Al Gore's mansion: energy usage

I'm glad Gore won the Oscar and all, it's great work he's doing now, but maybe if he would've kept his head out of his ass in 2001 and learned how to fucking campaign after spending eight years under the best speaker/campaigner since JFK, he could've won something else. Jagoff.

(Obama 08.)

 

Yes, because he's not in partnership with those who will develop the restored areas and make millions upon millions from it. He's just a heck of a nice guy.

 

While we are speaking about disingenious, I love this one:

Carmakers File Lawsuit to Block Carbon Emissions Law in California

December 2004 -- The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed a lawsuit on behalf of Toyota, General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, BMW, Mazda, Mitsubish, Porsche and Volkswagen to block California's new greenhouse gas regulation. Honda and Nissan did not join the suit, but oppose the regulation. Under the new regulation, a fifth of the nation's auto market could have far stricter efficiency rules than the rest of the country. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is defending the regulation, which was signed by his Democratic predecessor, Gray Davis.

The regulation requires carmakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from cars and trucks sold in the state by the 2016 model year . The industry contends that California's regulation is pre-empted by federal authority to regulate fuel economy. Greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks are a function of fuel economy. The California law establishes a fuel economy standard. While catalytic converters act as filters of tiny smog-forming particles, there is no similar device to mitigate global warming gases, so reducing them is largely tied to improving fuel economy.



Notice that Toyota the beloved "Green " Auto company is part of alliance that started law suit.

 

Didn't you see Fahrenheit 9/11? A breakout performance for our CIC!

I don't expect somebody like David Suzuki to ride a bike everywhere or read by candlelight or churn his own butter, but I do feel that someone in his position should be prepared to make realistic sacrifices. Especially when the purpose of his latest venture (all his ventures?) is to castigate political figures for not adhering to certain environmental standards.

For example, when he's on tour, he could charter a bus or an RV or whatever that runs on ethanol or even regular unleaded gas. Not a huge thing. Like I said, he put himself in a position where he could be criticized - why hammer us for his failings?

 

The restoration of the Iraqi Marshlands is primarily a UN initiative with help from many countries including the U.S.

 

I don't disagree but it's a minor issue in the context of the larger one. And a lot of people want to hammer away at his riding a bus than addressing the real problems.

 

This was discussed previously. It is old. It is tired.

As pointed out by others, there is no way someone can compare a home that doubles as an office with the "average" American home.

Besides, why does anyone care? Seriously. Is there a reason that people go after Gore's personal life? Does that make him somehow wrong on global warming?

Oh right. I forgot. If a doctor smokes it must mean cigarettes are healthy. So, if Gore uses electricity it must mean global warming doesn't exist.

Grow up.

 

I can agree with you on that.

Me, I'm an equal opportunity basher.

 

What does that have to do with the price of coffee in Berut?

Here's a news shocker: a company wants loose environmental laws so that it can keep its profits high!

You are right. Their cars are automatically less fuel efficient (the reason for their "green" label) because they want environmental laws to stay the way they are.

 

It's obvious that everyone at Toyota is a hypocrite.

 

You hate everyone!

But then, someone who likes the Sens AND the Leafs has serious issues.

 

But again, one of the most common refrains of the environmental movement is the Sierra Club study that showed that the U.S. has five percent of the earth's population but produces 25 percent of its pollution. Why doesn't the "not every country has a similiar carbon footprint" argument apply there?

I have no beef with Gore, but this semiotic gymnastics goes both ways.