Thursday, March 01, 2007
More on Gore
The Electric Al Gore story just gets juicier and juicier. After being criticized for his profligate energy usage, the former Vice President insists he has a clear conscience because he purchases "carbon offsets" to fund projects and activities elsewhere that may reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. So, as the Wall Street Journal opines (subscription required):
"[O]ne might burn up hundreds of dollars worth of natural gas to keep one's poolhouse toasty, but then do penance for this carbon sin by paying someone else to put up solar panels."
Is it just me or is the whole idea of an individual purchasing carbon offsets akin to the same individual justifying bank robbery by touting how many tickets to the policemen's ball he or she's bought? Or, using Gore-style logic, one can safely go whoring on Saturday night so long as a big check is placed in the collection plate on Sunday morning.
The leftist blogosphere has risen in defense of Al Gore. A post on today's HuffingtonPost says Al Gore's hefty electric bill isn't that big of an issue because "most of the electricity in T[ennessee] comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway." As Bill Hobbs points out, Tennessee is anything but a hydro/nuclear paradise:
"Gore's home gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which does not generate power but rather gets it from the Tennessee Valley Authority. According to the TVA's own website, TVA's 11 coal-fired power plants generate 60 percent of all TVA electricity. TVA says its coal-fired plants 'have been the backbone of the power system since the 1950s.'"
Speaking of the leftist blogosphere, I can only imagine what they'll say upon learning this:
"George Bush may be a nemesis of the global green movement and Al Gore its hero, but the president's home is arguably far more environmentally-friendly than the home of the man he defeated in the 2000 election. ...
"An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an 'eco-friendly haven.'
"'Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground -- one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called gray water, and one tank for black water from the kitchen sink and toilets,' it said. 'The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater.'
"In addition, 'the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume.'"
Thus, President Bush is more eco-friendly than braying, bloated Al Gore. How's that for irony?!
"[O]ne might burn up hundreds of dollars worth of natural gas to keep one's poolhouse toasty, but then do penance for this carbon sin by paying someone else to put up solar panels."
Is it just me or is the whole idea of an individual purchasing carbon offsets akin to the same individual justifying bank robbery by touting how many tickets to the policemen's ball he or she's bought? Or, using Gore-style logic, one can safely go whoring on Saturday night so long as a big check is placed in the collection plate on Sunday morning.
The leftist blogosphere has risen in defense of Al Gore. A post on today's HuffingtonPost says Al Gore's hefty electric bill isn't that big of an issue because "most of the electricity in T[ennessee] comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway." As Bill Hobbs points out, Tennessee is anything but a hydro/nuclear paradise:
"Gore's home gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which does not generate power but rather gets it from the Tennessee Valley Authority. According to the TVA's own website, TVA's 11 coal-fired power plants generate 60 percent of all TVA electricity. TVA says its coal-fired plants 'have been the backbone of the power system since the 1950s.'"
Speaking of the leftist blogosphere, I can only imagine what they'll say upon learning this:
"George Bush may be a nemesis of the global green movement and Al Gore its hero, but the president's home is arguably far more environmentally-friendly than the home of the man he defeated in the 2000 election. ...
"An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an 'eco-friendly haven.'
"'Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground -- one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called gray water, and one tank for black water from the kitchen sink and toilets,' it said. 'The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater.'
"In addition, 'the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume.'"
Thus, President Bush is more eco-friendly than braying, bloated Al Gore. How's that for irony?!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, March 01, 2007 
