Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Chickengreens!
There righty sphere is in gut-grabbing chortle mode over the revelation that one of Al Gore's three luxurious houses uses more energy (via Glenn and everybody else) in a month than the average household does in a year. Gore, apparently, is a chickengreen, calling on others to make sacrifices he won't make.
The most interesting thing about this is that at least some leading conservatives go on quietly conserving without demanding that everybody else do the same. Bill Frist is the rich, retired Senator from Tennessee with the green house, and Wizbang compares the household efficiency and carbon loadiness of Al Gore and George W. Bush, respectively.
Americans -- at least those who do not suck up to the Hollywood nobility -- can smell a phony a mile away. They will only start listening to these guys about the sacrifices they should make when they walk past them in the first class sections of regularly scheduled commercial flights. Until then, they have less credibility than a carnival barker.
45 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Tue Feb 27, 12:12:00 PM:
"1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.
2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:
What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.
[...]
These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about how much electricity Al Gore’s house uses — and even then they distort the truth." - LINK
For God's sake, TH. Why won't the right wing at least treat conservation as a virtue rather than tearing down the man who's trying to help us stop shitting in our own beds?
By skipsailing, at
Tue Feb 27, 02:05:00 PM:
For God's sake, TH. Why won't the right wing at least treat conservation as a virtue rather than tearing down the man who's trying to help us stop shitting in our own beds?
A few things here:
first, why is it now "conservation"? It was "environmentalism" for most of my life and now its conservation? this sounds like an attempt to reframe the debate and I'm not buying it.
Next, America is quite polarized and without getting into a grudge match about how that happened, people with strong opinions are now under a magnifying glass. The claims of hypocrasy are whizzing through the air and Al Gore is a hypocrite. It's really pretty simple. If you want to give him a pass on that, feel free. I don't.
finally I don't see us "shitting in our beds" at all. At least not in my neck of the woods. We've done some things that were not in the best interest of our "bed" but in general we've been good stewards.
It seems that when certain people discuss the threat of Radical islam they are being alarmist fearmongers and when certain people demand that we limit our lives to fit into some ill defined notion of virtue they are merely being good conservationists.
It all boils down to this: Maccaca for the goose is maccaca for the gander.
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Feb 27, 02:06:00 PM:
One of the reasons I regularly stick my neck out here on environmental issues - aside from the fact that conservation is my field and life's work - is that I refuse to accept that conservatives don't care about conservation. After all, the root word is the same ,and not by accident. Jim DiPeso of Republicans for Environmental Protection - yes there is such an entity and they are far from RINOs - makes the comparision crystal clear:
"The truth is that conservation IS conservative, rooted in traditional conservative values. Such as:
Freedom and responsibility
Thrift
Patriotism
And prudence -- the cardinal conservative virtue.
These values are our values. These words are our words. We must not allow them to be stolen from us, twisted into weapons, and brandished in our faces."
http://www.repamerica.org/opinions/speeches/22.html
It was not just the grand old men of the Grand Old Party who once made conservation a signature part of the Republican agenda: TR, Baxter and the rest. Hoover Institution Fellow Terry Anderson notes;
"This Republican action marked the beginning of the political conservation movement that ultimately grew into today’s environmental leviathan. In fact, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act all have deep Republican roots."
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532921.html
Furthermore, there are many self-identified conservationists who understand the value and importance of market forces and private initiative for sustaining the lands and waters we and other species need to survive. But don't take my word for it. Steve Sailor of VDare.com makes the point exceedingly well:
" (M)any environmentalists understand market economics much better today than in the past. (For example, Wilson's new book The Future of Life is reasonably hardheaded about need to enlist the mighty engine of capitalism in the preservation of biodiversity.) In fact, the greens sometimes grasp economics better than the libertarians, who often fail to comprehend the crucial role of government in establishing and maintaining property rights. For instance, the oceans are being badly overfished today precisely because nobody owns a fish until they've caught it. That's why professional fishermen support stringent government controls on their right to make a living, including even the recent two year shut down of the entire New England deep sea fishing industry. Left to the free market, the fishermen know they'd put themselves permanently out of business."
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/environmentalists.htm
There is no reason that I can see, aside from the politics of division and short-sighted self interest, for those on either side of the aisle to denegrate or devalue our shared interest in clean air, clean water, nice places to live and work and recreate, and the values - individual as well as collective - that we place on special places. We may differ on the best means for achieving these goals, but for the vast majority of us conservation matters and has to be part of any policy making calculus. It is, after all, a great act of patriotism to conserve the homeland for the benefit future generations.
By 
, at
Tue Feb 27, 02:12:00 PM:
Actually, Screwy, I think this little joyfest is a good thing. There's something subtle going on here -- perhaps the rightwing is subconsciously starting to internalize that reducing emissions is a good thing. You don't hear much Cheney-like rhetoric any more about how saving energy is for pussies. I say good for Bush if his ranch really is so green.
Clearly then, from a comparative advantage point of view, there would be a substantial net benefit to the environment if we shut down Gore's Tennessee home, moved its occupants into the White House, and moved the current White House occupants to eco-friendly Crawford.
On another note, how do a private citizen's utility bills get to be public knowledge?
JK
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 03:44:00 PM:
Just typcal of these liberal do as ai say not as i do eletists i mena AL GORE is the wealthy liberal demacratic hypotcrit while demanding we all give up our SUVs and use less energy he hogs it all and he has no solar power for any of his homes he has no hybrids in his garage and none of his planes work by rubberband the usial liberal eco-freak hypotcrit
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 05:10:00 PM:
It's funny..the climate change deniers (descendants of those who believed the world was flat) trapped in a greedy and self-absorbed reality fueled by a feeling that they have a divine right to "use" up the earth would rather knit-pick at Al Gore than actually contribute. It is blatantly apparent that conservatives do not love their country, they love their ideology and have little or no interest in America. Just control, gluttony, homophobia, excess, waste and judgment. Al Gore might not be perfect but he is trying which is more than I can say for 75% of Republicans who still say the jury is out on global warming, screw you!! Get a real point and stop harassing real Americans who really care and really try.
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 05:16:00 PM:
"There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community ..."
More like there is no meaningful debate within the media and popular culture, primarily because the liberal establishment tries to squash the debate and ostracize those who question their research.
"There's something subtle going on here -- perhaps the rightwing is subconsciously starting to internalize that reducing emissions is a good thing."
I'm a member of said rightwing, and I have never questioned the idea that reducing emissions is a good thing. I question the hysteria that is consistently displayed by the environmental movement about this issue and other issues they care about. I have never seen good policies arise from hysteria.
"In fact, the greens sometimes grasp economics better than the libertarians, who often fail to comprehend the crucial role of government in establishing and maintaining property rights."
Oh really? We libertarians are the ones who speak out when an overzealous bureaucrat declares a puddle on someone's land to be a "wetlands", thereby depriving the property owner of the use of his or her land. We also speak out when environmental regulations devalue one's property, and we speak out when the current owner of a piece of property is forced to pay for the cleanup of contamination committed by a previous owner.
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 05:24:00 PM:
redeatsmerde...please read Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery before you start babbling about how great you and Al Gore are. It's a fraud that humans are causing the global warming. It is warming, but it's not our fault. Get over yourself.
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 05:29:00 PM:
read it... yes it happens naturally but we are making it worse and one book does not mean it's the truth anyway... I know denial is a republican value but try to think of your country and our future generations... just once.. i know it's hard
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 05:41:00 PM:
Is purchasing a "carbon offset" the same as rich northerners purchasing "subsitutes" to fight for them during the Civil War? If not literally, this sounds the same in spirit -- elitists preaching down to the rest of us but buying their way out of making the real sacrifices necessary to accomplish their goals.
By JB, at
Tue Feb 27, 05:49:00 PM:
OK, so let me see if I get this straight. As long as I say that global warming is a problem, then I'm off the hook on actually doing the things that might help control it? Hmmm...I've been going about this all wrong!
Further, if I'm rich, does that mean that I can use ridiculously more energy than the average American household as long as I buy indulgences (you know them as 'carbon offsets') from the Church of Environmentalism?
I'm sorry, can someone explain to me again how this bloated sack is not a hypocrite?
By skipsailing, at
Tue Feb 27, 05:51:00 PM:
It's funny..the climate change deniers (descendants of those who believed the world was flat) trapped in a greedy and self-absorbed reality fueled by a feeling that they have a divine right to "use" up the earth would rather knit-pick at Al Gore than actually contribute. It is blatantly apparent that conservatives do not love their country, they love their ideology and have little or no interest in America. Just control, gluttony, homophobia, excess, waste and judgment. Al Gore might not be perfect but he is trying which is more than I can say for 75% of Republicans who still say the jury is out on global warming, screw you!! Get a real point and stop harassing real Americans who really care and really try.
It seems that this commenter neglected to blame us "deniers" for 9/11, racism and the Iraq war. Beyond that I believe that all the cliches are contained in the one paragraph I quoted.
Nice job. From a points perspective you didn't do well in artistic interpretation but scored high in technical merit. Getting every slam possible into a succinct comment is commendable. Way to go.
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 05:55:00 PM:
redeatsmerde, What did it say about incremental co2 emmisions? What did it say about all the land requirements for biofuels, wind and solar energy and its affects on humanity? What did it say about the lack of crucial data in the climate computer models?
By caseym54, at
Tue Feb 27, 06:34:00 PM:
HummerGreens
LimoGreen
Hypogreen
GreenElite
NearGreen
NeverGreens
Nomenklatura
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 06:52:00 PM:
Ok, I'll try to keep redeatsmerde's analogy going:
Global Warming skeptic:Holocaust denier
Al Gore:A Nazi guard arguing for Jewish equality as he opens the gas chamber valves?
Eh, doesn't really work.
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 06:52:00 PM:
To the 5:16 Anonymous
Kudos to you that you accept that emissions are a problem. But if you read your brethren's comments right here on this thread, you'll see that quite a few seem to deny it.
As for hysteria....it seems to me that the very successful clean air and clean water laws of the late 60s/early 70s were the result of similar hysteria.
JK
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 06:54:00 PM:
The proper analogy is closer to Tigerhawks title
Al Gore: Proponents of war who weaseled their way out of military service in their youth.
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 07:36:00 PM:
For all the global warming morons...it's not happening! Get over it. World Climate Report lots of info as does Junk Science.
Another great read is from author Michael Crichton, Environmentalism as Religion. One of the previous commenters got it right; they're not "carbon credits", they're indulgences. Just what the church used to sell to anyone that has or may commit a sin. Another of Crichton's speeches hits science on the head: Aliens Cause Global Warming. It's about how junk science has intruded into real science.
And the left wonders why the the intelligent people of the world call them hypocrites.
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 07:59:00 PM:
This whole notion of "buying credits" proves that Al and the rest of the global warming lemmings are as dumb as rocks.
Anyone wanna buy a few sweaters I bought when they announced the coming ice age back in the mid-70's?
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 08:18:00 PM:
I'd like to address a couple of threads lost in this exchange (though whether of ideas or broadsides seems to be a moot question).
Skipsailng asked in the third comment why environmentalism is called conservation now and isn't that just window dressing? Skip, conservationist is the older and less perjorative term. Few conservationists would self-identify as environmentalist because the term has been coopted by our detractors, much as few hawkish conservatives refer to themselves as neo-cons. Land Trusts are conservation, not environmental organizations. Towns in Connecticut update their plans of conservation and development. It is the appropriate term for the range of land protection, stewardship and natural resource management issues that consern conservationists and many others who would not think of themselves as environmentalsists.
Anonymous (5:16), I believe your response to the Sailor quote actually reenforces rather than refutes his contention that some Libertarians fail to recognize when government regulation supports rather than erodes private ownership and utilization rights. You restated some of the core issues on which Liberatians are active to safeguard private landowners from government interferance, but unless I am mistaken you did not offer evidence that you, a self identified Libertarian, recognize any situations where regulation supports both conservation of natural resources as a comon benefit and private use rights of individuals (Sailor gives the example of fisheries regulation). Is this a correct conclusion to draw from your statement?
Thanks,
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Feb 27, 09:01:00 PM:
Y'all judge Gore however you like.
However, to take the position that conservation is somehow stoopid because JuNkSc1enC3.com says that Al Gore sucks is to reprove personal responsibility in a shared community.
Me? I drive a gas-vehicle, commuting 35 minutes to work some days. I throw things away. I use electricity. But I've replaced all my bulbs with flourescents. I bought a fuel efficient car. I use as little energy as I can, and I plan to use even less as time passes.
It's not some big virtue. It's just considerate and sensible.
An anti-conservation position is a selfish one to take.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Feb 27, 10:46:00 PM:
Wiki on Carbon Offsets - for those who may not be familiar with the idea.
You might also ask Tigerhawk about his thoughts on a Carbon Tax.
We can all do a better job conserving energy, but can any of us say we're bringing that message to millions and millions of people? Hardly.
Those who tear down Al Gore also tend to tear down the notion that conservation is important.
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 11:04:00 PM:
This argument is silly. There are no bacteria,the sun revolves around the earth, women determine the sex of the baby, and the Three Sillies prevail. How many times does NEW science have to defend itself against the non-believers and OLD science? There is more evidence of global warming than of Jesus. BUT if you choose to stick your head in the sand, so be it.
I feel the Dark Ages are coming again.
I support global warming because the NEW scientists support it and I don't care what causes it. If you can't tell the difference between legitimate science and the Three Sillies then the educational system has failed you. Be quiet, you Sillies.
By , at
Tue Feb 27, 11:33:00 PM:
How many birds has AL GORE ever sucked into his jet engines damn wealthy enviroemental hypotcrit someone should polish his oscar with formic acid till it loses ots shine
By , at
Wed Feb 28, 12:08:00 AM:
"Those who tear down Al Gore also tend to tear down the notion that conservation is important."
Those who claim that conservation is important, but in their personal lives are energy pigs, also tend to tear down the notion that energy conservation is important.
I have had a lifelong interest in ecology and the environment, perhaps because both my parents had graduate degrees in Ecology. I spent a year as an eco-freak in Berkeley during the Peace Park era. I put my money where my mouth is because I drive only about 2000 miles/year, and consume about 2200 kwh /year of wind energy via Austin Electric. I use the AC only about 12 hours a year - in Texas! With an engineering degree, I am not scientifically illiterate. From what I have read about global warming, it is my opinion that the jury is still out. I find it infuriating that a blowhard such as Gore lectures me on global warming when he is an energy pig.
At the same time, I can be accused of Gorephobia, even before this latest news about Gore. Given what Gore has said since 9/11, such as his pandering to tyrants when he was in the Middle East, I shudder to think what would have happened to the US had he been elected president. I did not vote for Dubya in 2000, but Gore’s losing the election may convince an agnostic such as myself that there is a God.
By , at
Wed Feb 28, 02:40:00 AM:
The Goracle is a businessman. He's chairman and a founding partner of Generation Investment Management LLP, an international boutique investment fund that puts other rich peoples' money, for a fee, into the stock of 'green' companies. Check their website for details. So when he's beating the drum for possible predicted future global warming, Al's also drumming up business. As for his claimed 'carbon offsets' - well, the definition is rather elastic, and Generation Management is in that line of business.
By , at
Wed Feb 28, 06:28:00 AM:
Does Gore really believe what he preaches? The world is ending, because of global warming, yet he has three houses, one of which has been found to be an energy vortex?
For all of you who find attacks on Gore a senseless waste of time, let me ask you this: would you feel the same way if you discovered that Jerry Falwell was a homosexual?
Let me guess ... you'd ridicule all of Christianity and label him a hypocrite for not practicing what he preaches ... just like Gore.
Which makes you all hypocrites, as well.
By Sissy Willis, at
Wed Feb 28, 07:53:00 AM:
I'll never forget Norman Lear's shame-faced admission way, way back when -- maybe 20 years -- as reported by the New York Times, which, I actually read in those days, that while he expected others to be green, he just wasn't ready to give up his gas-guzzling Mercedes.
By , at
Wed Feb 28, 08:14:00 AM:
I can't help noticing that those that scream the loudest about [global cooling, global warming, population explosion, Armageddon du jour] are, either by accident or design, the very same that benefit from their induced hysteria. Scientists get grants, the media gets easy and spectacular stories, and Al gets to trot all over the country bloviating and preaching. Oh, and apparently he may also make another ego-run at the Presidency.
If your motives and self-interest are this transparent, you really should consider leading by example rather than preaching to your lessers.
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Feb 28, 08:49:00 AM:
Just so we're clear:
You can judge Al Gore all you want.
Conservation is a good thing.
Are these the conclusions we can draw from this thread?
I think we mustn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good, so I support imperfect Al's push for sustainable energy futures.
By , at
Wed Feb 28, 09:25:00 AM:
Perhaps it is asking too much of this medium to foster meaningful dialog on truly contentious issues. I bet if a random group of four of us were sitting around a table drinking the beverage of our choice and looking each other in the eyes, we'd find more common ground than initially expected and make further progress on those areas where we differ. There would be more accountability, for one thing. Threads like this one may have more entertainment value but don't get us very far.
Screwy's summation of the exchange thus far - Al Gore is a fair target and conservation does matter - seems a modest accomplishment for such an expenditure of energy, but if we actually can agree on this we can hone in on what to do about it.
Who wants to pick up the ball and move it down that field?
By , at
Wed Feb 28, 10:34:00 AM:
Conservation does, indeed, matter.
The global warming debate is not settled. If it were the "Warmies" wouldn't be trying so desperately to shut the "Hold Your Horses" folks up by daily instructing us to believe it's over.
Al Gore is, indeed, a massive hypocrite. Nobody's tearing him down. They are pointing out a glaringly obvious inconsistency and asking WTF???
I do not support what Al Gore is pushing for. There are plenty of sane people who are pushing for a decent environment without hysterically screaming for a massive change in our living standards. Just because someone agrees with me on *some* issues doesn't mean I want them as an ally. Sometimes, irrational allies are worse than no ally at all.
Many on the Left don't seem to get that. This is why they see Al Queda as a natural ally. What's good for Al Queda is bad for Bush, and we ALL hate Bush, so welcome to the party, Hashim. Kebob?
My big gripe is that Al wants us all to buy things that are way too expensive for most of us, and eliminate conveniences that he himself hasn't.
If you REALLY believe that your C02 output is dooming the earth and you are producing such a massive, massive, grotesque amount more than you need to while telling Aunt Bea to turn her thermostat down to 60 in the winter... well let's just say I question just how much you REALLY believe it.
What is irrational or unmeaningful about what I've written?
Is it just that you don't agree with it?
By skipsailing, at
Wed Feb 28, 10:35:00 AM:
Greenman tim, let me give this a try.
the issue for me is change. What motivates people to change? Further, what compels people to follow a leader?
Gore is simply not a leader. While he has a vision for the future and it is clearly articulated he cannot use the two most important words for any leader: FOLLOW ME.
My point with Gore isn't some notion of anti conservation, its that the movement simply cannot be serious if this is the best leader it can generate.
If this hypocrasy is Gore's approach, why should I follow him? Why should I change? Why should I put myself through the difficult process of change when the leader of the movement is unwilling to do the same?
the most difficult obstacle for any leader is to get people to change when they don't see a need to change. this is a common problem for leaders in business and politics. It takes some serious talent and committment to generate followers from otherwise apathetic people.
So Gore has violated one of the primary rules for leaders: Model the behavior you expect.
Now as to conservation. I am suspicious of this term because I believe that the movement is not based on actual fact but on sly manipulation of public perception. The movement isn't able to tout undebateable facts and has resorted to tricks promulgated by political consultants. This sudden name change smacks of just such a manipulation. So I am leery. I've heard the name Lackoff and I believe that this is simply a symptom of the lack of seriousness on the part of a group that used to be called environmentalists.
I also believe that this current shift is a means of softening the hard edges of a movement that has managed to polarize the populace. It is not that I want to destroy the environment it is that I find no common cause with groups that have simply done wrong. burning new subdivisions and vandalizing university laboratories in the name of environmentalism did nothing to sell this movement to me.
So where do we go from here? If the newly renamed conservation movement has some concerns about the future, can make a legitimate case and offer intelligent solutions to the problems they percieve, I'm interested. Frankly I'm not convinced that this movement can indeed muster the facts or the intellectual capacity to sell me on its seriousness.
By Ben, at
Wed Feb 28, 10:37:00 AM:
[Americans] will only start listening to these guys about the sacrifices they should make when they walk past them in the first class sections of regularly scheduled commercial flights.
Actually, first class passengers leave a much bigger "carbon footprint" than coach passengers since they are allocated more space and have heavier seats. If Gore wants to truly walk the walk, we better start seeing his happy ass back in coach, along with the rest of his Prius-driving whine brigade.
By , at
Wed Feb 28, 11:55:00 AM:
How much money has Al Gore really spent in carbon offsets?
By societyis2blame, at
Wed Feb 28, 12:36:00 PM:
societyis2blame said...
The "right wing" isn't against conservation. The environment should be protected and resources should be conserved. We differ with the environmentalist left on how that should be implemented as well as what our realistic environmental goals should be.
We oppose coercive conservation.
If you want people to conserve, show them and teach them why they should. If they choose to follow your example, good for you and your cause.
Gore doesn't set an example and isn't satisfied with voluntary compliance - he demands that others be forced to conserve when he won't even voluntarily conserve - rather like someone who votes for a tax increase then doesn't pay their own taxes.
The "right wing" will not support an agenda forced down our throats through quasi-scientific media-driven hysteria by the mandate of a philosopher-king who thinks he knows better than we do what is good for us - particularly where Emperor Gore has no clothes on this issue.
By GreenmanTim, at
Wed Feb 28, 12:47:00 PM:
Skip, I appreciate your taking the time to further refine the issues surrounding Al Gore's leadership shortcomings as one of the most visible standard bearers on global climate change and the tactics associated with this movement. They are significant observations, and ones I would argue that can be made by those who see conservation as a significant issue requiring meaningful responses.
Regarding leadership: A significant problem with many celebrity standard bearers - besides the inevitable "feet of clay" - is that they position themselves as top down leaders without a grassroots mandate. Due to their wealth and priviledge, they can command the attention of the media, but without a broad constituency they are ill-equipt to make their values relevant to the rest of us, or even help us recognize the values we share.
Regarding tactics: I feel no more affinity for Earth First monkeywrenchers and their ilk than I do for other extremists, but they occupy the radical fringe of a conservation constituency that is far broader and on many questions is able to transcend political boundaries. Those at the extreme edge of an issue are better dividers than uniters but folks who spike trees or burn private property because they hate subdivisions (and possibly their own species) are not representative of mainstream conservation interests and in my view not worth our time trying to accomodate. We have too much that unites us to stoop to that level.
I'd like to ask you and other readers of this blog two questions:
1) What do you cherish about the place where you make your home and
2) What has changed in the time you have lived there?
The answer to the first question will highlight what we value about home and community and place and the answer to the second will underscore that changes are at work, larger than ourselves or our individual communities, that impact these values.
This, I believe, is where conservation questions should start. When I ask these questions in Northwest Connecticut - where every town jealously guards its right to home rule and its unique identity - people overwhelmingly talk about the rural character of our communities and the environmental qualities of this landscape. They all say they value clean water, farms and farmland, the look and feel of our small towns, the importance of community and the natural beauty of our surroundings. They all express concern about the rapid growth of development, the loss of affordable housing, the collapse of our farm-based economy, the loss of open space, and changes in the demographics of our communities.
These are shared interests. Understanding the root causes of these changes is the hard part and we come at it from very different perspectives and with different expectations about what can and should be done. But they are shared interests and have everything to do with the role that conservation can play in safeguarding what we value and sustaining what is special about our environment, our landscape and our communities through the changes that come.
Thanks for bearing with me on this.
By GreenmanTim, at
Wed Feb 28, 01:02:00 PM:
Skip -
Regarding change: I believe there are three broad ways to effect change in behavior. These changes can be voluntary, incentivized, or coercive through regulation and enforcement. In our democracy, most of the major social changes that have taken place have tended to be incentivized and regulatory, but they also have tended to come from the grassroots. The 19th century progressives were not radicals but the changes in working conditions, food safety and social justitce that they promoted certainly were. Voluntary compliance is largely ineffective when dealing with resources that everyone uses but no one owns. But neither is heavy-handed regulation the default position.
The sweet spot may be to have the enabling legal framework (and enforcement will, if required) for better land and resource use decision making at the individual, local, regional and global levels, and a mix of strategies that call on the best energies of private enterprise, shared values and responsible government to achieve shared goals. I've seen this work at the local level, and in other countries at the national. I'd like to see it work here, too.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Feb 28, 06:07:00 PM:
Those who tear down Al Gore also tend to tear down the notion that conservation is important.
My whole house was converted to CFL's about 3 years ago, and will go LED when the price/value equation gets better in the next few years.
Gore is still an ass however.
By , at
Wed Feb 28, 11:50:00 PM:
A few week ago they had aTV ads about the ENERGY HOGS they were pigs with outlet slot snouts PICTURE THEIR LEADER WITH AL GORES FACE
By , at
Fri Mar 02, 07:19:00 PM:
Carbon offsets are not like indulgences. Indulgences were spiritual gobblygook with no basis in reality and no tangible effect. Carbon offsets, on the other hand, have a real, definite, tangible physical effect, on the atmosphere. The fact is, every one of you is responsible for putting more carbon into the atmosphere than is Gore, despite his utility bills and extensive travel.
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Mar 03, 11:50:00 AM:
The fact is, every one of you is responsible for putting more carbon into the atmosphere than is Gore, despite his utility bills and extensive travel.
Justin, that is absurd.
1. Carbon offsets would have some meaning if there were a cap on total CO2 production. There is not, so they don't for reasons widely discussed in other posts on this blog and elsewhere.
2. In order for investments in green technologies to "count" as an offset, one must also count investments in carbon-producing businesses. The chances are that Al Gore, a fairly wealthy man, also invests in conventional businesses, all of whom create CO2 emissions by virtue of production of wealth.
3. One's personal carbon footprint is largely a function of variable (i.e., residential) electricity use and variable transportation. Unless it is very "green," the bigger one's house the bigger the carbon footprint. Travel by automobile and chartered aircraft are very burdensome. Travel by regularly scheduled mass transit, including commercial airlines, are not. It's all at the margin.
When we start seeing lots of celebrities in the first class cabins of commercial flights and when the fractional jet ownership business collapses, then we will know we are making progress.
By , at
Sat Mar 03, 04:37:00 PM:
TigerHawk wrote:
> 1. Carbon offsets would have some > meaning if there were a cap on
> total CO2 production.
You don't understand what a carbon offset is, do you? What matters is the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Period. Gore is putting no carbon into the atmosphere. None.
> 2. In order for investments in
> green technologies to "count" as > an offset one must also count
> investments in carbon-producing
> businesses. The chances are that > Al Gore, a fairly wealthy man,
> also invests in conventional
> businesses, all of whom create
> CO2 emissions by virtue of
> production of wealth.
"The chances are...." You have no proof so you indict him by fiat. That won't wash here. Gore's hedge fund invests in *green* technologies.
It's clear, Tigerhawk, that you do not understand the concept of a carbon offset. You need to do some study. The relevant factor is how much carbon one is putting into the atmosphere, not the dollar amount of your electricty bill. And Gore is putting NO carbon into the atmosphere. What don't you understand about that?
By , at
Sun Mar 04, 11:55:00 AM:
Justin quote:"You have no proof so you indict him by fiat. That won't wash here. Gore's hedge fund invests in *green* technologies".
Hey Justin,"you need to do some study". Here are the holdings of Generation Investment Management LLC as of 12-31-06: Aflac Inc, Aquantive Inc, Autodesk Inc, Becton Dickinson and Co, Blackbaud Inc, General Eletric Co, Greenhill and Co Inc, Johnson CTLS Inc, Laboratory Corp Amer Hldgs, Metabolix Inc, Northern Tr Corp, Nuveen Invts Inc, Staples Inc, Sysco Corp, Techne Corp, UBS AG, VCA Antech Inc, Waters Corp, Whole Foods Mkt Inc.
Where are all of the "green" companies Justin?
By , at
Thu Feb 24, 07:34:00 PM:
AL GORE isa blabbering idiot and those PETA jerks running around in stupid chicken costumes are als stupid
