|
The "Goracle" (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
...and why should we listen to a man who doesn't believe what he preaches again? |
:( |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Well that's silly. Basically we can all pollute the out of the environment guilt free as long as we throw away enough money to let us all sleep better at night. Tell me how that is geniuinely an honest way to help our environment? How does that help the ozone layer? How does that prevent global warming? If anything it might encourage people to be more reckless knowing that they can just pull out their wallet and everything will still be copacetic, right? THe only thing that gets neutralized is the guilt--the environment still suffers.
I recycle. I drive 10 miles to work and I don't do it in an SUV. I keep my thermostat at 68 in the winter and 78 in the summer. I don't take private jets when I travel.
And yes Josh, I really don't give two s for Gore. Way to read between the lines.;) |
Sigh ... so once again the point isn't that people should trade in their automobiles for bicycles, live in a one bedroom log cabin in the woods, or live your life as frugally as possible from an environemental standpoint regardless of all other considerations. He's advocating environmental awareness and carbon neutrality such that irrespective of your wealth or lifestyle which may demand more energy consumption than the norm, you compensate for those excesses through personal responsibility by limiting your environmental footprint. In other words, if you make a mess, you clean up your mess with whatever means available.
FFS, what this all boils down to is emissions trading on a public level. In case you all don't know, emissions trading (or carbon trading) was pioneered by the US and endorsed by the Bush administration:
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-t...radingtypes.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...clearskies.html
It's not like polluting the seas with cyanide and then paying people to clean up the mess. It's like burning 10 fires and then paying 10 people to NOT burn fires. The net effect on the evironment should be ZERO.
Christ, the guy is advocating that people be environmentally conscious and take personal responsibility into account with the lifestyle that they live ... something Gore seems to live up to. This should be a ing shoe in for libertarians and true conservatives. But , since you're all being so particular, what specifically is Gore asking you to do with respect to your lifestyle that he himself is not doing? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
FFS, what this all boils down to is emissions trading on a public level. In case you all don't know, emissions trading (or carbon trading) was pioneered by the US and endorsed by the Bush administration: |
Which in and of itself does nothing to help the environment--especially in a world awash in liquidity. Siiiiiiiigggghhhhh.....
EDIT:
| quote: | | It's not like polluting the seas with cyanide and then paying people to clean up the mess. It's like burning 10 fires and then paying 10 people to NOT burn fires. The net effect on the evironment should be ZERO. |
So Al gets to eat Ruth's Chris while the rest of us eat 8c hamburgers from McDonalds(shout out to Magneto) and the net effect is that we all really ate at Chili's. Great plan.
| quote: | | Christ, the guy is advocating that people be environmentally conscious and take personal responsibility into account with the lifestyle that they live ... something Gore seems to live up to. This should be a ing shoe in for libertarians and true conservatives. But , since you're all being so particular, what specifically is Gore asking you to do with respect to your lifestyle that he himself is not doing? |
No matter how you slice it, his "personal responsibility" does far more damage to the environment than the vast majority of the planet and no amount of "green credits" that he purchases changes the fact that his personal absolute carbon footprint dwarfs that of just about everyone else. Besides, emissions trading is a concept that is intended to work more at the commerical/industrial level, not the personal level because no PERSON in their right mind should be making an impact as large as AG is. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Damn midterms.
A couple of points.
I have to admit this is not one of my stronger subjects, so the details of both the politics and the science are not as strong as I would like them to be. Again I would like to state the point that Gore could very well be doing things to be more environmentally friendly. We all could and should. And with the green credits aside, it appears he's doing just that:
| quote: | The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program -- electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?s...tics&id=5073282 |
So he's seemingly living and doing exactly what he's advocating, REGARDLESS of wealth and lifestyle. I reiterate Occ's post:
| quote: | | He's advocating environmental awareness and carbon neutrality such that irrespective of your wealth or lifestyle which may demand more energy consumption than the norm, you compensate for those excesses through personal responsibility by limiting your environmental footprint |
Through his lifestyle and business along with his wife's business being run out of his homes, he's obviously going to expend more energy than the average ing consumer. Your reply, Shakka:
| quote: | | Which in and of itself does nothing to help the environment--especially in a world awash in liquidity. Siiiiiiiigggghhhhh..... |
Is fallacious. If one creates a lifestyle of zero neutrality, how exactly does that not help the environment? He is doing exactly what he is preaching? Please be specific on how living a net neutral carbon lifestyle is not helping the environment.
Q's post is also peculiar:
| quote: | | well, for starters since there is a finite supply of "green energy" from the TVA available (i believe it's around 10% of their total market) his collosal waste of what he uses takes away from the rest of the grid. to quote a "right wing noise machine"; "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. |
I'd be hard pressed to think he is going anywhere near the "finite" supply by any stretch of his "collossal waste". That would be quite a serious stretch indeed. Furthermore, he's also performing measures around his household that the ABC article stated above to continue reducing energy power.
You also state:
| quote: | | 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. |
Is there any evidence that the cost of these green credits are doing exactly what you are stating? I'd be curious to see the evidence of this occurring. Otherwise it's nothing but a straw man.
Again, as Occ stated and what I stated similiarly previously:
| quote: | | what specifically is Gore asking you to do with respect to your lifestyle that he himself is not doing? |
One doesn't have to live out in the tree huggin' wilderness with us smelly hippy libruls to be environmentally friendly. I guess I'm still not quite understanding the criticism very well.
I AM, however, understanding that darn strange coinkidink of this smear bag group comin' out under a rock, run by an AEI member, and smearing Gore the day after he won a ing Oscar. Surely you can see that startling coincidence, can you not? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Through his lifestyle and business along with his wife's business being run out of his homes, he's obviously going to expend more energy than the average ing consumer. Your reply, Shakka: |
Damn. We're talking ourselves in circles. My reply was in response to Occ saying the whole point of this is "emissions trading", to which my response is that as long as there is money floating around (and there has never been more of it (the monetary liquidity I'm talking about), we can destroy the out of the environment but on paper it'll look like we're doing it a favor. It's bull. The intent may be honorable, but the result does not help the environment very much at all as long as someone writes a big check at the end of the day. And who gets that check? Certianly not the rest of us that are actually asked to eat those 8c hamburgers.
| quote: | | He is doing exactly what he is preaching? Please be specific on how living a net neutral carbon lifestyle is not helping the environment. |
Again: He is eating steak while demanding that the rest of us eat . HE'S PLAYING OUR FEARS LORD!!
| quote: | Again, as Occ stated and what I stated similiarly previously:
One doesn't have to live out in the tree huggin' wilderness with us smelly hippy libruls to be environmentally friendly. I guess I'm still not quite understanding the criticism very well. |
And as I stated some pages back, I could drive a building through the middle ground between the two extremes you guys infer are the only options. However, if he is going to be the uber-spokesman for this whole movement I really don't see why we shouldn't expect him to ride a unicycle, wear a clown hat, eat soy burgers, drink water from elephant dung, etc, etc, etc. It sure would give him a lot more credence and it would certainly shut his critics up, dontcha think?
| quote: | | I AM, however, understanding that darn strange coinkidink of this smear bag group comin' out under a rock, run by an AEI member, and smearing Gore the day after he won a ing Oscar. Surely you can see that startling coincidence, can you not? |
Of course--it can only be a smear campaign. Forget that we have plenty of facts to substantiate our criticism. Lefties can't stand it when Gore gets criticized. It's more fun than sport-ing. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Which in and of itself does nothing to help the environment--especially in a world awash in liquidity. Siiiiiiiigggghhhhh.....
EDIT:
So Al gets to eat Ruth's Chris while the rest of us eat 8c hamburgers from McDonalds(shout out to Magneto) and the net effect is that we all really ate at Chili's. Great plan.
|
What are you talking about? I'm talking about carbon consumption, not wealth, lifestyle, killing babies, whatever. It's really rather simple, I have an extravagent lifesytle that produces 5 times more carbon than you. In order to leave a neutral carbon footprint, I pay for the planting of trees or I subsidize green electricity through wind generators or solar power, such that my NET carbon consumption EQUALS ZERO. Yea because the people who consume the green electricity that I subsidize is EXACTLY like me eating Ruth's Chris while they eat McDonald's ... what an entirely accurate comparison! I can't wait until I can afford Ruby Tuesday's brand electricity ...
| quote: |
No matter how you slice it, his "personal responsibility" does far more damage to the environment than the vast majority of the planet and no amount of "green credits" that he purchases changes the fact that his personal absolute carbon footprint dwarfs that of just about everyone else. Besides, emissions trading is a concept that is intended to work more at the commerical/industrial level, not the personal level because no PERSON in their right mind should be making an impact as large as AG is. |
Why do we continue to obsess about absolute (I'm guessing you mean gross) carbon output? Do you choose your stocks based on a company's gross income or net income? Can you explain how emissions trading works at the commercial/industrial level but fails at the personal level? I have no idea what you mean ... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yea because the people who consume the green electricity that I subsidize is EXACTLY like me eating Ruth's Chris while they eat McDonald's ... what an entirely accurate comparison! I can't wait until I can afford Ruby Tuesday's brand electricity ... |
Actually I thought it was quite an apt comparison. Sorry you didn't get it.
| quote: | | Why do we continue to obsess about absolute (I'm guessing you mean gross) carbon output? |
Yes. Not relative as seemed to be implied by so many comments before.
| quote: | | Do you choose your stocks based on a company's gross income or net income? |
Neither actually--it's a far more complicated process and is dependent on many macro variables as well as industry/sector/company fundamentals. For what it's worth, there is a lot of valuable information to be determined from gross, unadjusted figures. Do you want to take it to another level and compare all of the emissions trading and what not to financial engineering and accounting shinangans that are used to make the bottom line look much better than it actually is?
| quote: | | Can you explain how emissions trading works at the commercial/industrial level but fails at the personal level? I have no idea what you mean ... |
Yeah, simple. Your average Joe simply doesn't engage in that sort of thing. It's a drop in the bucket at the individual level (unless of course you're talking about someone like Gore). We just outfitted our whole house with those long-lasting flourescent bulbs but I don't exactly know how to tally that up and see how many credits I get for it. It's simply not practical at this level. Gore got busted for not walking the walk, plain and simple. Can we move on yet? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Gore got busted for not walking the walk, plain and simple. Can we move on yet? |
Quick question - was Gore advocating living in a forest naked? Was he advocating being a hippie librul who wants us to go back to horses and buggies?
What was he advocating? Because if I recall correctly, in his movie and in his talks, he was advocating utilizing those darn carbon credits that he is using right now. He was advocating cutting down on power which he is doing so with flourescent bulbs and installing solar panels.
IOW, I feel you've created a straw man of Gore supposedly advocating something that he never did. He's doing EXACTLY what he is advocating - utilizing carbon credits. Now if you have a point of contention about the carbon credits, to which I freely admit I don't have enough knowledge to argue about further, to me that's a separate argument from your original one of calling Gore a "hypocrite" for not doing what he's advocating. It may not EVER be what you envision a smelly hippie librul OUGHT to do in his position, but he is still doing what he is telling others to do nonetheless.
I feel this point has been slightly obfuscated by you, perhaps accidentally, but obfuscated nonetheless. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Actually I thought it was quite an apt comparison. Sorry you didn't get it.
|
Yea I don't get it. Please explain how green electricity which is subsidized to borne the same cheapness as standard, dirty electricity (and thus entice people to use non-polluting electricity) is in ANY way equivalent to the inequitable distribution of consumption (furthermore I have no idea why you of all people would be arguing this point because inequitable distribution of carbon consumption can be equivocated to the inequitable distribution of wealth … except there is no equivalent to buying “wealth” credits so it’s even more ludicrous to criticize one without the other).
| quote: |
Yes. Not relative as seemed to be implied by so many comments before.
|
:conf:
| quote: |
Neither actually--it's a far more complicated process and is dependent on many macro variables as well as industry/sector/company fundamentals. For what it's worth, there is a lot of valuable information to be determined from gross, unadjusted figures.
|
Yes I know. So why are you trying to simplify the equation to the simple analysis of gross carbon output when you know it is fallacious?
| quote: |
Do you want to take it to another level and compare all of the emissions trading and what not to financial engineering and accounting shinangans that are used to make the bottom line look much better than it actually is?
|
Yes. So what have you got for us?
| quote: |
Yeah, simple. Your average Joe simply doesn't engage in that sort of thing. It's a drop in the bucket at the individual level (unless of course you're talking about someone like Gore). We just outfitted our whole house with those long-lasting flourescent bulbs but I don't exactly know how to tally that up and see how many credits I get for it. It's simply not practical at this level. Gore got busted for not walking the walk, plain and simple. Can we move on yet? |
Ummm right like our votes don't count because they are a "drop in the bucket" particularly when we're talking about elections that come within a few thousand votes of one another in electoral elections. Gore is advocating individual responsibility for carbon neturality which in aggregate results in a significant impact. Something that Gore is WALKING the walk unless you can prove otherwise. What’s stopping anyone else from calculating their air/road travel to determine how much carbon credits they should buy, using their home energy bill to calculate the carbon credits they should buy, etc.? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Occ's alive :) :p! |
|
|
| occrider |
| I lurk every other week or so :) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Quick question - was Gore advocating living in a forest naked? Was he advocating being a hippie librul who wants us to go back to horses and buggies? |
And I have not advocated that on multiple occasions in this thread, yet you continue to revert back to it. Though maybe he should if he really wants to drive the point home.;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And as I stated some pages back, I could drive a building through the middle ground between the two extremes you guys infer are the only options. However, if he is going to be the uber-spokesman for this whole movement I really don't see why we shouldn't expect him to ride a unicycle, wear a clown hat, eat soy burgers, drink water from elephant dung, etc, etc, etc. It sure would give him a lot more credence and it would certainly shut his critics up, dontcha think? |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And despite what some of his defenders have said in this thread, there's a ing canyon of middle ground between wearing hemp sandals, driving a vegetable oil powered car, etc., and living in a ing palace that consumes enough power to to run a small country. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Occrider
(furthermore I have no idea why you of all people would be arguing this point because inequitable distribution of carbon consumption can be equivocated to the inequitable distribution of wealth … except there is no equivalent to buying “wealth” credits so it’s even more ludicrous to criticize one without the other). |
The point is that Al Gore is a hypocrite. No need to complicate it beyond that. It doesn't matter how much wealth I have--I should be trying to reduce my overall raw consumption in order to truly minimize the effects I have on the environment now. Whether nor not I end up trading carbon credits to make myself look better, I should always first try to curtail my overall use. I can recylce cans, but if I'm drinking a case of Coke a day, I'm still using a lot more than average (and probably much more than most would think is truly necessary). Wouldn't it be better for all if I tried to lower my consumption to say 3-4 Cokes a day, while still recycling, and ultimately maybe even having a NEGATIVE carbon footprint? Would that not be better? Is it really that difficult to comprehend?
| quote: | Originally posted by Occrider
Yes I know. So why are you trying to simplify the equation to the simple analysis of gross carbon output when you know it is fallacious? |
Actually, friend, it was you that posed the question as an "either/or", gross vs. net, not I.
| quote: | Originally posted by Occrider
Do you choose your stocks based on a company's gross income or net income? |
But if I must adhere to those 2 constraints, GROSS tells me the raw amount of energy he's consuming, which has been estimated at 20x the average. That's a lot, regardless of what kind of gimmicks and chicanery he's able to use to make his NET impact look oh so harmless. It's basically like using loopholes, deductions, what have you to make his pro-forma use look harmless when in actuality he's consuming an inordinate amount of energy. Simple question: WOULD IT NOT BEHOOVE EVERYONE TO TRY TO REDUCE THEIR GROSS CONSUMPTION? Or should I go buy a few thousand shares of Enron because they're generating really great net income/earnings?
This is real simple. You guys are saying that it doesn't matter how much energy he's using because he pays enough money to "offset" what he uses so that his NET impact is zero. Gore has said numerous times that this is a CRISIS. If it is truly a crisis (which I think is debatable, though he does not), then it demands action now to lower overall consumption NOW. Planting trees is all well and good, but it doesn't do anything to help the problem TODAY. It's funny--I remember driving through the city shortly after Gore's movie came out. Specifically I remember driving by a house where they had thrown their refrigerator to the curb and spraypainted all sorts of praises to Gore on it and messages to passers by about how important it was to act NOW. I wonder how many refrigerators the Gore house has? The bottom line is that GROSS consumption DOES matter to the here and now and no matter how hard you try to rationalize it away, Gore is a hypocrite of the worst kind when we put his power use under the microscope and show that he's not exactly a poster boy of conservation. I dont' think his message is bad or wrong, but I think it's pretty clear that there's a disconnect between what he's saying and what he's doing because his actions are more harmful to the environment NOW. Frankly, I think you know this to be true but you can't bear to criticize him. How can you not, in the very least, say, "yeah, something is out of line here.":conf:
| quote: | | He was advocating cutting down on power which he is doing so with flourescent bulbs and installing solar panels. |
Great. But be honest--those flourescent bulbs don't really do much but make a man go color blind (speaking from experience).;) Conservation is about the best thing any of us can do to tackle this "crisis" head on to make a difference NOW.
| quote: |
CRISIS
1. a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point. |
|
|
|
|
|
