Al Gore, not practicing what he preaches

[pds 0]

oh for fuck sake.... made it throught the first page but can't be bothered to go through the second. apologies if i am repeating someone else who is paying attention.

clarity here Olbermann on Gore’s Energy Use: Setting the Record Straight

namaste, motherfucker.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Kindly explain why buying pollution credits is not an acceptable way to deal with pollution, when successive GOP administrations have embraced the concept.

Ladies and Gentlemen, he's here all week, tip your waiters

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Kindly explain why buying pollution credits is not an acceptable way to deal with pollution, when successive GOP administrations have embraced the concept.

Or can't you?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I couldn't find anything on Nixon embracing pollution credits. Did he actually propose an initiative for them?

In general, I think a program for trading pollution credits would be effective if everyone participated!

These voluntary programs, like TerraPass, look like nothing more than a shell game, designed to ease environmentalist guilt.

Please explain how Gore's paying $450/month neutralizes his $3000/month gas and power bill, as well as his frequent jet setting around the globe.

What's your "ecological footprint"?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Kindly explain why buying pollution credits is not an acceptable way to deal with pollution, when successive GOP administrations have embraced the concept.

Or can't you?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I couldn't find anything on Nixon embracing pollution credits. Did he actually propose an initiative for them?

Your poor knowledge of history is not my problem.

The EPA introduced limited pollution credits in 1974.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Channman 2]

> What have YOU done to offset your carbon use?

I took a test on BP.com to determine my C02 foot print and I scored only a 36. Now thats a failing grade, but I'm working hard at getting that score up to 75-80 by next year.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I sure think Gore could do better, but he's already doing better than most of us. What difference have YOU made?

This is a problem being faced with this discussion - some are making qualitative arguments, i.e., "he does a lot more than most" while others are making quantitative arguments "his energy usage and individual pollution footprint is far greater than most."

It's tough to compare the two - i.e., "Is lawrocket uglier than than the cost of a new Gulfstream?"

Qualitatively, Gore has probably done more than any other person in the world to raise environmental awareness, much in the same way that Rep. Foley did more to increase federal penalties for online sexual child predators than anyone else.

However, from a quantitative measure, Foley probably did more harm to minors with his e-mails than most.

Quote

What have YOU done to offset your carbon use?

Well, here is the qualitative vs. quantitative. First, I think very few people here would have to do nearly as much to offset carbon use. Secondly, there is the Limbaugh-esque hypocricy of a person who speaks loudly about the evils of doing something that he himself is doing more than most.

But, most importantly, let's talk about "offsets." Offsets are the act of offsetting damage that a person causes by attempting to mitigate damage elsewhere. We see a number of examples where an individual person's harm may be greatly offset by their mitigation of the hamr elsewhere.

A great example of offsetting is Representative Foley. He pushed through the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Law of 2006 and got 88 cosponsors for it in the House, and took great pride in his efforts to assist the National Center for Exploited Children. His work was lauded by many as important. The harm he caused by doing it himself was therefore offset by his efforts to prevent harm to children nationwide and worldwide! He should be hailed for it.

Foley's biggest mistake was probably in not saying, "What have YOU done to prevent the exploitation of children? Nowhere NEAR as much as I do." It would have given him a pass.

Look - it was impossible to avoid the accusation of Foley being a hypocrite. You raised it many, many times in your posts. In fact, you were the first responder to the frst Foley thread, http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2457995#2457995

Quote

Quote

Quote

From reuters
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-09-29T195629Z_01_N29387735_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-FOLEY-UPDATE-1.XML

***Six-term Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida resigned from the U.S. Congress on Friday following reports he sent sexually inappropriate e-mails to underage congressional interns...

...Foley was the author of the key sexual predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which Bush signed in July...

Is it a witch hunt or just another scumbag politician?

Just another hypocrite from the far right.

So, should Foley receive credit for "offsets" for all the good he did to prevent other harm? A pat on the back for being such a good guy? He more than made up for the harm he caused.

No, he should not.

I define a "hypocrite" as someone who publicly condemns an act or act that they themselves practice. A minister who preaches about "family values" but has affairs is a hypocrite, even he he convinces hundreds not to have affairs.

A congressman who passes legislation to deal with child predators who is himself a child predator is a hypocrite, no matter how many children he has helped.

We are all hypocrites in one way or another. And I won't stand against all hypocrisy, because I know that as a human, I am a hypocrite at times. I loudly denounce tactics of many other attorneys - tactics that I find reprehensible and yet will, on many occasions, decide to beat them at their own game.

I'll put my spin on Al Gore's hypocrisy that I think is what is being inferred by many, particularly billvon. We can't all be a squeaky clean Jimmy Carter, whom I believe was probably the most moral and personally ethical President the U.S. ever had. In fact, it is Jimmy Carter's example that shows the downside of being squeaky clean.

Al Gore speaks out against what he believes is the sin of excessive energy consumption, but consumes more energy than most everybody else in the U.S. It is his hypocrisy that lets him to be a decent man while trying to do the right thing.

I think Al Gore is a decent man. I think we ALL believe that he could do much more to limit his own energy usage. It is not wrong to point that out. Hopefully, Al Gore will continue his efforts to slow worldwide pollution, while at the same time working zealously to limit his own.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,111]

>Our nation's interests require that Bush be on Air Force One

Bush's job requires he be on Air Force One. Gore's job requires him to fly about the country on a smaller more efficient jet.

[kallend 2,146]

Last time I checked, driving an SUV or travelling on a jet plane was not illegal. Child molestation is.

STOP THE PRESSES - GORE USES ELECTRICITY!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Gore is doing the same thing that Bush and his predecessors have encouraged?

Clinton was condemned repeatedly for doing precisely what his detractors were guilty of. ?

What are you talking about?

1) Using/encouraging the use of pollution credits.
2) Extramarital recreation and other morally questionable activities (to say the least). Bob Barr, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, and Newt Gingrich were the bigger names.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Kindly explain why buying pollution credits is not an acceptable way to deal with pollution, when successive GOP administrations have embraced the concept.

Or can't you?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I couldn't find anything on Nixon embracing pollution credits. Did he actually propose an initiative for them?

Your poor knowledge of history is not my problem.

The EPA introduced limited pollution credits in 1974.

Please explain how Gore's paying $450/month neutralizes his $3000/month gas and power bill, as well as his frequent jet setting around the globe.

What's your "ecological footprint"?

[lawrocket 3]

I am not talking about legal v. illegal.

I am writing about saying one thing and doing another. As an aside, Foley apparently never molested a child - just sent e-mails that appear to be a violation of the law.

As I said, I think that Gore can use much less energy than he does. I think it is hypocritical of him to use so much energy. I believe, and many others believe, that he uses much more than is necessary.

Which comes to the other side, which believes that he uses only what is necessary, and uses offsets. That's fine and dandy for some and not for others.

Look - hypocricy rules the day. There are GOOD reasons for hypocricy.

Do you find any hypocricy at all in Al Gore's usage of energy versus his public statements?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Do you find any hypocricy at all in Al Gore's usage of energy versus his public statements?

1 - He's rich so he can afford it
2 - He's also left wing, not right

therefore it's good, therefore Hollywood loves him as one of their own

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Last time I checked, driving an SUV or travelling on a jet plane was not illegal. Child molestation is.

STOP THE PRESSES - GORE USES ELECTRICITY!

I think what you're trying to say is...

That is a crappy analogy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Last time I checked, driving an SUV or travelling on a jet plane was not illegal. Child molestation is.

STOP THE PRESSES - GORE USES ELECTRICITY!

I think what you're trying to say is...

That is a crappy analogy.

it's simple, gore is like a shuttlecock, foley is like a dart, if you throw them both, neither really wants to stick to a mirror, but foley might leave chips in the surface. Barbeque flavored chips, not the onion and chive.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sundevil777 102]

You are sooo bad to bring back up the shuttlecock vs dart analogy - I think that was the origin of my continuing assault on crappy analogies.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rehmwa 2]

I'm not bad,

I'm not even drawn that way

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Our nation's interests require that Bush be on Air Force One

Bush's job requires he be on Air Force One. Gore's job requires him to fly about the country on a smaller more efficient jet.

what job does Gore have? It doesn't require him to use a private jet, which is less efficient than a larger passenger airline jet.

If he's choosen to be a Green advocate, certainly these sort of criticisms are fair game. Is there a written transcript of sports anchor Keith Oberman's video that appears to challenge the original claims as exaggerated? I don't do video streaming at work.

[billvon 3,111]

>what job does Gore have?

He's an author and a lecturer.

>It doesn't require him to use a private jet, which is less efficient than a
>larger passenger airline jet.

Just as Bush's job does not require a 747; a 757 would be roughly 3 times as efficient.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

>what job does Gore have?

He's an author and a lecturer.

>It doesn't require him to use a private jet, which is less efficient than a
>larger passenger airline jet.

Just as Bush's job does not require a 747; a 757 would be roughly 3 times as efficient.

Add the dozens (literally) of AMC aircraft moving his motorcade and USSS Detachment.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[billvon 3,111]

>Add the dozens (literally) of AMC aircraft moving his motorcade and USSS Detachment.

Right. And add all Gore's materials for his lectures and his assistants. Still adds up to less than a planeload.

We did the math once in terms of using the Challenger 604 to do a demo with 10 people as opposed to flying them all commercially. It was cheaper to use the Challenger. Never did the math in terms of fuel consumption; I should have checked our burn rate enroute.

[NCclimber 0]

How long has Air Force One been a 747?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1990

707 before then.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>what job does Gore have?

He's an author and a lecturer.

IOW, he has no special needs.

Quote

Just as Bush's job does not require a 747; a 757 would be roughly 3 times as efficient.

You know, it's okay to yield sometimes. The financial and environment costs of swapping out a highly customized 16 year old plane for a new one make no sense at all.

And are you asserting that the President can manage with half the capacity? I myself don't know how fully it is utilized.

[sundevil777 102]

There are 2 identical 747s available for the president.

The president also has 2 gulfstream jets available to him.

I think it would be a good public relations move for him to use those frequently. The good folks of the media circus wouldn't like it though, they wouldn't all be able to go with him.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,111]

>IOW, he has no special needs.

You know for a fact he has fewer special needs than, say, Laura Bush? I think you have no idea what 'special needs' either one of them has, and are just making shit up at this point.

This whole thing is getting somewhat stupid. Our president and our first lady use FAR FAR FAR more fuel getting themselves around than Gore does. Does this mean that Bush is bad, or that Gore is bad, for that point alone? No. Gore advocates reducing energy usage and CO2 emissions, and spends his money to reduce his impact, although he has much more of an impact than your typical person. He should strive to reduce that, although it does not make sense to go so far that he can no longer be effective at his job.

Bush advocates pre-emptive invasions of other countries, and advocates that others die for his beliefs. He himself is unwilling to fight in the war.
Should he strive to encourage his family and friends to enlist? Yes, that would be nice. Does that make him a hypocrite, because he thinks that other people should do what he himself is unwilling to do? Not really. If he were fighting, he would be less effective at his job.