asking Al Gore to run in 2008!
Al Gore's carbon footprint
Posted April 4th, 2007 by Concerned Scientist
My family and I discuss politics and global warming on a regular basis. Recently, one of my more environmentally-minded siblings expressed concern about Al Gore's personal committment to the cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, i.e., what is Al Gore's carbon footprint? My brother questioned whether Al Gore has made any adjustments in his own lifestyle with regard to improving his own carbon footprint, and suggested that flying everywhere emits a great deal of carbon dioxide. Another example my brother brought up was Al Gore's personal residences - what has Al Gore done to improve the energy efficiency of his houses, if anything? My brother suggested that perhaps Al Gore should travel by bus powered by renewable biofuels or hydrogen produced by photovoltaic cell-powered electrolysis.
Anyone know whether Al Gore has considered any of the above or whether he is taking steps to reduce his own carbon footprint?
Be part of the Draft Gore '08 campaign!
Global Warming?
We just had the coldest day in NY in HISTORY! So much for global warming. Wake up people, Gore is the master of lies and has suckered you in.
Who the $#%* are you?
You must be a wealthy A-hole with too much free time on your hands. This is a draft Al Gore for president site, why don't you go to the draft Pat Robertson site and make some friends. You probably don't believe in science at all. And the world was created five thousand years ago when people and dinosaurs lived together, just like the Flintstones.
Yab a Dab a Doo!
Oh really?!
Coldest day in NY in HISTORY? The jet stream took a dip, lowering the temp there a bit and it's now the coldest day in NY history?! RIIIIIIGHT!
We've hit 100+ all over the southern part of the COUNTRY for THE LAST 3 WEEKS, breaking records everywhere, this means nothing b/c it got cooler in NY one day.
More importantly - look at the GLOBAL trends, not the local irregularities.
It get cool one day in NY and that alone debunks all global warming theory. What BS!
Clearly 'someone' has been suckered in by the master(s) of lies!
Is that a fact?
So goracle is telling us that human-released CO2 is not the cause of global warming. Is that a fact?
Why waste our time and energy debating global warming deniers? There is a future to save for our children and their children. We don't have the luxury of being diverted into nonsensical debates or delaying action until the last skeptic is convinced. The last skeptic will never be convinced.
It's time to move along. This website is not a forum for global-warming deniers to spread their fallacies. They can start their own websites and say whatever they wish there. This site exists to promote Al Gore.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I HAVE SUGGESTION :
CAN WE LIQUEFY THE BAD GASES THAT ARE COMING FROM THE CHIMNEYS AND PUT THEM INTO TANKS !
WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGIES IN OUR CENTURY ! :)
THINK ABOUT IT !
Solar Energy
To all
I am trying to reduce my carbon footprint by adding a solar pannel or shingles in my home. I was under the understanding that the power companies are under a mandate to buy the extra energy back into the grid. Did you all know that LA DWP is not doing that? They will give you a credit at the end of the year but they never will send you a check back. I would think that a city of Los Angeles will be all over home owners adding solar pannels and buy the energy back to reduce the smog and provide a clearner air for thier citizens, why would a public organization simple refuse to align with the nations mandate. Anyone know what should be done about this.
Yes, Al Gore flies commercial airlines
The question is about the widespread impression that Gore is an environmental hypocrite, not whether or not he sometimes flies commercial. If you blow smoke and call other people names without addressing the facts, people will continue to think that Al Gore and his followers are phonies and lightweights.
Is anybody denying that he also flies on private jets? Is Mr. Gore intellectually curious enough to find out the specifics behind the Green Energy he uses in his huge house, and honest enough to tell the public?
The public did not know about the solar panel story. If they knew more, it might help their negative perceptions of Gore. How long have solar panels been outlawed in Gore's city and why, and how long has he been trying to get this changed? How big is his proposed project and how many Kwh is it expected to produce annually? All of this information would be helpful.
He does not fly commercial sometimes.
He does fly commercial and he uses private jets (which he does not own) only when he doesn't have a better option and even then , unlike most private jet users, offests the carbon emission.
One of the talking points which wingers use to "prove" that he is a hypocrite is that he has a private jet and travels on it all the time. So it's important to point out that is not true.
Much like pointing out that he uses green power in his house or he has a hybrid or he buys offests or that his companies are carbon neutral, too.
The public would have had a chance to know about the zoning rules a long time ago. If they missed it it's not Gore's fault. Gore is not responsible for your or anyone else's ignorance.
Moreover, whether the solar panels are on his house or are operated by TVA is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how the energy that is used in Gore's house is generated. If your power company can provide 100% green energy that has the exact same impact as having your own solar panels.
Gore's Carbon Footprint.
Gore flies on commercial airlines, drives a hybrid auto, buys green produced energy for which he pay's a much higher rate, runs a full time home and several offices out of his home and although he began long ago the city only recently approved solar panels in his area. He is now in full swing to finish the job and become completely carbon free. Your Brother must have seen the Drudge Report by a lying bigot that hates Gore and loves the environmentally destructive George Bush, the one that dumped Kyoto in his first term after stealing the office.
People say if he talks the talk he should walk the walk...He does. The Dredge Report tried to take credit for Gore's efforts to become green but Gore began this process long before the lying Drudge came out. As usual they lie again and again and again.
Well, I am not saying Gore
Well, I am not saying Gore is a hypocrite, but many people are. I suggest having some facts in hand because some people expect that sooner or later. Some people might fall for a marketing program that sells Green Energy to unsuspecting customers, when the Green means the utility is shoving some sawgrass in a conventional power boiler to generate carbon dioxide and tax credits. Maybe Al Gore does not know? He could lack intellectual curiosity?
Color Me Curious
honest will
If you are questioning Al Gore's intellectual curiosity then I have a hard time taking you seriously. How much do you really know about Al Gore and why are you here? Which of his books and speeches have you read? Honestly now
Well, I am not saying Gore is a hypocrite...
You may not be but the facts are in hand and have been for some time now. Unfortuanately there will always be the unscrupulous business man who will go for the quick profit. Study and research of the product and the company is the job of the consumer not Al Gore. His plates fairly full now.
But your point is well taken.
Do you know Gore's carbon footprint?
You don't.
If you are in fact a scientist why don't you base you judgement on actual data instead of speculation?
In fact what the hell do you know about his lifestyle at all? Apparently not much.
Gore drives a hybrid, buys green power from TVA, flies commercial and lobbied to change the zoning rules in Belle Meade so he and others over there could finally install solar panels and whatever carbon-based energy he uses he offsets it through the Carbon Neutral Company, one of the oldest and most reputable carbon offset company. That's the max any individual can do without reducing his living standard (and Gore never advocated that people should live in the cold and the dark and stop flying and driving or should not own 10,000 sq feet buildings for that matter).
1. Buses powered by renewable biofuels or hydrogen produced by photovoltaic cell-powered electrolysis are extremely rare. So your brother should specify where Gore could travel and where he couldn't -- which of course is none of his business. I doubt that you brother would listen to Gore if he tried to give him a similar order.
2. Did he consider security when he imagined Gore travelling in a bus?
3. The electricity Gore, his family an staff are using in that house is coming from solar, wind and methane gas. He does not contribute to TVA's carbon emission in any way. Is your brother paying 100% for green power? If not he should learn a thing or two from Gore.
4. Gore didn't build that house. It was already there, built in 1984. If he had not bought it someone else would have and the environmental impact in all likelihood would have been much bigger as
most people are not willing to pay more for green energy let alone pay for 100%.
TVA and participating local public power companies, working with input from the environmental community, have created a program called Green Power Switch® to produce electricity from renewable sources and add it to the Tennessee Valley’s power mix.
http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/
5. By flying commercial Gore's contribution to the total emission from airplanes is barely measurable.
Those planes would fly anyway, whether Gore is on them or not. The difference is that unlike most travellers Gore offsets his share of carbon emission.
But if your brother knows how Gore could get from Nashville to Beijing without flying I'd like to know his solution. Or if your brother knows a better way to spread the message I'd like to know that. What has he done to convince millions of people all over the world to stop wasting carbon-based energy? Nothing compared to what Gore has done. Which means your brother's overall environmental impact is much worse than Gore's.
suggestion
HELLO MR .GORE
I HAVE SUGGESTION :
CAN WE LIQUEFY THE BAD GASES THAT ARE COMING FROM THE CHIMNEYS AND PUT THEM INTO TANKS !
WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGIES IN OUR CENTURY ! :)
THINK ABOUT IT !
My new-found justifications
cbilds
Reverend Wally,
I just want to personally thank you for helping me to justify buying (2) used Ford Expeditions (9 miles to the gallon - one for me and one for the wife), a 2006-built 20,000 sq. ft. home (coal heated), a 1983 Lear IV (burns 2,500 gallons of jet fuel to get up to my 10,000 sq. ft. pad in Aspen), building fires in all 4 fireplaces every night during the winter and shipping my 150 ft. yacht back-and-forth between my vacation homes in FL and CA using an over-sized semi depending on whether I feel like Pacific winds or Atlantic. I produce music bands, so shipping trailers full of music equipment all over the country for single night gigs is second-nature to me. Anyway, if I wasn't using all of these cars, trucks, planes, fires, coal-burning furnaces, houses, boats, etc. someone else would be. So, using your logic, I ain't going to change my lifestyle one iota. I was starting to feel guilty about my carbon footprint until you so brilliantly defended Al Gore's. Thanks!
My new-found justifications
Thank you for such a complete line of sarcastic ignorance. Reverend Wally tried to help you understand but a bit of intelligence is needed for that. You seem to have completely missed the point.
Bullshit.
Gore doesn't do any of those things so what's your point?
As for the house, yes since Gore didn't build it if he had not bought it other people would use it anyway. (No, noone wanted to destroy it before Gore bought it, in case you thought that. )
Do you know what the environmental impact would be then? You don't. Hence you don't have a case.
If Gore had built that house and if they used carbon-based electricity and if he didn't offset the natural gas useage you would have a point.
Or you believe Gore wants people to stop using electricity or drive or fly? Where from the hell do you get that from?
In fact I'd like Gore to buy even more buildings and make them as "green" as his house in Nashville is.
Al Gore's Carbon Footprint
Reverend Wally:
Regarding your reply, which was a bit hostile: I feel as I imagine Socrates felt when being told to drink poison because he upset so many people by asking so many questions. I do not know Al Gore's carbon footprint, hence my question. I was simply asking if Al Gore is taking steps to show by example what he is espousing through his admirable campaign. My brother had questioned whether Al Gore has addressed issues in his own life regarding carbon emissions, so as not to be painted as a hypocrite by those who oppose his message. Not that Al Gore has to practice what he preaches; his arguments are important and stand on their own. The saying "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind. I thought it would be a good idea for Al Gore to show by his own example what can be done to manage carbon emissions on an individual basis. Your reply gave some examples - that's what I sought. I in no way meant to criticise Al Gore - I believe he has done more to raise the issues of global warming in the public sphere than anyone past or present and that's a good thing. I would support Al Gore if he ran for President and I hope he does.
As for the science, I am an advocate of Dr. Michael Mann's work as well as for Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Institute of Space Studies, all of whom have given testimony before Congress on the science behind global warming. They understand the science and dire consequences if we fail to act. One item of the science for which Al Gore has been critcised is his statement concerning a potential rise in sea level of ~20 feet. That statement would only be true if both the Greenland and Antartic land-based ice completely melted. That is not expected to happen in the near future, but it could happen long term. The IPCC reports state that the rise in sea levels expected by 2100 could be as high as about 3 feet. The discrepancy between Al Gore's 20 feet and the IPCC's 3 feet, while not contradictory (both could be true), have been used by Al Gore's opponents to cast doubt on his message as alarmist in nature. I think it is important for Al Gore to qualify his claim of a 20 foot rise in sea levels as a potential long term consequence of global warming as opposed to the expected short term (by 2100) rise of a maximum of 3 feet as given by the IPCC.
Be careful not to jump to anger - it is not helpful to the cause and it may make enemies out of friends or those who are on the fence.
Gore already showed by his own example
what can be done to manage carbon emissions on an individual basis.
It's that many Americans either didn't pay attention or will believe the media hype no matter what.
Gore has been saying ever since the movie came out that he lives carbon neutral and he urged everyone to do the same. He had his website (climatecrisis.net) up even before the movie's premier with a list of recommendations. He had done all of those steps already.
It's not his fault if a bunch of Americans are dishonest, don't care about the truth and believe the media's crap without checking the credibility of the source or the validity of their statements.
One item of the science for which Al Gore has been critcised is his statement concerning a potential rise in sea level of ~20 feet. That statement would only be true if both the Greenland and Antartic land-based ice completely melted.
No. It would happen if GIS OR (not and) WAIS or half of GIS and half of WAIS disintegrated. And he makes that clear in the movie so only those who did not pay attention or willingly distort what he said claim he exaggerates. If both disintegrated sea levels would rise by ~40 feet, not 20.
His statement is 100% true.
He said if the Greenland or the West Antartic ice sheet melted or broke up and slipped into the sea, or half of Greenland and half of WAIS, sea levels world wide would rise by 20 feet.
That is a fact -- if not an understatement.
Look at that Figure 3. And compare it to what you saw in the movie.
Potential Sea-Level Changes
If Earth's climate continues to warm, then the volume of present-day ice sheets will decrease. Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1). The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level. Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves (Ronne/Filchner and Ross). The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level.
Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3).
Figure 3. Red shows areas along the Gulf Coast and East Coast of the United States that would be flooded by a 10-meter rise in sea level. Population figures for 1996 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished data, 1998) indicate that a 10-meter rise in sea level would flood approximately 25 percent of the Nation's population.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
The question is when and under what circumstances this could happen. But Gore did not mention time frame. He didn't talk about 2100 or "the near future" for that matter. Why? Because noone knows enough about dynamic ice flow today. And Gore didn't say that he knows it. He merely said that this is a serious concern. It is.
Looking at a map of the eastern US with a sea level 6 meters above present levels indicates areas where future sea level rise will have consequences on coastal regions. It shows, of course, the flooding of south Florida, New Orleans (again), Washington DC, parts of New York City and even coastal Cape Cod (right, top). Other countries have more serious problems where island nations completely disappear, or large areas of low-lying coastal plains will be at risk. Of course, we don't know if 6 meters will occur in 100 or 1000 years. That we are headed for this scenario is likely given past interglacial sea levels and the added perturbation due to man's influence.
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=13366
We do have a lot of information available to us both from paleoclimate; the history of the earth and how ice sheets responded in the past and also the new data from satellites, and on surface measurements on the ice sheets which shows that there are processes beginning to happen there, exactly the processes that we're afraid will accelerate. The last time a large ice sheet melted sea level went up at a rate of five meters per century. That's one meter every 20 years. And that is a kind of sea level rise, a rate which the simple ice sheet models available now just cannot produce because they don't have the physics in them to give you the rapid collapse that happens in a very nonlinear system ("Gorilla of Sea Level Rise").
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/362580.html
Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise
Jonathan T. Overpeck,1* Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Gifford H. Miller,3 Daniel R. Muhs,4 Richard B. Alley,5 Jeffrey T. Kiehl2
Sea-level rise from melting of polar ice sheets is one of the largest potential threats of future climate change. Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable. The record of past ice-sheet melting indicates that the rate of future melting and related sea-level rise could be faster than widely thought.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1747
As for the IPCC's prediction:
Even Before Its Release, World Climate Report Is Criticized as Too Optimistic
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/02oceans.html?ex=1328072400&en...
Experts Slam Upcoming Global Warming Report
29 January 2007 – 2:26pm
..
Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:They "don't take into account the gorillas -- Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."
http://www.ocean.us/node/525
The reason why there is difference between the numbers is this:
dynamic response is NOT included in those IPCC numbers and that is stated in the report itself.
Table SPM-3. Projected globally averaged surface warming and sea level rise at the end of the 21st century. {10.5, 10.6,
Table 10.7}
Model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
IPCC SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS
Since it's a conservative report and is based on peer-reviewed papers published before Dec 2005
the latest data from Greenland and WAIS is not included.
Those projections are only based on thermal expansion, the melting of the mountain glaciers and the contribution from Greenland and WAIS between 1993 and 2003. What has been going on with the two "gorillas" most recently is not included, while Gore was talking about just that in the movie.
Things like this:
Antarctic Glaciers' Sloughing Of Ice Has Scientists at a Loss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR200703...
20 feet would occur only if dynamic ice flow would result in the disintegration of 50% of the GIS and WAIS, or if GIS or WAIS disintegrated completely. We know that happened in the past when global mean temperatures were 3 celsius above the current level. And increase of 3 celsius or more by 2100 had been projected by the IPCC. This is what makes this concern legitimate and NOT an exaggeration. Gore merely stated what many ice scientist fear today. That doesn't mean this will happen, and Gore didn't forecast anything. He said this COULD happen. He is right. This could happen. Except noone knows today when because noone knows how those ice sheets will behave in the future. But recent developments indicate that the response is much faster than previously thought and don't forget of all regions West A. and the North pole warm most rapidly.
So if you think Hansen knows what he talks about you have to think Gore knows it too. Because they say exactly the same thing when potential sea level rise is concerned.
I thought "Scientists" could read and understand English
______________________________________________________________
My reply was definitely NOT hostile.
I just said that I have strong reactions to many of the moronic posts, but was restraining myself.
Now...
Explain to me how and why THAT is perceived as "Hostile"
_______________________________________________________________
Reverend Wally say's, "Talk only works when someone listens"
Name calling?
Actually Wally, my response should have been to Yabu. My mistake. But calling someone's opinion/post "moronic" is antagonistic and thus hostile. And putting the word "Scientists" in quotes intimates that you do not believe I am a scientist and thus you are calling me a liar. I will not stoop to your level and play the game of trying to convince you otherwise. You know, I thought maybe a few of the denizens of a website devoted to drafting Al Gore for President would be more enlightened. Instead what I find is a gang looking for a fight, even if it's with someone who agrees with their cause. It's like watching a high school class trying to get a rise out of their teacher. Bad form.
And Yabu: you miss the point. There is a perceived discrepancy between what Al Gore is saying and what the IPCC has said and what HIGHLY respected scientists such as Dr. Cicerone have said under oath before Congress. If you had watched Al Gore's most recent visits to Congress and heard what the Republican opposition was saying, you'd agree. Funny thing is that Al Gore didn't respond to the question concerning the discrepancy. I waited for it, but it never came.
We can't bet on the outcome, and neither of us is likely to be around to see what happens in 2100. Besides, we're both hoping that meaningful, successful action is taken to mitigate future warming trends. Meanwhile, I have realized that this forum is a complete waste of time.
Perceived? And what the hell should we do with
some people's perception who somehow are unable to understand what Gore said, even while it's as simple as 1+1?
It's somehow Gore's fault if people are too stupid to pay attention or understand dynamic ice flow at GIS and WAIS?
what the IPCC has said and what HIGHLY respected scientists such as Dr. Cicerone have said under oath before Congress.
There is no discrepancy. If someone perceives one that's his problem not Gore's. He made it clear what he was talking about and I doubt that Cicerone himself doesn't understand it.
But if you want to find a highly respected scientist who in fact said the same thing look at James Hansen. You can find his quote in my previous post.
Funny thing is that Al Gore didn't respond to the question concerning the discrepancy. I waited for it, but it never came.
It's not that Inhofe and Barton let him responde, is it?
But why should Gore addresss every idiotic perception all the time?
If someone perceives that cosmic rays cause global warming then Gore should responde or what?
There are hundreds of stupid talking points out there with regard to global warming. It's funny that Gore doesn't responde to all of them, indeed.
Meanwhile, I have realized that this forum is a complete waste of time.
For hypersensitive sissies who come here with baseless suggestions about Gore's lifestyle, yes it is.
Let's see if I've got this right
Forum poster: "I'd like to ask a question about Al Gore..."
Yabu: "You're an idiot!"
Forum poster: "I really like Al Gore and his message but..."
Yabu: "You don't know anything about Al Gore. I know everything there ever was to know about Al Gore, including his deoderant choice, his jock strap size and his tendency to use his left ring finger to scratch his butt."
Forum poster: "But I think Al Gore's message might be being distorted by..."
Yabu: "If someone has a perception other than what I believe, it has to be wrong. Besides, other people's perceptions don't count and that's why I drown them out with endless diatribes about Al Gore. I love Al Gore. I want to be his Yoko Ono - or better yet, his Karl Rove."
Forum poster: "I don't think I'm getting my point across..."
Yabu: "Stop being a baby and listen to me. Can't you see I'm shouting without using CAPS? Al Gore is absolutely perfect and has never made any incorrect statements about Global Warming. My favorite movie is Love Story - same as Al Gore's. I want to have Al Gore's babies."
Forum Poster:"But..."
Yabu: "You're a complete loser. Meet me out in the parking lot. Scratch that - I never leave my room in my parents' basement which I have plastered with Al Gore posters for fear I might lose the GPS signal with which I track Al Gore's every movement."
You may stop putting words in my mouth
1.I found only one mentioning of the word 'idiot' here and that's in your post not in mine.
I was talking about idiotic perceptions which indeed happen to exist out there. Do you deny that?
2. I didn't say "I know everything there ever was to know about Al Gore, including his deoderant choice, his jock strap size and his tendency to use his left ring finger to scratch his butt." or anything remotely similar to that statement.
3. If you have the wrong perception then yes you are wrong. And that's what I was talking about.
Perception is not necessarly about reality and in this case it sure is not. So what's you point? That because someone somewhere thinks something stupid about Gore then it's somehow his fault?
There are millions of people out there who think stupid things all the time. Big deal. This is such a species. Dishonest, uninformed, unfair, biased, you name it.
Your brother questioned whether Gore has done anything to reduce his CF? OK, so your brother questioned it simply because he heard something somewhere about Gore's energy consumption and lifestyle. Why didn't your brother try to find out whether the story was true at all? Why did he believe that Gore has a big CF to being with? Hello?
4. I didn't say Gore is perfect.
6. Love Story is Gore's favorite movie? News to me. Did he ever say that?
7. I didn't say you are a complete loser. There have been quite a few trolls here who are complete losers. But there are different problems with you. Including apparently your tendency to confuse your perception with what I actually said.
Again, name calling
Yabu:
Name calling is the first refuge of the intellectually challenged.
Stop whining
There is nothing wrong with name calling if it's deserved.
There are idiots on this planet. There are biased dishonest assholes among humans. Nothing new there.
Finding out the truth is an intellectual challenge. Which apparently your brother and you are unable to do on your own.
It appeared as though I was
either being misquoted (hence...the reference to reading and understanding, and I was not aiming the statement moronic at you. It was a response to DanO's post and was a general comment after having spent a day of reading truthtelleraboutgore's irrational attacks, and several others who just spout typical Inhofe type garbage in a troll like manner in this forum. (i.e., cbilds)
I did not mean for you to be offended.
_______________________________________________________________
Reverend Wally say's, "Talk only works when someone listens"
Yabu, You're a little
Yabu,
You're a little hostile but... good answer.
Actually
_______________
Compared to my immediate reactions to many of these moronic posts, yabu is being very calm and collected. LOL
I am actually restraining myself.
_______________________________________________________________
Reverend Wally say's, "Talk only works when someone listens"
Gore leads a carbon-neutral lifestyle
Al Gore has done an enormous amount to reduce his carbon footprint. He drives a hybrid. He uses compact fluorescent light bulbs. He has been trying to install solar panels on his home but couldn't because of local ordinances, which he fought, and he can now install them. He purchases "green" energy from his power company, for which he pays 50% more than conventional energy would cost him.
Regarding his airplane trips . . . he can't take a bus across the ocean. Also, the TOTAL annual contribution of all the millions of people flying on commercial jets each year is miniscule. It's something like .001 percent of all the carbon emissions put in the atmosphere each year. And that's for ALL people flying ALL planes in a year. So Gore's personal, individual contribution by flying isn't even calculable. He needs to do whatever he can to get his message out around the globe, and flying in an airplane is the best way to get from place to place globally. And what miniscule contribution he does make by flying is offset by his purchase of carbon credits. The criticism would hold up better if Gore were merely taking vacations all over the world. But he's doing this as part of a campaign to save the planet, and there really isn't any other way for him to do it. He does everything he can to minimize the impact his traveling has.
http://www.karenwunderman.com