Al Gore's Home Energy Use Surges Up to 34 Times the National Average(nationalcenter.org)
nationalcenter.org
Al Gore's Home Energy Use Surges Up to 34 Times the National Average
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA679.html
19 comments
Everyone seems totally ok with this, I can't really understand why though?
Back in 2007 he was called on his absurd energy consumption and pledged he was going to do something about it. That right there, in isolation, is fine - he got busted doing (literally) the exact thing he was telling everyone else not to do and said he was going to fix it. Cool no worries, nice one Al.
Since then, not only is it still happening but it's gotten an order of magnitude worse AFTER he's taken fairly drastic steps to make his house 'green'.
I mean at the very least, shouldn't we be just a little pissed at him for this?
Back in 2007 he was called on his absurd energy consumption and pledged he was going to do something about it. That right there, in isolation, is fine - he got busted doing (literally) the exact thing he was telling everyone else not to do and said he was going to fix it. Cool no worries, nice one Al.
Since then, not only is it still happening but it's gotten an order of magnitude worse AFTER he's taken fairly drastic steps to make his house 'green'.
I mean at the very least, shouldn't we be just a little pissed at him for this?
I'm not upset per se but it is troubling that with his vast resources and seemingly good faith effort he was unable to make any dent at all in his energy consumption. It certainly makes it seem impossible to achieve for someone with lesser means.
It is probably a bit unfair to say he lives there alone, though, aim sure he hosts a lot of parties, fundraisers, etc. And he has a security detail which probably also requires lots of electricity. And so on.
I would of course as a data person be extremely interested in these details.
It is probably a bit unfair to say he lives there alone, though, aim sure he hosts a lot of parties, fundraisers, etc. And he has a security detail which probably also requires lots of electricity. And so on.
I would of course as a data person be extremely interested in these details.
We should be, but we won't be. Nobody cares about it, least of all the politicians. The Paris Climate conference was hosted at an airport dedicated to the most polluting form of travel in existence (Paris Le Bourget).
What can we say ?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/10/obama-travels-in-private-j...
https://www.wired.com/2015/11/the-paris-talks-could-produce-...
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/10/21/private-jet-airpo...
http://www.mrc.org/articles/media-hype-davos-climate-change-...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/copenhagen-climate-cha...
Neither does it seem to matter if climate action backfires. I mean, saving energy as a solution to global warming violates basic economic principles (Jevons' paradox, which is a bad name since it isn't a paradox).
But even earth hour actually uses more power (because it makes the grid energy use unpredictable, which forces electricity companies to keep producing power ignoring earth hour, and just destroy power they don't need. This is required to avoid blackouts).
Appearing to do something is the name of the game. If it doesn't achieve anything, or even if it's incredibly counterproductive ... nobody cares.
And of course socialists and the left have always been famous for demanding large changes in other's lifestyles and then refusing to change their own. This is not new:
https://erwangrey.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/revolutionary-rol...
What can we say ?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/10/obama-travels-in-private-j...
https://www.wired.com/2015/11/the-paris-talks-could-produce-...
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/10/21/private-jet-airpo...
http://www.mrc.org/articles/media-hype-davos-climate-change-...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/copenhagen-climate-cha...
Neither does it seem to matter if climate action backfires. I mean, saving energy as a solution to global warming violates basic economic principles (Jevons' paradox, which is a bad name since it isn't a paradox).
But even earth hour actually uses more power (because it makes the grid energy use unpredictable, which forces electricity companies to keep producing power ignoring earth hour, and just destroy power they don't need. This is required to avoid blackouts).
Appearing to do something is the name of the game. If it doesn't achieve anything, or even if it's incredibly counterproductive ... nobody cares.
And of course socialists and the left have always been famous for demanding large changes in other's lifestyles and then refusing to change their own. This is not new:
https://erwangrey.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/revolutionary-rol...
And Leonardo DiCaprio is no better.
Gore, DiCaprio and others are obviously concerned about changing YOUR behavior, but not theirs.
This makes me want to turn up my air conditioner another notch.
Gore, DiCaprio and others are obviously concerned about changing YOUR behavior, but not theirs.
This makes me want to turn up my air conditioner another notch.
I get the obvious analogy here, but this isn't productive. This is tantamount to two people calling one another hypocrites in church while the townsfolk are starving to death. The battle will be helped in suburbia, but won on highways, reducing factory farming, and solving industrial transport.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Center_for_Pub...
Regardless of its veracity, I'd rather not have ExxonMobil-funded propaganda on HN.
Regardless of its veracity, I'd rather not have ExxonMobil-funded propaganda on HN.
Damn, how did I not know about that site before. Good show mate
That is low man. It's like saying: "I don't care if you're right. I don't like you so I'm not listening."
But if that's how you feel, I think there is reason to like Exxon.
ExxonMobile has done an unbelievable amount of good for the modern world, which li was built on and runs on oil. Everything you have, from the food you eat at the grocery store, to the house you live in, was produced or transported using oil. Even tesla cars are built with materials that are shipped with oil. There is just no other energy store we have that is as abundant and efficient and versatile as oil at this point. Yes it's caused a bunch of pollution but I think the world is still better for it.
But if that's how you feel, I think there is reason to like Exxon.
ExxonMobile has done an unbelievable amount of good for the modern world, which li was built on and runs on oil. Everything you have, from the food you eat at the grocery store, to the house you live in, was produced or transported using oil. Even tesla cars are built with materials that are shipped with oil. There is just no other energy store we have that is as abundant and efficient and versatile as oil at this point. Yes it's caused a bunch of pollution but I think the world is still better for it.
No, it's saying "this source is known for biased corporate propaganda so take that into account when evaluating the content".
He didn't say that. He said he didn't want their content anywhere on hacker news.
Getting a heads up that content may be biased is great. But that's a lot different from censoring it altogether.
Getting a heads up that content may be biased is great. But that's a lot different from censoring it altogether.
So, you're making the argument that annihilating humans from the earth is okay.
"the day after his panicky global warming film"
This is a really amateurish attempt to smear Gore and the renewable energy movement in general.
I realize that different groups have different opinions and agendas, but this kind of hit piece is really only going to appeal to those that are already true believers - who will then go on to repeat it. (This is true on both the left and the right - but this article just dripped with unnecessary sneers.)
This is a really amateurish attempt to smear Gore and the renewable energy movement in general.
I realize that different groups have different opinions and agendas, but this kind of hit piece is really only going to appeal to those that are already true believers - who will then go on to repeat it. (This is true on both the left and the right - but this article just dripped with unnecessary sneers.)
> This is a really amateurish attempt to smear Gore and the renewable energy movement in general.
I'd be more inclined to call it warranted criticism - he fully deserves to be called on this. As for a 'smear' of renewable energy, Gore has done that all by himself by spending who knows how much on renewable energy sources for his own home only to have them provide around 12.5% of his power "needs".
Over a long period of time he;
1. Consumed an absurd amount of energy, whilst simultaneously telling people worldwide not to do that exact thing.
2. He was called on that, and as a result took all sorts of (very positive) steps to reduce his consumption - solar panels, all sorts of crazy insulation, even geothermal heating.
3. Several years later, he's somehow managed to consume even more energy whilst living in the same house and AFTER taking all sorts of steps to reduce his consumption.
If it was one month, or a couple of months even (maybe he's billed quarterly?) then I'd say that's fair enough. I get surprise power bills every now and then as well. But this is years worth of him getting ever increasing bills and saying "Yep, that's fine no problems here".
Imagine if some other "famous" person went around telling people how to live their lives, and then did the exact opposite. Beatles throwing a fundraising concert for the NRA? Mandela taking up recreational racial segregation? Dr Phil going around punching people he disagreed with etc etc
I'd be more inclined to call it warranted criticism - he fully deserves to be called on this. As for a 'smear' of renewable energy, Gore has done that all by himself by spending who knows how much on renewable energy sources for his own home only to have them provide around 12.5% of his power "needs".
Over a long period of time he;
1. Consumed an absurd amount of energy, whilst simultaneously telling people worldwide not to do that exact thing.
2. He was called on that, and as a result took all sorts of (very positive) steps to reduce his consumption - solar panels, all sorts of crazy insulation, even geothermal heating.
3. Several years later, he's somehow managed to consume even more energy whilst living in the same house and AFTER taking all sorts of steps to reduce his consumption.
If it was one month, or a couple of months even (maybe he's billed quarterly?) then I'd say that's fair enough. I get surprise power bills every now and then as well. But this is years worth of him getting ever increasing bills and saying "Yep, that's fine no problems here".
Imagine if some other "famous" person went around telling people how to live their lives, and then did the exact opposite. Beatles throwing a fundraising concert for the NRA? Mandela taking up recreational racial segregation? Dr Phil going around punching people he disagreed with etc etc
It's missing some click bait title tho, may I suggest:
"You WONT BELIEVE Whose home is using THIRTY FOUR TIMES the energy of a regular home!!"
"You WONT BELIEVE Whose home is using THIRTY FOUR TIMES the energy of a regular home!!"
This could have been summed up with one sentence, "Just like most people on earth today, former VP Al Gore does not always practice what he preaches."
"Just like most people on earth today, former VP Al Gore apparently never practices what he preaches."
I'm more concerned about whether he still flies on private charter jets vs the Southwest jets he claims to fly. I find it hard to believe he flies coach...