Al Gore's $30,000 Utility Bill

Zap_Branigan · August 30, 2007, 11:47am

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Magnate wrote:
firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…

In fairness, his bill compared to homes of similar size in that area is quite small. Of course, it’s still a fucking huge energy bill and is quite hypocritical (I remember reading that a good portion of his home energy bill was paying for solar energy, but cannot remember where I read that or how credible it really was.)

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

Humanity might be “sitting on a ticking time bomb,” but Gore’s home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

Apparently Gore doesn’t want to limit his hypocrisy. Good for him, branching out into other areas of pollution. Bravo.

Gawd, that’s terrible. 20,000 in royalties. You’re right he is a hypocrite.
Wait…usa today…issues…correction, no royalties, oh dear. I apologize Al for judging a little too quickly, my bad.

He no longer receives royalties because the mine is closed but he received royalties for YEARS.

That does not mean no royalties were ever paid but you are happy to make this false claim aren’t you?

He recieves no royalties. That’s from the correction and is in fact accurate. Like other small farms in the county the Gores recieved royalties on their mineral rights while the mines operated (duh) And obviously doing so wouldn’t make one a hypocrite.[/quote]

Once again you are being deceptive. He NO LONGER receives royalties. Because the mine closed.

And if you do not think the VP of the US had enough power to stop a mine from operating on his property you are fooling yourself.

His old man bought him the property as an investment because of the mining. He kept it for decades. Hypocrite.

Zap_Branigan · August 30, 2007, 12:15pm

Don’t forget about Gore’s tobacco hypocrisy.

new2training · August 30, 2007, 2:06pm

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
http://www.wwf.org.au/news/mass-extinctions-underway-but-its-still-possible-to-stop/

http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/current/gomex-factsheet.html

http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/nature_gallery/freshwatercontamination.html

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-06-02.asp

Just a few links that I found that talk about some of the impacts of human behavior on our planet. I’m not a doom and gloom type of person but lets get real.The benefits of a modern mechanized fossil fuel society are extremely valuable but pretending they don’t have an environmental cost is ridiculous. Nothing in life is free and without risk.

Humanism has it’s merits but there is clearly a point where the goals of environmentalist and humanists overlap. Recognizing this isn’t the same as being an eco-fascist trying to gain power through fear but unfortunately these types of environmentalist are a rather vocal minority.

Genetic diversity, both plant and animal, is a valuable commodity that is in decline due to humans reducing habitat.This isn’t debatable it is fact. Human water usage is reducing the amount of freshwater available on the earth and that is a fact. Human agricultural and industrial waste has changed the ph and oxygen levels of many bodies of water and it is verifiable fact. Just a few examples of issues that are solidly researched, understood, and accepted as true.

What is debatable is how dangerous these impacts truly are and even if it is as dangerous as some claim if the price is worth paying. Just because something has a high cost doesn’t mean it isn’t worth paying for. [/quote]

Heliotrope,

Good post.

Pollution issues are starting to affect our everyday lives and will continue to have a greater impact as time goes by.

Anybody who can’t see that has their head in the sand.

Smog over large metro areas, polluted waterways, acid rain, UV rays and skin cancer, toxic beaches, all affect our quality of life and overall health.

Anybody see the air quality measurements for parts of China? Some Coaches are concerned for their athletes performance and health during the Olympic Games.

How many local problems does it take before it becomes a global problem?

JeffR · August 30, 2007, 2:33pm

[quote]firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…[/quote]

Bingo.

JeffR · August 30, 2007, 2:35pm

[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhmm,
This has been debunked. (even before global warming)
“human presence on the planet” caused the hole in this thing called the “Ozone”.

It turns out this “Ozone” is actually located above the “Globe” and that having a hole in it effects the “Globe” (global impact). I’m sure you could google “Ozone Hole” for more info on just one way “Human presence on the planet” can have a “global impact”.

Other than your main point being factually wrong, good post.

If you haven’t the evidence to prove causation - which you can’t possibly have, it is only opinion that humans caused the ozone depletion.

Could it be cyclical? Probably. One good volcanic eruption does more harm than all of the cars and cow farts ever produced.

Blaming man. Blaming the evil white man is nothing but political grandstanding.

Thinking that humans have had a negative impact on the planet is utter stupidity.

Rainjack vs. All scientists (99.9999999%)
also Rainjack live in my little pony land where causes have no effects. It’s a magical little place. An imaginary place.
[/quote]

lumpy,

Read State of Fear.

I had a good laugh at you and your “New Religion.”

Also keep me in mind whenever they have to cancel one of your global warming events due to severe cold.

As I always say, global warming is like religion, I don’t know and neither do you.

I say kiss my ass to anyone (like you, lumpy) who acts as though they are sure about either issue.

JeffR

JeffR · August 30, 2007, 2:38pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…

Exactly, he should do like he says in his powerpoint presentations and make every effort to reduce his carbon footprint, by like paying extra for green energy from the utility company, installing solar panels and energy efficient bulbs/appliances etc., and then calculate your carbon footprint and purchase carbon offsets to further invest in clean technologies…

Then tear his house down, and live in a shack.

update: He already is doing all that, 'cepting the tearing down of house. My bad Mr. Gore, for a second there I was just gonna pile on about you being a hypocrite, but as it turns out if you actually do what you say to do then it’s the opposite of hypocrite. Weird how that works.

He should live in a far smaller house to reduce his carbon foot print. He should also stop jetting around the world at the drop of a hat. If humans are causing global warming we need to dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions. Using $ 30,000 of “green electricity” is not going to cut it. He consumes far more than his share of natural resources.

He is a hypocrite and you back his hypocrisy. Sad.[/quote]

Zap,

He’s a frothing dem. If he was a Republican, he’d be all over him for the hypocrisy.

JeffR

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · August 30, 2007, 3:00pm

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Maybe I should rephrase and say that I highly doubt human impact on the earth is more dangerous than that of any other organism/natural occurance on the planet.
[/quote]
I would disagree with that considering we produce more waste per pound of body weight per year than any other organism–this includes all waste. Other organisms do not produce toxic, inorganic wastes that cannot be handled by the environment and breakdown.

rainjack · August 30, 2007, 3:17pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Maybe I should rephrase and say that I highly doubt human impact on the earth is more dangerous than that of any other organism/natural occurance on the planet.

I would disagree with that considering we produce more waste per bound of body weight per year than any other organism–this includes all waste. Other organisms do not produce toxic, inorganic wastes that cannot be handled by the environment and breakdown.[/quote]

You only read half of what I wrote. Ever hear of Mount Pinatubo? I don’t think it was belching up much of anything carbon-based. Or do you remember the tsunami of just a couple of years ago? It threw more waste onto the shores than humans can crap out in 30 years.

Earth does its own “damage” to itself that dwarfs anything any human, or population of humans can do to it.

People think far too highly of the human race, and our impact on the planet.

new2training · August 30, 2007, 4:20pm

[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Maybe I should rephrase and say that I highly doubt human impact on the earth is more dangerous than that of any other organism/natural occurance on the planet.

I would disagree with that considering we produce more waste per bound of body weight per year than any other organism–this includes all waste. Other organisms do not produce toxic, inorganic wastes that cannot be handled by the environment and breakdown.

You only read half of what I wrote. Ever hear of Mount Pinatubo? I don’t think it was belching up much of anything carbon-based. Or do you remember the tsunami of just a couple of years ago? It threw more waste onto the shores than humans can crap out in 30 years.

Earth does its own “damage” to itself that dwarfs anything any human, or population of humans can do to it.

People think far too highly of the human race, and our impact on the planet.

[/quote]

It’s not about us harming the earth. The earth is a big hunk of rock circling a star.

It’s about humans poisoning themselves and the only home we have. It hasn’t reached catastrophic (for humans) levels yet but it could.

rainjack · August 30, 2007, 4:27pm

[quote]new2training wrote:
How many local problems does it take before it becomes a global problem?[/quote]

But it is a people problem - not something that will destroy the earth.

As for smog - it is local.

There was a grass fire - GRASS FIRE - in Mexico a few years ago that actually affected air quality in the Texas Panhandle.

That was not a man-made problem - it happened as a result of lightening.

My point is - as it has been - that people think way too highly of themselves, and can never do more damage to the earth than the earth can do to itself. And that is assuming you call change damage.

Heads in the sand should be a description reserved for those that that think anything we do can save the planet.

rainjack · August 30, 2007, 4:46pm

[quote]new2training wrote:
It’s not about us harming the earth. The earth is a big hunk of rock circling a star. [/quote]

vroom stated that we “impact the earth in a myriad of ways”. This entire discussion is a rebuttal to his bullshit. You even agree with me that we can’t impact the earth, as it is a “big hunk of rock…”

They will poison themselves locally. Nothing we do to the earth as a population will render it entirely uninhabitable, or anywhre close.

Do we need to pick up after ourselves? Yep.

Make sure we have a clean and safe water supply? You bet.

Recycle? absolutely.

Use chemicals in a more responsible manner? Yes.

Does it matter one damn bit in the scheme of things globally? Not in a million years.

The earth is more than a big rock. It is a living breathing organism. We are but fleas on the dingle-berry hanging from the earth’s ass. To think dingle-berry fleas can kill the dog is to think way too highly of said flea.

Zap_Branigan · August 30, 2007, 5:17pm

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_08-26-2007/Intelligence_Report

What’s Really Heating Up the Planet?
Coal-mine fires in China and India could be huge culprits in global warming. In China alone, up to 200 million tons of coal go up in flames each yearï¿½??which may be equivalent to Americaï¿½??s total carbon-dioxide emissions from gasoline. Indiaï¿½??s mine fires waste up to 10 million tons of coal annually. The pollution has made land in both countries uninhabitable. And the problem is expected to worsen.

Now experts are asking if controlling mine fires in Asia might be a key to reducing global warming. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth, for one, argues that it would likely be more efficient than offsets like planting trees or cleaning the ocean.

So, what can be done? One possible remedy being developed in the U.S. is a nitrogen-laced foam. It was used recently to put out a mine fire in West Virginia. (Emissions from coal-mine fires in the U.S. are a fraction of Asiaï¿½??s.) Deploying such a successful foam in China and Indiaï¿½??both of which would like helpï¿½??could drastically reduce damage from long-burning fires, which are very difficult to extinguish fully.

new2training · August 30, 2007, 5:35pm

[quote]rainjack wrote:
new2training wrote:
How many local problems does it take before it becomes a global problem?

But it is a people problem - not something that will destroy the earth.

As for smog - it is local.

There was a grass fire - GRASS FIRE - in Mexico a few years ago that actually affected air quality in the Texas Panhandle.

That was not a man-made problem - it happened as a result of lightening.

My point is - as it has been - that people think way too highly of themselves, and can never do more damage to the earth than the earth can do to itself. And that is assuming you call change damage.

Heads in the sand should be a description reserved for those that that think anything we do can save the planet.

[/quote]

You and I are on the same page in some respects. It is a people problem. For me, it is a quality of life problem.

I would prefer to do what we can to limit polluting our air, water, land, and food supply. It’s common sense.

Humans have always taken these measures once cause and affect is acknowledged. How do you think outhouses and eventually septic fields evolved?

We realized it was bad to let shit (on a large scale) just sit around, or flow into streams and rivers. Shit (literally and figuratively) needs to be dealt with and contained.

You’re right, smog is a local problem in some respects.

Heavy metals (mercury) released from coal burning plants however is a regional problem. My point is, that if there are local and regional problems all over, then you have national and global problems.

We need to find ways to mitigate the affects of our current lifestyle on … our future lifestyle.

You’re also correct that there are plenty of natural phenomenon that are a danger to human society. From bacteria, viruses, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, fires, etc…

We can’t curtail all of these things, however we can limit the damage we do to ourselves.

And yes, sometimes humans overestimate themselves. Life would go on w/o us.

new2training · August 30, 2007, 5:59pm

[quote]rainjack wrote:
new2training wrote:
It’s not about us harming the earth. The earth is a big hunk of rock circling a star.

vroom stated that we “impact the earth in a myriad of ways”. This entire discussion is a rebuttal to his bullshit. You even agree with me that we can’t impact the earth, as it is a “big hunk of rock…”

It’s about humans poisoning themselves and the only home we have. It hasn’t reached catastrophic (for humans) levels yet but it could.

They will poison themselves locally. Nothing we do to the earth as a population will render it entirely uninhabitable, or anywhre close.

Do we need to pick up after ourselves? Yep.

Make sure we have a clean and safe water supply? You bet.

Recycle? absolutely.

Use chemicals in a more responsible manner? Yes.

Does it matter one damn bit in the scheme of things globally? Not in a million years.

The earth is more than a big rock. It is a living breathing organism. We are but fleas on the dingle-berry hanging from the earth’s ass. To think dingle-berry fleas can kill the dog is to think way too highly of said flea. [/quote]

Didn’t see your post before my last. I agree with almost everthing you say here.

new2training · August 30, 2007, 6:38pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_08-26-2007/Intelligence_Report

What’s Really Heating Up the Planet?
Coal-mine fires in China and India could be huge culprits in global warming. In China alone, up to 200 million tons of coal go up in flames each yearï¿½??which may be equivalent to Americaï¿½??s total carbon-dioxide emissions from gasoline. Indiaï¿½??s mine fires waste up to 10 million tons of coal annually. The pollution has made land in both countries uninhabitable. And the problem is expected to worsen.

Now experts are asking if controlling mine fires in Asia might be a key to reducing global warming. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth, for one, argues that it would likely be more efficient than offsets like planting trees or cleaning the ocean.

So, what can be done? One possible remedy being developed in the U.S. is a nitrogen-laced foam. It was used recently to put out a mine fire in West Virginia. (Emissions from coal-mine fires in the U.S. are a fraction of Asiaï¿½??s.) Deploying such a successful foam in China and Indiaï¿½??both of which would like helpï¿½??could drastically reduce damage from long-burning fires, which are very difficult to extinguish fully.
[/quote]

Interesting.

How the heck do you come across this stuff?

merlin1 · August 30, 2007, 7:07pm

Global warming …nah, couldn’t be. Why would a politician lie about something like that? Arn’t politicians the pinnacle of the honesty profession?

Heliotrope · August 30, 2007, 8:43pm

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
What is debatable is how dangerous these impacts truly are and even if it is as dangerous as some claim if the price is worth paying. Just because something has a high cost doesn’t mean it isn’t worth paying for.

If it isn’t dangerous - then any impact is not really an impact beyond that of simply living.

No one is denying that humans use resources. We emit waste. we create waste. But - name an organism on this planet that doesn’t.

Maybe I should rephrase and say that I highly doubt human impact on the earth is more dangerous than that of any other organism/natural occurance on the planet.

[/quote]

I agree that nature as a whole is more dangerous than humanity itself. The threat of cataclysm is just a simple truth of nature. Caldera volcanoes, ice ages, and asteroids are just a few examples of natural disasters that have not yet occurred in human historical record but scientist fear could cause incredible calamity and perhaps even outright extinction. Not to mention the smaller threats of land changes, weather, famine, or plague.

However humans are clearly unrivaled in our impact among organisms. It is unique to the modern era that we have acquired the ability to create a cataclysmic event of our own volition. A world scale nuclear conflict is the obvious proof but there is considerable evidence that our environmental impact could cause severe contraction of human prosperity and population as well.

Of course the irony is the very technology that has caused unprecedented expansion of population and prosperity and relief from the lesser more immediate threats of nature is blamed for the looming possibility of an environmental crisis.

It is a difficult issue to fully grasp because it is an issue that deals with chaos theory. The variables are so numerous the best we can achieve is similar to a weather prediction. Once you know for certain your picnic is being rained on.

The fact remains that billions of humans still live in abject poverty and the obligation of us all is to work towards providing them with electricity, the technical basis of freedom and opportunity. Freedom and opportunity that will only lead to an escalation of consumption and environmental impact. Barring unforeseen advances in technology this will come at a great expense to the environment but to neglect this would be a crime against humanity.

Hopefully the human race will reach an equilibrium with our population and its impact on the environment without cataclysm but we are not really in control of it as much as we would like to believe. Wealthy nations should improve their outdated policies towards environmental impact and conservation but the damage to the environment will continue for the foreseeable future. An eco-fascist reductionist dictatorship is not really a viable option for obvious reasons and the dream and promise of a leisure age energy technology has yet to be discovered.

Gore may be a hypocrite but the message that the U.S. could and should update its environmental policy is still a good idea.

new2training · August 30, 2007, 8:52pm

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
What is debatable is how dangerous these impacts truly are and even if it is as dangerous as some claim if the price is worth paying. Just because something has a high cost doesn’t mean it isn’t worth paying for.