Liberal Hypocrisy?

[drunkle]

Submitted by FormerSanDiegan on March 1, 2007 – 10:44am.
I’d like to bring this back around to something analytical and avoid name calling. Here’s how we can easily bring our carbon footprint to Zero and be like Al Gore.

Assumption:
Al uses 20x the average households energy, but buys back carbon credits for about $8,280 per year. Net carbon footprint = ZERO. He’s a hero.

Solution:
Let’s have all those average homeowners follow suit and purchase enough carbon credits to bring their footprint to zero. This comes to $8280/20 = $414. For a measly $414 per year for the average household we can all be carbon neutral like Al Gore. Then we are all heroes. Does this solve the problem ?

Now I can leave the TV on 24 hours a day and just buy another $20 in credits per year to cover it. Cool. I love this energy conservation thing.

before even getting to that point, you can do things at home. upgrade appliances, upgrade insulation, purchase solar appliances (currently at a 30% fed tax credit), use flourescent or led lights, drive a more fuel efficient vehicle…

these are long lasting, generally one time purchase improvements that will reduce your “carbon footprint” prior to having to purchase credits. not doing these first would be wasteful in itself.

now, i’m not a big fan of carbon credits and “personal responsibility” in an arena dominated by corporate interests and public ignorance. credits work, but they require individual participation, participation that cannot be relied on and participation which amounts to an additional tax. i believe direct regulation of producers and users would achieve emission reductions at *all* point sources, encourage conservation due to price regulation (subsidies or taxes) and encourage renewable r/d due to competitive pricing.

[ucodegen]

what does math have to do with anything? you used mr solarwarrior as a basis of comparision for which i stated that using an extreme example is absurd. i have no interest in your personal “comfort level” of “greenness”…

You could have easily gotten me on this one.. but you didn’t see it.. (my math was wrong too). You should read articles thoroughly before reacting. An ‘extreme’ example is not so extreme.. and it has everything to do with it because it shows the real cost involved with truly sequestering/generating green energy.. which is also why I suspect Al Gore is not using green energy.

Kenneth Adelman’s production is up to 45kWh per hour!! not per day. Al Gore’s consumption is 18MegaWatts per month or about 613.8kilowatts/day … Mean production of solarwarriors array is between 30kWh/day to 120kWh/day. Cost of array was about $70K, but this also includes the battery backup.

Considering what I saw looking at the numbers again, just how is he burning so much energy?? Solarwarrior also has his electric cars connected and his house is all electric and he still does not get close to Gore’s consumption.

.., your argument is simply restated as “no *true* conservationist would stop at flourescent lights”.

In a way.. yes.. I have all florescent lights installed already.. and I am not a AGW proponent.

[ucodegen]

As for “Dr Unkle = drunkle”.. anybody can name themselves anything on this board. I could even name myself Al Gore, but that would not make it so.

as for spelling someone’s login name correctly, a correction was in order.

I was using it as it shows on Piggington..

couching your statement does not make it less egregious or insidious when there’s little to no fact. you even state that his useage of green power needs to be checked. but you still draw a conclusion based on a potentially erroneous comparison of sd vs tenn power rates.

And the claims of some AGW proponents are no less insidious? When I make unsupported statements, I always ‘couch’ my statements when I can’t support them. I also point out what needs to be checked. I feel that you are simply being argumentative here. By the way, I also added info why the comparison has some weight.. by taking one of the lowest priced green power costs and comparing..

http://piggington.com/liberal_hypocrisy#comment-25086

The raw cost for one of the cheapest green energies is 0.07/kWh.. not including transportation and line usage costs. Throw the last two in, and the cost goes up.

[Anonymous]

And if it were not possible for Al Gore to fully use green energy, then what about it?

One of his, and many other people’s desires, is to make it more feasible, and less expensive. What’s wrong with that?

He drives a RX300 hybrid, I believe, not a moped.

Gore has a 10k square foot home in Tennessee (hot & humid), with live in staff and security. Obviously, much more than most people, but I bet he conserves more than other people in his position with similar demands. Maybe he should look into ground source heat pumps.

I modified my IKEA lamps to remove dimmer switches so I could put in the flourescents. My electric and gas bill in my SD house was $75 last month ($50 in the summer), and the house has barely any insulation (obviously A/C in a humid area would be much worse). We get cold and use an electric mattress pad at night (highly recommended!). Wife suffers and is forgiving. I take an electric scooter (22 mph) to my office at UCSD when I can. If I had to go on the freeway that’s obviously impossible.

But sometimes we do drive to LA to see my mother. So shoot me.

And using electrical energy is not remotely the same level of repulsiveness or hypocrisy as Mark Foley fondling and picking up underage boys.

And yes I do believe in using nuclear fission power.

I really despise the notion that advocating something globally beneficial and doing something about it (but not maximally or ridiculously) is worse than being an admittedly selfish obnoxious coal-burning CO2-emitting ass. This is an exmaple of what really enrages me about the right wing “Ha ha!” mentality. It’s the same stupidity as schoolyard bullies.

[ucodegen]

circular argument, self fulfilling argument, whatever. you’re guilty of it.

Your statement fails in that I did not call him a hypocrite..

you did not say this?

“Seems pretty hypocritical to me.”

Interesting how you edited this out in your quote..
The only statement that even gets close to that is where I call his behavior as seemingly hypocritical. I did not call him a hypocrite.
Circular logic issue.. remember the context!!!

[PerryChase]

Were’re on the same page, DrChaos. I too have minimzed my home energy use. I’m environmentally conscious but it wouldn’t make sense for me to spend $200k to get completely off the grid. Besides I don’t have enough land for all the solar panels I would need.

I think that the right is too blinded by its ideology/theocracy to understand the nuances in life.

Al Gore’s purchase of carbon credit to offset his own energy is more beneficial than investing the same amount in his home. The pay-off to the environment is greater because he encourages an industry dedicated to green energy.

Putting up solar panels and getting off the grid sounds good but it’s actually highly inefficient as each home needs its own powerplant with the associated risks of storing batteries that might leak and explode. The best thing would be to have green power-plants feeding whole cities.

Al Gore doesn’t live in a neighbood (such as many places in California) where there are acres upon acres of unused land that bakes under the sun. Putting up numerous solar panels would require taking down trees and occupying land that would otherwise be more useful. It’s something that can easily be done in the California desert but not easily achievable in old neighborhoods of Nashville.

Being environmentally conscious entails behaving in such as way to mimize one’s impact. Each person has a different lifestyle and there are a host of ways to achieve that goal.

Even the right would admit that there are many ways to lead a spiritual life. Attending church every Sunday doesn’t make a person rightuous.

[drunkle]

ucodegen:

re: math
you’re lost. first of all, the numbers given for gore are meaningless; where is the apples to apples comparison for energy use? the dollar values given aren’t broken down by source, what’s the use? if he wants to spend $1000/min on hamster powered electric generators, that’s his perogative. you can go on ceaselessly, but still miss the point: your calculations are meaningless and speculative.

btw, you did in fact say:
“Kenneth Adelman generates more than 45kWh per day, Gore only needs to do half of that per month.”

here, you want numbers, you got numbers:

http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm
~$4 surcharge per 150 kwh

http://www.nespower.com/documents/RS-April2006.pdf
7.649 c /kwh/mo

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/G/GORE_ELECTRIC_BILL?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
191000 kwh used in 2006

191000/12 = 15917 kwh/mo ave use
$1200 /mo ave cost
4 * 1200/150 = $32 green surcharge/mo
1200 – 32/15917 = 1168/15917 = $.073 /kwh/mo

slightly low but in the right neighborhood.

[drunkle]

Submitted by ucodegen on March 1, 2007 – 1:16pm.

I was using it as it shows on Piggington..

check again.

And the claims of some AGW proponents are no less insidious? When I make unsupported statements, I always ‘couch’ my statements when I can’t support them. I also point out what needs to be checked. I feel that you are simply being argumentative here.

you’re right, i’m arguing that you’re jumping to conclusions. what about it?

as for “insidious agw claims”, what, predictions of global catastrophe based on evidence and models? as opposed to your “innocuous” slander based on unsubstantive speculation?

[drunkle]

Submitted by ucodegen on March 1, 2007 – 1:26pm.
circular argument, self fulfilling argument, whatever. you’re guilty of it.

Your statement fails in that I did not call him a hypocrite..

you did not say this?

“Seems pretty hypocritical to me.”

Interesting how you edited this out in your quote..
The only statement that even gets close to that is where I call his behavior as seemingly hypocritical. I did not call him a hypocrite.
Circular logic issue.. remember the context!!!

i did not edit you out, i responded separately to your two paragraphs, the first one in which you flat deny, the second one in which you qualify your remark.

talk about being argumenative.

[drunkle]

ucodegen:

“.., your argument is simply restated as “no *true* conservationist would stop at flourescent lights”.”

“In a way.. yes.. I have all florescent lights installed already.. and I am not a AGW proponent.”

absolutely yes, you simply do not like the man and jump at the opportunity to dismiss him. he states that he has solar panels and yet you ignore that. you simple change your argument to:

no true conservationist would use *that* much electricity.

it’ll never end for you because you’re not interested in honest, objective discourse.

[ucodegen]

Finally someone did follow through and check the numbers.. and yes, I found those numbers around Noon.. Much better than arguing semantics..

here, you want numbers, you got numbers:

http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm
~$4 surcharge per 150 kwh

http://www.nespower.com/documents/RS-April2006.pdf
7.649 c /kwh/mo

Though this calculation is incorrect.. you need to divide 15917kWh average usage by 150kWh block size..

4 * 1200/150 = $32 green surcharge/mo

should be
$4 * 15917/150 = $424.45
($4 per block of 150kWh, 15917kWh used avg per month, 15917/150 green power blocks).

which seriously changes the rest of your figures..

What is interesting is that taking Gores cost and dividing by kWh served, you get very very close to a non-green rate charge!
your numbers of 1200/15917 = $0.0759

The green rate charge should be adding $4/150kWh or $0.02666 per kWh to the standard residential rate of $0.07649(non-green TVA), which means we should be seeing a rate of $0.103156/kWh (close to where I guesstimated it would be).

TVA does both Green(Green Switch) and non-Green energy.
http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/index.htm

[drunkle]

Submitted by ucodegen on March 1, 2007 – 3:41pm.

Though this calculation is incorrect.. you need to divide 15917kWh average usage by 150kWh block size..

What is interesting is that taking Gores cost and dividing by kWh served, you get very very close to a non-green rate charge!
your numbers of 1200/15917 = $0.0759

good catch. the corrected result is way off. which brings this:

“Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.”

into question. what does it actually mean?

[ucodegen]

“Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.”

into question. what does it actually mean?

I haven’t the foggiest.. it is very non-specific.. Normally I would think that it might mean that he purchases 100% of renewable.. but then you would not be ‘balancing’.

Using spin mentality, it might mean that he buys 50% non-renewable and 50% renewable, effectively matching (someones concept of balancing?) the non-renewable use.. but then using electrical charges, that would be effectively adding $0.014999 to his charges, making it almost $0.09/kWh..

Does he have a business/house etc elsewhere that may be purchasing renewable energy?

The word I get stuck on is “balance”.. which would normally be associated with offsets as opposed to power generation.

Could be Kristin Hall not getting the quote right and mixing offsets with source of power generation? (Gore not using renewable energy, but paying $ into Carbon offsets to balance the amount as if he were using renewable? – Gores statements via using renewable energy vs the cost rate does not really jive well.. This is the only why I could conceivably align them) The problem then becomes one of how do you estimate the Carbon Dioxide load based upon power usage and power source mix.. I am getting more curious as to how much is contributed to offsets, which offsets and if he has any financial ties to them (ie paid speaking arrangements). Beyond the amount of power usage and the noted power rate (not matching with what one comes up with for TVA for renewable).. everything else at this point is conjecture..

[PD]

Perry, you said:
I don’t see the logic in this. Gore has limited amount of time and if he spends his time meeting with CEOs and heads of states and convinces them to reduce pollution from factories and power plants, he would do much more good than working on his own house. Gore’s most useful contribution is as an “evangelist” for the environment.

Geez, Perry, yet another free pass for Gore. First, you gave him a free pass because he is rich and now you give him one because he is busy. Come on! Did you really think I imagined Gore up on his roof with a tool belt slung around his hips? Rich, busy people have it much easier than us regular folks when it comes to home improvement. They hire it done. Simple, huh? What excuse are you going to come up with for Gore now? Maybe he is going to come up a with cold, lose his voice and be unable to tell his assistant to hire people to retrofit his house.

There are all sorts of things that can be done besides cutting down trees, Perry.

I remember a story about a cop, famous for giving DUIs, who received a DUI himself. I had a similar reaction to that story as I did to this one.

[FutureSDguy]

PD said: “I remember a story about a cop, famous for giving DUIs, who received a DUI himself. I had a similar reaction to that story as I did to this one.”

But that cop suffered the consequences of his mistake (or should have anyway). Gore needs to own up to his mistake of creating an unnecessary double standard in energy consumption.

[Author]

Posts