|
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes that is hypocritical
But we, as members of some of the most energy-consuming societies on Earth, don't exactly have much room to talk either.
I don't buy it anywho. Hypocrisy from a big name I can believe, but this blatant in your face hypocrisy... I think it's a smear.
Room to talk? Does that even make sense? You get what I mean, lol.
Voted : Yes that is hypocritical
How else is he supposed to get to different conventions around the world though? It is hypocritical but I cannot imagine him cycling from New York to California.
Voted : Yes that is hypocritical
You have to save yourself before you can save the world.
Getting a smaller house and turning that AC off would be a good start.
It is hypocriticial and he has been that way for years. I wrote him on a local enviromental issue a few times when he was VP, I tried contacting my local level officals. They looked the other way. Even Gore looked the other way.
Hey man, whats the guy gonna care if he's got some luxuries that draw a lot of energy, he's still rich, being vice president once does that, and having a successful truth bearing documentary. It's not like he's contributing all the fucking pollution. %12.5 is from all the planes in the air everyday, 50% of it alone is actually coming from U.S.A and China, so you can't single out Gore without looking at yourselves, and the rest is from round the world contributions like factories, war conflicts and forest fires. Those oil companies will say anything to bad mouth Gore to keep their wealth as long as possible. Besides, if you we're as rich as Al gore, wouldn't you wanna live in the same conditions as him? So shut the fuck up and get back to saving the planet from real problems. If your gonna say he's a hypocrite, at least get more than his monthly bills of energy consumption, it's probably the same for any home his size with his same size family. Dumbasses!
Don't forget, his documentary just won 2 oscars, soon he'll have a comfortable amount of money to upgrade his home to environment friendly standards. Don't you think travelling around the globe to spread his message would eat his wallet up? He probably just didn't have the money until now, and the critics with their hypocrite fingers are pointing before he can make his home environmentally correct. Fuck, I always hate it when bad people try to label good people as hypocrites all the time, everytime someone bad gets caught, they don't even get the right punishment deserved. If Bill Clinton got impeached for getting a blow job, Al Gore shouldn't get more than a slap on the wrist and George W. Bush should get the death penalty of execution by firing squad.
Voted : No; see comment
This attack is so inaccurate and blatantly personal it's obvious it arose from an inability to cope with the anxiety that he is right.
It is designed to project the focus of attention from the environmental issues raised by Al Gore onto Al Gore himself.
It is necessary for me to temporarily validate the previous attack and defense mechanism by pointing out that it is simply inaccurate. He is signed up for 100% renewable energy through the Tennessee Valley Authority power program known as Green Power Switch (tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/).
Finally, no reasonable person would conclude that a person as visible and politically and environmentally savvy as Al Gore would set himself up to be legitimately criticized by hypocritically "contributing" to the pollution he is working to reduce.
the worst thing he's done is try to convince people to put the environment first, that's what brings on the anti-Gore ballots-that he's got some people to look at the issue.. not enough though, don't worry kids, environmentalists will loose, but make more anti-environmental ballots anyway to reassure yourselves :)
by Jyl on Wed Feb 28, 07 6:27am
[+]
Voted : Yes that is hypocritical
Yes, very much so.
Jyl- revealing Gore's hypocrisy is not anti-environment, it falls more under the category of anti-hypocrisy. Why would it be anti-environmental to point out those who indulge and overuse so much energy?
ThisIsNate- A smear campaign? The source in herzog's ballot is the BBC. Why would the BBC launch a smear campaign against Gore, when the BBC is overwhelmingly left wing?
applerod- "Finally, no reasonable person would conclude that a person as visible and politically and environmentally savvy as Al Gore would set himself up to be legitimately criticized by hypocritically "contributing" to the pollution he is working to reduce."
- The source is the BBC. Do you believe they would lead a smear campaign just to make Al Gore look bad, and to derail the climate change discussions? I don't think so. I don't know why whwen so many people on this site see information they don't like, they like to imply that it must all be fake?
And your above comment does not sound like anything to do with reason, being reasonable or logic; it sounds more like blind faith. Blind faith they he would not be a 'hypocrite' because that would be inconsistent of him.
Voted : Yes that is hypocritical
After all, he did create one of the biggest wastes of electricity in history known as the "Internet".
So the consensus is that the BBC, which has admitted its leftwing bias and commitment to manmade global warming, for some reason decided to make up a blatant lie like this that could be easily checked, just to make one of their own look bad. I expected this response, but it's still sad to see people sink this low to defend their idol.
Jyl: criticizing individual environmentalists for their hypocrisy means you hate the enviroment? Sure, in the same way criticizing politicians means you hate the US.
Let me ask you this jyl, is saying one thing then doing another hypocritical or not? Forget that it's about the environment because I know you have a hard time criticizing anyone so long as they say the earth is dying and it's all our fault, but in general would that description make one a hypocrite?
Apple: do you honestly believe the BBC is conspiring against gore?
of course that description makes one a hypocrite.
And pointing out the environmental impact only of people who've raised the attention of millions to environmental problems isn't hypocritical.
Never stop it, Never ever give in on this issue, putting down people who talk about the environment works better every year.
by Jyl on Wed Feb 28, 07 12:33pm
[+]
Unfortunately, Gore is dictated by the 'Covenant' of his sub-division. No solar panels/screens, allowed... let alone him making structural changes to his home to accommodate energy efficiency that would enrage the local historical society.
Gore is yet a victim again.
He is taking on the worlds environmental problems to help make changes, which are out of his control, in his very own neighborhood! He's a hero!
by MO_ on Wed Feb 28, 07 1:42pm
[+]
so would you be happy if he lived in a 2 bedroom trailer powered by solar panels?
before yapping about how much electricity he spends, examine how much Bush and Cheney spends on electricity too, and compare them side by side.
personally, it would suit me fine if all mentioned above were placed in a 2 bedroom trailer in the tornado alley dead center of Oklahoma, but alas this is a capitalist country, and republicans might have an objection or two about that.
Oh, and Gore is on a whole other level of person compared to the other two formenttioned.
by LCD on Wed Feb 28, 07 3:35pm
[+]
"This is total bullshit."
No, it's factual.
"Also how can you compare theenergy consumption of a 20 room house to an average one? "
So poor Al is forced to expend all this energy so he can have a mansion? Somehow if I doubt that if Bush were to say "yeah maybe I spend a lot more on energy than you common folks, but that's only because I need this ridiculously large mansion, and my spa isn't going to heat itself".
"aybe Fox's New's slogan should be: "Fox News. Because you'll beleive just about anything."
This is from the BBC. Perhaps your new motto should be "I'll dispute any report from any source that contradicts my strict leftwing dogma".
I never said or thought the BBC was leading a smear campaign. I didn't even know this article was from the BBC until you mentioned it. After re-reading the article, I hardly believe they are smearing Al Gore:
GORE ACCUSED OF ENERGY HYPOCRISY
"Former US Vice-President Al Gore has been accused of hypocrisy for apparently guzzling energy while he lectures the world on climate change.
A Tennessee-based free market think-tank said Mr Gore's home used more than 20 times the national average of gas and electricity.(...)"
It's not the BBC which is accusing Gore of "energy hypocrisy"; they are reporting that a Tennessee-based free market think-tank has accused him of energy hypocrisy. This think tank is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), which issued the original press release. It can be found here:
tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
The TCPR states that they are "an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions."
Let's assume they are truly independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. They explicitly advocate free market policy, which directly conflicts with government regulation of environmental policies which impact the economy. So they could be independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan -- but they are naturally biased since their entire tank is centered around one economic philosophy.
If anyone is launching a smear campaign, it is Foxnews. I will credit Foxnews with one thing though: they at least aren't pretending to be "fair and balanced" as much anymore. The Hannity & Colmes show yesterday involved "discussion" (lol) about Al Gore and his supposed hypocrisy. I don't get T.V. anymore so I didn't see it, but I read "a partial transcript from Hannity & Colmes, (February 27, 2007,) that has been edited for clarity" which can be found here:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255442,00.html
I'd be curious to see what they left out of the transcript.
(P.S. I do also believe CNN is politically biased to a significant degree.)
Insofar as free market capitalism is more closely associated with the Republican party, the treatment of this story by the conservative media was never about the environment. It is about politics and money.
Money not only buys political influence, but provides the material luxuries most of us (I include myself depending on the circumstances) are unwilling to risk diminishing or giving up, even if it means reducing the pollution that is undeniably affecting the health of people all over the world, (to say nothing of the millions of other species inhabiting the planet and the ecosystems which sustain us all).
The environment is almost regarded as an abstract concept, particularly in light of the lack of fast and direct consequences of pollution. Even the air pollution which has literally engulfed major cities such as Los Angeles and Mexico City and is rapidly beginning to have similar health consequences to smoking are not yet bad enough to really concern most people enough to support collective efforts to reduce it.
""Finally, no reasonable person would conclude that a person as visible and politically and environmentally savvy as Al Gore would set himself up to be legitimately criticized by hypocritically "contributing" to the pollution he is working to reduce.""
That statement is not about blind faith, because the concept is not dependent on Al Gore or the issues he is personally connected with.
Applerod- "Mr Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider did not deny the figures, but said that both Mr Gore and his wife Tipper worked from home, implying that they were therefore likely to use more energy."
- The BBC has reported that the Gores are not going to deny the accusations. That seems to imply that the figures are not wrong?
The sad thing is that this only gets noticed once it becomes hypocrisy. I'd be willing to bet that there are many people, on both sides of the political spectrum and with opposing environmental views, in the United States who live just as destructive lifestyles as Gore. Yet Gore is the only one who gets noticed, because he is an environmental activist.
We should be criticizing everybody who lives these kinds of lifestyles, regardless of whether said lifestyles are "hypocritical."
The figures are probably correct, but the electricity is generated from the most environmentally-friendly options available: the Tennessee Valley Authority's "Green Power Switch" program (tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/) and solar power at home.
"The sad thing is that this only gets noticed once it becomes hypocrisy. I'd be willing to bet that there are many people, on both sides of the political spectrum and with opposing environmental views, in the United States who live just as destructive lifestyles as Gore. Yet Gore is the only one who gets noticed, because he is an environmental activist"
It's noticed because he's a hypocrite.
Take this example: an ordinary citizen who smokes vs a rabid anti-smoking advocate who secretly smokes. The second one will be criticized alot more. Why? Isn't smoking wrong for both? Perhaps, but it's only hypocritical when you advocate the opposite of what you yourself are doing.
Voted : Yes that is hypocritical
The Green Party have called him the Environmental Pretender in my area.
Studies shows that Bush and Cheney have used much less.
|
|
