Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
PerryChase
ParticipantWere’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.
ParticipantAs FormerSanDiegan pointed out, it’s 50% cheaper to rent.
As for the tax benefit, it’s certainly no benefit to the people who have the stated-income “liar” loans. They have no declared income to begin with, so they certainly don’t benefit from the mortgage interest and property tax deduction.
DaCounselor, your tax situation can certainly be different. We are talking here about the situation for the average buyers — those who use exotics such as I/Os, Option ARMs, liar loans and negative amortization loans.
ParticipantPurchasing carbon credits is like paying for trash pickup. Someone figured out a way to dispose of it properly.
As for carbon, someone will figure out a way to sequester it and make tons of money and benefit the environment. FutureSDguy, using your figure of $414 per home at 200 million homes in USA, that’s a market of $82.8 billion, not counting businesses and industries. That’s the size of a Fortune 100 company wouldn’t you say?
ParticipantIf Gore was really, deeply concerned about the environment, he would be working hard on retrofiting his home to be more environmentaly friendly
——————-
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.
Like I said before, the Pope (who is the evangelist for God) lives in a luxurious palace surrounded by tons of gold. His servants tend to his every needs. He could move to a monastery do all the farming, cooking and laundry himself. But he does much more good spending his time traveling the world and persuading people to live simply and preforming charity work. I fail to see the hyprocrisy.
ParticipantSome of the reasons often cited for buying is school for the kids. That’s a stupid reason since you can rent in a better school district than you could buy.
Orange County is about 6 months to a year behind SD in terms of price movements.
ParticipantI recommend moving to Houston if you’re going to move to a locale where housing is cheap. Houston is a large city with a lot of employment and great prospects for future growth.
ParticipantThis country could be saved if liberals just stopped having children.
———
hahaha, that's funny. Most liberals I know come from conservative families. They only return home for a few days on holidays cuz they can't take too much of the bull. At least they have the sensibilities to spare their parents the "disappointment."
For you conservatives out there, you'll know why when your kids don't come home and visit that often.
ParticipantBelow is how the Anonymous Liberal puts it.
——————–
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/
Monday, February 26, 2007
Gore’s Energy Use
(Updated below)The right-wing noise machine really is a remarkable thing to behold. Al Gore wins an Oscar, gets some well-deserved recognition for his efforts, and within hours the Republican noise machine is already in full smear mode, trying to undercut Gore’s message by attacking him personally.
It began this morning when a group that no one has ever heard of–the Tennessee Center for Policy Research–issued a press release claiming that Al Gore’s utility bills reveal that his house in Nashville uses 20 times more energy than the average American household. This, according to the group, makes Al Gore an enormous hypocrite.
The press release, which apparently went to every right-wing flack on the planet, was featured prominently on the Drudge Report and was the topic de jour on conservative talk radio and cable news. The right-wing blogosphere didn’t miss a beat either. Before long Glenn Reynolds, Townhall, Free Republic, Hot Air, and all the other usual suspects were linking to the story and ridiculing Gore (here’s a memeorandum snapshot).
This is a textbook example of the mindless swarming behavior that is so typical among right-wing partisan flacks. First, everyone on the right–from top to bottom–simply assumed that the content of this press release, which was put out by an organization none of them had ever heard of before, was factually accurate. Actually, that probably gives them too much credit. It’s not that they assumed it was accurate, it’s that they didn’t care. The press release was chock-full of truthiness, and that was good enough.
The press release claimed that Al Gore’s home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore’s house is correct, but let’s assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it’s an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives–the East South Central–has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that’s misleading in and of itself.
Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it’s clear that Gore’s energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow “hypocritical” for Al Gore to live in a large house.
That’s awfully weak. Gore’s a former Senator and Vice President of the United States. Does he have to move into a studio apartment before he has the right to talk about climate change?
And more importantly, as Think Progress reports, even this watered-down hypocrisy charge entirely misses the point. What Al Gore wants people to do is reduce the carbon footprint of their residence as much as possible and then purchase carbon offsets to reduce the remaining footprint to zero. Gore has installed solar panels in his home, he uses fluorescent light bulbs and other energy saving technology, and he purchases his energy from Green Power Switch, a provider which utilizes solar and wind power. He then purchases carbon offsets to reduce his remaining carbon footprint to zero.
Could Gore use less overall energy if he and Tipper moved into a one-bedroom apartment? Of course. But he’s not asking people to move into smaller homes. He’s asking them to reduce their carbon footprints, which is exactly what he has done. He practices what he preaches.
And last but not least, I’m always amazed by the triumphalism displayed by right-wingers when they think they’ve managed to humiliate a messenger, as if doing so somehow undermines the message itself. It’s bizarre. I mean, suppose Al Gore was caught tomorrow driving around the country in a fleet of Hummers that run on solid coal. Would that somehow invalidate decades of scientific research? Could the inhabitants of low-lying Pacific Islands suddenly breath a sigh of relief? It’s sad what passes for logic these days on the Right.
For more on this topic and the shady group behind this smear, see this excellent post by Dave Johnson.
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/02/a_far_too_conve.htm
————-ParticipantI can accept your point of view, PD.
It would be interesting to see how Al Gore’s house stacks up to other similar houses in terms of energy use.
I believe that Al Gore lives in his old family home. What would you expect him to do? Raze the house and turn the land into a park, then move to a small apartment? Would it not be an even greater waste of resources to destroy what’s already built?
I don’t think that an environmentalist should never drive an SUV or live in a big house. Just like I don’t believe that one who fights hunger should starve himself or deny himself delicious dishes.
The Pope lives in gilded luxury at the Vatican and travels on private jet. Is his message of humility, piety, modesty and charity any less powerful because he doesn’t live in a hut?
ParticipantSales history on Duke Cunningham’s Del Mar house — the house that caused his downfall.
http://sdlookup.com/PropertyDetails/tabid/53/pid/11C02CE0/Default.aspx#544
ParticipantLife is all about paradoxes. So what, you don’t want to listen to Gore because he lives in a big house and consumes a lot of energy?
Do you stop going to church because of some sex scandals?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070228-9999-7n28diocese.htmlYou guys are missing the point on the environment. The key is not to deny the obvious and start transitioning to new technologies so we don’t have to make sacrifices and lower our standard of living in the future.
I’ve made improvements to my house and I’ve cut my energy use about 50% from 10 years ago. It’s not affected my lifestyle one bit. In fact, I run the air-conditioner more often now; so, if anything, my standard of living improved.
Let’s all do our little part rather than trying to kill the messenger because we’re too lazy to examine our own behavior.
ParticipantCONCHO, can you not hike and bike in Arkansas?
ParticipantIf I were the Brazilians, I’d say pay me to save the trees for you. What are they worth to you?
Al Gore’s energy consumption is not that much for a rich guy. They have a staff and each person uses energy. All by itself the data presented is meaningless. How does it compare to the energy usage of a home of similar size in the same climate?
You may have a good reason to drive a big truck. What Al Gore is saying is that we should require the auto industry to improve the mileage of that big truck so you can still do whatever you need to do without consuming as much energy. I don’t see any hypocrisy in that. The same goes for housing insulation, lighting and appliances.
I agree with Borat. The best way to save the planet is to limit the number of newborns. I’ve done my part. I have no kids.
ParticipantI have friends who work in China and I think that aside from the stock market, the Real Estate market there is in a bubble of its own. Luxury apartments are being built everywhere. One thing I can say about China is that everything is grand. They like to build things big over there.
-
AuthorPosts
