Al gore- What the fuck?

[Enkidu]

His carbon-footprint is non-existent if he removes as much carbon as he contributes. I guess you don't know what carbon neutral means. Every american will contribute to carbon emissions in some way. Limiting this through conservation and/or compensating for it via carbon-credits-esque things are how, on a personal level, each person can do their part to help stop global warming. If someone produces alot of carbon and eliminates a lot of carbon, that is perfectly valid for me.

You don't "eliminate" carbon by using alternative fuels. In effect he's only cutting his non-renewable energy use in half by buying an equal amount of renewable energy.

[Groovebox]

His carbon-footprint is non-existent if he removes as much carbon as he contributes. I guess you don't know what carbon neutral means. Every american will contribute to carbon emissions in some way. Limiting this through conservation and/or compensating for it via carbon-credits-esque things are how, on a personal level, each person can do their part to help stop global warming. If someone produces alot of carbon and eliminates a lot of carbon, that is perfectly valid for me.

You don't understand what I'm saying I guess. I am saying this:

He uses a shitload of carbon based energy, which based on "facts" is contributing to global warming. He also purchases "carbon offsets", from his own company mind you, to be carbon-nuetral.

The carbon energy that he uses is contributing to global warming, the green energy not so much. However, he is still contributing more carbon-based emissions than the average american.

On a personal level, I don't give a shit if he's "carbon-neutral", the only proof of that is from a company that he is chairman of and his PR person.

[Charla]

His carbon-footprint is non-existent if he removes as much carbon as he contributes. I guess you don't know what carbon neutral means. Every american will contribute to carbon emissions in some way. Limiting this through conservation and/or compensating for it via carbon-credits-esque things are how, on a personal level, each person can do their part to help stop global warming. If someone produces alot of carbon and eliminates a lot of carbon, that is perfectly valid for me.

You don't "eliminate" carbon by using alternative fuels. In effect he's only cutting his non-renewable energy use in half by buying an equal amount of renewable energy.

Technically that's true. Nothing we do directly eliminates significant quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere. That's the job of every single plant in the world, which continuously absorb CO2 and crack it into its constituent atoms during photosynthesis. The carbon cycle itself does the eliminating, our problem is leaving the carbon that was eliminated a few billion years ago by the fern forests and things like that where it is, and not putting it back in the atmosphere faster than existing plants can absorb it.

Isn't high school biology useful?

edit:

He uses a shitload of carbon based energy, which based on "facts" is contributing to global warming. He also purchases "carbon offsets", from his own company mind you, to be carbon-nuetral.

Technically speaking, the energy he and his house are using might not be carbon-based in the first place (never mind the fact that there's no such thing as carbon-based energy, and I'll assume you're referring to electricity produced by power plants using methods which produce and release carbon dioxide). If there happens to be a few hydroelectric, solar, wind, and/or nuclear plants nearby, the electrons in his house might have come from some of those instead of a coal plant. Also, carbon offsets are a separate concept, and not what mister chocobo avatar's quote was talking about. Gore actually pays more money to the power company to make sure that the power company gets his share of its electricity from those non-coal-burning power plants I mentioned. A carbon offset is something more like donating to a company which plants trees in Siberia so they can absorb CO2 (see the first half of my post if you want to know how that works) and try to make it all balance out.

[Aerin]

His carbon-footprint is non-existent if he removes as much carbon as he contributes. I guess you don't know what carbon neutral means. Every american will contribute to carbon emissions in some way. Limiting this through conservation and/or compensating for it via carbon-credits-esque things are how, on a personal level, each person can do their part to help stop global warming. If someone produces alot of carbon and eliminates a lot of carbon, that is perfectly valid for me.

You don't "eliminate" carbon by using alternative fuels. In effect he's only cutting his non-renewable energy use in half by buying an equal amount of renewable energy.

Again you people are completely missing the point. You don't have to live a completely green life to reduce carbon emissions. The guy isn't preaching that your carbon footprint should be non-existent, he's saying that we need to try and reduce it so that we don't add too much more to the problem. And you idiots are ridiculing him for it because he isn't the greenest guy on the planet, hell I bet even that wouldn't be enough for some.

[archibaldcrane]

His carbon-footprint is non-existent if he removes as much carbon as he contributes. I guess you don't know what carbon neutral means. Every american will contribute to carbon emissions in some way. Limiting this through conservation and/or compensating for it via carbon-credits-esque things are how, on a personal level, each person can do their part to help stop global warming. If someone produces alot of carbon and eliminates a lot of carbon, that is perfectly valid for me.

You don't understand what I'm saying I guess. I am saying this:

He uses a shitload of carbon based energy, which based on "facts" is contributing to global warming. He also purchases "carbon offsets", from his own company mind you, to be carbon-nuetral.

The carbon energy that he uses is contributing to global warming, the green energy not so much. However, he is still contributing more carbon-based emissions than the average american.

On a personal level, I don't give a shit if he's "carbon-neutral", the only proof of that is from a company that he is chairman of and his PR person.

I still don't understand how contributing a net total of 0 to greenhouse gasses makes him a hypocrite. Find him saying that carbon-offsets aren't a valid way to be a non-factor in global warming please, or shut the fuck up. Find proof that he's not carbon neutral, or shut the fuck up. Just because -you- don't think it's valid, doesn't make -him- wrong. It just makes you stupid.

I also don't understand how buying 194,000 kilowats of green electricity yearly for his house, which requires 191,000 kilowats of electricity to run, gives him a carbon footprint that would make bigfoot proud. Do you want him to make his own power plant so every tiny bit of electricity flowing into his house is 100% green? He's doing what he can in the system his house is hooked up to to be carbon neutral, and that's how you stop global warming on a personal level. Conservation is just one route that you can choose to take in the path, it's not THE ONLY WAY.

Even if he is contributing more to carbon emissions than the average american (which your home electricity figures don't prove even in the slightest), he's clearly removing more carbon emissions than the average american - continue to ignore that and you continue to miss the point, which you will continue to do because you aren't looking for the truth, you're only looking for a way to hate Al Gore.

[Day]

Kinda off topic at this point in the thread, but food for thought none the less.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 38792.html

[Groovebox]

Again you people are completely missing the point. You don't have to live a completely green life to reduce carbon emissions. The guy isn't preaching that your carbon footprint should be non-existent, he's saying that we need to try and reduce it so that we don't add too much more to the problem. And you idiots are ridiculing him for it because he isn't the greenest guy on the planet, hell I bet even that wouldn't be enough for some.

You seem to missing the point. I am debating whether or not Gore is a hypocritical phony or "green" enough not to be.

[Charla]

Do you want him to make his own power plant so every tiny bit of electricity flowing into his house is 100% green?

That's actually not hard. A couple dozen solar panels on the roof will cover most or all of a house's consumption, and most states will pay half of the up front cost for you these days.

[archibaldcrane]

You seem to missing the point. I am debating whether or not Gore is a hypocritical phony or "green" enough not to be.

And you keep ignoring evidence that he is green enough to contribute absolutely 0 to global warming, which is his crusade.

[Groovebox]

I still don't understand how contributing a net total of 0 to greenhouse gasses makes him a hypocrite.

Key word: "net total"

You'd make a great politician.

[archibaldcrane]

Do you want him to make his own power plant so every tiny bit of electricity flowing into his house is 100% green?

That's actually not hard. A couple dozen solar panels on the roof will cover most or all of a house's consumption, and most states will pay half of the up front cost for you these days.

The Gore home is also under renovation to add solar panels, Kreider said.

It's like there's nothing he hasn't thought of!

[archibaldcrane]

I still don't understand how contributing a net total of 0 to greenhouse gasses makes him a hypocrite.

Key word: "net total"

You'd make a great politician.

I'd also make a great environmentalist apparently, since this is the goal.

[Kuya]

Wait wait wait wait wait, are people actually trying to devalue Gore's possition by trying to point out he's a hypocrit? As if making him a hypocrit suddenly means you don't have to care about Global warming anymore? Where did you guys learn your rhetoric and debate skills? The back of a cereal box?

[Groovebox]

And you keep ignoring evidence that he is green enough to contribute absolutely 0 to global warming, which is his crusade.

He uses carbon based power though. How does that not contribute to global warming? Oh, because he uses some green power too?

[archibaldcrane]

Wait wait wait wait wait, are people actually trying to devalue Gore's possition by trying to point out he's a hypocrit? As if making him a hypocrit suddenly means you don't have to care about Global warming anymore? Where did you guys learn your rhetoric and debate skills? The back of a cereal box?

I was guessing Fox News, or maybe the Roman Empire (isn't that where "kill the messenger" came from?).

[Day]

What I'm really wanting to know personally, is what humans are doing actually affecting the global temperature?? I think you guys missed the article I posted. This meteorolgist seems to think that Gore is full of it. I'm not an scientist, so whos words do we take for fact?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 38792.html

Pay close attention to his closing statement. Other scientists agree but are too scared of losing grants to stand up and speak their mind.

[archibaldcrane]

And you keep ignoring evidence that he is green enough to contribute absolutely 0 to global warming, which is his crusade.

He uses carbon based power though. How does that not contribute to global warming? Oh, because he uses some green power too?

If I hand you $500 and simultaneously steal $500 from you, do I contribute to your wealth or to your poorness? Oh, neither?

Exactly.

Learn what carbon-neutral means before posting again. Please, I fucking beg of you.

[Groovebox]

Day, unfortunately you'll find that there is scientific proof that we do not affect global warming at all. But, you'll also find scientific proof that we are.

[Kuya]

What I'm really wanting to know personally, is what humans are doing actually affecting the global temperature?? I think you guys missed the article I posted. This meteorolgist seems to think that Gore is full of it. I'm not an scientist, so whos words do we take for fact?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 38792.html

Pay close attention to his closing statement. Other scientists agree but are too scared of losing grants to stand up and speak their mind.

LOL. Who should we listen to, scientists that argue humans do not cause global warming, or scientist who argue we do cause global warming, GEE WHAT A CONUNDRUM. Maybe you were under the impression that Global warming was made up solely by Gore without any scientific backing?

Funny that you bring up the whole scared to lose his grant, as i would assume the situation would be similar on both sides, possibly even more so for those who defend global warming.

[Day]

Amazing. So what do we do then, pick a side and hope we are right?? Sounds like fun.