Originally Posted By HyperTyper I heard that Al Gore was testifying in front of congress yesterday and was challenged to walk his talk, and start consuming the energy of an average American family instead of some ten-times that amount, which he is currently consuming. Naturally, Gore would make no such commitment, and proclaimed he was exempt because he is living a 'carbon neutral' life. What this means (supposedly) is that he compensates for his huge consumption by purchasing environmental 'credits.' Truth is, these credits are sold by environmental activist organizations (which, in turn, support Al Gore). These credit purchases MAY OR MAY NOT be actually used to repair the damage done by waste and overconsumption. Okay, let's give Al Gore the benefit of the doubt, and assume these credits are truly being spent directly to 'heal' Mother Earth: If the destruction of the planet is the huge immorality Gore says it is (and I actually do believe that waste, overconsumption and trashing the environment are moral issues), isn't Al Gore's carbon-neutral credit plan rather like shoplifting from a bookstore, and then donating the pilfered books to the library when one is done with them?? In principle, isn't it exactly the same? And if Gore thinks he can buy his way out of personal responsibility, has he stopped to consider the 'good' he could do by purchasing credits AND cutting back on his energy use? What's the point of being carbon-neutral, when one has the ability and means of being carbon-positive? Do his actions indicate that the wealthy are morally justified in overconsuming (because they donate to the right causes) while poor people must morally forgo the benefits of high energy use? Is global warming really about global warming?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I still can't figure out why certain conservatives are so afraid of treating the planet better to the point that they always have to shoot the messenger. Oh wait. It's all about money, no matter what they say.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Well, I don't think "carbon neutral" mean having national energy policy written exclusively by executives and former executives of the petroleum industry. Anyone seen the energy consumption of the Dick Cheney household for comparison? Wouldn't that be a good apples to apples comparison instead of "Al Gore's electric bill vs. Cousin Maude in Oklahoma's electric bill"? Of course, conservatives don't want to make the apples to apples comparison.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Anyone seen the energy consumption of the Dick Cheney household for comparison?> No, have you? I have seen a comparison between VP Gore's house in Tennessee vs Pres Bush's house in Texas, and Pres Bush's is much more "green".
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << I have seen a comparison between VP Gore's house in Tennessee vs Pres Bush's house in Texas, and Pres Bush's is much more "green". >> My house is much more "green" when I'm not living there, too. That President Bush sure is smart to keep the TVs turned off in Crawford while he's living in Washington, DC.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj It's not? You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. It must be it, then.
Originally Posted By DAR With Gore the biggest concern is, is he practicing what he preaches? If he is consuming ten times the amount of a normal family, then maybe he isn't the best person to lead the way on the environment.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Unlike you, when asked an honest question, I answer it. <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php" target="_blank">http://www.treehugger.com/file s/2007/02/is_george_bush.php</a>
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Thanks, Doug. That was very insightful. Makes you wonder what makes someone tick when they would hire an architect to thoughtfully design their own home to be environmentally friendly, but then they turn around and ask the oil industry to design the nation's energy policy. That's really an interesting contrast in priorities.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh President Bush didn't ask the oil industry to design the nation's energy policy. One false impression fails, so you try another, huh?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << President Bush didn't ask the oil industry to design the nation's energy policy. >> You are probably right. They wrote it for him and told him to implement it without being asked. After all, that's what they paid to get him elected for, right?
Originally Posted By DAR <<They wrote it for him and told him to implement it without being asked. After all, that's what they paid to get him elected for, right?>> You mean President Bush is the first elected official to be in the pocket of big business and special interest groups? I learn something new here everyday.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Yup, you can be reminded of that fact every time you fill your vehicle up with gasoline.
Originally Posted By friendofdd If I can return to topic for a moment, can someone explain to me, in laymen's terms, just what "carbon neutral" is?
Originally Posted By alexbook Surprisingly, the Vice President's official residence *did* use less electicity in Dick Cheney's first year as VP than in Al Gore's last year. Sadly, the Administration tried to make the reduction look even bigger than it was by playing budget games. <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/32695_vp26.shtml" target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ national/32695_vp26.shtml</a>
Originally Posted By DAR I believe "Carbon Netural" is trying to reduce carbon emmissions into the environment.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Yup, you can be reminded of that fact every time you fill your vehicle up with gasoline.>> You're actually telling truth? Bush is the only one? Politicians will always try to be in pocket of business and special interest, whether it's Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Carbon Neutral or Big Radish.
