copy and paste from the first thread started on this

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oregon (State of Jefferson)
Posts: 2,454



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I built my house in 1998 and wish I had built it to be more energy effiecient. I do have some solar abilities and this winter have kept heat at 63 degrees and limit fireplace usage. I have an old SUV that I only use if transporting a large group of kids up the ski mountain and need the space and safety of 4 wheel drive. I share an energy effiecient tiny Honda with my son for other in city errands or I walk or ride my bike.

I think most leaders have houses and carbon footprints larger than the average citizen. For example I would never cririsize all the private plane travel and George, Laura and the twins. They are in a position of their leadership requiring enormous amount of travel and security. Bush requested we all reduce our energy usage but just as the White house is used for business/meetings and Bush and family use private jets almost daily this is required for him to do his job. Gores house serves as not only a home but meetings/education and his travel is by public transportation and the investment in energy to get out his message is an investment in change that will help all of us regardless of whether you believe in the science of global warming.

Al Gore has devoted much of his personal savings and life to comabting global warming. His home is used for meetings/ retreats and he exchanges carbon points. He does not travel by personal jet. I could compare his usage to mine but my job does not require public speaking nor do I use my home for large scale meetings.

Gores message has been to cut back as much as you can and exploring methods of renewable energy. His public information has enormously impacted America and our energy usage and that is good for America regardless of your belief in science.

Why not contrast and compare energy usage between all the leaders in our country and their travel/job/living energy uses? Really I hardly think comparing them to the average citizen is relevant. They are not going down to their local business to work 8 hours. Their positions/meetings etc require much more to accomplish their messages regardless if their name is Gore/Bush/Clinton/McCain/Guliani/Obama/Edwards/Romney. All of these men have publicly stated america needs to cutback on energy usage however their positions are just a little different than ordinary citizens. Al of these men state America must cut back on energy and that we are facing a crisis yet how can they cut their consumption back to what you and I would use and perform their job?




Here is an interesting piece on some of those charges:


Sunday, August 20, 2006
Gore Cracks the Conservative's Lies

The Conservative blogoshpere continues to rampantly spread the distorted and misleading lies of Peter Schweizer and his USA Today editorial Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe. In that piece, Mr. Schweizer, an employee of the ExxonMobil funded Hoover Institution, attempts to divert attention away from global warming and discredit Al Gore through a poorly crafted series of lies:


Lie #1: "Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property."

Gore receives no royalties from this mine, which was shut down in 2003. A correction has already run in the USA Today.


Lie #2: "So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock."

Al Gore has never owned stock in Occidental. However, his late father did, all of which was sold nearly 6 years ago. His mother also had a small number of shares which were also disposed by the trustee of her estate. Mr. Gore is not the trustee.


Lie #3: "Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist."

Al Gore has signed up for every green power option made available by his utility suppliers and had already begun adding photovoltaic solar panels to his home before Schweizer's baseless attack.


Lie #4: "And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)"

False again. The Gore's achieve their personal offsets independently through their own means, while the makers of An Inconvenient Truth provide leadership in neutralizing the carbon impact of the film.

In addition to these lies, the article utterly ignores the front line leadership demonstrated by both Mr. Gore and his business partners. An Inconvenient Truth, in both its film and book format, are the world's first carbon neutral projects in their respective genres. Gore's independent media company Current TV is committed to going carbon neutral, and the Gore co-founded Generation Investment Management offsets the carbon impact of their business operations and the travel and domestic emissions of all employees.

If there was ever a leader in climate and environmental issues it is Al Gore. Schweizer's piece, and the unquestioning support of it by conservative pundits, nakedly demonstrates their shared agenda - to mislead the public about global warming and vandalize the reputation of anyone who demonstrates the courage and integrity to speak the truth about climate change. This time they won't