The piece failed to mention his "house" is a 9,000 square foot house and the guest house is about half that, and I think he can't physically change to solar heating cuz of the landmark status of his crib. but don't give all the facts....
and yes - he's being a hypocrite, but his crib is far from what the average household is living in.
The more fundamental irony, perhaps, is that the Bush (2) ranch is greener than the Gore plantation.
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less, but so could I. The piece smacks of partisan wankery.
The piece failed to mention his "house" is a 9,000 square foot house and the guest house is about half that, and I think he can't physically change to solar heating cuz of the landmark status of his crib. but don't give all the facts....
and yes - he's being a hypocrite, but his crib is far from what the average household is living in.
The more fundamental irony, perhaps, is that the Bush (2) ranch is greener than the Gore plantation.
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less, but so could I. The piece smacks of partisan wankery.
didn't we already play this game with respect to his 'jet-setting' for speaking engagements on climate change.
you can call him a hypocrite all you want...still doesn't deny the fact that people should try to use less energy if they can.
unless you are in fact claiming that we should not try to conserve energy if possible???
Do YOU call him a hypocrite???
sure...fuck it..i'll call him a pathetic bastard. doesn't mean i shouldn't try to conserve electricity if possible.
c'mon dude....you aren't going to sit there and tell me you were on the brink of putting in a florescent light bulb in your house, but as soon as you saw this article, you went back to burning coal.
It's Rockadelic.
I'll call him a pathetic bastard too....now let's all try to conserve and save the environment.
I'm not going to go over the things I've done to these means....
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less..
I'm sure Gore could afford to renovate his home and make it more "green". It was his choice to be a spokesman for this cause, and I'm sure he's made a nice little chunk of change on the lecture circuit
I'd say this issue is going to fall trap to the usual soulstrut bi-partisan bickering. Leftists will not show any disgust of a former democratic vice-president for his (lack of) action in conserving electricity in his own home
On a wider note: I think many these guys inhabit a parallel universe that is way, way far removed from the policies they promote. like when GHW Bush had no idea what a loaf of bread costs. or when Schwarzanegger promoted himself as an environment-friendly candidate while owning like 8 Hummers.
AL Gore is not running for office. He could be driving a Hummer limousine. It is irrelevant. He can preach about Global Warming because he has been studying it for 30 years. End of story. Whether he is a hypocrite is undeterminable by this useless piece of news about power usage. But again, assuming Gore lives alone and goes to sleep with the lights on, while charging up an ipod on every electrical outlet in the house....who cares????
I think everyone on here needs to slow their roll and consider the actual facts.
Yes, he has a huge home and usess an assload of energy.
But here on this board we are fighting about one knows about "evidence" and how much of an hypocrite Al Gore is.
And it's funny that this is a revelation right now. Its fucking stupid that no one realized his living expenses until now. Now that his movie won an award.
Sounds ignorant to me.
In a way, his movie can make some RWM to those who actually give a damn. And as for the movie winning an award is fucking wonderful.
So,Ill let you in on a little secret:
The only way this world can get back to a environmentally correct status is only if it is trendy [/b]
So let him burn in his hypocrisy and lifestyle. Just continue to do what we know is right.
As for me, I don't drive. I don't turn on my air conditioner unless desperatly needed to. Buy energy efficent appliances, etc.
As Im sure many of you do as well.
So pray that more Cameron Diaz's and other celeb's exploit energy effecient cars and what not. Thats the only hope. As sad as it sounds.
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less..
I'm sure Gore could afford to renovate his home and make it more "green". It was his choice to be a spokesman for this cause, and I'm sure he's made a nice little chunk of change on the lecture circuit
If it's a historick landmarck, many renovations which conserve the most energy (i.e. windows, ductwork, etc.) cannot be made whether the VP could afford to or not.
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less..
I'm sure Gore could afford to renovate his home and make it more "green". It was his choice to be a spokesman for this cause, and I'm sure he's made a nice little chunk of change on the lecture circuit
If it's a historick landmarck, many renovations which conserve the most energy (i.e. windows, ductwork, etc.) cannot be made whether the VP could afford to or not.
Dude could use less, but so could you.
I just don't buy it. The landmark is so historic that it should continue to use up more energy to preserve itself?
I thnk we all agree changes need to be made, but saying that this home should continue to consume so much cause of it's historical signifigance shows how much value people really put on change.
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less..
I'm sure Gore could afford to renovate his home and make it more "green". It was his choice to be a spokesman for this cause, and I'm sure he's made a nice little chunk of change on the lecture circuit
If it's a historick landmarck, many renovations which conserve the most energy (i.e. windows, ductwork, etc.) cannot be made whether the VP could afford to or not.
Dude could use less, but so could you.
I just don't buy it. The landmark is so historic that it should continue to use up more energy to preserve itself?
It sure would be cool if the world worked like that
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less..
I'm sure Gore could afford to renovate his home and make it more "green". It was his choice to be a spokesman for this cause, and I'm sure he's made a nice little chunk of change on the lecture circuit
If it's a historick landmarck, many renovations which conserve the most energy (i.e. windows, ductwork, etc.) cannot be made whether the VP could afford to or not.
Dude could use less, but so could you.
I just don't buy it. The landmark is so historic that it should continue to use up more energy to preserve itself?
I thnk we all agree changes need to be made, but saying that this home should continue to consume so much cause of it's historical signifigance shows how much value people really put on change.
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less..
I'm sure Gore could afford to renovate his home and make it more "green". It was his choice to be a spokesman for this cause, and I'm sure he's made a nice little chunk of change on the lecture circuit
If it's a historick landmarck, many renovations which conserve the most energy (i.e. windows, ductwork, etc.) cannot be made whether the VP could afford to or not.
Dude could use less, but so could you.
I just don't buy it. The landmark is so historic that it should continue to use up more energy to preserve itself?
I thnk we all agree changes need to be made, but saying that this home should continue to consume so much cause of it's historical signifigance shows how much value people really put on change.
well unfortuantely that is the truth. if its been deemed a national historic Landmark any renovations have to maintain the cahracter and integrity of the house. You are unable to modify/modernize it after its received that designation. i don't knos if this is the case, but if so then he has at least some legal footwork to stand on. however he could always install solar panels some where on his land and tap into other power sources, unless.. of course, he has already don that.
We need someone to czech if he uses florescent bulbs at the crib. I'm assuming THAT wouldn't violate the "historical status" of the house.
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less..
I'm sure Gore could afford to renovate his home and make it more "green". It was his choice to be a spokesman for this cause, and I'm sure he's made a nice little chunk of change on the lecture circuit
If it's a historick landmarck, many renovations which conserve the most energy (i.e. windows, ductwork, etc.) cannot be made whether the VP could afford to or not.
Dude could use less, but so could you.
I just don't buy it. The landmark is so historic that it should continue to use up more energy to preserve itself?
I thnk we all agree changes need to be made, but saying that this home should continue to consume so much cause of it's historical signifigance shows how much value people really put on change.
I think everyone on here needs to slow their roll and consider the actual facts.
Yes, he has a huge home and usess an assload of energy.
But here on this board we are fighting about one knows about "evidence" and how much of an hypocrite Al Gore is.
And it's funny that this is a revelation right now. Its fucking stupid that no one realized his living expenses until now. Now that his movie won an award.
Sounds ignorant to me.
In a way, his movie can make some RWM to those who actually give a damn. And as for the movie winning an award is fucking wonderful.
So,Ill let you in on a little secret:
The only way this world can get back to a environmentally correct status is only if it is trendy [/b]
So let him burn in his hypocrisy and lifestyle. Just continue to do what we know is right.
As for me, I don't drive. I don't turn on my air conditioner unless desperatly needed to. Buy energy efficent appliances, etc.
As Im sure many of you do as well.
So pray that more Cameron Diaz's and other celeb's exploit energy effecient cars and what not. Thats the only hope. As sad as it sounds.
This is an issue pretty close to my heart, and I think you're kind of right, although I'd also say that people also need to come up with a way to make a buck out of it. It's possible, people just need brains and balls to go against the grain.
At the end of the day though, I almost feel that greed and destruction is so entrenched in capitalism that we're all pretty much fucked. Gore should pull his fucking head in though, I could name 100 products that would reduce consumption without hurting his fat old house.
As a side note, did anyone notice how many shots of Apple products there was in his film? Surely its a coincidence that he's on the board.
yep - its overly simplistic to stand and point with something like this
are you trying to equivocate this away, somehow Pudgy deserves to use more energy thatn everybody else because he is the retired vice president private citizen? And then on top of it, he can preach to us about how wasteful we are, because why? Maybe you think he is somehow above you and entitled to more, but thats your problem.
Thats the problem with you people, whenver you are trying to hide your own greed, ambition, whatever - its always with the "its not that simple".
ahh, no my point was more that singling out a single individual and criticising their energy usage isn't a constructive contribution to the issue of climate change, partiularly when that person has done more than practically anyone else in terms of getting the issue on the public radar - your post is basically full of shit, your assertions don't equate with my views, and I suspect you have little idea of the frameworks through which action on climate change will be pursued
There was a good article in the Economist a few weeks ago on this question - should elected officials be expected to personally embody their political positions? The context was a similar flap in Britain over Tony Blair's carbon footprint. Quoted because it's subscriber-only.
Feb 15th 2007 From The Economist print edition The debate over climate change has opened a cultural rift in Europe about politicians' personal behaviour
Peter Schrank
THE European Commission's recent proposals to limit car pollution, and the climate-change debate in general, are revealing a cultural divide in Europe: nothing less than a continental rift over what really constitutes political leadership.
The northern view (for want of a better term that embraces the Swedish and the Dutch) is that the responsibility to set a good example is part of a politician's job. If a new leader decides to change his party's policy to make it greener, as David Cameron did with Britain's Conservatives, it is incumbent on him to be seen going to work on a bicycle (even if a car is following with all his papers). Equally, if the European Commission wants to legislate to reduce car emissions, the commissioner responsible must promise to swap his gas-guzzling Mercedes for a puny Toyota Prius???even if that offends Germany's mighty car lobby. He and the commission must, after all, set an example.
This holds even though the environment commissioner himself is Greek, not Swedish or Dutch. He is supposed to take on the ethical and moral characteristics of his portfolio. He inherits, as it were, the view from Europe's Protestant north that personal behaviour is central to political leadership.
In contrast, the southern (or Mediterranean) view is that public authorities should make and enforce the law, but not otherwise nag on about personal behaviour. Hence, the French left has always rejected criticism of champagne socialism (gauche-caviar) on the ground that what matters are the policies, not the lifestyles, of Socialist leaders. Italians similarly shrug off the personal shenanigans of politicians that would surely precipitate resignations in shame north of the Alps.
This is not purely a southern phenomenon. A perfect example came recently from Britain. When the prime minister, Tony Blair, was asked if he was willing to forgo long-haul travel to reduce his carbon footprint, he explicitly contrasted personal behaviour with the framework of public policy, and argued for the supremacy of the latter. ???I personally think???, he said, coming over all Mediterranean, ???[it is] a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that [ie, give up exotic holidays]. I think that what we need to do is to look at how you make air travel more energy-efficient, how you develop the new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy.??? Public authorities should set the rules that shape consumers' choices but, within the law, consumers should be free to do whatever they like. The southern view is less concerned about leading by example.
Well, reply northerners, that's not surprising, for they're all crooks. And it is true that, in general, standards of public probity are higher the farther north you go. Yet it would be wrong to conclude that all politicians would lead by example if only the climate in which they operated were like Sweden's. Different attitudes to personal morality in politics are rooted in social and even religious differences, which may soon become starker.
This debate is really about a broader question: how much do leaders owe voters, beyond their best political judgment? Southerners (and Mr Blair) may answer: not much. Northerners think that leaders must not only say the right things, but do them as well. Or, as a Conservative environmental spokesman put it, speaking of Mr Blair, ???he can expect nothing at all from the electorate unless he himself does what he knows is right.???
Climate change is a tough case because it covers two distinct forms of behaviour: legal v illegal (dumping toxic waste, killing whales) and ethical v unethical (not wasting food or energy). Northern Europeans say that this is precisely why the power of example matters, for they see legal and ethical behaviour as part of a continuum. Southerners reply that social pressure is more effective than political pressure at influencing unethical behaviour, and that politicians ought to restrict themselves to law-making, where they will have more impact than they ever could as individual consumers.
For God and morality
These differences also have religious roots that are not easy to pull up. It is no coincidence that a map of north and south follows the contours of Protestant and Catholic Europe. Protestantism's fundamental insight is that the relationship between the believer and God matters above all. Catholics, in contrast, hold that the relationship between believer and church is almost as important, and that the church, with its dogmas and rituals, acts as intermediary between its members and God. There may be a connection between these beliefs and the mindsets which hold, in one part of Europe, that what matters is the personal example of politicians and, in another, that it is the laws they pass.
More immediately, the living memory of dictatorship weighs upon half of Europe and separates it from the rest. The president of the European Commission, Jos?? Manuel Barroso, who is Portuguese, talks of chafing as a boy under the Salazar regime, when he was not permitted to buy the records and books he wanted. When countries of ???old Europe??? were gung-ho to say governments should make a lot of noise about a common European culture, it was the young Hungarian culture minister who said, no, we shouldn't do that: propagating official culture was something the communists did.
Both communist and fascist governments not only passed restrictive laws, but also sought to dictate what was acceptable within the law. The implicit thinking was, to borrow a slogan from T.H.White's novel ???The Sword in the Stone???, that ???Whatever is Not Forbidden is Compulsory???. People who had to endure claims of this sort might be forgiven for taking a jaundiced view of politicians who nag voters about private behaviour that is perfectly legal.
When this comes up over and over again (usually from rock...who has said on here that his gasoline bill/month is $1200, so I think we know how he feels about global warming based on how he is ballin' at Exxon) I continually marvel at the utter stupidity of this argument.
This usually is brought up by people looking to shirk their own personal environmental responsibility- case in point, the assbag Sports talk guys on radio today, blindly speculating that Leonardo DiCaprio's movies use more energy than any person. Not pointing out that Leo runs a HUGE environmental foundation with the money generated by those movies- can't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
Look- Gore has done a lot of work for Global warming. Could he do more? could he move out of his historical landmark house? yes to both. He has also put an incredible amount of his own time and money into promoting this cause- which is more than probably ALL of us could say.
But, until I see Rock foreswear the enormous SUVs that he posted on here as driving, I don't give a fuck what he says some 'nonpartisan' horseshit think tank about Al Gore's home.
We should all try to do more for our families, our neighbors, our children, and their children- I get so sick of some bullshit patriotism based around consuming as much as possible, and defending your right to do it.
Just thought I would add that all the profits from the book and movie are being donated to an advocacy group. Not that Gore needs the dough from the movie but Rock's initial post made it seem that this a money making scam by Gore when it's pretty clear that he's doing this to raise awareness of global warming.
According to the movie's official website, the movie (production and distribution) are going to be carbon neutral which I suppose means that they are planting trees to offset emissions. Before you laugh at the thought of this keep in mid that the most likely scenario for controlling carbon emissions will be a system of carbon tax and credits. Companies would be given a cap on emissions and would have to buy offsets from others or face huge tax penalties. At companies like Nike, which has stated it wants to be zero waste to the environment by 2025, all air travel is already offset by paying for trees.
According to the movie's official website, the movie (production and distribution) are going to be carbon neutral which I suppose means that they are planting trees to offset emissions. Before you laugh at the thought of this keep in mid that the most likely scenario for controlling carbon emissions will be a system of carbon tax and credits. Companies would be given a cap on emissions and would have to buy offsets from others or face huge tax penalties. At companies like Nike, which has stated it wants to be zero waste to the environment by 2025, all air travel is already offset by paying for trees.
Speaking of market-based offset mechanisms - once you've gone carbon-neutral, shouldn't you go monogamy-neutral as well?
When you cheat on your partner you add to the heartbreak, pain and jealousy in the atmosphere.
Cheatneutral offsets your cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and NOT cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience. Can I offset all my cheating?
First you should look at ways of reducing your cheating. Once you've done this you can use Cheatneutral to offset the remaining, unavoidable cheating
To me, it appears that his political opponents and global warming deniers can no longer pick apart his argument as they once could; the evidence is overwhelmingly on his (and thousands of climate scientists) side. What's left for the asshurt? To take weak shots at his credibility.
Recently, my band played in a small town at some weird Youth For Christ centre that was pretty much the only option for a venue there. Aside from silly bumper-stickers reading "Jesus is my Pilot" stuck on the wall, there was also a lot of literature available on a stand near the door...'Creation Magazine' spent an entire 3 page article trying to make Darwin look like a fool by saying he ripped off all his ideas from his uncle. Evolution wasn't even addressed because what the hell could they counter it with that would be even slightly rational?
This seems like the same kind of thing - if they have you beat, just go down swinging.
you got a point, but that doesn't mean a guy with as much political weight as Gore has can't throw a bit of it around, especially when it comes to a cause he has become the face of.
you got a point, but that doesn't mean a guy with as much political weight as Gore has can't throw a bit of it around, especially when it comes to a cause he has become the face of.
yo let's not lose sight of the bigger picture here. I mean, I may be wrong but I don't think historical mansions are a statistically significant contributer of greenhouse emissions such that Gore needs to throw his weight behind that cause.
you got a point, but that doesn't mean a guy with as much political weight as Gore has can't throw a bit of it around, especially when it comes to a cause he has become the face of.
yo let's not lose sight of the bigger picture here. I mean, I may be wrong but I don't think historical mansions are a statistically significant contributer of greenhouse emissions such that Gore needs to throw his weight behind that cause.
Exactly. I bet at least 1 time per year, even Al Gore throws out an aluminum can- does that mean he no longer cares?????
This is the DUMBEST, most pointlessly distracting line of argument taking us away from the real issue- Climate Change.
you got a point, but that doesn't mean a guy with as much political weight as Gore has can't throw a bit of it around, especially when it comes to a cause he has become the face of.
yo let's not lose sight of the bigger picture here. I mean, I may be wrong but I don't think historical mansions are a statistically significant contributer of greenhouse emissions such that Gore needs to throw his weight behind that cause.
Exactly. I bet at least 1 time per year, even Al Gore throws out an aluminum can- does that mean he no longer cares?????
This is the DUMBEST, most pointlessly distracting line of argument taking us away from the real issue- Climate Change.
But doesn't the fact that Al could lead by example mean anything? I mean, Al could live anywhere he wants. And like it or not, he is the figure head for the environmental movement.
This is pure Do as I say, not as I do mentality.
If this was anyone else on any number of subjects, everyone would be calling them a hypocrite and would lose respect for.
The subject is not global warming and the impact on the world. It's why does he get to preach to people when he's not leading by example.
Like, damn... If this was a preacher and he was telling everyone not to sin, but behind the scenes was living like prostitute. Would he be alright? As long as he was saving everyone else's soul?
Comments
The more fundamental irony, perhaps, is that the Bush (2) ranch is greener than the Gore plantation.
That said, it's unfair to compare an enormous house that was built sufficiently long ago to earn historic property/landmark status with either the average house or the newly built Bush ranch for energy consumption purposes. Al could use less, but so could I. The piece smacks of partisan wankery.
I'll call him a pathetic bastard too....now let's all try to conserve and save the environment.
I'm not going to go over the things I've done to these means....
But I assure you....It's Rockadelic.
I'm sure Gore could afford to renovate his home and make it more "green". It was his choice to be a spokesman for this cause, and I'm sure he's made a nice little chunk of change on the lecture circuit
I'd say this issue is going to fall trap to the usual soulstrut bi-partisan bickering. Leftists will not show any disgust of a former democratic vice-president for his (lack of) action in conserving electricity in his own home
Agreed
AL Gore is not running for office. He could be driving a Hummer limousine. It is irrelevant. He can preach about Global Warming because he has been studying it for 30 years. End of story. Whether he is a hypocrite is undeterminable by this useless piece of news about power usage. But again, assuming Gore lives alone and goes to sleep with the lights on, while charging up an ipod on every electrical outlet in the house....who cares????
Yes, he has a huge home and usess an assload of energy.
But here on this board we are fighting about one knows about "evidence" and how much of an hypocrite Al Gore is.
And it's funny that this is a revelation right now. Its fucking stupid that no one realized his living expenses until now. Now that his movie won an award.
Sounds ignorant to me.
In a way, his movie can make some RWM to those who actually give a damn. And as for the movie winning an award is fucking wonderful.
So,Ill let you in on a little secret:
The only way this world can get back to a environmentally correct status is only if it is trendy [/b]
So let him burn in his hypocrisy and lifestyle. Just continue to do what we know is right.
As for me, I don't drive. I don't turn on my air conditioner unless desperatly needed to. Buy energy efficent appliances, etc.
As Im sure many of you do as well.
So pray that more Cameron Diaz's and other celeb's exploit energy effecient cars and what not. Thats the only hope. As sad as it sounds.
If it's a historick landmarck, many renovations which conserve the most energy (i.e. windows, ductwork, etc.) cannot be made whether the VP could afford to or not.
Dude could use less, but so could you.
I just don't buy it. The landmark is so historic that it should continue to use up more energy to preserve itself?
I thnk we all agree changes need to be made, but saying that this home should continue to consume so much cause of it's historical signifigance shows how much value people really put on change.
It sure would be cool if the world worked like that
But it doesn't.
Whooosh!
well unfortuantely that is the truth. if its been deemed a national historic Landmark any renovations have to maintain the cahracter and integrity of the house. You are unable to modify/modernize it after its received that designation. i don't knos if this is the case, but if so then he has at least some legal footwork to stand on. however he could always install solar panels some where on his land and tap into other power sources, unless.. of course, he has already don that.
what does RWM mean?
sorry i'm
edit:
oh wait, i just got it (real world moves)
real world moves (?)
back to the topic of Gore's house, the logic that he can't make his house energy efficient cause its deemed a historical landmark is idiotic.
the face of conserving energy/ global warming awareness has chosen to live in a house that he cannot conserve energy in.
Is this landmark historical for its hypocrisy?
This is an issue pretty close to my heart, and I think you're kind of right, although I'd also say that people also need to come up with a way to make a buck out of it. It's possible, people just need brains and balls to go against the grain.
At the end of the day though, I almost feel that greed and destruction is so entrenched in capitalism that we're all pretty much fucked. Gore should pull his fucking head in though, I could name 100 products that would reduce consumption without hurting his fat old house.
As a side note, did anyone notice how many shots of Apple products there was in his film? Surely its a coincidence that he's on the board.
ahh, no my point was more that singling out a single individual and criticising their energy usage isn't a constructive contribution to the issue of climate change, partiularly when that person has done more than practically anyone else in terms of getting the issue on the public radar - your post is basically full of shit, your assertions don't equate with my views, and I suspect you have little idea of the frameworks through which action on climate change will be pursued
This usually is brought up by people looking to shirk their own personal environmental responsibility- case in point, the assbag Sports talk guys on radio today, blindly speculating that Leonardo DiCaprio's movies use more energy than any person. Not pointing out that Leo runs a HUGE environmental foundation with the money generated by those movies- can't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
Look- Gore has done a lot of work for Global warming. Could he do more? could he move out of his historical landmark house? yes to both. He has also put an incredible amount of his own time and money into promoting this cause- which is more than probably ALL of us could say.
But, until I see Rock foreswear the enormous SUVs that he posted on here as driving, I don't give a fuck what he says some 'nonpartisan' horseshit think tank about Al Gore's home.
We should all try to do more for our families, our neighbors, our children, and their children- I get so sick of some bullshit patriotism based around consuming as much as possible, and defending your right to do it.
According to the movie's official website, the movie (production and distribution) are going to be carbon neutral which I suppose means that they are planting trees to offset emissions. Before you laugh at the thought of this keep in mid that the most likely scenario for controlling carbon emissions will be a system of carbon tax and credits. Companies would be given a cap on emissions and would have to buy offsets from others or face huge tax penalties. At companies like Nike, which has stated it wants to be zero waste to the environment by 2025, all air travel is already offset by paying for trees.
Speaking of market-based offset mechanisms - once you've gone carbon-neutral, shouldn't you go monogamy-neutral as well?
http://www.cheatneutral.com
I'm not even saying move out I'm saying go ahead and get the laws changed so that historical landmarks don't have to be major polluters (sp?)
if this is the case what is to stop the oil lobby from getting other structures to be pushed towards landmark status.
it just seems so easy to make that change thats its aggrivating that it ain't happening
Recently, my band played in a small town at some weird Youth For Christ centre that was pretty much the only option for a venue there. Aside from silly bumper-stickers reading "Jesus is my Pilot" stuck on the wall, there was also a lot of literature available on a stand near the door...'Creation Magazine' spent an entire 3 page article trying to make Darwin look like a fool by saying he ripped off all his ideas from his uncle. Evolution wasn't even addressed because what the hell could they counter it with that would be even slightly rational?
This seems like the same kind of thing - if they have you beat, just go down swinging.
What country do you live in???
Isn't this the Soulstrut flamewar motto?
you got a point, but that doesn't mean a guy with as much political weight as Gore has can't throw a bit of it around, especially when it comes to a cause he has become the face of.
yo let's not lose sight of the bigger picture here. I mean, I may be wrong but I don't think historical mansions are a statistically significant contributer of greenhouse emissions such that Gore needs to throw his weight behind that cause.
Exactly. I bet at least 1 time per year, even Al Gore throws out an aluminum can- does that mean he no longer cares?????
This is the DUMBEST, most pointlessly distracting line of argument taking us away from the real issue- Climate Change.
exactly!!!!!!!!!!
But doesn't the fact that Al could lead by example mean anything? I mean, Al could live anywhere he wants. And like it or not, he is the figure head for the environmental movement.
This is pure Do as I say, not as I do mentality.
If this was anyone else on any number of subjects, everyone would be calling them a hypocrite and would lose respect for.
The subject is not global warming and the impact on the world. It's why does he get to preach to people when he's not leading by example.
Like, damn... If this was a preacher and he was telling everyone not to sin, but behind the scenes was living like prostitute. Would he be alright? As long as he was saving everyone else's soul?