# This whole Al Gore electricity bill deal

My view is that it was irresponsible in part of the media (especially news channels and newspapers) to cling on to this topic so quickly without getting the facts straight first.

Even if this whole thing is sorted out, the damage is done (especially for those people who don't believe in, or are on the fence in regards to global warming)... I know it's too much to ask for the media to get all its facts straight before spreading an opinion, but it shouldn't be.

the large bills could be due to the fact that he is very active politically. He might have more guests over or more gatherings at his house than the average person.

but even if the large spending aren't justified, the media should have acted more responsibly, considering that something like this is very likely to stop the ball that al gore got rolling... the positive effects of his actions far outweigh his electricity bill.

“Sometimes when people don’t like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it’s convenient to attack the messenger,”

many people have trouble separating messages from messengers, and news channels should be aware of that when they report such news (I'm not going for censorship here, I'm going for tact; for not turning everything into a scandal).

here's an article, if you haven't heard of this yet: http://timesnews.typepad.com/news/2007/02/inconvenient_bu.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...le_id=439339&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=244

The BBC thinks climate change is the biggest threat to mankind. Not a week passes without scary new 'revelations' about the harm being done by carbon emissions, and the inevitable admonitions that we should turn off our lights, not leave our televisions on 'stand-by' and limit our use of cars and aeroplanes.

Four weeks ago, the publication of a new report by the International Panel on Climate Change was greeted by the BBC with even more hysteria than usual. The report's terrifying warnings of the effects of global warming were accorded the status of holy writ. Unless mankind quickly changes its ways, we were informed, we are many of us doomed.

Alas, the BBC evinces very few signs of reforming itself. New figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Corporation spent a stupendous amount on air travel in the year to April 1, 2006. There were 41,355 journeys by air (equating to almost two flights per employee), collectively notching up 125 million miles, giving an average of 3,000 miles per journey. ....cont'd

I'm not quiet familiar with the average spending in KW of a house in the USA.
But I guess it's ridicules, there could be a thousand reason why it's high, at least give the a man a chance to explain..

verty
Homework Helper
He's a politician; politicians don't have to do what they say.

chemisttree
Homework Helper
Gold Member
He's a politician; politicians don't have to do what they say.

Apparently, Al Gore buys his carbon offsets from... himself! He set up an investment company to invest in stocks (green of course) like solar, wind and hydrogen. These aren't even carbon offsets per se! How does he keep track of all of the carbon dioxide he is saving with that NONSENSE!

http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350

Last edited by a moderator:
I am not saying that it is right for them to do this -- provided this is not explainable. I just woke up so I haven't read the whole article yet, but I can see how journalists would need a lot of air travel etc. . if it turns out that they are actually over-spending, even considering their "special situations," they should by all means be held accountable.

my point is that the media should wait until we know all the facts, and that if the facts do turn out against them, to make sure that they handle the situation responsibly... because something like this could be a gift from god to oil-companies or anti-envioronmentalists, and we could end up back where we started.

hey the guy is fair game and if hes burning $30,000 a year in energy bills/ shame on him. That said before I ditched my 4300 sq ft home built in 2002, I was spending close to 5K in energy even with low e windows that cost me a fortune, attic fan, etc and not EVEN running the AC in the summer in spite of 100+ temps. turbo Gold Member My wife and I own a small log house and we probably expend less than$1200/y (and are trying to reduce that!) for electricity. Of course, I am not a former vice president, and we do not reside in a 20-room mansion, we have no domestic staff, we do not have an extensive security system with perimeter lighting, we do not have frequent guests to cook for, or to house, nor do we have a huge underground room with grow-lamps....not that Al does. These people are living the life of luxury, as do most millionaires. If you honestly expect a wealthy politician, no matter how well-intentioned, to live life like a prole, you are badly misguided.

Maybe it is misguided of me to think any politician would actually put their money where their mouth is, but he could ditch the mansion, build partly underground using autoclaved concrete, outfit with solar heating at the least, set up a small wind turbine if practical, and cut the bill by 1/3 to 1/2 I bet.

turbo
Gold Member
Maybe it is misguided of me to think any politician would actually put their money where their mouth is, but he could ditch the mansion, build partly underground using autoclaved concrete, outfit with solar heating at the least, set up a small wind turbine if practical, and cut the bill by 1/3 to 1/2 I bet.
You're absolutely right, and he should be able to cut it by much more than that if he wants to set a good example. He could ditch the mansion and live in a totally self-sufficient home, if he wanted. He has enough money to absorb the up-front costs of building a self-sufficient home. Not many politicians lead by example, though, especially when it might impact on their lifestyle. How many times do politicians jet all over the country when phone conferencing could have done the job for far less cost and far less environmental impact? Take Bush's trip to the south. Few people can begin to fathom the amount of energy a trip like that consumes. Fly Bush and his entourage down on Air Force One, have Marine One pre-positioned for regional mobility, pre-position Secret Service details for security before and during the visits, and cart everybody's butts around in heavy armored SUVs. It's ridiculous the amounts of taxpayer money and precious energy that are expended for these PR junkets, with no benefit to the taxpayers.

Edited to add: I'm certain that if Gore were the president, he would be making similar trips. Air Force One is a huge perk and all the presidents seem to love to use it as often as they can.

Last edited:
chemisttree
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Not many politicians lead by example, though, especially when it might impact on their lifestyle. How many times do politicians jet all over the country when phone conferencing could have done the job for far less cost and far less environmental impact?

Why pick on George? He sounds like he is walking the walk that Al Gore only talks!

Read for yourself... and vote republican!

http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=1601

turbo
Gold Member
Why pick on George? He sounds like he is walking the walk that Al Gore only talks!

Read for yourself... and vote republican!

http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=1601
Did you actually read my post, in which I said that EVERY president does Air Force One junkets? I will not vote for Republican nor Democratic candidates based on their party affiliation - only based on which candidate I feel will best represent my interests. There was a time when Maine was served by Bill Cohen (R) and George Mitchell (D) in the Senate and I voted for each of them every time they ran. They both seemed to be able to reach across the aisle - something that is sadly lacking these days.