A Far Too Convenient $mear: Part One

I actually almost seeded this myself - you got to it first though. Curses! Foiled again.

So I wrote an article instead.

Al Gore's Electric Bill, Carbon Credits, and A Lesson In Economics

Great to see the truth of the Rovian smears nipped in the bud, fantastic seed. The exchange here makes me want to know what fuel Killfile runs on though. Lost a seed found an article, go youth!

Coffee. About 12 cups a day.

I wonder what kind of carbon credits I'd need to buy to keep that up...

Only part I have a problem with:

Note to Senator Obama: spare us the hope and bi-partisanship talk and help us fight back.

Fighting fire with fire is just a race to the bottom (pardon the mixed metaphors). The best way to fight back is to fight differently -- notice how the Iraqi insurgency is doing?

If Obama just turns into another of the same, I'm not interested. Hillary's gotten better at it than the Republicans which is why they secretly fear her and why I'm not voting for her: Tweedledee or Tweedledum is not much of a choice.

Killfile:

Coffee. About 12 cups a day.

I wonder what kind of carbon credits I'd need to buy to keep that up...

In principle, drinking coffee encourages more coffee plants, which convert carbon-dioxide back to oxygen. Drink enough, and you probably offset your car. Assuming you don't drive around at 90 mph in a caffeine-craze all the time.

Nice work there Bob, awesome light shed on the subject.

The statement by the "Dept. of Revenue" in the article may be politcally motivated and not factual. The article says

In response, Johnson said the revenue department is "overtly keeping information from the public" and "overtly trying to block information from a group that they are afraid might be critical of them."

"It doesn't matter if it's some guy in his basement wanting to call and know how much this budget number is," Johnson said. "It's not their role to decide who receives essentially public information — how tax dollars are spent."

Because he can't... The bill amounts were taken from public record. However, they (the Gores) are stating that they work from home and that should be taken into consideration.

Why should his energy bills, or anyone's for that matter, be a matter of public debate?

Why should his energy bills, or anyone's for that matter, be a matter of public debate?

Because he has made it part of the public debate perhaps.

That makes no sense at all. Al Gore's pet issue is reducing carbon emissions, not wasting electricity. And as a matter of fact, he purchases carbon offsets to reduce his carbon footprint.

So again what significance does this argument have?

But carbon emissions and wasted electricity and natural gas go hand in hand. Last time I checked, when you turn on a light switch, you are increasing carbon emissions. They are directly correlated. Even if you buy all of your power from "green" suppliers, you at times get power from coal and gas fired plants.

I do not know of a single true 100% green facility and to say that there is one and that's how he gets his power is a little much. I like that he uses solar panels, but that doesn't make up for heating a pool, keeping a pool house warm/cool, etc.

Also, if Gore is using that much power you would think he'd build a little wind farm in his backyard.

Well, let's see... I donate to US Methane, I live in a townhome with solar panels (I put power on the grid), and I use natural gas when I can.

And oddly enough, I work in the oil, gas, and utilities industry. ;-)

I believe what's important here is that he too has installed solar panels and the like to to reduce his own carbon footprint. The actual amount of energy is irrelevant if his carbon footprint is low relative to the footprint of an average household. And by that, we're talking proportions -- big house, bigger footprint unless you actively attempt to reduce it as much as possible, as Gore has done. He has a large house and does what he can to make it "green." How small of a home would Gore need to live in for there to be no smear attacks? Most average American households likely do nothing to reduce their carbon footprints, and using the argument "their houses are smaller and therefore they don't need to" would be silly. The point of the documentary was to stress the need for everyone to do their part to, for example, reduce their relative carbon footprint, not for everyone to downsize their homes to consume less total energy.

Mine is 3.8, and we live in an apartment. It's gone down this year alone, though, getting rather proud of that fact ;) Luckily for me, although I own a manual transmission car, I put less than 8,000 miles on it this year, so thats cut down a lot for me. I agree with dwchin - what kind of house does Gore have to live in for the smearers to stop? He already pays an extra 500 a month of greener sources, and I rather doubt that included the cost of his solar panels.

This is a good point. What we are encouraging is people to pay to hurt the environment. It's kind of like the study done at the daycare when parents were late. By charging, the parents were continually late picking up their children instead of forcing them to be on time.

Freakonomics did rule, didn't it?

The problem is that the dirty smear-type stuff is quoted as fact long after being discredited by other news sources and that gives it the appearance of truth.

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar.

All I know is after hearing much of it I needs to go to the drink tank.