Juan Carlos you don't understand economics. It isn't ok to use all the energy you want as long as it is some form of green power. This increases demand for green power and thus sets pricing higher. This makes it harder for average people to acquire green power and keeps the price for conventional power lower. If you're ultimate goal is to encourage others to use forms of green power then its probably not a good idea to use 10-20x more electricity than others.
...
Wind mills also don't support lavish electricity consumption behavior such as Mr. Gore's. The more he uses, the less that is available to others. Now that is basic economics.
Wrong, wrong, oh so utterly wrong.
As it is, basic economics suggests that since renewable power sources (wind, solar, etc.) are more expensive to produce than conventional "dirty" power (coal, oil) then the demand will be low and thus less will be produced. Demand for "green" power being low will
not mean lowered price, because A) there is a substitute, "dirty" power and B) there is a bare minimum cost to supply.
I mean this is 101 level economics. Did you sleep through that day?
Unless people willingly pay more for "green" power, it will simply not be produced (in other words, more capacity will not be developed). People like Gore stepping up and being willing to pay excessive amounts leads to increased willingness of suppliers to supply, and thus development of capacity. Capacity which will remain after Gore is no longer buying it (due to installation of person supply), thus in the long run lowering the prices for other consumers.
I'd like to see a source for that. I don't think that the bulk of his electricity comes from renewable energy sources. But even if it does, the reason that most of us don't use solar/wind/methane gas to power our homes is simple: we can't afford it. It cost too much to add that stuff to a house (at least, for an "average" person).
Already linked the source. Or are you not actually reading the posts in the thread? It's only two pages long. Go back and find it, I'm not linking it again to positively reinforce your negative behavior.
Gore pays what appears to be roughly 50% more for his power in order to purchase it through the local utility's "green power" program. The bulk of this, from what I understand, is produced by wind and solar with additional power produced by recaptured methane (from a waste treatment plant, IIRC). So renewable, and what little portion isn't carbonless still produces less carbon that burning coal or oil.
As for your last couple sentences...so you just don't agree with people being allowed to enjoy their wealth in America? It appears that he makes a concerted effort to do so in a relatively environmentally responsible way.
Not to mention we don't want to contribute to the global warming that is caused by the amount of energy required to manufacture solar panels.
I saw the smiley, so I know you were at least half-joking. But the way I see it Gore's conspicuous consumption of energy is leading to an increase in capacity of non-dirty energy. This admittedly does often require the use of "dirty" energy to produce (the construction of wind farms, solar panels)...but these will replace dirty capacity and continue to produce without significant further input long after Gore has taken further measures to reduce his consumption. So in the long run, even the moderate run, the emissions caused by the construction of the "green" capacity to feed Gore's insatiable need for power today will be more than offset by the emissions that increased capacity pulls out of the air five years from now.
I have no idea what that means. Not surprisingly, since I already look foolish for stating that he occupies his house. Regardless, if he is truly concerned about global warming, he would use video-conferencing or other means of communication instead of destroying our planet by flying around in a terrible, dirty, unclean, fuel-comsuming-gas-emitting jet to make personal appearences for the purpose of lecturing everyone else about how they shouldn't, inter alia, fly around in jets.
Video conferencing is not as compelling or convincing as actual live speaking engagements. As far as the whole "orders of magnitude" thing, I'll illustrate with numbers that are (admittedly) pulled entirely from my rear end.
Gore's jet emits X amount of carbon flying him to a speaking engagement. His appearance there indirectly reduces carbon emissions by 100X. Already we're looking at a net positive. Say Gore could only cause .1X or .05X to be emitted by flying commercial. Reasonable, I'm thinking, considering that while they carry more people they are also bigger jets and carry more luggage as well...but to be honest I have no idea about fuel consumption of a Gulfstream compared to a 747...regardless of this ratio, my argument will still hold though. Anyway, the extra .9X amount of carbon saved is negligible compared to the 99X already saved. Even more so if he participates in other programs and takes other actions to offset this emission anyway. Hence, enjoying his wealth while trying to do so in an environmentally responsible way.
Is this making sense?
Juan, its not that Im parroting what others have said. It's that I agree with them. Why can't you accept that in order to provide some sort of guidance, you need to be a respectable person. Mr. Gore, sadly enough,for you anyway) is a pi$$ poor role model. He doesn't practice what he preaches at all. What he does indeed do is COMPENSATE. He knows what he's doing is wrong. So he dumps money into the "green" idea.
That's fantastic that you agree with them...but I already knew that. But repeating what they said, and then asking me for a retort when
I've already responded to what they said, is somewhat silly, no? Perhaps even a bit
stupid?
Putting words in all caps and substituting dollar signs for s's doesn't make your argument any more compelling. Also, I'll see your "compensate" and raise you an "offset:"
The Dictionary said:
off·set (ôf'sĕt', ŏf'-) pronunciation
n.
1. An agent, element, or thing that balances, counteracts, or compensates for something else.
Yeah, "compensate" is in there. So is "counteract" and "balance." The main difference is just which way you're trying to spin it. Also, offsetting these emissions is not an admission that what he is doing is "wrong," per se. It's simply an acknowledgment that his actions create negative externalities that he then takes action to offset.