Comments on: Why Al Gore’s House Matters

By: Mad Bluebird

Mad Bluebird — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:13:07 +0000

Al Gore is making ill gotten cash over his big lie film and two undeserved awards i myself wouldnt even consiter renting or buying his fruadulent DVD its a rip off and a fruad

By: boulderboy

boulderboy — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:27:47 +0000

Gore purchased his house used in 2002. It’s over 80 years old so it was not designed or insulated to todays standards. He and his wife both run businesses out of it which means it’s 3 buildings in one and is they save fuel on commutes to work. Buying a used house and renovating it to be more energy efficient is far less costly on the environment then demolishing this one and re-building or building a new one elsewhere hence leaving this energy hog to someone else less interested in improving it’s efficiency. Also his energy use has been inflated b/c of all the renovation that’s been going on since he purchased it. What I give Gore the most credit for is investing and promoting alternative energy technologies so that that they can be developed and made affordable to the average person which will can potentially have a huge impact on reducing carbon. On the other hand Bush has the most advanced green home money can buy and uses all in his powers and influence to block or discourage reducing carbon emissions. Even if one doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming, one should still embrace Gore b/c his plan can lead to less wars over a dwindling resource and a less polluted environment for all life.

By: greywhitie

greywhitie — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:33:34 +0000

you sell CO2 the same place you buy it, where supply and demand meet. economists call it equilibrium, or something like that. we ignorant, uninformed lay folks just call it “the marketplace.”

By: Off Colfax

Off Colfax — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:51:23 +0000

Forget where you buy it…

Where do you sell it?

I’m short on cash these days.

By: greywhitie

greywhitie — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:48:31 +0000

where do you buy carbon credit?

By: NotFooled

NotFooled — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:18:00 +0000

If a republican were to try and do what Gore is doing, the liberals would be having a FIELD DAY.

Instead, we conservatives point out how completely idiotic Gore’s position is, and suddenly libs come out of the woodwork to defend him.

So let me see if I got this right …

I go out and buy 200 acres of land somewhere in the mountains. I hack down a bunch of trees in the middle and build this huge energy sucking monster of a house. I then “buy” carbon credits FROM MY SELF (my land sucks up carbon), and to you liberals, that’s okay.

I always find it funny (actually repubs do this too) when people defend behavior they claim to be against, simply because “their side” is the one doing it.

By: Duh!

Duh! — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:38:02 +0000

The fact that that Gore fanatics don’t understand is that if there were or could be sufficient carbon offsets, then there wouldn’t be any global warming or at least anthropogenic contributions towards it (for the argument, assuming that occurs). He is trying to pay his way out of a problem. We can all buy offests, but they don’t reduce the carbon (they only exchange it). A forest used as an offest was reducing carbon BEFORE it was bought as an offest. That is like a fat person paying a skinny person to not eat doughnuts so that they can…the fat person is still fat. Al Gore chooses to live a very lavish lifestyle and wants the rest of us to make the hard choices that reduce our quality of life. Nothing like liberals trying to use government and the environment to control people’s lives. I’d wager that the carbon footprint of the Gore’s, the Clinton’s, Barack Obama, Michael Moore, and Bono exceed that of some countries.

By: jjncj.com

jjncj.com — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 04:45:12 +0000

An Inconvenient Home for Mr. Gore

It would seem that while “W’s” home in Crawford, Texas is the model of environmental efficiency, the home of environmental campaigner Al Gore burns through natural gas like crazy, and uses some 20 times the national average when it comes to electric…

By: Steve Smith

Steve Smith — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:45:45 +0000

Good discussion thread, but a little heavy on hot air opinions and a little light on inclusion of known facts. The available facts include that the historical information on the Earth’s heating and cooling patterns is insufficient to definitively prove the current ground, ocean, and air temperatures are either “high” or “normal” or are “increasing” or are “within the normal cycle”. Without or with humankind’s contribution. Unfortunately, when the facts are thin, even some “scientists” will offer their opinion, which are almost always instantaneously elevated to factual status when the media quotes them as “a scientist states …”. Thus, much of the thread mirrors most of the media articles in that the discussion is based on unsupportable assumptions. Probably this is driven by our incessant “need to know” and our hunger for “quick answers” and “absolute solutions”. Given the above, I think the Earthlings would be better served by directing their efforts to pushing governments, universities, private and public researchers, and corporations world-wide towards researching the whole topic of Earth’s physical existence in the solar system with the goal of identifying and quantifying all the perils to the continued existence of the planet and life on it. For example, is the cataclysmic impact by a large rock from space or a colossally destructive solar flare or a major volcano more probable than global warming? If so, shouldn’t we be working at solutions to the most probable problem? Looking back at the history of the world, did the dinosaurs go nearly extinct because of a global warming trend or something else? Is global warming the right or only problem to solve? Have we become so sure of ourselves that we can afford the luxury of wasting time arguing whether a particular politician, or wanna be, is slimy or not? As a thought, why doesn’t each person reading this blog thread decide which issues (environmental, civic, social, or other) are the most important or pressing, and work on being part of their solution. I’ll start: The U.S. Congress is assigned SOLE authority to levy taxes and spend the collected money. A president can suggest a budget, and after Congress approves a bill to authorize spending money, a president can sign those bills, but the president can not authorize spending your money. The problem isn’t taxation by Congress, rather the problem is over-spending by Congress. Congress has authorized spending more money then is collected in taxes every year since 1960 (president Clinton spoke of a surplus in the late 1990s, but look at the yearly records of the U.S. Dept of the Treasury and see if you can find any surplus, the annual records for the national debt are available at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/
histdebt.htm), and most years before that. The resulting national debt has increased to the level that we are starting to have trouble finding loans to cover it. Communist China is currently loans the U.S. over 1.5 trillion dollars to finance the debt. When we can no longer borrow money, what do you think will occur? Can you say “Great Depression”? As in worse than the 1930s. Second big problem: American’s have decided they aren’t responsible to raise their own off-spring. You can get divorced, move away, and send a few bucks back each month to the parent or gramma who has custody of the child. Do you honestly believe a single parent can raise a well-balanced, happy, prepared-for-life child? I don’t. Both of these problems are worth your attention, infinitely more so than a grasping-at-straws, has-been politician.

By: Germando Echovarde

Germando Echovarde — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:34:53 +0000

See item #30 above and then take a look at

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Comment #32 above really says it!

By: John Pulliam

John Pulliam — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:31:58 +0000

really smart article. so by your same logic, all the folks who supports this war should be out registering to join and fight right? or perhaps volunteer to work with soldiers back from the war. otherwise the war supporters really aren’t walking the walk, and i would have to question their motives.

maybe if you actually argued your points instead of try and kill the messenger i would have more interest in your article, but it’s a really petty argument you make.

By: Tired

Tired — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:02:15 +0000

Gore lectures from a false moral imperative

By: Tired

Tired — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:00:07 +0000

Buying carbon offsets is the equivalent of the middle age practice of buying indulgences.

or in other words

The Emporer has no clothes

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:31:38 +0000

These descriptions are reasonably accurate, yes.

I really want a heating system like the one Bush has. We use a radiant heat system which is very efficient but geothermal is just perfect where you can do it.

By: Germando Echovarde

Germando Echovarde — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:04:09 +0000

My resources are limited. Is the following the truth or bovine excretion?
—————————–

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern snow belt, either. It’s in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every green feature current home construction can provide. The house contains 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on an arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as the Texas White House, it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it’s truly an inconvenient truth

By: Babs

Babs — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:07:13 +0000

Hi;
I own tree farms. How can I sell Al some carbon credits. I would like to get into this business.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:23:09 +0000

Why does Gore’s morality matter so much? we all argue over him like he’s running for president again or something. Why does it matter if he’s a sleazy evil politician advancing his own agenda and putting more pollution in the air in a month than an ‘average’ home in a year? Why does it matter if he’s a saint out to save the earth, and if we all listen to him and reduce our carbon emissions in the next 20 years it will prevent greenland from falling into 2 pieces?

Can someone tell me?

PS-please, no crazy science terminology.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:26:33 +0000

Mmm, that’s some good world. Tectonically terrific!

By: Charles S

Charles S — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 03:42:23 +0000

That’s pretty much the case for any American, certainly any at the policy influencing level.

Eat the World.

By: The S

The S — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:08:08 +0000

RE #24

Now I see it.

Al Gore and his ilk need to advocate “international and mandatory solutions” to save the world from themselves.