Gore Derangement Syndrome

So, if Gore makes a $2,500 fully tax deductable contribution to a charity that claims it grows trees, the several hundred tons of CO2 per year emitted into the atmosphere to supply his home with electricity and gas are magically disappeared?

I don't think so.

Most of the offset projects I've seen have been nebulous in the extreme. For example, the Carbon Trust buys 'offsets' from energy efficiency projects or advertizing campaigns for carpooling that likely would have proceeded anyway. Even if you assume that Gore's donations would actually cause tangible decreases in CO2 emission that would not have happened otherwise - and I'm profoundly skeptical - if those projects are good ideas, they should proceed regardless, and it makes no sense to match them to other completely unnecessary carbon emissions and somehow pretend the latter don't count.

The fact is, Gore has a lifestyle that causes him to produce CO2 at a rate that exceeds the rest of us by at least an order of magnitude, and maybe two orders of magnitude. For him to advocate economic changes that would significantly cost the average American, and pretend a charitable donation of a few thousand bucks somehow renders him blameness, is charlatanry that only a partisan could take seriously.

But hey; I was planning to plant a lot of trees on my acreage next year; maybe I'll see if I can get guilty Democrat politicians to pay me to do what I would do anyway.

If the numbers being bandied about on the web are accurate, Gore's use of energy is truly gluttonous. At the very least, he's guilty of setting a very crappy example.

Essentially, the message we're getting from his defenders is: "It's OK to use as much energy as you possibly can as long as you purchase carbon offsets".

On the macro level, I doubt if it's a sustainable position to advocate ( I'm sure the oil industry would recommend it, though).

It seems to me that if anything, Gore's "gluttony" pays the early adopter premium, encourages economies of scale for green energy, establishes demand and maintains high costs for standard energy sources. All of these seem to make it more, not less, likely that increased green capacity at competitive costs will come to his area.

You're not making sense, Gerard. Gore is paying for reductions in carbon emissions. You say that these reductions should be made anyway, but who do you think should pay for them? Are you volunteering?

"The fact is, Gore has a lifestyle that causes him to produce CO2 at a rate that exceeds the rest of us by at least an order of magnitude, and maybe two orders of magnitude."

I'd like to see some numbers on that claim.

Presumably, you are including the flying he does to inform people about global warming.

So, Gerard, does Gore get carbon credits when someone reduces their own carbon footprint after seeing his movie? Or after the Congress passes a bill to mandate higher fuel economy vehicles in response to constituents who saw Gore's movie?

Somehow I doubt it.

The whole "Gore is a hypocrite" crusade is nothing more than a distraction -- and a pathetic one, at that. The amount of CO2 that Gore emits really has no relevance whatsoever to the validity of the man's arguments.

So let's see. The Climate Trust is buying offsets from the City of Portland from a project to improve the timing of traffic lights. You're claiming the City of Portland would not have tried to improve its traffic light timing if it couldn't sell the offset? And even if we stipulate that they would not have, the indirect/unintended consequences of a project like that are almost incalculable. For example, if Portland improves commute times, driving becomes easier, and use of mass transit and car pooling decrease.

What offsets do is pretend to balance some quite definite and calculable emissions with some highly conjectural reductions.

The average American has a carbon footprint of a tad under 17 tons of CO2 a year.

Gore's house (the one in TN; I don't know if he has others) consumed 221000 kWh in 2006. His gas bill was $1080 per month. Currently gas costs around a buck a therm, so Al used about 14000 therms last year. The Climate Trust has a nifty carbon footprint calculator; enter those numbers and you get, from that one home alone, 214 tons of CO2. His home in TN alone results in emissions of over an order of magnitude more CO2 a year than an average American's total emissions.

http://www.carboncounter.org/offset-your-emissions/personal-calculator…

I suspect when you include vehicles, jets, etc., you get another order of magnitude, yes.

Presumably, gore's power bill for that residence include the bill for his live-in security detail, any domestic staff and, seeing as he and Tipper both work from home, his staff associated with his various business endeavours.

Furthermore if we accept Gore's statement that the house use 100% renewable electricity then the only emissions he needs to neutralise are from the natural gas use.

I would be interested in comparing the Gore household/business with a comparable person/family operating a similar sized house and with a seperate business office (i.e. one with a similar turnover and staff numbers).

Then compare the overall carbon footprint (both gross and net). This calculation would include the carbon emitted from both the owners and employees commuting to and from the work place. (Not sure if we include any Secret Service contribution presumably that should be included in a seperate carbon footprint of the SS)

It seems that in this case everyone is comparing the Gore business/house with the average house (Apples and oranges)

Folks, forgive my nostalgia, but what ever happened to that age old "green" idea of conservation?

Dennis, as some people here have already noted, many (most?) of the carbon offsets people are buying come from energy efficiency projects.

So, if Gore makes a $2,500 fully tax deductable contribution to a charity that claims it grows trees, the several hundred tons of CO2 per year emitted into the atmosphere to supply his home with electricity and gas are magically disappeared?

While Gore is apparently purchasing carbon off-sets for some of his endeavors, that's not what he's doing with electricity. He participates in a program that allows all of his electricity usage to come from green energy.

I frankly don't care how much electricity Gore or anyone else uses as long as it's not polluting.

Gore's house (the one in TN; I don't know if he has others) consumed 221000 kWh in 2006. His gas bill was $1080 per month.

So how does this lead to the conclusion that global warming does not exist. Gore could use more energy than Croesus and it wouldn't change a thing about the problem we face. Just pop on over to any right wing site and you'll see that sort of reasoning.

He participates in a program that allows all of his electricity usage to come from green energy.

Really? How do they make the electrons do that, exactly?

As for how this affects the science of climate change, it doesn't. What it has bearing on are the policy responses to climate change. We have a cadre of policy makers who are couching the problem of AGW in moral terms, and by their own standard acting highly immorally. They are proposing a set of solutions which will significantly impact all Americans, and telling us we must prepare to make sacrifices, but buying themselves out of that impact with a modest tax-deductable donation to a favorite cause. I'm sorry. Leadership means walking the walk, not merely talking the talk. 100 Americans would need to reduce their energy consumption by 10% each, just to offest Al Gore's Tennessee house.

This may be the von Mises quote referred to, said of Marxists in the Cold War: "Whenever they must choose between Russia and their own country, they do not hesitate to prefer Russia. Their principle is: Right or wrong, my Russia."

So Gerard, i pay $2000 to a geothermal power supplier for my electricity, you tell me it`s not green.

I pay $2000 to someone in the amazon to convert their farm back into forest, you tell me those trees aren`t a carbon sink.

So then the only way for people to "walk the walk" is by living in the dark with no heat?

Wasn`t it the greenies who were meant to be advocating that particular lifestyle change?

Really? How do they make the electrons do that, exactly?

I really hope you're being intentionally obtuse in a weak attempt at humor.

I said it in the other Gore thread, and I'll say it here: even if Gore is a hypocrite, that does not invalidate his arguments.

That being said, it amuses me to no end that to his detractors, apparently the only way for him not to be a hypocrite is to move into a cave. And even then I'm sure they'd whine about something.

"This is a zero-sum game, folks. The more of the 29 megawatts he uses the less there is for others to use, so he still looks really gluttonous. Additionally, based upon the law of supply and demand, he drives up the price of this green energy, preventing others from using it because it becomes too cost prohibitive.'

I guess nobody should tell Priestap about the 1200 Megawatts of new renewable enrgy projects announced on this site in the past week:

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/home

"Really? How do they make the electrons do that, exactly?"

Presumably when Gerard goes to the bank to withdraw money he expects to get back the same notes he put in.

"Fungibility" Gerard, it's not nearly as complex as the term suggests.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/gores-energy-use.html

Quote:

The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself.

Quote

So the Gore house uses approximately six times as much power
as the average household in that region.

According to the 2000 census the average US household had around 2.6 members.

I wonder how big the Gore household, including staff and security is?

This dust-up over Gore's electicity consumption is silly. If Gore's mansion is in Tennessee, it is probably powered by the Tennessee Valley Authority, which, if memory serves, gets most of its power from hydro-electric generation and possibly some nuclear. Not so much (if any) from fossil fuel plants. Hydro and nuclear have their own environmental problems, but they do not generate CO2 emissions, which is the primary issue in his slide show.

I suppose that Gore could vacate his house, have it torn down, have the property re-settled with other housing (maybe even high-rise apartment buildings, although, quite frankly, I don't know why any sane person other than, perhaps, a musician, would want to move to Tennessee), that would probably use the same, if not more, energy.

Regarding

Ian Gould | February 28, 2007 05:42 AM

I wonder how big the Gore household, including staff and security is?

Excellent point. His Secret Service protection people (he, as former vice-president is still probably protected by the Secret Service) have to stay somewhere in his vicinity--maybe in his guest house. And his house is probably not just a residence, it is probably also a place of business. That, quite frankly, is not unusual.

Regarding the private jets that flit him hither and yon, maybe the Secret Service demands that he use private transportation. It minimizes their hassles and hassles of others in the traveling public.

This issue really is silly.

Coming soon from he Drudge Report:

"As a member of the New World Order, Gore worships Satan, wants the terrorists to win and is part of the conspiracy to promote homosexuality, bestiality and pedophilia, but his latest tax return shows he didn't give a single cent to The Church of Satan, Al Qaida or NAMBLA.

What a hypocrite!"

One of the things that I thought was odd was the organization that released this report. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research does not list a real address. I looked up the forms it files with the IRS and it's the same issue. Their only mail contact is a post office box number.

So this appears to be a group of people with a web site, but who are working from their home.

Also, their research fellows are a bit interesting.

Douglas Kurdzeil, who is listed as one of their "research fellows", appears to be a sophomore at Vanderbilt.
http://tinyurl.com/2kcg3j

Troy Senik, another research fellow, is a graduate student at Pepperdine in Malibu, California.
http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/newsevents/news/

So it appears that what most organizations call an "intern" gets a semantic upgrade at TCPR and morphs into a "research fellow."

Tim,

IMHO you should follow up on Thom's work and promote if you find more.

Best,

D

Even green power has negative externalities. Wind towers require resources and CO2 to build, they are unsightly, and they kill birds.

This is extremely bad PR by Gore. The average American isn't going to look at the details of his carbon offsets. They're simply going to see that Gore is an energy hog, one who likes to tell the rest of us how to live while living high on the hog himself. It seriously undercuts his message.

"although, quite frankly, I don't know why any sane person other than, perhaps, a musician, would want to move to Tennessee"

Relatively mild climate, low cost of living, and good food?

Just sayin'.

Re the 'fungibility' of electricity. The TVA's green power scheme allows one to buy blocks of power at a higher price. That price, though higher, does not even cover the cost of generating wind energy, and the TVA's supply of 'green power' is limited; no one's building any more hydroplants, and you need a lot of windmills to get a little bit of wind-power. In effect, what he's really done is agreed to pay a little more on his electric bill, in order to look good. As a matter of fact, I calculate Gore on his own, if he buys exclusively 'green power', uses over 0.2% of the total 'green power' (220000 kWh/97000000 kWh annually) produced by the TVA; the TVA, with millions of customers, can afford to supply fewer than 500 people with usage like Gore with 'green power'.

The theory goes, of course, that green power pricing will create an incentive to build more wind power plants, but we can't supply the US with more than a small fraction of its needs with wind power, and the price structure is inadequate even to move quickly towards capacity. Everyone who's spent more than a few seconds on this issue knows that the major component of ameliorating the AGW problem will have to be conservation, and conservation starts with NOT USING TEN TIMES MORE ENERGY THAN AVERAGE.

Reference:

http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm

Manual trackback: Al Gore and hypocrisy.

Boy, Gerard, interesting exclusive focus on wind power, why you would assume that there is no solar, methane co-generation, or tidal power generation going on (check your link), or potential trading with other green markets with excess capacity.

Mike

"....... no one's building any more hydroplants...."

Perhaps not in Tennessee, but most power suppliers are networked into regional or larger grids. Large amounts of hydroelectric power are supplied into the U.S. from Canada and new plants are being constructed there.

That price, though higher, does not even cover the cost of generating wind energy...

Your "reference" doesn't say that at all. The increased price that Gore is paying for green energy comes to about 2.7 cents per kWh, which easily covers the cost difference between wind and more conventional sources of electricity.

Ian Gould - I like Gore in general (or at least the post 2000 Gore, the one who actually says things), and I fully accept his (actually, the scientific community's) position on AGW, but if Gore's household is about 221 / (10.5 * 1.5) ~= 14 times larger than the average household (i.e., has about 14 * 2.6 = 36 people or anywhere near that), that would be a much better point for him to make than all the apologia about the carbon offsets.

If this is so, why didn't he go ahead and explain this in his response to Think Progress, instead of implying that as long as he buys the offsets it doesn't matter how much he consumes?

If this is so, why didn't he go ahead and explain this in his response to Think Progress, instead of implying that as long as he buys the offsets it doesn't matter how much he consumes?

Maybe because he really does think that buying carbon offsets is a good idea, like he's been saying, and actually wants to encourage other people to buy them?

Maybe [Gore] really does think that buying carbon offsets is a good idea

It's one thing to consume conservatively and offset what you do consume, and quite a different thing to consume 20x (or 14x) normal and say: "It doesn't matter, because I offset".

Sortition--you miss the obvious, the issue is not to conserve energy, but to reduce or obviate one's carbon generation.

Mike

"the issue is not to conserve energy, but to reduce or obviate one's carbon generation."

Yup---over night, this is the new mantra of green thinking people everywhere.

Conservation is meaningless if you're "carbon neutral".

My question, again; On the macro level, is this a sustainable policy?

"If this is so, why didn't he go ahead and explain this in his response to Think Progress"

Not to sound like I'm grasping at straws in trying to defend Gore, but there's a blanket policy of not discussing Secret Service security details - which in this case would include the number of security staff and whether they were housed on the premises for the duration of their term of duty with the ex-VP.

"Conservation is meaningless if you're "carbon neutral".

My question, again; On the macro level, is this a sustainable policy?"

I just left a post on the GDS thread discussing offsets.

By themselves, offsets probably aren't a sustainable macro solution.

By itself, conservation isn't either.

By themselves, neither are renewable energy, nuclear energy; sequestration or clean coal and other strategies for more efficient use of fossil fuels.

We need as many different strategies as possible.

Offsets can provide funds for conservation by people who can't afford to pay for it themselves; offsets via afforestation can (if managed properly) generate biodiversity and other benefits as well as reducing net GHG emissions.

Boy, Gerard, interesting exclusive focus on wind power, why you would assume that there is no solar, methane co-generation, or tidal power generation going on (check your link), or potential trading with other green markets with excess capacity.

According to the TVA, their methane generating capacity is 8 MW, wind is 29 MW, and their solar capacity is tiny (it's mostly at high schools). In fact, their actual 'green power generation' over the 14 month period ending Jan 2007 was a tad over 31 million kWh, with about 65% coming from wind. Big Al used nearly 1% of that on his lonesome.

Sobering isn't it? One household, consuming 1% of the TVA's 'green power' generation.

http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/updates.htm

Perhaps not in Tennessee, but most power suppliers are networked into regional or larger grids. Large amounts of hydroelectric power are supplied into the U.S. from Canada and new plants are being constructed there.

Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving U.S. Green Power Markets (2004)

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/new_gp_cap.shtml

Wind accounts for ~90% of new capacity.

The key word is "new", I haven;t looked at the figures for the past for years but it used to be the case that Hydro (mainly in Canada in the case of north America) was the largest source of non-fossil energy after nuclear.

The hypocritical part about Gore's behavior is that he could have as easily spent the money he did on carbon indulgences without having engaged in the behavior he claims is contributing to GW. Pure and simple, the opportunity cost of his actions is plain for all to see.

Better yet, he's been carping about environmentalism for a solid 15 years and more but as of August 2006 was using in only one of his homes, according to the TN Valley Authority's numbers, over 12.5 times as much power as they set aside for a given home for a year in "Green Power".

And as of August 2006, according to Gore's spokesperson, he wasn't even buying Green Power for his [multiple] homes. How can anyone honestly say his behavior and his rhetoric are consistent? He doesn't have to live in a big house, he doesn't have to fly in private jets, he doesn't have to maintain multiple households, he doesn't have to travel in an entourage. He chooses to, which is fine in itself, but simply doesn't match what he says should be done, i.e. he's a hypocrite.

"But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has
signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When
contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the
Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about
inconvenient truths. "

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

Another proponent of the "Al gore wants us all to starve in the gutter. Al Gore isn't starving in the gutter, therefore he's a hypcrite." school of logic.

I`m so sick of these libertarians always championing the rights of the poor, with their class envy and their jealous hatred of the rich. They`re always going on about equity, and the "opportunity cost" of wealthy people`s behaviour. They hate free market solutions to environmental problems, like carbon trading and green power, and they are always whining on about how we have to use less energy or the sky will fall on our heads. Why do they hate Al Gore just because he can afford a better home than them? They should listen to the green activists, who support everyone`s right to become wealthy, support free market solutions to environmental problems, and believe we can continue to live in the manner to which we are accustomed without damaging the environment if we just make some small changes.

Why are these libertarians always so negative?

...

wow, have I suddenly flipped into a parallel universe? Everything has gone wierd.

My view: we're all in this together. We are all indirect or direct beneficiaries of electric power, so this issue is a distraction. Anyway, I thought it was well established that the best thing we can do for the environment is not to have children. How does Mr Gore fare on that basis? How do his detractors compare?

The deeply confused Bill Hobbs displays a total lack of understanding of carbon offsets -and is horrified and outraged that Al gore might actually BE MAKING A PROFIT by investing in green companies.

Another Khmer rouge in libertarian's clothing from the look of things:

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

So George Bush supports adoption as an alternative to abortion - but how many children has he adopted himself?

I guess the Gore-haters on the Right just haven't gotten around to denouncing him as a babykiller yet.

Or maybe they think that rich people adopting babies just means there's fewer of them left for the rest of us.

'Sobering isn't it? One household, consuming 1% of the TVA's 'green power' generation."

No, not really. What you have is one party purchasing 1% of TVA's green power generation. The fact that a party is willing to pay a premium for green power would be a market stimilus for TVA to ramp up its green power generating capacity, or to start purchasing excess green power from other providers.

Since I personally don't know all the ins and outs of TVA green power, but if Gore's residence is equipped with solar, isn't that a generator of TVA's green power, since Gore might be selling it to TVA during non-peak consumption? No one has indicated that this is net consumption, or gross consumption, so, simply, is it not likely that Gore's gross consumption reflects use of his own solar generation?

Mike

Dennis said:""the issue is not to conserve energy, but to reduce or obviate one's carbon generation."

Yup---over night, this is the new mantra of green thinking people everywhere.

Conservation is meaningless if you're "carbon neutral".

My question, again; On the macro level, is this a sustainable policy?"

Gore is a member of the Democratic Party, not the Green Party. Justification for energy conservation exists with or without the issue of being carbon neutral. Gore is not advocating energy conservation, but being carbon neutral. Moving the issue to energy conservation, if one is criticizing Gore, is to move the goalposts. His actions can only be considered hypocritical if he advocated energy conservation.

If one's position is that this is one more argument for energy conservation, one may have a negative opinion regarding Gore's consumption (I think there's some fuzzying up of the real consumption, if Gore has a solar house) but not with his willingness to pay more for green energy.

Is what Gore advocates sustainable, yes. Operational, it remains to be seen with USA footdragging. It's analog is the air pollution credit trading done since the 1980's, and this is touted partly for the success in reducing the Los Angeles Air Basin's smog.

But what critics of Gore's recommendations fail to see is that this can also be a partial or temporary strategy for those with the means to do something until or along with future government action. It is an ought, not a should.

Mike

Perhaps you folks should look a little deeper into the Goracle's offsets - seems he buys them from himself.....

http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350

"AL GORE SUCKS AND IS FAT FAT FAT!!!!"

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/

So it turns out that Gore's energy consumption is actually lower than the TCPR claimed by around 15% and Gore is paying for more green power than he actually uses meaning he's effectively subsidizing other users.

But he is still fat.

From the Ecotality link:

"Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks."

So when Warren Buffett buys products from companies in which Berkshire Hathaway invests - as he famously does - he isn't REALLY buying coca cola soft drinks; Brooks Brothers suits and Sara Lee cakes, he's buying "stocks".

Actually judging by the Generation Investment website the reality-challenged Mr. Hobbs is completely and totally off the planet on this one:

http://www.generationim.com/

"We invest in long-only, global, public equities with a concentrated portfolio of 30-50 companies. We aim to buy high quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns. Sustainability research plays an important role in forming our views on the quality of the business, the quality of management and valuation."

But Al Gore is still fat.

http://www.nativeenergy.com/Splash/ClimateCrisis/ClimateCrisis.html

Al Gore actually buys his offsets from Native Energy.

So Bill Hobbs is simply flat-out wrong - sure the error occurred first in the Tennesseean article but there's no excuse for not checking your facts before engaging in character assassination.

So Al is acquitted of those prime crimes (in the eyes of conservatives and libertarians) of buying wholesale from a company he invests in and making a profit.

But he is still fat.

Gerard was incapable of doing it, so perhaps someone else would like to have a go at explaining how Gore's electricity use impacts Gore's argument that Global warming is a problem that merits attention by the world's governments.

Those who focus on Gore's supposed hypocrisy do it for one reason and one reason only. They can't argue with his facts so they attack his credibility.
It's really rather pathetic.

I think several posters rather disingenuously missed my point here. One oughtn't care less about Gore's consumption except insofar as it is inconsistent with his rhetoric.

Gore has long been preaching conservation of resources and minimizing pollution, as in this quote from 'Earth in the Balance':

"This crisis will be resolved only if individuals take some responsibility for it. By educating ourselves and others, by doing our part to minimize our use and waste of resources, by becoming more active politically and demanding change. each one of us can make a difference. Perhaps more important, we each need to assess our own relationship to the natural world and renew. a connection to it."

But at least as of 6 months ago he wasn't buying any green power for his massively consuming and polluting [by his lights] home. I guess he decided to go for it once people started asking questions about his own energy consumption back then.

Further the carbon offsets he now buys are from his own firm and he is personally consuming about 1% of the TVA's "green" power; how does that not create the perception of a conflict of interest and a rhetorical disjunct?

His consumption is about 15 times the Tennessee average and 20 times the national average. I have no problem at all with that fact, except that it completely conflicts with his rhetoric. Is he really minimizing his use of resources and creation of waste by consuming 20 times the national average? You will not see the demonizing of consumption coming from the right, but it most certainly has come from Gore, as he did here in 'Earth in the Balance':

"Our civilization is holding ever more tightly to its habit of consuming larger and larger quantities every year of coal, oil, fresh air and water, trees, topsoil, and the thousands of substances we rip from the crust of the earth, transforming them into not just the sustenance and shelter we need but much more that we don't need."

Does he 'need' to consume 20 times the national average? Obviously not. Is he wrong to consume that much? Not at all. Is he a hypocrite? Apparently. It takes a pretty bald partisan to ignore such a flagrant display of hypocritical behavior.

"I guess he decided to go for it once people started asking questions about his own energy consumption back then."

Yeah because it's not like he was doing anything else for the whole year or so he's been living there and he obviously wasn't waiting until the extensions were complete and he had a clear idea of what the energy consumption would be.

"Further the carbon offsets he now buys are from his own firm"

No they aren't. See my previous posts.

"and he is personally consuming about 1% of the TVA's "green" power; how does that not create the perception of a conflict of interest and a rhetorical disjunct?"

Actually accordng to Newscientist he's PAYING for 1% of TVa's green power output which is more than he uses, so he's effectively subsidising other users.

"Does he 'need' to consume 20 times the national average?"

Does the average Tennessean "need" to consume 1.5 times the national average?

Is the Gore household larger than the national average?

Looking at the carbon calculator on the Native Energy site it appears that it would cost Al Gore less than $3000 a year to completely offset emissions from the Nashville house.

So, yeah, obviously carbon offsets are a fabulously expensive luxury only elitist hypocrites like gore can afford.

Plus he's fat.

The key word is "new", I haven;t looked at the figures for the past for years but it used to be the case that Hydro (mainly in Canada in the case of north America) was the largest source of non-fossil energy after nuclear.
Yes, the key word is 'new'. The ostensible purpose of 'green power' is to offset the economic disincentives to bringing new renewable power to market. Buying already cheap energy from an existing hydro plant doesn't do that.

Looking at the carbon calculator on the Native Energy site it appears that it would cost Al Gore less than $3000 a year to completely offset emissions from the Nashville house.
No doubt. But the Native Energy website nowhere claims Gore buys offsets for his house from them. They claim he buys offsets for his travel from them.

Gerard was incapable of doing it, so perhaps someone else would like to have a go at explaining how Gore's electricity use impacts Gore's argument that Global warming is a problem that merits attention by the world's governments.
Now that's just a bald-faced untruth. Quoting what I wrote above:
As for how this affects the science of climate change, it doesn't. What it has bearing on are the policy responses to climate change. We have a cadre of policy makers who are couching the problem of AGW in moral terms, and by their own standard acting highly immorally. They are proposing a set of solutions which will significantly impact all Americans, and telling us we must prepare to make sacrifices, but buying themselves out of that impact with a modest tax-deductable donation to a favorite cause. I'm sorry. Leadership means walking the walk, not merely talking the talk.

"No doubt. But the Native Energy website nowhere claims Gore buys offsets for his house from them. They claim he buys offsets for his travel from them."

So Al buys one lot of offsets from one company and another from a different company.

Why would he do that?

Gore buys his other offsets from CarbonNeutral.

Gerard can you justify this claim?

We have a cadre of policy makers who are couching the problem of AGW in moral terms

and further, can you prove that Al Gore is one of these people? If his suggested policy responses are, say, efficiency improvements and energy offsets, he is not being a hypocrite.

I have read an awful number of critical posts and comments on this man now, and still have not seen a single critic post a single link to Gore`s actual policy prescriptions. You could try that for starters.

Here are some comments from Dave Roberts on Gristmill:

"It's nice to see the conservative media taking the message of conservation and energy efficiency seriously. Hopefully they will hold their own leaders and readers to the same high standards.

The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research," which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It's run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore's electricity use at face value?

Gore's electricity company has no record of being contacted about his bills.

The "average" home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore's climatic zone, the East South Central (Dept. of Energy PDF), the average is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore's usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average.

The Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.

Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.

Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway".

It can be found at:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/28/155124/075

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is a one-man operation - a guy with a couple of years of right-wing think tank experience, a website and some college students to help out. It's a member of an organization called the "State Policy Network," a right-wing umbrella group that sets up these little operations to stroke the press and feed "policy papers" on state issues to state and local government. It's funded by the usual suspects - Olin, Bradley, etc. You can read about the State Policy Network here, among other places.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7069

"They are proposing a set of solutions which will significantly impact all Americans, and telling us we must prepare to make sacrifices, but buying themselves out of that impact with a modest tax-deductable donation to a favorite cause."

So if the "significant impact" is having to make a modest tax-deductable donation to a favorite cause then what's the problem?

"We have a cadre of policy makers who are couching the problem of AGW in moral terms,"

The moral terms relate to the future climate impact of individuals net carbon emissions.

"and by their own standard acting highly immorally."

How does having zero net carbon emissions imply an immoral impact on future climate?

Gerard can you justify this claim?
We have a cadre of policy makers who are couching the problem of AGW in moral terms

Oh, for heaven's sake. How about the first sentence of his Oscar acceptance speech?

My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis, it's not a political issue, it's a moral issue.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/gore-wins-hollywood-in-a-…

You guys have lost the argument, and are now trying to win by attrition by challenging every point, even the most unassailable. So I'm done here. Let me summarize:

Gore uses an immense amount of energy to maintain his residence. Claims he needs to do that are refuted by the fact that millions of Americans have lived, operated offices and raised families in perfectly comfortable and far more energy-efficient homes in more extreme climates than Nashville. Gore claims to be carbon neutral, but his carbon neutrality is a result of paper transactions. Carbon offsets as currently used are nebulous at best, and they have the ethically dubious effect of off-loading one individual's gluttonous consumption onto large numbers of other people. Kant defined an ethical action as one that could be made a universal maxim. It is logically impossible for all of us to offset our carbon consumption by paying for other people's reductions. The 'green power' Gore buys is similarly nebulous. It's just regular electricity he pays more for.

People in general, and Americans in particular, look askance at those who preach one thing and practice another, particularly when the 'little guy' is being asked to bear the burden of the elite's lifestyle. Global Warming is a serious issue, and Gore and other jet-setting, mansion-dwelling save-the-planet celebrities damage efforts to convince the mainstream that lifestyle and economic changes really will be needed to combat it. We can't offset or sequester our way out of AGW; renewable and nuclear energy will help, but only partly; anyone who has learned anything about the issue knows that conservation is going to be the major part of the answer.

And as far as conservation goes, Al Gore is part of the problem. A big part.

That's well stated, Gerard.

Many of the commenters have pointed out, logically, that the debate over Gore's energy use in no way invalidates the science behind AGW.

It also follows, logically, that for some of the commenters, who are evidently blinded by ideology, to call out Gore for his gluttony in no way invalidates the science behind AGW.

Gerasrd and Dennism, answer one simpel question: how many peopel live full-time in the Gore's Nashville residence?

Until you can do that you have no way of saying how the pacae stacks up.

Gerard

Al Gore, no matter how fat he is, does not a cadre make. Now can you actually describe his policy prescriptions?

"You guys have lost the argument"

If you say so.

Don't blame his power consumption on the Secret Service.

While I haven't been to his house personally, so I don't know who's there and who isn't - according to the [United States Secret Service site](http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml), ex-Vice Presidents are not protected by them...

actually the Secret service site includes a catch-all category of people nominated by the current President for protection.

Given the Al Qaida threat, I think its quite possible Gore falls into that category.

Even if he doesn't, given his wealth, his high public profile and the extraordinary amount of venom directed at him from various right wing blogs and forums. I'm sure he has private security.

I certainly would if I were in his position.

Folks, the numbers are in on the carbon party known as "Live Earth", and they ain't pretty.
Flight miles: 222,000.
Carbon emissions: 31,500 metric tons.
Waste produced: 1025 metric tons.
Headliner Madonna's annual carbon footprint: 1000!! metric tons.

(insert snarky editorial comment here)