Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Apples and oranges
Nick, I couldn't agree with you more. As wealthy as Al Gore is, he should be setting up his home as *the* model for sustainable, renewable resources. Leaders should not ascribe to the 'Do as I say, not as I do' model.
I live in an apartment; so I'm at the mercy of what the building owner will or won't do. However..that being said, I do my best in other ways. Lights get turned out when not in use, the computers spin down when not in use (no, I don't turn them off, because I access them remotely from time to time). I don't drive a Honda Civic; because I have two children, but I have a very fuel-efficient 4-door sedan. I separate garbage as much as I can.
As an extremely avid angler, I would like to direct everyone who thinks ethanol is a viable solution to our energy and greenhouse gas emission problems to this article. It addresses the myriad of problems from corn-based ethanol production primarily, but does mention cellulose ethanol in conjunction with the Conservation Reserve Program, which 'banks' acres of land for future need/use in agriculture. There are even negatives to celluolosic ethanol.
With all of the problems we will be facing soon in getting clean, fresh water--is this a viable solution either short or long term? I like what the article concludes with:
So, until we figure out how to make ethanol cheaply and efficiently from native prairie perennials like switchgrass, where are we going to find the fuel to run our cars? Berkeley's Dr. Tad Patzek makes the point that corn is merely one way of converting solar energy to fuel. Solar cells, far more efficient, could make hydrogen fuel. That's where the subsidies need to go, he contends. But technology for practical, affordable hydrogen fuel, like technology for practical, affordable ethanol fuel, doesn't exist yet.
We do, however, possess the technology to build fuel-efficient automobiles. In the current charade designed by and for agribusiness we're allocating 18 percent of the corn we grow to ethanol, thereby cutting our petroleum consumption by one percent. But Patzek has calculated that if we doubled automobile fuel efficiency, we'd cut petroleum consumption by 33 percent or, put another way, we'd increase our petroleum supply by a third. It's a revolutionary concept that America has never tried. Fish-and-wildlife advocates are calling it conservation.
Novel concept--double the fuel efficiency of our automobiles (and along with that boats, planes, trains, etc.) and cut petroleum consumption by 33%. Along with that, I'm sure it means cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions as well. I'm not certain, however, that Agribusiness, Oil, and Vehicle Manufacturers would like that idea.
RE: Apples and oranges
As I said in a previous post, if Gore has the money to both run an obscenely high electric and natural gas bill and pay for someone else to plant trees or whatever, than he surely has the money to make his mansion energy efficient. How can he tell us to care and do something yet do nothing himself?
I'm 50:50 on this one.
I totally agree with you that since he's spending money on carbon credits elsewhere, it would make sense for him to use that same money to make his own home the model of what he preaches. There is definitely more public value to presenting yourself as the model even if that money goes further behind the scenes as carbon credits.
On the flip side, just as I am against mandatory charity, I am also against mandatory "self-greening." Again, read that as I am against the mandatory part, I support the idea and practice of doing green. So anyway, I do not think that just because somebody has the means of doing so, they should be frowned upon for not.
Hypothetically, if George Greenthumb makes $500K a year, how much would he be obliged to commit to these purposes? Would he remain under scrutiny until he's bought $75K worth of solar panels? Would he be frowned upon for not paying several thousand to have a geothermal well dug? There obviously comes a point where ridiculousness is reached. Plus, if there was a social demand that "well, you make enough, you should be spending it on XYZ" ... many people would opt to make $N-1 in reportable income.
RSS
RE: Apples and oranges
I'd almost say this is an aside to the Global Warming debate, which is another topic in and of itself. This is about the character of a professional politician who has taken it upon himself to become the central figure in the Global Warming debate and expects the rest of us to give him deference in the matter, apparently because he was the VP for eight years. On the one hand we have President Bush, whom (or who--stupid grammar) gets no credit from the media for doing anything at all for the environment, yet has a very Eco-friendly house. Your argument that it isn't comparable to Gore's is weak, at best. Bush spends a lot of time at Crawford, and after his term is up, will probably live there full time. Also, Bush isn't running around flailing his arms screaming about the coming environmental Apocalypse. On the other hand, Gore is running around flailing his arms screaming about the coming environmental Apocalypse, telling the American people that they have to do something!! But all Gore does is pay someone else to do something, very much akin to Medieval Royalty who wanted to go to heaven but didn't actually want to stop sinning, so they paid for indulgences from the church.
As I said in a previous post, if Gore has the money to both run an obscenely high electric and natural gas bill and pay for someone else to plant trees or whatever, than he surely has the money to make his mansion energy efficient. How can he tell us to care and do something yet do nothing himself? I could understand buying carbon offsets to cover pollution that is all but unavoidable-- jetting across the country in his private jet, for example-- but he does nothing. I'm just Joe Schmoe of the Unwashed Masses, yet I probably do more actively than Gore-- we use a wood pellet stove for our primary heat, thus barely using our oil furnace, we separate our garbage, I drive a Honda Civic and keep it maintained, and I conserve electricity. Had I the money to make substantial infrastructure changes to my home, such as solar panels and whatnot, I would. I also don't have the money to pay someone else to do something for me.
View Full Discussion