Al Gore's home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average household

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am also wondering what this report means by "average household"? I mean if they just took the energy use of every residence I would think the amount of people living in highrise apartments or town/row-houses would totally skew the average since they would use way less energy (and that is probably where a huge portion of people live). I mean I doubt Al Gore lives in a house where he shares a wall with his neighbour. I would be more curious as to how far off Gore's house is compared to the average single-family home.

exactly ... that's including mobile home units and everything ... plus dude lives in one of the worst regions in the states because it actually has a winter (heat) and hot muggy summers (a/c) ... i think i read somewhere that his area of the country uses some 50% more energy then the average household around the states because of its climate ...

rebornFixer

polaris wrote:

yo dude

what you think of greenies idea to put a huge tax on carbon and use that money to reduce income and other taxes?

I am probably one of the few "red tories" who likes the idea ...

cincybearcat

This is no surprise...a robot that large needs a lot of power.

Kel Varnsen

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

ok... factor in 20 times less square footage. The average footprint for habitation in the US is 500 square feet of living space?!

Regardless of solar, geothermal etc...etc..modifications, he's using more energy afterwards.

Did you read the article?

This guy is off the charts on power consumption.

I don't think the average home is 500 square feet. But I would believe that the average home shares at least 1 wall with a neighbour (and possibly has another home above you) and probably doesn't have the luxury of central air conditioning (I bet Gore does). Both of those things lead to significantly less energy use for the average home. Plus anyone know if Al Gore has a pool? I am sure the average home doesn't. Those things contribute to the fact that he is using way more than the average home, even proportionally based on size.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

polaris wrote:

uhhh ... that's why i would reduce taxes across the board elsewhere ...

You might reduce taxes elsewhere, but that's not what gonna happen. It just gets heaped on top of all the other taxes that need to be paid...

polaris wrote:

right now, we do not pay the true cost of energy ... the health effects of fossil fuel burning is costly to us that has to be made up through our conventional streams ... why not try and foster a change to both move away from non-renewable, health affecting forms of energy?

agree...what is Gore doing actively about it, and specifically? Kinda like nothing really except telling people they need to reduce their lifestyles, and pay more money.

polaris wrote:

and i'm not sure what gore's plan is but i see a carbon tax as a MUST

anyone that insists on more gov't taxes is not in their right mind.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I don't think the average home is 500 square feet. But I would believe that the average home shares at least 1 wall with a neighbour (and possibly has another home above you) and probably doesn't have the luxury of central air conditioning (I bet Gore does). Both of those things lead to significantly less energy use for the average home. Plus anyone know if Al Gore has a pool? I am sure the average home doesn't. Those things contribute to the fact that he is using way more than the average home, even proportionally based on size.

You're saying the average home in the US is a semi-detached or an apartment?

I'm not so sure about that.

I think any way you slice it, this guy is over the top.

Kel Varnsen

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You're saying the average home in the US is a semi-detached or an apartment?

I'm not so sure about that.

I think any way you slice it, this guy is over the top.

I think it is possible, I am not sure. That is why I hate articles like this. They shock you with a big number but fail to answer any of the follow-up questions anyone with even a bit of a brain might want to know. Things like: Why is it so much higher, How old is Gore's house, does he use gas heating or electric (maybe he is using an electric heat pump and his monthly gas bill is $0), does he have a pool, what do they mean by average households, how does his house compare to houses in similar climates. With hack writers like this one for all we know Al Gore is running a grow-op in his basement, or feeding the homeless with a commercial kitchen, since the writer gives us no background information.

SweetAndLow

Gore's house is old news. ironic thing is that while Gore rails on about global warming and while Bush refuses to acknowledge it and wants to drill, drill, drill - nature be damned - Bush's ranch is 10x more energy-efficient than Gore's.

brain of c

SweetAndLow wrote:

Gore's house is old news. ironic thing is that while Gore rails on about global warming and while Bush refuses to acknowledge it and wants to drill, drill, drill - nature be damned - Bush's ranch is 10x more energy-efficient than Gore's.

based on what?

SweetAndLow

SweetAndLow wrote:

Gore's house is old news. ironic thing is that while Gore rails on about global warming and while Bush refuses to acknowledge it and wants to drill, drill, drill - nature be damned - Bush's ranch is 10x more energy-efficient than Gore's.

PS - The average house size in the U.S. is like 2,100 square feet. Gore's is like 10,000 feet. It's only (OK, I say ONLY facetiously) 5x bigger than the average house, but he uses enough energy to power MUCH more than 7 houses. Another sickening political hypocrite is all he is.

SweetAndLow

For Brain of C and anyone else wondering:

Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
March 01, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - 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.

Bush's "Western White House" in Crawford, Texas, has been praised as "an eco-friendly haven" while the former vice-president's home in Nashville, Tennessee was criticized this week for heavy power consumption.

"In politics, people don't always practice what they preach," Marlo Lewis, Jr., a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.

Bush has been criticized harshly by environmentalists for his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and its mandatory cuts on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.

By contrast, Gore on Sunday won an Academy Award for his documentary focusing on the impact of climate change. He recently announced a series of music concerts on seven continents in July to drew further attention to the cause.

"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.

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."

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said TCPR President Drew Johnson.

David Roberts, staff writer for the online environmental magazine Grist, Wednesday criticized the analysis by the TCPR, which he described as an "attack group from Tennessee."

The center's report had been "thrown together purely for the purpose of attacking Al Gore after the Oscars," Roberts told Cybercast News Service.

It was unfair, he said, to compare Gore's electrical consumption to the national average, which "includes apartments and trailer homes and is an average across all climatic zones, some of which are quite temperate."

Gore and his wife, Tipper, "both work out of their house" and "have special security measures for an ex-vice president, all of which naturally increases the electricity use in the home," Roberts added.

Moreover, Gore "pays almost a 50 percent premium to buy the 'green power' offered from his electrical company," which generates its voltage from hydroelectric and nuclear power rather than coal, he said.

"If every national leader did as much as Al Gore does to ameliorate their impact on the climate, the world would be a much better place."

Nevertheless, Roberts conceded that the energy efficiency of the president's home in Crawford is "fantastic."

"I wish that George Bush would back public policy that is in line with what he does on his ranch," he said.

'Elitist'

Johnson of the TCPR defended his group's report against criticism from Gore's supporters.

He acknowledged that the information was obtained from the National Electric Service the day after Gore won his Oscar, but argued that "it is fair to compare Gore's [energy] use to what most Americans are used to."

"All of the niceties he may have and all the extra people he may have running in and out of his house still shouldn't mean that the person leading this environmental charge should have 20 times the electrical consumption of the average American," Johnson charged.

The CEI's Lewis said the disparity between Gore's message on global warming and his power consumption reflected an "elitist mentality."

"The average soccer mom can't afford to plant trees in the rainforest in order to remain carbon neutral," he said.

"All these jet-setters' lives consist of going to conferences in other countries by burning jet fuel and staying in posh hotels where they keep the lights on all day and so on in order to tut-tut about how wasteful the rest of us are in our use of energy," he stated.

"They always make an exception for themselves because what they're doing is so important."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I think it is possible, I am not sure. That is why I hate articles like this. They shock you with a big number but fail to answer any of the follow-up questions anyone with even a bit of a brain might want to know. Things like: Why is it so much higher, How old is Gore's house, does he use gas heating or electric (maybe he is using an electric heat pump and his monthly gas bill is $0), does he have a pool, what do they mean by average households, how does his house compare to houses in similar climates. With hack writers like this one for all we know Al Gore is running a grow-op in his basement, or feeding the homeless with a commercial kitchen, since the writer gives us no background information.

I donl't think it's hack writing at all. It's factual representation with legitimate numbers.

Gore is a suspicious politician. He's talks use less but spend more...that's all he does.

If he wants to make a difference talk about saving money not spending more money. People still eat his broken science shit up. I used to. This guy has an agenda and it not about saving earth as much as it is getting some money moving imo.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

SweetAndLow wrote:

PS - The average house size in the U.S. is like 2,100 square feet. Gore's is like 10,000 feet. It's only (OK, I say ONLY facetiously) 5x bigger than the average house, but he uses enough energy to power MUCH more than 7 houses. Another sickening political hypocrite is all he is.

Agreed. He is also probably 10 times more solar than the average home user as well. This guy is a power hog. Hypocrite indedd.

Kel Varnsen

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I donl't think it's hack writing at all. It's factual representation with legitimate numbers.

Gore is a suspicious politician. He's talks use less but spend more...that's all he does.

If he wants to make a difference talk about saving money not spending more money. People still eat his broken science shit up. I used to. This guy has an agenda and it not about saving earth as much as it is getting some money moving imo.

Of course it is a hack article. It cherry picks the facts it wants to try and get a certain point across rather than giving the whole story. When looking at someone’s energy usage you can’t just look at their electric bill since it doesn’t give you the whole picture. Like I said above maybe he has an electric heat pump to heat his home, which would use a lot more energy than a gas furnace, and lead to a higher gas bill, but at the same time is much more efficient than a gas furnace and leads to a much lower gas bill. For all we know he is shooting his next movie in his back yard and all the filming equipment is using all the power. Or maybe his wife is running "Tipper Gore's Old Tyme Tennessee Cookie Factory" in her basement. I am not trying to defend Al Gore at all I just think a good reporter should answer the “why” questions, and it bugs me when they don’t.

polaris

SweetAndLow wrote:

PS - The average house size in the U.S. is like 2,100 square feet. Gore's is like 10,000 feet. It's only (OK, I say ONLY facetiously) 5x bigger than the average house, but he uses enough energy to power MUCH more than 7 houses. Another sickening political hypocrite is all he is.

the guy gets his energy from wind and solar - yeah, his consumption is high but it's from renewables which is way better then people who use 1/10th of his power but from fossil sources like coal ...

polaris

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

anyone that insists on more gov't taxes is not in their right mind.

well ... how else do you get people to pay the TRUE cost of a resource?

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

well ... how else do you get people to pay the TRUE cost of a resource?

You are correct in that we don't pay the true cost of energy.

But I'm not sure that taxing it, thus giving the $ to the gov't, is the total answer.

First, the environmental standards for producers needs to be raised. They will need to pass cost along to the consumer. So now, the consumer is paying the $ for reducing environmentla impact. Making everyone comply with the same Env regulations is tough to do since their are global providers.

Then, you can raise the tax on the product, so the gov't has th e$ to deal with leaning up the emissions produced when the consumers use it (or finding alternative energy).

Not that I want this to happen, but you're right in my opinion.

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

You are correct in that we don't pay the true cost of energy.

But I'm not sure that taxing it, thus giving the $ to the gov't, is the total answer.

First, the environmental standards for producers needs to be raised. They will need to pass cost along to the consumer. So now, the consumer is paying the $ for reducing environmentla impact. Making everyone comply with the same Env regulations is tough to do since their are global providers.

Then, you can raise the tax on the product, so the gov't has th e$ to deal with leaning up the emissions produced when the consumers use it (or finding alternative energy).

Not that I want this to happen, but you're right in my opinion.

i think what it boils down to is that if you are going to charge producers for spewing toxic greenhouse gases that has impacts on our environment and health - it is essentially a tax ... there's no way around it ...

now, i also know that many of you don't like the gov't controlling those dollars ... and i don't disagree necessarily ... it's just that i don't see what other options are out there ...

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

i think what it boils down to is that if you are going to charge producers for spewing toxic greenhouse gases that has impacts on our environment and health - it is essentially a tax ... there's no way around it ...

now, i also know that many of you don't like the gov't controlling those dollars ... and i don't disagree necessarily ... it's just that i don't see what other options are out there ...

I don't think you 'charge them'...I think you force them to pay for and install the best available technology for emission control and require frequent updates...not a tax...$ goes to manufacturers of emission controls...and more $ there drives competition their, drives lower cost of emission control as well as increased inovation...just a thought

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

I don't think you 'charge them'...I think you force them to pay for and install the best available technology for emission control and require frequent updates...not a tax...$ goes to manufacturers of emission controls...and more $ there drives competition their, drives lower cost of emission control as well as increased inovation...just a thought

but even with the best forms of emission controls - it will still spew toxic chemicals in the air - how do you account for the thousands that die from respiratory illnesses a year? ... or the health care costs or loss of productivity from the millions who are sick due to air quality?