Al Gore's 'Inconvenient' Hypocrisy: Mansion an Energy Hog

[recxjake]

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient' Hypocrisy: Mansion an Energy Hog


Former Vice President (and global warming aficionado) Al Gore deserves an award for hypocrisy, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

The group, which studied Gore's electric and natural gas consumption, says his mansion in Belle Meade area of Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

In his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore urges Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home, the group noted.

"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) a year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh-more than 20 times the national average," the Tennessee Center for Policy Research said in a news release.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh - consuming more than twice as much electricity in one month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359, the research group said.

Likewise, the natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 a month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research said.

[HolmeZz]

You're painfully late to the party.

[BucEyedPea]

:harumph: Yet is song in his movie sung by Melissa Etheridge at the AA Sunday night has words in it telling us to change how we live: be willing to take mass transit or ride a bike. I wonder how much car and jet fuel he burns too? :cuss:
Of course this is true for the rest of Hollywood who officially went "green" Sunday night at the AA.

[chagrin]

All of these people do this shit. Larry David's wife bitches about environmentalism all day long, while driving an SUV, I am sure Melissa walks to work everyday for pete's sake, and this. I think Ed Begley, Jr was the only dude who walked the walk, riding his bike everywhere.

[noa]

All of these people do this shit. Larry David's wife bitches about environmentalism all day long, while driving an SUV, I am sure Melissa walks to work everyday for pete's sake, and this. I think Ed Begley, Jr was the only dude who walked the walk, riding his bike everywhere.


I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but Laurrie David does not drive an SUV.

[Ultra Peanut]

RICH PEOPLE CAN'T CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT HURRRRRRR

Has anyone ever donated to charity? THEN WHY ARE YOU DRIVING A CAR AND LIVING IN A HOME WITH ELECTRICITY ASSHOLE!!!!!!!

[jAZ]

Did "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" mention the Carbon Credits that Al Gore buys?

Of course, not.

That's because "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" is an anti-regulation ideological organization to whom all facts don't matter as much as preemtive attacks on people like Al Gore.

[Amnorix]

Did "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" mention the Carbon Credits that Al Gore buys?

Of course, not.

That's because "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" is an anti-regulation ideological organization to whom all facts don't matter as much as preemtive attacks on people like Al Gore.

I actually like Gore, don't get me wrong.

But if he really spends that much on energy, etc., and is wasteful about it (did he adopt 10 poor families or something?! :eek: ), then I don't think having the luxury of being rich enough to buy carbon credits excuses it, though it may alleviate his conscience.

[Taco John]

Now *THIS* is hypocritical. I didn't see the hypocrisy in the Edwards bit. But it's pretty obvious here.

[Donger]

I remember reading that folks in the Nashville area can sign up to receive electricity only generated by alernative sources. I think it was wind-power. I wonder if Gore has signed up for that?

[patteeu]

Maybe Gore's mansion/lifestyle would have consumed $50,000 worth of energy in 2006 if he hadn't installed energy saving appliances, replaced incandescents with fluorescent light bulbs, and turned down his thermostat? Maybe he really *is* doing his part.

[Radar Chief]

I remember reading that folks in the Nashville area can sign up to receive electricity only generated by alernative sources. I think it was wind-power. I wonder if Gore has signed up for that?

“Sign up” hell, he probably invented it. ;)

[RaiderH8r]

Did "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" mention the Carbon Credits that Al Gore buys?

Of course, not.

That's because "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" is an anti-regulation ideological organization to whom all facts don't matter as much as preemtive attacks on people like Al Gore.
Carbon credits is such a joke. AlGore can't let his own ideaology get in the way of his convenience so he pays someone else to go through the trouble of it for him. This makes his hypocrisy even worse. I bought my carbon credits from the bum at McPherson Square, dropped him 5 bucks this week. Should take my carbon footprint down considerably. This is like going on a diet and deciding its too much work so you pay someone else to lose weight for you.

[patteeu]

“Sign up” hell, he probably invented it. ;)

LMAO You're going to give Nightwish an aneurysm.

[jAZ]

I remember reading that folks in the Nashville area can sign up to receive electricity only generated by alernative sources. I think it was wind-power. I wonder if Gore has signed up for that?
According to his office (via ThinkProgress), he "In his private life, Gore tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible. He drives a hybrid, flies commercially whenever he can, and purchases green power. In the few instances where work has demanded that he travel privately, he purchases carbon offsets for the emissions."

The content of this article is at the very least, questionable.

What exactly is "nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills"? What of that was solar electricity? Payments on capital outlays for solar panels? How much of that was natural gas exactly?

Seems to be deliberately ambigous.

[htismaqe]

Wow, I've never heard the sound of spinning quite that loudly...

[Donger]

According to his office (via ThinkProgress), he "In his private life, Gore tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible. He drives a hybrid, flies commercially whenever he can, and purchases green power. In the few instances where work has demanded that he travel privately, he purchases carbon offsets for the emissions."

The content of this article is at the very least, questionable.

What exactly is "nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills"? What of that was solar electricity? Payments on capital outlays for solar panels? How much of that was natural gas exactly?

Seems to be deliberately ambigous.

Well, that's commendable, if true.

But, what kind of work does he do that "demands" travel by private aircraft? That's a curious statement.

I don't know on the rest. But, I would be surprised if even 10% of his usage is from renewable sources. Therefore, he's got a big ass carbon footprint.

[Donger]

I still say that the yummiest example of hypocrisy on environmental issues is Teddy "Aqualung" Kennedy's opposition to that wind farm off the Massachusetts' coast.

[StcChief]

:harumph: Yet is song in his movie sung by Melissa Etheridge at the AA Sunday night has words in it telling us to change how we live: be willing to take mass transit or ride a bike. I wonder how much car and jet fuel he burns too? :cuss:
Of course this is true for the rest of Hollywood who officially went "green" Sunday night at the AA.

Most of Hollywood is our should be in 'AA'

[Donger]

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

A spokeswoman for Gore said he purchases enough "green power" — renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas — to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.

"Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said.

Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of "green power" for an extra $4 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources.

Okay, so he's buying kilowatt-hour credits. That's good. I wonder what he's doing to offset his natural gas consumption, which totals over $1,000 per month?

[redbrian]

Did "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" mention the Carbon Credits that Al Gore buys?

Of course, not.

That's because "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" is an anti-regulation ideological organization to whom all facts don't matter as much as preemtive attacks on people like Al Gore.

Buying "carbon credits" is like an ancient Catholic buying indulgences, neither one is going to get you to heaven.

[Joe Seahawk]

There is no defending his hypocrisy on this issue IMO..

practice what you preach.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

[Velvet_Jones]

I work with a couple that live in Arkansas but work in KC. They drive 15 hour two or three times a month. She is a radical liberal who is getting back to nature in Arky an he is basically a person who is past experimenting with pot and is now into full fledged research. One time she was preaching to another coworker about the how we should fallow what Al Gore preaches. I, as a consummate smart azz said, “This, coming from a person who drives a V8 Jeep from Arkansas to KC to work”. That really pizzed her off so she attempted to justify her situation by bringing up the fact that they cannot make enough money in Arkansas to justify quitting. I simply replied “Don’t be embarrassed, most liberal ideas are for other people, not the people promoting it” and left it at that.

I’ve personally experienced two crazy instances of this type hypocrisy is with liberal azz brother. He used to biatch at me because I drove a full sized PU and my wife drove an SUV. But once he got a job that actually paid enough for him to afford a decent car, he bought an SUV. I asked him “how does it feel to be part of the problem?” He just mumbled that he didn’t want to talk about it.

The other instance was when we were turkey hunting, he started spouting about his opinion on gun control and how it was a good starting point in reducing crime. While he was waxing on this subject, we were sitting in a blind and he was holding his own shotgun. I grabbed his gun and put it on the other side of me and said “Good hunting”. That really pizzed him off but I think he got the point.

Liberal ideas rarely have anything to do with the supporters doing anything different. It’s BS.

[Amnorix]

blahblahblahblah

Liberal ideas rarely have anything to do with the supporters doing anything different. It’s BS.

My only response is to note that hypocrisy is hardly owned solely by the left. How many "family values" preachers have been caught giving their secretary's late night dicktation? How many Republicans who rode the Contract with Ameirca into office stayed past their self-imposed term limits? How many decry government spending while pumping pork into their districts as fast as possible?

etc. ad infinitum.

[Velvet_Jones]

Blablabla - republicans are bad - Blablabla

etc. ad infinitum.
Spoken like a true lawyer. “Everyone else is doing it so it’s OK”. No wonder this country is getting fugged up.

And how many wind mill farms have been erected off of Martha’s Vineyard?

[oldandslow]

Velvet:

You paint with a wide brush. I am uber-liberal on the environment and I attempt to live it.

I do everything from drive a hybrid (when I can't bike), have a garden that is almost an acre in area, butcher my own meat that I raise, reuse, repair, and recycle, and am in the process of getting zoned to be able to put an individual wind turbin on my place. We have a large orchard containing apples and pears. I try to grow enough grapes to make my own wine, but SD winter is hell on the vines. My wife cans hundreds of quarts of vegtables (we haven't purchased a "can" of anything in years). I also heat and cool with a geo-thermal heat pump. I am replanting most of my forty acres with buffalo grass and other indigenous grasses.

There are a lot of folks who are hypocrites, I suppose. Why not join the ones that aren't?

[mlyonsd]

Maybe if Al was serious about the environment he would move into a smaller house and buy Carbon Credits.

It's pretty easy preaching chit to other people when you don't have to pay a price yourself.

Or at least that's what all those calling the Bush administration officials chickenhawks have been saying.

[RedDread]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/14790/2/Countdown-Gore-Energy.mov

We done here?

[KCWolfman]

Did "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" mention the Carbon Credits that Al Gore buys?

Of course, not.

That's because "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" is an anti-regulation ideological organization to whom all facts don't matter as much as preemtive attacks on people like Al Gore.
LOL - How much energy does carbon credits saved from being released?

I didn't realize there was a get out of greenhouse effects free card.

[alanm]

LOL - How much energy does carbon credits saved from being released?

I didn't realize there was a get out of greenhouse effects free card.
It's to help assuage the feelings of guilt. :)

[BucEyedPea]

My only response is to note that hypocrisy is hardly owned solely by the left. How many "family values" preachers have been caught giving their secretary's late night dicktation? How many Republicans who rode the Contract with Ameirca into office stayed past their self-imposed term limits? How many decry government spending while pumping pork into their districts as fast as possible?

etc. ad infinitum.


I know you said ad infinitum but a really good one to bring up is Newt getting bj's from staff while leading on impeachment of a president for similar behavior. ( Yes I know Clinton also lied regarding a lawsuit too...just the same.)

[pikesome]

My only response is to note that hypocrisy is hardly owned solely by the left. How many "family values" preachers have been caught giving their secretary's late night dicktation? How many Republicans who rode the Contract with Ameirca into office stayed past their self-imposed term limits? How many decry government spending while pumping pork into their districts as fast as possible?

etc. ad infinitum.

That's why I'm not jazzed about the amount of taxes and government intervention this "global warming" issue is going to funnel into Congress's hands.

[jAZ]

LOL - How much energy does carbon credits saved from being released?

I didn't realize there was a get out of greenhouse effects free card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

How buying carbon credits attempts to reduces emissions
Carbon credits creates a market for reducing greenhouse emissions (carbon) by giving a monetary value to the cost of polluting the air. This means that carbon becomes a cost of business and is seen like other inputs such water rates (water is also a freely available natural resource, but governments have a system of charging for it as it is seen as valuable).

By way of example, assume a factory produces 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse emissions in a year. Following international interest in greenhouse emissions, a government enacts laws that restrict or provide a quota on the maximum emissions a business can have. So the factory is given a quota of say 80,000 tonnes. The factory either reduces its emissions to 80,000 tonnes or otherwise is required to purchase 'carbon credits' to offset the extra tonnes it is polluting over and above its quota. It means factories which want to pollute, in the short term, pay a real 'financial cost' for making greenhouse emissions.

A business would buy the 'carbon credits' on an open market from organisations which have been approved as being able to sell legitimate carbon credits, one seller might be a company which will plant so many trees for every 'carbon credit' you buy from them. So for this factory it might pollute a tonne, but is essentially now paying another group to go out and plant trees which will say draw a tonne of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

As emission levels are predicted to keep rising, over time it is envisaged, that the number of companies wanting/needing to buy more credits will increase hence pushing the market price up, and hence encouraging more groups to undertake environmentally friendly activities which create for them carbon credits to sell. Another model is that companies which use below their quota can sell their excess as 'carbon credits' also, the possibilities are endless hence making it a open market.

While the system is being established it is suggested that initially carbon credits should be relatively inexpensive so that business find it easy to transition towards paying for credits, then over time the quota of emissions a government allows (based on say international agreements) will gradually be reduced, which increases demand and keeps pushing up the value of the credits. The hopeful end game is that somewhere along the way the company will question this financial cost and reach a realisation that if they just reduced their emmissions they would not need to buy credits, hence achieving the desired goal of the carbon credit trading system.

[CHIEF4EVER]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_creditHow buying carbon credits attempts to reduces emissions
Carbon credits creates a market for reducing greenhouse emissions (carbon) by giving a monetary value to the cost of polluting the air. This means that carbon becomes a cost of business and is seen like other inputs such water rates (water is also a freely available natural resource, but governments have a system of charging for it as it is seen as valuable).

By way of example, assume a factory produces 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse emissions in a year. Following international interest in greenhouse emissions, a government enacts laws that restrict or provide a quota on the maximum emissions a business can have. So the factory is given a quota of say 80,000 tonnes. The factory either reduces its emissions to 80,000 tonnes or otherwise is required to purchase 'carbon credits' to offset the extra tonnes it is polluting over and above its quota. It means factories which want to pollute, in the short term, pay a real 'financial cost' for making greenhouse emissions.

A business would buy the 'carbon credits' on an open market from organisations which have been approved as being able to sell legitimate carbon credits, one seller might be a company which will plant so many trees for every 'carbon credit' you buy from them. So for this factory it might pollute a tonne, but is essentially now paying another group to go out and plant trees which will say draw a tonne of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

As emission levels are predicted to keep rising, over time it is envisaged, that the number of companies wanting/needing to buy more credits will increase hence pushing the market price up, and hence encouraging more groups to undertake environmentally friendly activities which create for them carbon credits to sell. Another model is that companies which use below their quota can sell their excess as 'carbon credits' also, the possibilities are endless hence making it a open market.

While the system is being established it is suggested that initially carbon credits should be relatively inexpensive so that business find it easy to transition towards paying for credits, then over time the quota of emissions a government allows (based on say international agreements) will gradually be reduced, which increases demand and keeps pushing up the value of the credits. The hopeful end game is that somewhere along the way the company will question this financial cost and reach a realisation that if they just reduced their emmissions they would not need to buy credits, hence achieving the desired goal of the carbon credit trading system.
So if some dude rapes 3 women, he can make it all better by donating 3 grand to a battered womens shelter? That makes his sexual assault footprint zero? Sorry, that logic doesn't resonate with me.

[L.A.Chieffan]

Who and what is the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" and when did we start listening to anything people from Tennessee have to say.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Who and what is the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" and when did we start listening to anything people from Tennessee have to say.

Al Gore is from Tennessee. Do you listen to him?

[pikesome]

Al Gore is from Tennessee. Do you listen to him?

They have a pretty cool Women's BBall coach down there. Does that mean anything?

[L.A.Chieffan]

Al Gore is from Tennessee. Do you listen to him?
Not if he's from Tennessee.

[CHIEF4EVER]

They have a pretty cool Women's BBall coach down there. Does that mean anything?

Well, that's a plus of course but I don't think it quite makes up for Gore. That deal is still a net loser.

[jAZ]

So if some dude rapes 3 women, he can make it all better by donating 3 grand to a battered womens shelter? That makes his sexual assault footprint zero? Sorry, that logic doesn't resonate with me.
That's cause that logic is basically (forgive the insulting tone, but you earned this... :p) completely fuggin stupid.

Trees literally remove carbon from the atmosphere. Battered women's shelters don't unrape a woman.

I can't phathom why I'd need to explain this.

[CHIEF4EVER]

That's cause that logic is basically (forgive the insulting tone, but you earned this... :p) completely fuggin stupid.

Trees literally remove carbon from the atmosphere. Battered women's shelters don't unrape a woman.

I can't phathom why I'd need to explain this.
So burning all the carbon producing fossil fuel I want is OK so long as I plant some trees? Even though the greenhouse gases produced kill the same effing trees (because of climate change) I planted to gain a 'zero carbon footprint'? Seems like a parallel logic to me. Just as ridiculous. My example was intended as humorous hyperbole. The carbon credits idea is just asinine. I can't fathom any thinking person buying into such stupidity.

Edit: Time for bed. Maybe if I am sleeping, the reduced CO2 emissions I produce will reduce my 'carbon footprint'. :p

[jAZ]

So burning all the carbon producing fossil fuel I want is OK so long as I plant some trees? Even though the greenhouse gases produced kill the same effing trees (because of climate change) I planted to gain a 'zero carbon footprint'? Seems like a parallel logic to me. Just as ridiculous. My example was intended as humorous hyperbole. The carbon credits idea is just asinine. I can't fathom any thinking person buying into such stupidity.

Edit: Time for bed. Maybe if I am sleeping, the reduced CO2 emissions I produce will reduce my 'carbon footprint'. :p
That you struggle to comprehend something doesn't invalidate it. Maybe a nice nap will clear the cobwebs. Night!

[CHIEF4EVER]

That you struggle to comprehend something doesn't invalidate it. Maybe a nice nap will clear the cobwebs. Night!

Just woke up and the idea is just as moronic as when I went to sleep. Oh, yea, I understand it just fine. Oh I just farted. Do I need to plant a Petunia to make up for it or is Methane exempt? LMAO

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh - consuming more than twice as much electricity in one month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359, the research group said.

Likewise, the natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 a month last year. Can you say (say it with me) HYPOCRISY? :shake:

[pikesome]

Well, that's a plus of course but I don't think it quite makes up for Gore. That deal is still a net loser.

What if Tennessee buys some cool credits? Can that make up for Gore?

[tiptap]

As said on the other thread. Gore isn't advertising to reduce his use of electricity. He is looking to reduce the amount of fossil fuel used to generate that electricity.

I am quite willing to chastise him on his use of Natural Gas if conservation practices could reduce his use.

[Donger]

As said on the other thread. Gore isn't advertising to reduce his use of electricity. He is looking to reduce the amount of fossil fuel used to generate that electricity.

I am quite willing to chastise him on his use of Natural Gas if conservation practices could reduce his use.

But, of course, he could reduce the amount of fossil fuel used to generate his electricity by using less. They are far from mutually exclusive. From the figures shown, his pool and pool house use almost as much as his main house.

Does his pool really need to be that warm?

[Donger]

I am quite willing to chastise him on his use of Natural Gas if conservation practices could reduce his use.

Sure, he could us solar lights to light his driveway, but real, natural gas-powered flames looks much better.

[jAZ]

The more you try to be a comedian, the more you demonstrate that you genuinely don't understand the things you are trying to debate here. Oh, yea, I understand it just fine. Oh I just farted. Do I need to plant a Petunia to make up for it or is Methane exempt? LMAO
First of all, it's not the production of methane gas (your fart), it's the burning of it (I hope you don't walk around with a Bic up your ass) that would be the problem. If you burn methane (or any other carbon based resource) and release carbon into the air, it needs to come out to keep the world "carbon neutral". Trees breath carbon (dioxide). The more trees we have, the greater the level of carbon we can produce without increasing the net impact on the envrionment.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh - consuming more than twice as much electricity in one month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359, the research group said.
And he paid a 50% premium on that electricity so that it would be from non-carbon sources. That's what this hit-piece doesn't want you to know.

[CHIEF4EVER]

The more you try to be a comedian, the more you demonstrate that you genuinely don't understand the things you are trying to debate here.
First of all, it's not the production of methane gas (your fart), it's the burning of it (I hope you don't walk around with a Bic up your ass) that would be the problem. If you burn methane (or any other carbon based resource) and release carbon into the air, it needs to come out to keep the world "carbon neutral". Trees breath carbon (dioxide). The more trees we have, the greater the level of carbon we can produce without increasing the net impact on the envrionment.

And he paid a 50% premium on that electricity so that it would be from non-carbon sources. That's what this hit-piece doesn't want you to know.

I understand it just fine. You saying I don't actually validates my viewpoint. For once in your life actually do some thinking on your own instead of rushing to the defense of hypocrites like Al Gore and his Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming farce using left wing talking points. Oh, and develop a sense of humor.

[Radar Chief]

The more you try to be a comedian, the more you demonstrate that you genuinely don't understand the things you are trying to debate here.
First of all, it's not the production of methane gas (your fart), it's the burning of it (I hope you don't walk around with a Bic up your ass) that would be the problem. If you burn methane (or any other carbon based resource) and release carbon into the air, it needs to come out to keep the world "carbon neutral". Trees breath carbon (dioxide). The more trees we have, the greater the level of carbon we can produce without increasing the net impact on the envrionment.

And he paid a 50% premium on that electricity so that it would be from non-carbon sources. That's what this hit-piece doesn't want you to know.

FYI, methane is a Greenhouse Gas as is carbon dioxide.

[jAZ]

I understand it just fine. You saying I don't actually validates my viewpoint. For once in your life actually do some thinking on your own instead of rushing to the defense of hypocrites like Al Gore and his Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming farce using left wing talking points.
If you were to even try to articulate a complete thought on this subject, you might get further with your snarky remarks (both from a laugh perspective and from a logical one).

You haven't done anything but ignore the facts, (presumably) play dumb, and fail to make even the weakest of cases.

You certainly haven't said anything specific that demonstrates you know anything about this subject. And the few specific things you have said demonstrate the opposite.

I sincerely invite you to explain, not just how you don't understand this stuff... but how what you do understand makes anything that I've explained/provided false or incorrect.

[CHIEF4EVER]

FYI, methane is a Greenhouse Gas as is carbon dioxide.

I guess they didn't put out that little fact in the mindless ultra left wing apologist drone talking point handbook.

[wilas101]

Trees literally remove carbon from the atmosphere. Battered women's shelters don't unrape a woman.

lol

unrape a woman




the 4th grader in me finds that very funny.


and for the record... it sounds to me like carbon credits are more of a band-aid than anything.

They don't necessarily "solve" any problems but they can help a bit.


Until the next big scandal when we find out the head of some company that sold a billion dollars of carbon credits used the money to buy 12 trees and a fleet of Bentleys.

[BIG_DADDY]

This problem isn't party specific. Politicians are all hypocritical scumbags it's just a matter of finding the devil you're the most comfortable with.

Politicians' flights called wasteful
Schwarzenegger and Feinstein preach energy efficiency but often fly fuel-gulping small jets.
By Paul Pringle, Times Staff Writer
February 28, 2007

But one bit of information Feinstein declines to share is the number of times that she flew last year on her husband's Gulfstream jet, which burns much more fuel per passenger-mile than commercial airliners.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also has asked constituents to do their part to conserve energy — including cutting summertime power consumption — even though he takes to the skies on leased executive jets.

Aides say there is nothing contradictory between the pro-green pronouncements and the flying habits of the Democratic senator and Republican governor.

Some environmentalists aren't so sure.

"There appears to be a discrepancy between calling on people to make personal reductions and using a private jet that exacerbates the problem," Clean Air Watch President Frank O'Donnell said.

Flying on a Gulfstream rather than an airliner is like driving a sport utility vehicle instead of riding a bus, O'Donnell and others say.

A single cross-country round trip on a Gulfstream IV, or GIV, the model owned by Feinstein's husband, churns out about 83,000 to 90,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, experts say. By contrast, on a per capita basis, the average American produces 50,000 pounds from all activities in an entire year.

Nonetheless, Feinstein and Schwarzenegger intend to continue their noncommercial flying ways because their jobs demand a flexibility the airlines can't match, spokesmen say.

Schwarzenegger's office said he and a jet-leasing company are establishing a "carbon offset" program for the governor and fellow customers, retroactive to Jan. 1. Carbon offsets are bought from organizations that plant trees and support renewable energy enterprises, among other measures, to offset greenhouse gases produced by the buyers.

"This is big news," Schwarzenegger spokesman Bill Maile said of the governor's undertaking with NetJets, the leasing firm.

Feinstein, however, got the jump on Schwarzenegger. She began buying carbon offsets last year to partially cover the travel on the GIV, and will purchase enough offsets this year to compensate for all the trips, spokesman Scott Gerber said.

He added that Feinstein took "numerous" commercial flights in 2006, but flew mostly on the GIV. He balked at disclosing the tally of her Gulfstream journeys.

"We're not going to get into specifics," he said.

Noncommercial aircraft and other carbon-related indulgences have caused politicians considerable turbulence recently.

A conservative group has condemned Al Gore for racking up an average monthly electricity bill of $1,200 at his Nashville mansion last year while championing the anti-global warming cause. A Gore spokeswoman said the former vice president invests in renewable energy to offset his electricity use.

As part of an ethics push, the House and Senate are toughening restrictions on lawmakers who fly private jets, though exceptions for members and spouses who own planes are under consideration.

Earlier this month, Republicans accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of requesting a large military jet to fly her and family members between the capital and her San Francisco district.

Security protocols grant Pelosi occasional military flights because she is second in line to the presidency. Her office said she had only inquired about an aircraft with enough fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, and would fly commercial if necessary.

Pelosi flew on private jets seven times in 2006, her spokesman said. "She made every effort to travel commercially whenever possible," Drew Hammill said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer says she took four trips on private aircraft last year, one with multiple stops over 2 1/2 days.

"If you can take a commercial plane to get where you need to go at the time you need to be there, you should do it," she said in an e-mail. "If not, you have to look at alternatives such as trains, fuel-efficient vehicles, buses, and in some cases, private planes."

For that last option, Feinstein reimburses her husband, Richard Blum, for use of the jet, Gerber said. Blum bought the GIV for about $23 million in 1999. The reimbursements are based on a first-class commercial fare, with more than 90% of the money coming from Feinstein's personal funds and the rest from campaign coffers, the spokesman said. Last year, the reimbursements to Blum totaled about $73,000, he said.

But a GIV's operating expenses are much higher than a first-class booking. A round-trip Los Angeles-Washington flight on the Gulfstream burns about 4,500 to 5,000 gallons of fuel at a cost of roughly $20,000, depending on local pump prices, said Jeff Beck, a veteran corporate pilot. And that doesn't include pilot fees, maintenance and parking bills.

"It's the least environmental thing that politicians can do," Beck said. He said Gulfstreams devour so much fossil fuel per passenger that "it's like they're throwing dinosaur bones out of the tailpipe."

A coast-to-coast, first-class ticket on a major airline goes for about $1,200 to $2,500, round trip, according to a sampling of three airlines' prices Tuesday.

A Boeing 767-200 airliner burns about 1,550 gallons an hour — three times as much as a GIV. But the larger plane typically can seat about 180 passengers, as opposed to a GIV's 12 to 14.

Eric Carlson, executive director of Carbonfund.org, a nonprofit that sells offsets, said it would charge $229 to cover the emissions from the GIV round trip.

Schwarzenegger flies a variety of leased jets, which cost his campaign $733,000 during the three months ending last September. Maile said the governor digs into his own pockets for some flights.

He also said Schwarzenegger has converted one of his Hummers to biodiesel fuel, and plans to install solar panels on his house. His other three Hummers remain gas hogs.

For her part, Feinstein drives a hybrid Lexus sport utility vehicle when she is home in San Francisco, Gerber said. But she drives a Lincoln Town Car in Washington.

Not that the eco-crowd is eager to criticize Feinstein and Schwarzenegger, who are generally viewed as key supporters of the growing movement to curb emissions.

Representatives of some environmental groups either would not comment on the two politicians' penchant for private jets, or suggested that allowances could be made in their circumstances.

"Given the exigencies of the campaign trail, if not the demands of governing of a large state, it may not be realistic to expect elective officials to fly commercial all the time," said Jon Coifman, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But O'Donnell, of Clean Air Watch, invoked a loftier ideal:

"It is fair to hope that our political leaders will lead by example."

[NewPhin]

This really does piss me off, I don't care how many carbon credits Gore is buying. There's no reason for the jackass to live in a mansion of this size if he's truly concerned with the issues that he claims to be. It also does a disservice to eco-activists who actually do put their money (and lifestyle) where their mouth is.

[BIG_DADDY]

This really does piss me off, I don't care how many carbon credits Gore is buying. There's no reason for the jackass to live in a mansion of this size if he's truly concerned with the issues that he claims to be. It also does a disservice to eco-activists who actually do put their money (and lifestyle) where their mouth is.

You know what the old joke by the Republicans is don't you? "We're not rich enough to be Democrats". Anyone who actually believes the mass majority of Dems give a rats ass about poor people or the populace in general is seriously delusional. Lobbyists own our politicians and politics in general. They don't give a rats ass about you or me. The fact that we think we are in control is the greatest deception of all time.

[NewPhin]

You know what the old joke by the Republicans is don't you? "We're not rich enough to be Democrats".

Heh, that's funny. The bumpersticker I see around here is "I'm not rich enough to be a Republican"

Can't say that I disagree with the rest of your post, but I wasn't really speaking about politicans with my original one.

[BIG_DADDY]

Heh, that's funny. The bumpersticker I see around here is "I'm not rich enough to be a Republican"

Can't say that I disagree with the rest of your post, but I wasn't really speaking about politicans with my original one.


Some of your richest politicians are Democrats.

I thought you were talking about Gore. He's not a polititian anymore?

[BIG_DADDY]

New Chief,

Here are your top 10. Bloomberg going into politics certainly changed everything. I have a question for you about Winthrop Rockefeller as well. Rockefellers are notorious Dems, is he really a Republican or just a poser? You remove those 2 and you only have 1 Republican in the top 10. That being said here you go:

Rank Politician (Party) Office or Campaign Net Worth
1 Michael R. Bloomberg (R) Mayor, New York $4.8 billion
2 Winthrop Rockefeller (R) Lt. Governor, Arkansas 1.2 billion
3 B. Thomas Golisano (Ind) Gubernatorial candidate, New York 1.1 billion
4 John Kerry (D) Senator, Massachusetts 550 million
5 Tony Sanchez (D) Gubernatorial candidate, Texas 500 million
6 Amo Houghton (R) Representative, New York 475 million
7 Jon S. Corzine (D) Senator, New Jersey 300 million
8 Herb Kohl (D) Senator, Wisconsin 250 million
9 Jay Rockefeller (D) Senator, West Virginia 200 million
10 Mark R. Warner (D) Governor, Virginia 200 million

[BIG_DADDY]

I'm sure pot head Al burns a lot of energy in that big ol mansion with his grow rooms.

[Calcountry]

You know what the old joke by the Republicans is don't you? "We're not rich enough to be Democrats". Anyone who actually believes the mass majority of Dems give a rats ass about poor people or the populace in general is seriously delusional. Lobbyists own our politicians and politics in general. They don't give a rats ass about you or me. The fact that we think we are in control is the greatest deception of all time.Banyon, Jaz, and meme ARE in control dude.

Collectively, they have changed the face of politics as we know it.

[NewPhin]

New Chief,

Here are your top 10. Bloomberg going into politics certainly changed everything. I have a question for you about Winthrop Rockefeller as well. Rockefellers are notorious Dems, is he really a Republican or just a poser? You remove those 2 and you only have 1 Republican in the top 10. That being said here you go:

He was a legit Republican. He died recently and semi-unexpectedly, though. I realize that the Democratic Party's leaders are rich east-coast elite for sure. I would be curious to see a breakdown of how people vote by socio-economic status, though, not just the socio-economics of the politicians. I would bet that far more of the rich vote GOP than DNC, neh?

[banyon]

Banyon, Jaz, and meme ARE in control dude.

Collectively, they have changed the face of politics as we know it.

It's sweet that you have developed a crush on me in my rep comments, but if you don't think I do anything outside this forum actively in politics, you are mistaken. I don't personally know him, but that would probably go triple for jAZ.

There are interesting debates on all variety of topics here, and I enjoy participating. People have changed my mind on some things and I think that probably is a two way street for some people. Just because you have decided in advance how you feel on every topic and will never change those views no matter what is presented to you doesn't mean
that others feel the same way.

Maybe you should just stick to ill-conceived rep comments if you don't like engaging people with differing views in conversation.

[banyon]

He was a legit Republican. He died recently and semi-unexpectedly, though. I realize that the Democratic Party's leaders are rich east-coast elite for sure. I would be curious to see a breakdown of how people vote by socio-economic status, though, not just the socio-economics of the politicians. I would bet that far more of the rich vote GOP than DNC, neh?

link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)

[patteeu]

link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)

Imagine how skewed that would be toward the Republicans if it were normalized for the amount of taxes paid. Holy moly, the people carrying this country financially overwhelmingly voted for Bush. If it weren't for the nonproductive vote, Bush would have won in a landslide. :p

[banyon]

Imagine how skewed that would be toward the Republicans if it were normalized for the amount of taxes paid. Holy moly, the people financially benefitting the most from this country financially overwhelmingly voted for Bush.

FYP. :)