cheaper than "regular" energy, despite unsupported assertions to the contrary. See here. If a person's bill is lower, that's because the government is subsidizing it.

Only if you calculate the broad savings caused by the reduced pollution (i.e. society won't have to pay as much to combat global warming if nonpolluting sources are used), then you may have an argument that wind energy is economically feasible. See jmackin's comment regarding externalities, above.

But that calculation requires you to acknowledge that man-made global warming is real, and also that damage control is going to be pricey. Foregone conclusions for me, but for oil and coal executives, the politicians they paid off, and those that buy the propaganda, they aren't quite there yet.

When I read or hear any publicized news I try to consider basic intention of this news at first place.
It is essentially important to keep some distance, and to ask some additional basic questions related to news.
Who published it?
What is his/her/their basic (hidden?) intention?
On which way this news could be distorted or one-sided?

In this “Al Gore case” info two things are too much obvious:
- They want to compromise him – BECAUSE they want to compromise his work and his message;
- For this purpose their information are extremely one-sided and malicious.
They don’t give us any relevant information for WHAT PURPOSE Al Gore is using all this energy (Is it for his hypothetical big massag...

When I read or hear any publicized news I try to consider basic intention of this news at first place.
It is essentially important to keep some distance, and to ask some additional basic questions related to news.
Who published it?
What is his/her/their basic (hidden?) intention?
On which way this news could be distorted or one-sided?

In this “Al Gore case” info two things are too much obvious:
- They want to compromise him – BECAUSE they want to compromise his work and his message;
- For this purpose their information are extremely one-sided and malicious.
They don’t give us any relevant information for WHAT PURPOSE Al Gore is using all this energy (Is it for his hypothetical big massaging jet or for some devices necessarily needed for his valued work…?).
In fact this is the KEY QUESTION of this article. Because they don’t provide any relevant answer about it their attention is definitely malicious.
So Annmari – are you just part of their story or you are just “a little” naive…?

Of course he can't promise to use less energy than the average house hold. Anybody with half a brain should be able to understand that a mansion approx. 7× the size of an ordinary home is going to use a lot more energy. It's not how much energy you use, but how you get the energy and what you do to help produce clean energy for your own consumption. For those criticizing Al Gore, READ THIS on what Al Gore is doing to produce his own clean energy sources. Are the nay sayers criticising Al Gore doing something to offset their energy usage? The nay sayers should at least be using CFL's in frequently lighted areas requiring artifici...

Of course he can't promise to use less energy than the average house hold. Anybody with half a brain should be able to understand that a mansion approx. 7× the size of an ordinary home is going to use a lot more energy. It's not how much energy you use, but how you get the energy and what you do to help produce clean energy for your own consumption. For those criticizing Al Gore, READ THIS on what Al Gore is doing to produce his own clean energy sources. Are the nay sayers criticising Al Gore doing something to offset their energy usage? The nay sayers should at least be using CFL's in frequently lighted areas requiring artificial light.

Understandably most of us can't afford many of the things that Al Gore has done to upgrade his home for energy efficiency and clean energy sources, but at least we can run CFL's where applicable.

You also need to understand that Al Gore probably uses his home for organizational purposes too. It's not just a simple home-only type of thing like most of us have, but is used for business and related affairs. Also, it should be noted that the town where he lives blocked for a time period his efforts to go green— SEE STORY: city of Belle Meade, Tennessee, had blocked his application until new rules were approved.

People talk about wanting greener sources of energy then complain when someone does try to do something about it. I remember a person (interviewed on TV) who had a wind turbine running on his property where the neighbors complained of the little noise coming from it. The noise was hardly louder than a common A/C unit, but the neighbors wanted it taken down. People are idiots that way.