OT: Live Earth

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:45 am

I'm just watching some of this today on the DVR. So good to see Yusuf (Cat Stevens) performing again...I thought I would never have a chance to get to hear that voice singing live, since he had already stopped singing by the time I was turned onto his music. I know there were acoustic singer/songwriters before there was Cat Stevens, but IMO, guys like Ryan Adams, Damien Rice, James Blunt, etc. still owe a lot to the man. Hope he tours the US.

Post by **Jared** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:25 am

Leebo,

I don't think the idea behind carbon credits is some sort of absolution for the rich. My take on it is that there are always people with jobs where they will have to travel a lot, use more energy than the average person, etc. However, there's an increased environmental impact to do that. So you can do two things...the radical thing would be to just stop driving/flying/buying foreign stuff/etc. However, that would be extreme and would hurt the economy. Currently, there's no alternative to using fossil fuels and what not in many of these situations, so the best thing is to also do things to offset that impact, which includes buying carbon offsets and becoming more energy conscious.

(BTW, I'm all for buying foreign goods and going to Disneyland...those that encourage always buying locally and not traveling aren't considering what the impact of not doing those things would be on the economy at large. I also think that people that the focus on carbon offsets should be on the upper class...people that can afford to do something and are making a larger environmental impact, not the already pinched middle class and poor. And if people are buying carbon offsets and not doing other things to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, that's hypocritical as well.)

To me, it seems like a very moderate proposal (hey, there are no current alternatives to flying/driving long distances/buying foreign stuff, but instead of pushing to ban all flights, let's encourage those that can to offset by supporting renewable resources).

And what's with all the hate for Al Gore? He seems to be dedicated to raising awareness about energy use and the environment (and has been for the last 20 years or so), and all of the Gore comments in the thread have been highly negative.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:31 am

Jared wrote:
And what's with all the hate for Al Gore? He seems to be dedicated to raising awareness about energy use and the environment (and has been for the last 20 years or so), and all of the Gore comments in the thread have been highly negative.

I think it's got more to do with his personality than his message. He's so pedantic and blowhardy that it's almost instinctive to make fun of the guy...especially in his post-2000 XL Al incarnation. Despite his often funny attempts at self-effacing humor, he's comes off like the professor at the cocktail party who just can't ever transition from his field into small talk.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:53 am

Jared wrote:And what's with all the hate for Al Gore? He seems to be dedicated to raising awareness about energy use and the environment (and has been for the last 20 years or so), and all of the Gore comments in the thread have been highly negative.

Because Gore is a megalomaniac who still can't get over the fact that he lost the 2000 presidential election, fair or not.

So he's hopped back on to his environmental wagon -- he was too busy inventing the Internet through the 90s to care deeply about ecology -- and rode it back into the public spotlight that he craves, to an Oscar and into Hollywood's heart. That only expanded his inflated ego and exacerbated the annoying personality traits that RobVarak explained so brilliantly.

I'd LOVE to see how environmentally friendly Gore's farm near Nashville is, and I'd love to see how Al is saving the planet by flying all over the world to pimp his movie and causes.

In short: Gore is a phony who is using his environmental crusade to pump his ego as much as he is to save the planet, just like the acts that performed during Live Earth.

Take care,
PK

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:54 am

Jared wrote:And what's with all the hate for Al Gore? He seems to be dedicated to raising awareness about energy use and the environment (and has been for the last 20 years or so), and all of the Gore comments in the thread have been highly negative.

I heard this on a talk radio show a few wesks ago, so I don't have a link handy, but the host was explaining the hypocrisy of Al Gore and his purchasing of carbon credits. It's not just that he's buring energy at the rate of 20 regular households, the carbon credits he's purchasing are from a company he partially owns. He's basically paying himself to consume massive amounts of energy.

During his tour promoting his mov...um, I mean educating others about climate change, he refused to listen to any opinions or field questions that did not bow down to his view. There is no debating with this guy. I'm just waiting for the day someone confronts him and responds by covering his ears while sreaming "la la la la la".

My personal dislike for the guy began way back when Tipper started the PMRC

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:57 am

matthewk wrote:My personal dislike for the guy began way back when Tipper started the PMRC

Ding, ding, ding. Same here. Can you imagine if that woman had become first lady?

Post by **Jared** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:36 pm

Matt,

I can totally understand why people make fun of his style of speaking and what not. What I don't understand is the hate that people have for him. As for the stories about his house; his house in Nashville is also his office, he has special security measures in the house that use power (being a former VP) and all of the electricity from his house is from renewable resources. As for whether Gore is purchasing credits from his own company, that's not true (although it has gone around on the right-wing blog and talk show circuit). He's purchased them via CarbonNeutral and the Native Energy companies, and there is no evidence that he's paying himself to consume massive amounts of energy.

PK,

So you're evidence that he's a megalomaniac is....

Or your evidence that he didn't care about ecology in the 90s is....

Or your evidence that he claimed he was inventing the internet is....

And if you want evidence for how environmentally friendly Gore's farm is, you could look it up...

The roof of his home is now fitted with solar panels, he purchases 100% of his power through Green Power Switch (which is all power from renewable resources, and is more expensive than other sources of power), etc.

As for flying all over the world, he does offset that with carbon credits. Even if you think carbon credits are absolutely worthless, his advocacy efforts have increased public awareness about energy issues, have pushed corporations to change their policies, etc. That is, his actions have a net positive effect on energy and environmental issues.

I understand you might feel like Gore is a phony...there's a cottage industry of people trying to paint him as a hypocrite, liar, etc. But I don't know how you can claim that without evidence to back it up.

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:41 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:
matthewk wrote:My personal dislike for the guy began way back when Tipper started the PMRC
Ding, ding, ding. Same here. Can you imagine if that woman had become first lady?

But they're DeadHeads!

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:20 pm

Jared wrote:PK,

So you're evidence that he's a megalomaniac is....

Or your evidence that he didn't care about ecology in the 90s is....

Or your evidence that he claimed he was inventing the internet is....

And if you want evidence for how environmentally friendly Gore's farm is, you could look it up...

The roof of his home is now fitted with solar panels, he purchases 100% of his power through Green Power Switch (which is all power from renewable resources, and is more expensive than other sources of power), etc.

As for flying all over the world, he does offset that with carbon credits. Even if you think carbon credits are absolutely worthless, his advocacy efforts have increased public awareness about energy issues, have pushed corporations to change their policies, etc. That is, his actions have a net positive effect on energy and environmental issues.

I understand you might feel like Gore is a phony...there's a cottage industry of people trying to paint him as a hypocrite, liar, etc. But I don't know how you can claim that without evidence to back it up.

Oh, his roof has solar panels. How lovely. Did he have them in the 80s and 90s when he first started pimping the environment? Or have they been recently installed since people started paying attention to his environmental crusade since "An Inconvenient Truth?"

How long has he purchased his power through Green Power Switch? Is that a longtime gig, or just recently? Does Al tool around the country in a hybrid? Does he he use bio-fuel exclusively?

And the carbon credits ... don't get me started. What a load of SH*T.

I FEEL that Al Gore is a phony, and I despise the man. And I highly doubt that his overall commitment to the environment has been as active as it is now, since he finally is gaining a ton of political traction and publicity from his pro-environment stances.

If the environment is SO important to Al, then why didn't he make it the centerpiece of his 2000 presidential campaign? Because green issues weren't "hot" then, and he would have been painted as a Green Party freak by the more centrist elements of the Democratic Party and been all-but unelectable.

It just cracks me up when people paint Al Gore as this altruistic Father Earth, the man who puts nature ahead of everything. Al will pimp saving the planet if it benefits him politically. If that's not the case, then again, why didn't Al put the environment front and center as the major plank of his campaign in 2000?

So when faced with a choice between political capital and the environment, you know Al is going to choose politics. He's just riding high now because pro-environment stances are generating tons of political capital. It will be interesting to see how he uses it.

Take care,
PK

itsmebd · Post by **itsmebd** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:50 pm

Today's tip of the day...

Practice what we preach

Jared wrote: As for the stories about his house; his house in Nashville is also his office, he has special security measures in the house that use power (being a former VP) and all of the electricity from his house is from renewable resources. As for whether Gore is purchasing credits from his own company, that's not true (although it has gone around on the right-wing blog and talk show circuit). He's purchased them via CarbonNeutral and the Native Energy companies, and there is no evidence that he's paying himself to consume massive amounts of energy.

And if you want evidence for how environmentally friendly Gore's farm is, you could look it up...

The roof of his home is now fitted with solar panels, he purchases 100% of his power through Green Power Switch (which is all power from renewable resources, and is more expensive than other sources of power), etc.

Wow that is about as myopic as you can get on the subject of Gores house. Are you on his staff for re-election or do you really believe what you are saying?

THE REAL INCOVENIENT TRUTH

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

Origins: This e-mail comparison between the homes of President George W. Bush and former vice-president Al Gore began circulating on the Internet in March 2007 (shortly after the latter's film on the global warming issue, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Academy Award as Best Documentary). Short and sweet, there's a fair bit of truth to the e-mail: Al Gore's Nashville mansion is something of the energy-gobbler the e-mail depicts, while President Bush's Crawford ranch is more the model of responsible resource use the juxtaposition portrays it to
be.

According to the Associated Press, the Gore's 10,000 square foot Belle Meade residence consumes electricity at a rate of about 12 times the average for a typical house in Nashville (191,000 kwh versus 15,600 kwh). While there are mitigating factors (further discussed in our article about the Gore household's energy use), this is still a surprising number, given that the residence is approximately four times the size of the average new American home.

The ranch home owned by George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, (dubbed "the Texas White House") was designed by Austin architect David Heymann, an associate dean for undergraduate programs at the University of Texas School of Architecture. While its precise size isn't known, scuttlebutt has it that it's about 4,000 square feet, all on one floor.

The ranch utilizes an efficient geothermal heating and cooling system that pumps ground water through a heat exchanger to warm the house in the winter and cool it in the summer, a system that expends roughly one-quarter the energy of a conventional heater/air-conditioner. Water used by the house is reclaimed, treated, and reused, and rainwater funnels from the home's gutters into a large cistern, which holds the water for garden irrigation.

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

Things to note about the house.

It will also be President Bush office once he retires.
This house also has security measures for a president/former president that you attribute to Gores defense. Yet, somehow none of those carbon credits are needed for the Bush estate. Guess someone was being PROactive a few years ago.

You do know carbon credits is a term that elitist liberals and Hollywood came up with so they can feel better about using the same (if not more) electricity then the average folk?

And that boys and girls, is the rest of the story.

Peace to my brothers PK & JD

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:55 pm

Links people mentioned;

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ouse_x.htm

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=5072659

This pretty much sums it up for me:

"I appreciate the solar panels," he said, "but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:26 pm

From one of the links Naples posted:

Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."

Here's what I don't get. At one point Gore's family had a much smaller footprint. There was probably a time when he didn't have a mansion and a heated pool. So he essentially vastly increased his footprint and then decreased it when it was convenient for him politically. WTF?

I guess it all comes down to timing. I'm glad I didn't calculate my household's footprint *before* buying a larger house, SUV, big TV, etc. Now that I have all that sh*t it would be a good time to calculate my footprint now, reduce it a bit, and feel great about myself.

I really don't understand how people *don't* get it. I wouldn't take weight loss advice from a 400 pound man just because he paid to send 5 other people to Weight Watchers and I'm not going to listen to Al Gore preach to me about conserving energy.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:31 pm

Blublub wrote:And JRod, as much as I'd like to believe the Bush story, the two terms have been interchanged long before he took the stage. They both have distinct meanings in the science.

Science may have used these two terms but until Bush took office everyone used global warming. His consultant Frank Luntz advised the White House to use the term this would change the seriousness of the threat and take some heat off of Bush. This f*** is responsible for things like Healthy Forests to allow for logging, No Child Left Behind for his unfunded mandate on public schools that test mediocrity and a few others.

It was Luntz and the White House that singlehandedly changed the public (mostly media) saying global warming into climate change.

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:18 pm

Yeah yeah yeah, Gore sucks & all that. I dug the tip about unplugging your 'chargers' when not in use. Had no idea.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:37 pm

lockbox

itsmebd · Post by **itsmebd** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:47 pm

fsquid wrote:lockbox

Halliburton

Word association is fun.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:12 pm

Peace to my brothers PK & JD

Welcome back brother. Hang out for a spell,I missed your witty and super quick comebacks.

Peace to you as well!

itsmebd · Post by **itsmebd** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:22 pm

JackDog wrote:
Peace to my brothers PK & JD
Welcome back brother. Hang out for a spell,I missed your witty and super quick comebacks.

Peace to you as well!

My account is still banned... Possibly for those witty and quick comebacks.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:36 pm

JRod wrote: Science may have used these two terms but until Bush took office everyone used global warming. His consultant Frank Luntz advised the White House to use the term this would change the seriousness of the threat and take some heat off of Bush. This f*** is responsible for things like Healthy Forests to allow for logging, No Child Left Behind for his unfunded mandate on public schools that test mediocrity and a few others.

It was Luntz and the White House that singlehandedly changed the public (mostly media) saying global warming into climate change.

And you think the nation is so stupid as not to understand the threat because of different wording? OK. If that's the case,it's all Bush's fault. He is truly the devil.

I am not a huge Bush fan,but I'll take his house over Gore's when it comes to "Carbon Footprints". Plus Bush isn't trying to pimp the fact he did that to his ranch. Gore got busted out and recently made those additions to his mansion. PK is right,Gore did it for political gain. Phony self loving prick.

As far as the Healthy Forest law,what's the problem? It's not for logging. It's for the poor people we have been watching loose everything because some dickweed throws a cigerette butt into some brush during a drought.

President Bush Signs Healthy Forests Restoration Act into Law

On December 3, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning processes. The legislation is based on sound science and helps further the President.s Healthy Forests Initiative pledge to care for America.s forests and rangelands, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to communities, help save the lives of firefighters and citizens, and protect threatened and endangered species.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act:
Strengthens public participation in developing high priority forest health projects;
Reduces the complexity of environmental analysis allowing federal land agencies to use the best science available to actively manage land under their protection;
Provides a more effective appeals process encouraging early public participation in project planning; and
Issues clear guidance for court action against forest health projects.
The Administration and a bipartisan majority in Congress supported the legislation and are joined by a variety of environmental conservation groups.

The Need for Common-Sense Forest Legislation
Catastrophic fires, particularly those experienced in California, Arizona, Colorado, Montana and Oregon over the past two years, burn hotter and faster than most ordinary fires.
Visibility and air quality are reduced, threatening even the health of many who do not live near the fires.
The habitat for endangered species and other wildlife is destroyed.
Federal forests and rangelands also face threats from the spread of invasive species and insect attacks.
In the past two years alone, 147,049 fires burned nearly 11 million acres
2002: 88,458 fires burned roughly 7 million acres and caused the deaths of 23 firefighters;
2003 (thus far): 59,149 fires have burned 3.8 million acres and caused the deaths of 28 firefighters.
Nearly 6,800 structures have been destroyed in 2003 (approximately 4,800 in California).
The California fires alone cost $250 million to contain and 22 civilians have died as a result.

Sounds good to me. I live in an area with very dense forest. They clean the brush back weekly when it's dry. I can't thank them enough.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:37 pm

itsmebd wrote:
JackDog wrote:
Peace to my brothers PK & JD
Welcome back brother. Hang out for a spell,I missed your witty and super quick comebacks.

Peace to you as well!

My account is still banned... Possibly for those witty and quick comebacks.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:38 pm

BDitty:

Welcome back, dude! But I didn't say that or even acknowledge you, since you're still banned.

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:57 pm

Jimmydeicide wrote: The preacheness of this thread what do you think.
Im sure youll be practicing all those things next week.

"lets all do a little to change out habits and try and improve the world for our children and their children"

Boy, what a terrible thing to say. There was no "preacheness" as you say.
That was your interpretation. All I did was make a suggestion that we all do what we can. I will try and change my bad habits. Something tells me you probably don't give a sh*t about the environment and would rather do nothing and just point out how everyone else is hypocritical. I guess that makes everything allright? If you don't like my suggestions, then just igonore them and go "f*ck off" yourself.

itsmebd · Post by **itsmebd** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:20 pm

pk500 wrote:BDitty:

Welcome back, dude! But I didn't say that or even acknowledge you, since you're still banned.

Take care,
PK

Jimmydeicide · Post by **Jimmydeicide** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:25 pm

Im just wondering if you realy believe in what your saying or if you just wanted to put out a NIIIIICE thread and trying to be popular.

No i dont give a s*** , so when you say we all should ,im saying not all just those who care perhaps.

I cant ignore people telling me i should be doing something i dont wanna do.

No biggie jack, realy i was just putting some opposition realy ,being a dick , but it doesnt change what i felt your intent was with the thread.

Im on my way to buy a Prius.

itsmebd · Post by **itsmebd** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:31 pm

Jimmydeicide wrote: Im on my way to buy a Prius.

I hear those things can hit 100. Although I doubt that is very good for the environment. Guess you can always pony up a few "carbon credits" to make up for it.