Gore Refuses to Reduce Energy Consumption to Average Family Level
By AmandaBCarpenter Posted in Congress | Featured Stories | liberal hypocrisy | Liberals | The Goracle — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Former Vice President and full-time environmental alarmist Al Gore was eager to tell members of Congress how they should use their legislative powers to change the way Americans live but refused to take a pledge to lower his own energy consumption to the levels equal or below the average American household.
He said his family would pay more for “clean energy” instead.
Yesterday, Gore testified to both the House Energy & Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee about the “true planetary emergency” of global warming that he said was a “challenge to the moral imagination.”
In his question and answer period Ranking Member of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.) asked Gore to take a pledge that said: “I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”
Inhofe said by taking the pledge Gore must reduce his consumption, not merely pay money to “offset” his energy levels. He intoned that Gore should show support for families who could not afford offsets by reducing his energy level to the average families’ energy consumption level.
Read on , , ,
“The offsets and credits are used by the wealthy so they do not have to change their lifestyle,” Inhofe told him.
Gore would not pledge to live by energy limits set by the average American household and said he would continue to purchase offsets.
Gore filibustered. “Thank you so much for your question,” he said to Inhofe. “One of the other recommendations is that you also set standards for green energy set by utilities. That is what we purchase and we [his family] pay more for it because it is rather uncommon. We purchase wind energy that does not produce carbon dioxide. That does cost a little more now. And that’s why it does cost more. We are in the process of renovating a new home.”
Inhofe cut Gore off and said Gore could answer “yes” or “no” to the pledge. Gore did neither.
At the end of his question and answer period, Inhofe returned to his first question by asking Gore about his film, An Inconvenient Truth. Inhofe said, “In the last frame of your film, you’re asking ‘Are you ready to change your way of life, are you ready to change the way you live?’ I would have to ask you the same question.”
Gore would not pledge to reduce his energy consumption. “We [his family] live a carbon neutral life. We buy green energy. We pay more for clean energy,” he said. “We are in the middle of installing solar panels.”
During the Senate hearing, a young woman circulated stickers that featured a caricature of Al Gore’s face. In green letters the sticker said, “AL GORE SAYS ‘DO AS A I SAY NOT AS A DO.’”
Gore's Congressional To-Do List
In his opening testimony, which was not made available to the press at either the House or Senate hearing, Gore gave Congress a hefty legislative to-do list.
He advised Congress to implement “an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions,” issue a moratorium on all new coal plants not properly equipped with costly carbon-reduction technology and commit to “defacto compliance with Kyoto” by 2010.
Gore said Congress should ban all incandescent light bulbs. “And there may be some other products that are placed into that [banned] category,” he said. He told the House committee members they might meet opposition to objecting industries for doing so, but advised them, “They’ll do it, set the date! They’ll adjust as long as everybody plays by the same rules.”
Gore also suggested that Congress mandate an “Electranet” that would “encourage power distribution” by allowing home owners and small businesses to sell solar or wind energy in their communities. “Set the rate to have a tariff that reflects the market price. You may never have to build another central power plant,” he said.
A new “carbon neutral mortgage association” was another idea Gore gave Congress. He said this would be a federal program to help homeowners outfit their properties with carbon reduction technology through government subsidies. In front of the House committee he compared it to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. He called it “Connie Mae.” He said, “They’ll say here’s your Connie Mae home improvement package” and “you don’t have to worry about paying for that. It’ll pay for itself that the Congress of the United States has made sure of that.”
Gore also said Congress should increase CAFÉ (corporate average fuel economy for cars) standards and require corporate disclosure of carbon emissions.
Inhofe low-balled that the cost of implementing Kyoto protocols alone would be at least $300 billion. He said this would be the “largest tax increase in history -- 10 times Clinton-Gore of ’93.”
At Gore’s urging, the Clinton Administration passed an energy tax in 1993. In a little noticed interview with the Financial Times in November 2006 he told reporter Fiona Harvey that the Democrat-supported tax was rejected so harshly that it helped Republicans take control of Congress a year later.
Gore said, “I worked as Vice President to enact a carbon tax. Clinton indulged me against the advice of his economic team….One house of Congress passed it, the other defeated it by one vote then watered it down and what remained was a pitiful 5 cent per gallon gasoline tax."
Gore reflected, "That [the 5 cent per gallon tax] contributed to our losing Congress two years later to Newt Gingrich."
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | In Which Steny Hoyer Embraces The Dark Side — Comments (2) »
Gore Refuses to Reduce Energy Consumption to Average Family Level 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But I stuffed a couple in my purse and they're up in the office now.
Was curious what Podhoretz had to say, so looked it up. Here it is in case anyone else is interested.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmVlZWU4ZTEyN2M0NTJhODc0M2YyYjU...
Direct questions from Congress? I'm pleasantly surprised with Mr. Inhofe. Well done!
Question: Were any "skeptics" invited to this hearing? Or was it just a showcase for Al Gore to give his incredibly expensive laundry list of things to do to fix a problem that doesn't exist?
I'm just praying that they don't magage to get any of this crap through. It will cost so much money and make things so much harder for the average Joe. It's just not right that Congress thinks it can and should micromanage our lifestyles to this degree.
Ban all incandescent bulbs. I wonder it the Goreacle knows that most if not all flourescent bulbs contain mercury. If all bulbs are replaced with flourescents, we could have one heck of a Mercury problem from our landfills, unless there is also mandatory light bulb recycling. I don't want to live in Al Gore's America.
Electricity produced by wind power (something Mr Gore should be able to generate himself) simply goes back into the "grid." You cannot segregate current produced by wind power from that produced by coal burning power plants or the evil nuclear ones.
I really wish Republicans would learn to play a tougher game with these idiots. They need to learn some lessons on how to put these guys on the spot and reveal their hypocracy. I want someone to ask Gore and Edwards this question: Would you be comfortable if EVERY American citizen lived your lifestyle? Would you be comfortable if every American had a house and energy bill the size of YOURS? And if not, why are you allowed to live like that while insisting the rest of us can't?
The fact is, these jokers don't really believe a word they say and nobody else really does either. If the truth were really so apocolyptic, they would be riding bicycles and not private jets.
Thank you Senator Inhofe for being on the ball...but let's get even tougher.
There's a lot of cruelty to animals stuffed under that rope that holds up his pants. I might add, and a lot of wasted energy to satisfy his elephantine appetite.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Mr. Gore lives a lavish lifestyle. I do wonder however how much my energy costs would rise if I had a secret service detail living at my house for the rest of my life. The average american household does not have the security requirements that a former VP has. I would be more than happy to have an independent analyst compare his energy consumption to that of Walter Mondale and Dan Quale. I won't compare other living Vice presidents due to the fact that they were president as well and have larger security details. If Gore comes out with higher energy usage then he should be regarded as a hypocritical blowhard. If he comes out lower then we need to at least consider what he has to say.
adds $500/month for electricity to heat the pool.
It's not really global warming. Your pool is too hot!
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
... but only on this fine point - are Mondale and Quale (sic) running around the world advocating the we must, must, rearrange entire global economies because someone's computer simulations say we're all going to die in 40-years (or was it 10? or 20?) if we don't?
Didn't think so.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
wether or not his heating bills compare well with other former VPs. He's telling "the little people" to make massive changes in their lifestyles while at the same time living as you call it "a lavish lifestyle".
You really don't see the hypocracy there?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I called his lifestyle lavish as compared to mine. I don't think that compared to individuals of a similar station that his lifestyle would be considered lavish. I have not hung out with people at his station so I can not directly vouch for the lavishness of their lifestyles. But really how is not using incandescent lightbulbs a massive change in your lifestyle?
behind to pollute your local landfill!
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
They usually have a terrible color profile, and they also flicker in a way that can cause problems if you use a CRT (as on a computer, say). LEDs don't, AFAIK, have quite the same drawbacks (color profile's different, though), but don't scatter as well. And LED replacements for your run-of-mill incandescents are really spendy, and usually of less impressive light output right now. Might save you a few bucks on the light bill, but the upfront cost can be significant, even if CF and LED bulbs last significantly longer.
if more people are forced to choose fluorescents?
My reasons for wanting to buy supposedly "green" electrical products have everything to do with saving myself money and promoting energy independence. After spending a month without heat this past winter, I don't care to stop the world from warming, if it really is.
I'm thinking also about all of the science fair projects and BakeLite ovens that will be deprived if incandescent bulbs are outlawed.
asking of everyone but himself. But incandescents are more appropriate for some applications than flourecents. For example, if you live in the cold frozen north like I do, you'll find that a florecent doesn't work well outside when it's cold.
"individuals of a similar station" What is this, a monarchy? Is he royalty of some sort? I know he bought indulgences for himself, but is he really of a better class than you or I?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
that work in the cold. I found some marketed as "outdoor" bulbs and put them in the post lamp I have in the back yard. They're not real bright, 15 watt -40 watt equivalent x 3, but more than adequate for going up the deck steps, walking the dog, taking out the garbage, etc. It is on a photocell, so in winter is on about 15-18 hrs/dy. Work great, have lasted all winter and are stil going strong. In an application like that, the slow start you usually get with flourescents isn't a problem.
Like you, I live in the cold north, and with long winter nights, you get real interested in light. Where I have general area lights, I've changed to flourescents. All my task lighting is halogen. I've installed LEDs in all the landscape lighting since they last so long and use so little electricity.
In the boat, you have to be acutely aware of energy budgets when you're at anchor (I don't have an aux generator, so I have to run off batteries or start a main engine - KaChing.). I have halogens in all the area and task lights and LEDs in all the nav and courtesy lights. Love the LEDs for nav lights and cockpit courtesy lights since I don't have to worry about usage and they stay on so much. Wouldn't use them for anything else, not much light, poor color, high cost. But if you've ever hung off the side or off the arch changing a nav light, you'll appreciate the long life of LEDs.
For me, this isn't greenie stuff, though I'll admit I'm cheap about using electricity having been raised in the rural South when a single 40 watt hanging in the middle of the room was considered a wasteful luxury. I just want to see well and not use any more or pay any more for electricity than I have to.
In Vino Veritas
The Ads spot above is now featuring "Bulborama", for all your lighting needs . . .
-
NARF
I was basing my "don't work well in the cold" on personal experience with those fourescent replacements for incadecents that I picked up at the local Wal-Mart. I've found that they take a long time to start and seem very DIM when it's cold out. They do work great indoors and in warm weather.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
regular flourescents don't even work well when it is just "cool," e.g., I normally keep the garage at about 45-50 unless I'm doing something out there. The regular "shop light" flourescents out there take forever to start, even longer to come up to proper temp/color, and buzz like Hell. Turn the heat up and they're fine. But those outdoor ones I found even worked well in sub-zero temps this winter.
In Vino Veritas
I won't compare other living Vice presidents due to the fact that they were president as well and have larger security details
Really. So, to loosely quote Stephen Colbert, you can't think of any former VPs who were not President?
Not even touching the rest of your class warfare argument. Two Americas, indeed. Gore lives far above ours, obviously.
while driving a four door Lincoln Continental. Big car, fast speeds, disrespect for the law and the safety of others.
Somebody should tell The Neck that you lead by example, even when you think you're superior. Is it possible that people don't realize that all this enviro crap is for them but not for Fat Al and his kind ?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
That's all this is.
We implement policy as a nation, not an individual. I fail to see how this is any different that Liberals that accuse Republicans of being chickenhawks on the war.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...that Republicans are not insisting that everyone besides themselves enlist in the military. Nor are we advocating a draft.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Al Gore is a private citizen and has as much a right to advocate for his beliefs as your or I.
If he was asking for special exceptions to his policies then I would agree with you.
But to say that he should live a middle class life if he wishes to advocate for restrictive changes in our energy policy is wholly unreasonable.
It is just as hollow an argument as those who say that anyone who advocates for tax hikes should first voluntarily give more money back to the government.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
And nowhere are we saying that he may not advocate as he pleases. We merely note that he is being sadly inconsistent between his private and public capacity. It's not my fault that hypocrisy is the unforgivable sin of our era... :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
He's not advocating that everyone consume the same amount of energy.
He is saying that he believes we should enact certain measures to reduce our national consumption. You can say he is wrong but his consumption relative to the national average is wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
friends are hypocrites for telling people to do as I say because it is good for you,(though maybe not so good for me so I'll do what I want).
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Certainly a convincing argument.
Chickenhawking is fun, ain't it? Now you understand why Liberals love it so much. It allows you to make political points AND feel self-righteous.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
You obviously don't understand the meaning of the term. Go study and return for approval. Here endeth your lesson for the day.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
you just don't like that it is implied here because you are the accuser.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
same amount of energy. He's advocating that everyone except HIM consume less energy while he buys dispensation from himself to consume FAR more than everyone else.
Why do you defend everything this hypocrit does?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I can't think of a single thing I have defended from him. I don't much care for the guy.
I don't even know what you are trying to say in the first post.
The only Democrat I regularly defend here is Barack Obama.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
of carbon offsets as a resonable alternative to cutting his own consumption. Must have been one of the other liberal regulars here.
My first post? You mean the comment about you being right? It was a direct reply to your comment "He's not advocating that everyone consume the same amount of energy."
My statement is you're right. He doesn't want everyone to consume the same amount. He wants YOU and ME to consume less so he can consume more.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Why do you regularly defend Barack Obama? I have viewed his website and I have heard him talk, but yet I still do not see why he has such a devoted following. What about Barack Obama makes you want to defend him?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
It is my personal belief that he is striving to do things I that I would personally like to see occur in this country.
It is a mix of stated views and faith in his character.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I can see that slogan for 08
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Is an interesting rhetorical device, but it misses Gore's entire point. It's not that we should reduce what we pay for our energy, or that we should even necessarily use less energy in total.
It's that (say it with me) we should reduce our carbon usage.
He's not paying "more money of offset his energy usage," he's paying more money to purchase power generated by solar and wind, which for entirely market-related reasons is probably more expensive than carbon-generated power in his area.
Are you willing to change your life to save the environment.
He did so by excerpting a frame from the Hot Air Bag's own movie.
Gore's answer is no, He won't change his lifestyle. He says he will just buy carbon credits from himself.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Vice President Gore I have two follow-on questions based on your refusal to take the pledge to reduce your energy consumption to at least the level of the average household in one year even though you are asking others to drastically change their lifestyles by their reduction.
Your response was that you were ‘carbon neutral.’ In the past you have said you were not a scientist so I want to know who the organization was that did the calculations that your claim to be ‘carbon neutral’ are based on. And, I want you to provide the data that was used in their computations.
My second question is, knowing that you want what is best for the earth and all mankind, if everyone in the world became ‘carbon neutral’ as you did would that solve the ‘global warming crisis’?
It would appear the old left is dead, or at least speechless.
Kurt Weill & Bertolt Brecht wrote the Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny. The city was founded on a single law: everything was permitted so long as you could pay for it.. Conversely, the only crime was not having enought money.
Al Gore would be right at home living in Mahagonny, buying indulgences for his carnal appetites...
Kurt Weill, a leftist of his era with strong Marxist leanings, was of course writing a critique of the Mahagonny society. Surely he would have been appalled at the parody of his ideology that today's American bourgeois left have adopted - led by such luminaries Al Gore, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton.
The silence from Al's left is remarkable. Or are all these old-style leftists passed from the scene, sold out to American prosperity while gnawing away at the foundations?
John Podhoretz at NRO chastises Inhoffe for acting "boorishly" towards the Goracle at yesterday's hearing. I say good for Inhoffe. The pablum the former VP is sprewing all over the Capitol deserves to be greeted with contempt and boorishness, not phony respect.
As an aside, Amanda, the young woman distributing stickers at the hearing that you alluded to, was that you?
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman