Gore: A Hypocrite Over Power Bill

Just repeat your old nonsensical talking points.

1.Gore is not wasting energy. He is using energy as much as he needs. Waste is by definition the portion of the energy which is produced but which you don't use. You may understand that difference if you think about two buildings with a heating/cooling system in the same climate zone: one with the other without insulation.

2. And the question is not energy use per se but GHG emission. You would have a point only if there was an energy shortage on Earth. But there is not. This is not the Pluto. If you stop whining and instead start producing your own green energy or buy it from a power company you can use as much as you like without emitting a single CO2 molecule.

Tell me how armful on the environment can a solar panel be when it reaches the end of its lifetime?

Gee really how harmful they will be? And especially how much they will make AGW worse? Simply horrible. Your highly effective solution therefore: don't use solar panels. They harm the environment.
Instead: live like me. Use no more energy than I do. No matter what you do. That's good for the environment.

Great message. It doesn't make any sense but at least you can be proud of being able to say.....something. Solar panels harm the environment. And eating too harms the environment. And you sitting in front of your computer right now harms the environment. Eh, you are crazy, you know?

Solar panels are the solution not the problem. And you didn't come up with a better alternative only with the completely unworkable "live the way I want you to live" crap.
I'm afraid I'm dealing with a green radical like those in Greenpeace who wanted to put sanctions on Japan because of whale hunting.

It is about time (for the geothermal system).

Ah, so suddenly it's not really about energy consumption? Geothermal is OK. You can use as much of it as you want, right? And it's about time for what? To use geothermal enegy in a 10,000 sq feet house? Because that's what is happening. They are refurbishing THAT house not a smaller one.
and you just argued noone should own such a big house no matter what.

It would be nice if you could make up your mind: it's either about energy consumption and then you should whine about Gore using a lot of geothermal energy, too. Or it's about carbon emission and then you should stop whining about his energy consumption in general as if you don't know his carbon footprint you don't have a case.

It's about time for you to stop using that computer. You are wasting energy, ya know. You are just having fun with it. Entertainment is not a good reason to use energy.
Heck, it's about time to move to a 800 sq feet apartment. You are wasting energy with that big 1,200 sq ft house. See below how big that really is. You don't even realize it.

Tell me how Mr. Gore "reduced" his energy consumption? He did not reduce anything

He did and you are ignorant. We discussed this here over and over again and I will not repeat it.
But again: it's not about energy use. It's about GHG emission. Get it? Renewable energy consumption itself has no measurable negative impact on the climate. GHGs have.
Too complicated?

The best way Mr. Gore could reduce his energy footprint on earth would be to evaluate if a mansion is really necessary.

1. There is no such thing as "energy footprint on Earth". And certainly no "energy footprint" which should be somehow reduced. If there was you should argue that a bunch of species should be eliminated after all collectively they consume much more energy than 6.5 billion people do. (Not that the Earth itself could be harmed in any way baring some cosmic accident. But even then Earth itself wouldn't give a fuck. This isssue is about the impact on humans not on the planet.)
There is a thing called carbon footprint, you know? Energy consumption has not caused AGW. Fossil fuel consumption has.
Gore has reduced his carbon footprint much more than most Americans are willing to do especially given the fact that most Americans are not former vice presidents who are also a businessmen, professors, authors and a global activists. You couldn't do any of those without energy and the more active you are, the more people you are dealing with on daily basis, the more energy you will need.
By contrast, if you just sit in a 1,200 sq feet house thinking that noone should use a 10,000 sq feet house and whine on an online message board you will likely use less energy but what the hell is that good for? That will sure not curb global warming.
You know what? Let's take a close look at James Hansen's carbon footprint. Or James Lovelock's. Or that of everyone who unlike you has tried to convince millions that AGW is a problem and we should stop buring fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow.
What about Richard Branson? He either lives in a 1,200 sq feet house or he is a big fat hypocrite.
Or Bill Clinton? Did you see his library? Big one. With big windows. What a hypocrite. Why does anyone need a presidential library at all? You don't have it so noone needs it, either. Right?

2.The size of a building itself says nothing about its impact on the atmoshpere. The entire Capitol Hill could run on green energy.
We will have factories, schools, stadiums, theaters, office buildings other large facilities and residential buildings of all size all over the world. Any problem with that?
The solution is not trying to regulate of how big various buildings should or shouldn't be but to convince their owners to use as much green energy as possible instead of fossil fuels.

3. Yes it is necessary. Gore knows that better than you do. It's not that you are some authority to tell other people what they need and what they don't. It's not that Gore told you to stop using AC or stop driving or move to a smaller house or never buy or build a bigger house.
We will continue to have 10,000 sq feet buildings for good reason. Get over it.
If you want to convince the tens of millions who own them that they should destroy them and that everyone should own max 2000 sq feet (or exactly what size would you approve?) good luck with that.
As far as I'm concerned they could live in a castle if they use renewable energy they don't make AGW worse.

But you are talking about an economical incentive to justify a personal behavior.
Nobody talked about that but nevermind.
Nevertheless it's hard to see why an economical incentive, of all things, cannot possibly justify a personal behavior. Yet another non-sequitur. OK.

You did ridicule carbon offset companies when you ridiculed the entire idea behind offsetting and falsely claimed that Gore doesn't do anything but buy offsets.
You also ridiculed TVA's GPS without even knowing what it is.
And for starters: you ridiculed solar panel producers because those evil panels "can harm the environment".

And now it's time to ridicule you.

That "economical incentive " was invented to absorb carbon or prevent GHG emission in the first place. That's part of the solution. Because green projects are still in short supply what exactly will boost the transition from a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy economy?
Money.
When you support that solution with your money that's pretty good personal behavior.
When you find exuses not to buy offsets that's pretty bad personal behavior. And how do you justify that? By dismissing carbon offset buyers as "rich hypocrites".

I'm a carbon offset buyer. And I'm not rich. How can that be?

I live in 1200 sq. feet and sorry, I cannot understand how you could need 10 000 sq.

You see? Statements like this convince me there is something horribly wrong with your grey matter. This would be ok from a second grader but you are supposedly an adult.
Really why would anyone need a 10 000 sq feet building? I mean ANYONE? 10 000 sq feet buildings are bad, no matter what. Anyone who ever owned a 10,000 sq ft house must have lost his mind as certainly noone needs such a house. And that's because you say so. You know what everyone needs -- while of course never questioning whether anyone needs what you have.

You don't need that house because you don't employ people in your house you don't have offices and you don't have a guesthouse because you don't know hundreds of people in the business, political and entertainment world. And you don't organize world wide events and you don't make movies and you don't have two business and don't work for two others. You don't hold fundraisers in your house you don't run charities and you don't have in-house security.

For a former vice president who is still highly active in public it would be undignified and impractical to live in a 1200 sq feet house. Now you get it? People are different with different needs.
I don't want them to live in a smaller house much like I wouldn't want the president to live in a smaller house even though the White House has 132 rooms and 35 bathrooms! Who the hell needs that? It's too big. Let's bulldoze it and replace it with the "emonette standard". No matter what you do you must not have a house bigger than 1,200 sq feet.
Or should it be 1,650 ? Or 2,100? Or 3,400? What's your arbitrary limit? And more importantly what should be the maximum per capita area? 500 sq feet?

And it doesn't matter what kind of energy they use and what is their actual carbon footprint or what they are actually doing or how many people use that house the only thing that matters is the size of the building.

Most people in the world do not even have a 1,200 sq feet house. According to your "logic" every single one of them should tell you: you are wasting energy because noone needs a house of that size.
You talk about hypocrisy. Start with yourself.

You just pinpoint the weakness in Gore's arguments .

More shining logic from your department.
1. You put words in Gore's mouth
2. I pointed out that you put words in Gore's mouth and attacked a strawman
3. That is somehow pinpointing "the weakness in Gore's arguments".

Gore's argument is exactly the same as that of the carbon offset companies: reduce what you can offset what you can't. (In case you missed it reduction here refers to reducing your carbon footprint not reducing your energy consumption per se since these are carbon offset companies not energy offset companies.)
It's the solution. You losing your way in the maze of your own fallacies and strawmen is not a solution unless your mere goal is to amuse me.

Everybody knows resources are limited,

Everybody knows that energy on Earth is practically unlimited.
Or rather everyone who knows what the Sun does every day.

Stop confusing these two things: energy is one thing. Fossil fuel is another.
Every hour more energy from sunlight strikes the earth’s surface than is consumed worldwide in a year.
There are way more energy on this planet than is currently used by the entire mankind.
And we should harness it so that we could use more which would lead to a higher living standard for more and more people. Yes, bigger houses, too.

I am not convinced, nor impressed.

I don't think Gore wants to impress you much like he doesn't want to impress the crazies on the other side who think Venus' surface temperature has nothing to do with runaway greenhouse effect.
You think the way to measure one's impact on the atmosphere is to look at the size of the building he lives in.
Fine. After all, there are people who are not convinced that the Earth is more than 6000 years old but are sure the way to measure a person's value is to look at whether he believes gays will go to hell.