subject:"\[Biofuel\] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use"


Hi Keith,

I'm not sure how the math works out but you have to take into consideration 
that methane gas is 23 times more potent as a green house gas then CO2.  
Also the commercial livestock farms use many times more fossil fuels to 
create food than do organic produce farms.  Of course the 100 mile diet is 
important too.


Terry Dyck



From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:13:55 +0900

Hi Terry

Thanks for finding the ref.

Hi Keith,

You asked for a link to the the UCS quote.  It was from the Green
Issue of the Vancouver Sun newspaper in Nov. (Vancouver, BC, Can.)
The actual quote was, Methane produced by waste on cattle and hog
farms is as hard on the atmospher as 33 million cars. 18% of total
global emissions.

But 33 million cars is only about 15% of the number of vehicles in
the US, let alone globally, how can that equal 18% of global
emissions?

Cattle and hog farms means CAFOs, not farms, or at least in the
vast majority of cases. I don't think that's the same as what you
said, the total of all livestock on this planet.

I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a paltry
33 million cars' worth of GHGs.

I still think that. The claim of 18% of global emissions from CAFOs
doesn't sound unreasonable, but the cars bit can't be right, seems to
me.

Thanks Terry.

Best

Keith




Terry Dyck


From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900

Hello Terry

 Hi Kirk,
 
 If all of us did what we should be doing our houses would be one
 room heated with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by solar and
 we would walk or bike almost everywere

This:

 and we would be totally Vegan.

... is nonsense, as we've established quite thoroughly many times.
Please go to the archives and check it out.

There is no way of raising crops sustainably without using livestock
in the production system. No vegetarian farming system has ever
survived the test of time.

Please don't argue about it until you've checked it out, no need to
go over the same old ground yet another time.

 The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that because of the amount
 of Methane gas caused from feed lots, etc. that the total of all
 livestock on this planet is equivalent to taking 33 million cars of
 the road.

Feed lots, etc? What does the etc mean?

I'm sure the amount of GHGs emitted by trees etc is even worse,
should we cut them all down too?

Do trees share blame for global warming?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
Globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of
global methane emissions.

I haven't seen the UCS report you mention, would you give us a
reference or a link please?

Anyway you're talking about feedlots, CAFOs, Confined Animal Feeding
Operations, industrialised factory farms. No CAFOs no meat? That's
the same mistake enviros make when they attack fuel ethanol because
they don't like Archer Daniel Midlands and Cargill. There are other
ways of doing things, as we ought to know by now.

There've been a number of high-profile critiques of industrial meat
production and global warming, this is the main one:

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
Livestock's long shadow - Environmental issues and options
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Feedlot cattle, pigs and poultry eat industrialised grain, produced
with high dependence on fossil-fuel inputs and at high environmental
cost, and the same applies to the CAFO livestock production system
itself. Check out how carbon-neutral industrialised grain turns out
to be. Pastured livestock eat forage.

With CAFOs most of the methane emissions result from the manure
storage, especially in with pigs. With pastured livestock, especially
with rotational pasture, the manure provides the soil fertility to
produce multiple following crops, displaces the need for fossil-fuel
based chemical fertilisers, and does so at a healthy profit. Such
pasture soils sequester very large amounts of carbon.

I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a paltry
33 million cars' worth of GHGs. Well so what, it doesn't have any
future anyway, any more than the rest of the industrial agriculture
disaster does. It's fossil-fuel dependent every step of the way, and
measured in food miles that comes to a hell of a long way. It'll bust
all their bottom-lines when carbon accounting starts hitting the
global trade it depends on, the insane distribution system, the
processing. Apart from all of which CAFOs have become a major
bio-hazard.

No need for it anyway. The future is small, sustainable, family-run
mixed farms with integrated crop and livestock production, low input,
high

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-03-03 Thread Keith Addison

Hi Terry

Hi Keith,

I'm not sure how the math works out but you have to take into consideration
that methane gas is 23 times more potent as a green house gas then CO2.

I didn't forget that, but shouldn't that mean more cars, not fewer 
cars? Also it's not clear when they say 18% of total global 
emissions whether they're referring to methane emissions or total 
GHG emissions.

I think UCS usually gets it right, I don't think they were correctly 
quoted. But I haven't managed to find the original work at their 
website.

Also the commercial livestock farms use many times more fossil fuels to
create food than do organic produce farms.  Of course the 100 mile diet is
important too.

Indeed. To sum up, I think the criticism applies to factory farms, 
which are not farms at all, but it doesn't apply to real farming. 
Adopting a vegetarian diet is perhaps one alternative to supporting 
factory farming, but a better alternative is to support sustainable 
farming, which necessarily includes livestock and meat production. 
Vegetarianism itself is not a sustainable alternative. As an 
individual diet choice perhaps, but not as a farming system.

Thanks - regards

Keith


Terry Dyck

 From: Keith Addison keith at journeytoforever.org
 Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
 To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:13:55 +0900
 
 Hi Terry
 
 Thanks for finding the ref.
 
  Hi Keith,
  
  You asked for a link to the the UCS quote.  It was from the Green
  Issue of the Vancouver Sun newspaper in Nov. (Vancouver, BC, Can.)
  The actual quote was, Methane produced by waste on cattle and hog
  farms is as hard on the atmospher as 33 million cars. 18% of total
  global emissions.
 
 But 33 million cars is only about 15% of the number of vehicles in
 the US, let alone globally, how can that equal 18% of global
 emissions?
 
 Cattle and hog farms means CAFOs, not farms, or at least in the
 vast majority of cases. I don't think that's the same as what you
 said, the total of all livestock on this planet.
 
  I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a paltry
  33 million cars' worth of GHGs.
 
 I still think that. The claim of 18% of global emissions from CAFOs
 doesn't sound unreasonable, but the cars bit can't be right, seems to
 me.
 
 Thanks Terry.
 
 Best
 
 Keith
 
 
 
 
  Terry Dyck
  
  
  From: Keith Addison keith at journeytoforever.org
  Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
  To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
  Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900
  
  Hello Terry
  
   Hi Kirk,
   
   If all of us did what we should be doing our houses would be one
   room heated with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by solar and
   we would walk or bike almost everywere
  
  This:
  
   and we would be totally Vegan.
  
  ... is nonsense, as we've established quite thoroughly many times.
  Please go to the archives and check it out.
  
  There is no way of raising crops sustainably without using livestock
  in the production system. No vegetarian farming system has ever
  survived the test of time.
  
  Please don't argue about it until you've checked it out, no need to
  go over the same old ground yet another time.
  
   The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that because of the amount
   of Methane gas caused from feed lots, etc. that the total of all
   livestock on this planet is equivalent to taking 33 million cars of
   the road.
  
  Feed lots, etc? What does the etc mean?
  
  I'm sure the amount of GHGs emitted by trees etc is even worse,
  should we cut them all down too?
  
  Do trees share blame for global warming?
  http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
  Globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of
  global methane emissions.
  
  I haven't seen the UCS report you mention, would you give us a
  reference or a link please?
  
  Anyway you're talking about feedlots, CAFOs, Confined Animal Feeding
  Operations, industrialised factory farms. No CAFOs no meat? That's
  the same mistake enviros make when they attack fuel ethanol because
  they don't like Archer Daniel Midlands and Cargill. There are other
  ways of doing things, as we ought to know by now.
  
  There've been a number of high-profile critiques of industrial meat
  production and global warming, this is the main one:
  
  http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
  Livestock's long shadow - Environmental issues and options
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  
  Feedlot cattle, pigs and poultry eat industrialised grain, produced
  with high dependence on fossil-fuel inputs and at high environmental
  cost, and the same applies to the CAFO livestock production system
  itself. Check out how carbon-neutral industrialised grain turns out
  to be. Pastured livestock eat forage

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


Hi Keith,

You are absolutely right that the average person stood up and took notice of 
the movie, people who didn't pay attention to GHG previous to the movie.  
Education and timing are the key points for this discussion.  People need to 
be educated about GHG's and there is urgency needed.  Al Gore met both of 
these points.


Terry Dyck



From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 15:27:39 +0900

 What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
 isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.

That is Gores message. It isnt worth doing. Things worth doing get
done. Especially if it is just for ambiance.
I can understand keeping the house at 77 instead of opening the
windows to 85 evening air. Thats human. Selfish - but human.
But to carry the message we are killing the planet and indulge in
nat gas ambiance - that is incomprehensible. It means in his heart
it is a no sale. or he is mad as a hatter.

Kirk

He's a closet nat gas ambience indulger?

:-/

Sorry Kirk, as a demonstration of his sincerity or lack of it that's
right up there with his doing live shows instead of video
conferencing. IMHO,

It fails to distract from the point, which is that Al Gore and his
soft-sell movie have been THE major factor in breaking through the
laager of global warming denial in the US, putting it on the map
throughout the media and the community with a high priority level,
and opening the way for the changes we see everywhere now, in stark
contrast to the inaction of a year ago. About bloody time too, 20
years later, 20 years plus many billions of tons of carbon emissions.

The purpose of this smear was just that, to distract from that point,
and it seems to have worked in some cases at least. It won't get far,
too late for that now, though Drew Johnson of the Tennessee Center
for Policy Research will no doubt not go short of grants from Big
Fossil nor ever higher fees for rightwing speaking engagements. So
what.

Best

Keith


Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

:-)

Spin sure works well huh? See how easy it is to distract and redirect
attention from what matters to what doesn't. And how nobody thinks to
apply the same thinking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research,
for instance, or to see how well the epithets they throw at Gore
might apply to them, to those whose pockets they're in, and indeed
generally to the so-called free market that they espouse. Where
exactly is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research coming from? From
the American Enterprise Institute, for one.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch

There's a lot about where the AEI is coming from in the list
archives. See how deep you can dig before you hit ExxonMobil and all
the rest of the usual suspects.

What sort of lamps do they have burning in their yard, do you think?

Thought we'd've learnt a little more here by now.

What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.

What exactly would you do if what were?

Best

Keith


 Weakness?
 gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too
 fast or fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen.
 If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would
 accept Bush as a spokesman for civil liberty
 and honesty in politics.
 
 Kirk
 
 Terry Dyck wrote:
 
 Hi Kirk,
 
 When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to 
be
 people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the other 
hand I
 am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public 
about
 Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 
7,
 2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people 
and

 make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour
 concert all over this planet.
 When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the 
media
 hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the 
N.D.P
 federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power 
and
 heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known 
by
 very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets 
lots
 of publicity about green issues and doesn't do much in the way of 
actions.

 
 Terry Dyck
 
 
  From: Kirk McLoren
  Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
  To: biofuel
  Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
  Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)
  
  
  
   st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
   Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut
  back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone 
else

   http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


Hi Keith,

Because the source of the facts came from the Vancouver Sun's Green Issue in 
Nov. I am not sure of were the Original Union of Concerned Scientists study 
is.  Here is a quote from Brad Knickerbocker of the Christian Science 
Monitor:  U.S. meat eater are responsible for more tons of CO2 per person 
than 1 vegetarian per year.  The causes are; deforrestation, land for feed 
crops, energy for fertilizers, runs to slaugherhouses and meat processing 
plants, and pumping water.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's quote.  Livestock 
are one of the most significant contributors to todays most serious 
environmental problems.  This organization also quoted the 18% figure for 
GHG.  They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37% methane 
and 65% nitrous oxide.  Those are world totals.


Terry Dyck



From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:54:06 +0900

Hi Terry

Hi Keith,

I'm not sure how the math works out but you have to take into 
consideration

that methane gas is 23 times more potent as a green house gas then CO2.

I didn't forget that, but shouldn't that mean more cars, not fewer
cars? Also it's not clear when they say 18% of total global
emissions whether they're referring to methane emissions or total
GHG emissions.

I think UCS usually gets it right, I don't think they were correctly
quoted. But I haven't managed to find the original work at their
website.

Also the commercial livestock farms use many times more fossil fuels to
create food than do organic produce farms.  Of course the 100 mile diet 
is

important too.

Indeed. To sum up, I think the criticism applies to factory farms,
which are not farms at all, but it doesn't apply to real farming.
Adopting a vegetarian diet is perhaps one alternative to supporting
factory farming, but a better alternative is to support sustainable
farming, which necessarily includes livestock and meat production.
Vegetarianism itself is not a sustainable alternative. As an
individual diet choice perhaps, but not as a farming system.

Thanks - regards

Keith


Terry Dyck

 From: Keith Addison keith at journeytoforever.org
 Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
 To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:13:55 +0900
 
 Hi Terry
 
 Thanks for finding the ref.
 
  Hi Keith,
  
  You asked for a link to the the UCS quote.  It was from the Green
  Issue of the Vancouver Sun newspaper in Nov. (Vancouver, BC, Can.)
  The actual quote was, Methane produced by waste on cattle and hog
  farms is as hard on the atmospher as 33 million cars. 18% of total
  global emissions.
 
 But 33 million cars is only about 15% of the number of vehicles in
 the US, let alone globally, how can that equal 18% of global
 emissions?
 
 Cattle and hog farms means CAFOs, not farms, or at least in the
 vast majority of cases. I don't think that's the same as what you
 said, the total of all livestock on this planet.
 
  I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a paltry
  33 million cars' worth of GHGs.
 
 I still think that. The claim of 18% of global emissions from CAFOs
 doesn't sound unreasonable, but the cars bit can't be right, seems to
 me.
 
 Thanks Terry.
 
 Best
 
 Keith
 
 
 
 
  Terry Dyck
  
  
  From: Keith Addison keith at journeytoforever.org
  Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
  To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
  Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900
  
  Hello Terry
  
   Hi Kirk,
   
   If all of us did what we should be doing our houses would be one
   room heated with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by solar 
and

   we would walk or bike almost everywere
  
  This:
  
   and we would be totally Vegan.
  
  ... is nonsense, as we've established quite thoroughly many times.
  Please go to the archives and check it out.
  
  There is no way of raising crops sustainably without using livestock
  in the production system. No vegetarian farming system has ever
  survived the test of time.
  
  Please don't argue about it until you've checked it out, no need to
  go over the same old ground yet another time.
  
   The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that because of the 
amount

   of Methane gas caused from feed lots, etc. that the total of all
   livestock on this planet is equivalent to taking 33 million cars 
of

   the road.
  
  Feed lots, etc? What does the etc mean?
  
  I'm sure the amount of GHGs emitted by trees etc is even worse,
  should we cut them all down too?
  
  Do trees share blame for global warming?
  http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
  Globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of
  global methane emissions.
  
  I haven't seen the UCS

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-03-03 Thread Thomas Kelly

Terry,
You quote The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as 
follows:
 Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to todays most 
serious environmental problems.
You go on to say:
They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37% methane 
and 65% nitrous oxide.  Those are world totals.

 Where can I find the article you are quoting?
 Tom

- Original Message - 
From: Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


 Hi Keith,

 Because the source of the facts came from the Vancouver Sun's Green Issue 
 in
 Nov. I am not sure of were the Original Union of Concerned Scientists 
 study
 is.  Here is a quote from Brad Knickerbocker of the Christian Science
 Monitor:  U.S. meat eater are responsible for more tons of CO2 per person
 than 1 vegetarian per year.  The causes are; deforrestation, land for 
 feed
 crops, energy for fertilizers, runs to slaugherhouses and meat processing
 plants, and pumping water.
 The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's quote.  Livestock
 are one of the most significant contributors to todays most serious
 environmental problems.  This organization also quoted the 18% figure for
 GHG.  They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37% 
 methane
 and 65% nitrous oxide.  Those are world totals.

 Terry Dyck


From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:54:06 +0900

Hi Terry

 Hi Keith,
 
 I'm not sure how the math works out but you have to take into
consideration
 that methane gas is 23 times more potent as a green house gas then CO2.

I didn't forget that, but shouldn't that mean more cars, not fewer
cars? Also it's not clear when they say 18% of total global
emissions whether they're referring to methane emissions or total
GHG emissions.

I think UCS usually gets it right, I don't think they were correctly
quoted. But I haven't managed to find the original work at their
website.

 Also the commercial livestock farms use many times more fossil fuels to
 create food than do organic produce farms.  Of course the 100 mile diet
is
 important too.

Indeed. To sum up, I think the criticism applies to factory farms,
which are not farms at all, but it doesn't apply to real farming.
Adopting a vegetarian diet is perhaps one alternative to supporting
factory farming, but a better alternative is to support sustainable
farming, which necessarily includes livestock and meat production.
Vegetarianism itself is not a sustainable alternative. As an
individual diet choice perhaps, but not as a farming system.

Thanks - regards

Keith


 Terry Dyck
 
  From: Keith Addison keith at journeytoforever.org
  Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
  To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
  Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:13:55 +0900
  
  Hi Terry
  
  Thanks for finding the ref.
  
   Hi Keith,
   
   You asked for a link to the the UCS quote.  It was from the Green
   Issue of the Vancouver Sun newspaper in Nov. (Vancouver, BC, Can.)
   The actual quote was, Methane produced by waste on cattle and hog
   farms is as hard on the atmospher as 33 million cars. 18% of total
   global emissions.
  
  But 33 million cars is only about 15% of the number of vehicles in
  the US, let alone globally, how can that equal 18% of global
  emissions?
  
  Cattle and hog farms means CAFOs, not farms, or at least in the
  vast majority of cases. I don't think that's the same as what you
  said, the total of all livestock on this planet.
  
   I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a 
   paltry
   33 million cars' worth of GHGs.
  
  I still think that. The claim of 18% of global emissions from CAFOs
  doesn't sound unreasonable, but the cars bit can't be right, seems to
  me.
  
  Thanks Terry.
  
  Best
  
  Keith
  
  
  
  
   Terry Dyck
   
   
   From: Keith Addison keith at journeytoforever.org
   Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
   To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
   Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
   Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900
   
   Hello Terry
   
Hi Kirk,

If all of us did what we should be doing our houses would be one
room heated with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by solar
and
we would walk or bike almost everywere
   
   This:
   
and we would be totally Vegan.
   
   ... is nonsense, as we've established quite thoroughly many times.
   Please go to the archives and check it out.
   
   There is no way of raising crops sustainably without using 
   livestock
   in the production system. No vegetarian farming system has ever
   survived

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


Hi Tom,

I read the information on the environmental on-line magazine called  Grist 
Magazine.   web site is; [EMAIL PROTECTED]  The issue was from about the 
middle of Feb. I believe.  It was a story done on how a vegetarian diet can 
help to reduce GHG.  I had to click on to the heading to get all of the 
information.  There could still be a discussion going on about this topic on 
their site.


Terry Dyck



From: Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:46:49 -0500

Terry,
You quote The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as
follows:
 Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to todays 
most

serious environmental problems.
You go on to say:
They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37% 
methane

and 65% nitrous oxide.  Those are world totals.

 Where can I find the article you are quoting?
 Tom

- Original Message -
From: Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


 Hi Keith,

 Because the source of the facts came from the Vancouver Sun's Green 
Issue

 in
 Nov. I am not sure of were the Original Union of Concerned Scientists
 study
 is.  Here is a quote from Brad Knickerbocker of the Christian Science
 Monitor:  U.S. meat eater are responsible for more tons of CO2 per 
person

 than 1 vegetarian per year.  The causes are; deforrestation, land for
 feed
 crops, energy for fertilizers, runs to slaugherhouses and meat 
processing

 plants, and pumping water.
 The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's quote.  
Livestock

 are one of the most significant contributors to todays most serious
 environmental problems.  This organization also quoted the 18% figure 
for

 GHG.  They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37%
 methane
 and 65% nitrous oxide.  Those are world totals.

 Terry Dyck


From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:54:06 +0900

Hi Terry

 Hi Keith,
 
 I'm not sure how the math works out but you have to take into
consideration
 that methane gas is 23 times more potent as a green house gas then 
CO2.


I didn't forget that, but shouldn't that mean more cars, not fewer
cars? Also it's not clear when they say 18% of total global
emissions whether they're referring to methane emissions or total
GHG emissions.

I think UCS usually gets it right, I don't think they were correctly
quoted. But I haven't managed to find the original work at their
website.

 Also the commercial livestock farms use many times more fossil fuels 
to
 create food than do organic produce farms.  Of course the 100 mile 
diet

is
 important too.

Indeed. To sum up, I think the criticism applies to factory farms,
which are not farms at all, but it doesn't apply to real farming.
Adopting a vegetarian diet is perhaps one alternative to supporting
factory farming, but a better alternative is to support sustainable
farming, which necessarily includes livestock and meat production.
Vegetarianism itself is not a sustainable alternative. As an
individual diet choice perhaps, but not as a farming system.

Thanks - regards

Keith


 Terry Dyck
 
  From: Keith Addison keith at journeytoforever.org
  Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
  To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
  Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:13:55 +0900
  
  Hi Terry
  
  Thanks for finding the ref.
  
   Hi Keith,
   
   You asked for a link to the the UCS quote.  It was from the Green
   Issue of the Vancouver Sun newspaper in Nov. (Vancouver, BC, Can.)
   The actual quote was, Methane produced by waste on cattle and hog
   farms is as hard on the atmospher as 33 million cars. 18% of total
   global emissions.
  
  But 33 million cars is only about 15% of the number of vehicles in
  the US, let alone globally, how can that equal 18% of global
  emissions?
  
  Cattle and hog farms means CAFOs, not farms, or at least in the
  vast majority of cases. I don't think that's the same as what you
  said, the total of all livestock on this planet.
  
   I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a
   paltry
   33 million cars' worth of GHGs.
  
  I still think that. The claim of 18% of global emissions from CAFOs
  doesn't sound unreasonable, but the cars bit can't be right, seems 
to

  me.
  
  Thanks Terry.
  
  Best
  
  Keith
  
  
  
  
   Terry Dyck
   
   
   From: Keith Addison keith at journeytoforever.org
   Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
   To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
   Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-03-03 Thread yankeetrader

Dear All,

 I realize that some of these points have been made earlier
in the message chain, but I'd like to tweak them here.

 The animal manure can first be made into biogas and then
the slurry used as fertilizer --some of which can be
used to displace fuel intensive fertilizer in the next crop of
animal feed.

 The CO2 from the production of biogas can be fed to algae
--both a fuel feedstock and a source of protein for animals or prople. 
Admittedly, no one has done a great job of producing
biofuels from algae yet, but I feel it is just around the corner.
A substantial amount of oxygen would be released to the atmosphere by algae in 
the process.

 Dinofuel in transportation becomes energy --70 percent wasted
as heat at a minimum-- and the rest of the waste clearly trumping the animals 
as a source of greenhouse gases.  Almost no O2 is
released in the process.

 By the way, I seem to recall that termites are the source
of 20 percent of the world's methane. I am no entomologist --is there any known 
benefit to man or beast from termites?
If not, let's get 'em!  

Regards,

Wendell

From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/03/02 Fri AM 04:13:55 CST
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

Hi Terry

Thanks for finding the ref.

Hi Keith,

You asked for a link to the the UCS quote.  It was from the Green 
Issue of the Vancouver Sun newspaper in Nov. (Vancouver, BC, Can.) 
The actual quote was, Methane produced by waste on cattle and hog 
farms is as hard on the atmospher as 33 million cars. 18% of total 
global emissions.

But 33 million cars is only about 15% of the number of vehicles in 
the US, let alone globally, how can that equal 18% of global 
emissions?

Cattle and hog farms means CAFOs, not farms, or at least in the 
vast majority of cases. I don't think that's the same as what you 
said, the total of all livestock on this planet.

I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a paltry
33 million cars' worth of GHGs.

I still think that. The claim of 18% of global emissions from CAFOs 
doesn't sound unreasonable, but the cars bit can't be right, seems to 
me.

Thanks Terry.

Best

Keith




Terry Dyck


From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900

Hello Terry

 Hi Kirk,
 
 If all of us did what we should be doing our houses would be one
 room heated with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by solar and
 we would walk or bike almost everywere

This:

 and we would be totally Vegan.

... is nonsense, as we've established quite thoroughly many times.
Please go to the archives and check it out.

There is no way of raising crops sustainably without using livestock
in the production system. No vegetarian farming system has ever
survived the test of time.

Please don't argue about it until you've checked it out, no need to
go over the same old ground yet another time.

 The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that because of the amount
 of Methane gas caused from feed lots, etc. that the total of all
 livestock on this planet is equivalent to taking 33 million cars of
 the road.

Feed lots, etc? What does the etc mean?

I'm sure the amount of GHGs emitted by trees etc is even worse,
should we cut them all down too?

Do trees share blame for global warming?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
Globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of
global methane emissions.

I haven't seen the UCS report you mention, would you give us a
reference or a link please?

Anyway you're talking about feedlots, CAFOs, Confined Animal Feeding
Operations, industrialised factory farms. No CAFOs no meat? That's
the same mistake enviros make when they attack fuel ethanol because
they don't like Archer Daniel Midlands and Cargill. There are other
ways of doing things, as we ought to know by now.

There've been a number of high-profile critiques of industrial meat
production and global warming, this is the main one:

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
Livestock's long shadow - Environmental issues and options
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Feedlot cattle, pigs and poultry eat industrialised grain, produced
with high dependence on fossil-fuel inputs and at high environmental
cost, and the same applies to the CAFO livestock production system
itself. Check out how carbon-neutral industrialised grain turns out
to be. Pastured livestock eat forage.

With CAFOs most of the methane emissions result from the manure
storage, especially in with pigs. With pastured livestock, especially
with rotational pasture, the manure provides the soil fertility to
produce multiple following crops, displaces the need for fossil-fuel
based chemical fertilisers, and does so at a healthy profit

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-03-02 Thread Keith Addison

Hi Terry

Thanks for finding the ref.

Hi Keith,

You asked for a link to the the UCS quote.  It was from the Green 
Issue of the Vancouver Sun newspaper in Nov. (Vancouver, BC, Can.) 
The actual quote was, Methane produced by waste on cattle and hog 
farms is as hard on the atmospher as 33 million cars. 18% of total 
global emissions.

But 33 million cars is only about 15% of the number of vehicles in 
the US, let alone globally, how can that equal 18% of global 
emissions?

Cattle and hog farms means CAFOs, not farms, or at least in the 
vast majority of cases. I don't think that's the same as what you 
said, the total of all livestock on this planet.

I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a paltry
33 million cars' worth of GHGs.

I still think that. The claim of 18% of global emissions from CAFOs 
doesn't sound unreasonable, but the cars bit can't be right, seems to 
me.

Thanks Terry.

Best

Keith




Terry Dyck


From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900

Hello Terry

 Hi Kirk,
 
 If all of us did what we should be doing our houses would be one
 room heated with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by solar and
 we would walk or bike almost everywere

This:

 and we would be totally Vegan.

... is nonsense, as we've established quite thoroughly many times.
Please go to the archives and check it out.

There is no way of raising crops sustainably without using livestock
in the production system. No vegetarian farming system has ever
survived the test of time.

Please don't argue about it until you've checked it out, no need to
go over the same old ground yet another time.

 The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that because of the amount
 of Methane gas caused from feed lots, etc. that the total of all
 livestock on this planet is equivalent to taking 33 million cars of
 the road.

Feed lots, etc? What does the etc mean?

I'm sure the amount of GHGs emitted by trees etc is even worse,
should we cut them all down too?

Do trees share blame for global warming?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
Globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of
global methane emissions.

I haven't seen the UCS report you mention, would you give us a
reference or a link please?

Anyway you're talking about feedlots, CAFOs, Confined Animal Feeding
Operations, industrialised factory farms. No CAFOs no meat? That's
the same mistake enviros make when they attack fuel ethanol because
they don't like Archer Daniel Midlands and Cargill. There are other
ways of doing things, as we ought to know by now.

There've been a number of high-profile critiques of industrial meat
production and global warming, this is the main one:

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
Livestock's long shadow - Environmental issues and options
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Feedlot cattle, pigs and poultry eat industrialised grain, produced
with high dependence on fossil-fuel inputs and at high environmental
cost, and the same applies to the CAFO livestock production system
itself. Check out how carbon-neutral industrialised grain turns out
to be. Pastured livestock eat forage.

With CAFOs most of the methane emissions result from the manure
storage, especially in with pigs. With pastured livestock, especially
with rotational pasture, the manure provides the soil fertility to
produce multiple following crops, displaces the need for fossil-fuel
based chemical fertilisers, and does so at a healthy profit. Such
pasture soils sequester very large amounts of carbon.

I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a paltry
33 million cars' worth of GHGs. Well so what, it doesn't have any
future anyway, any more than the rest of the industrial agriculture
disaster does. It's fossil-fuel dependent every step of the way, and
measured in food miles that comes to a hell of a long way. It'll bust
all their bottom-lines when carbon accounting starts hitting the
global trade it depends on, the insane distribution system, the
processing. Apart from all of which CAFOs have become a major
bio-hazard.

No need for it anyway. The future is small, sustainable, family-run
mixed farms with integrated crop and livestock production, low input,
high output, local markets.

Best

Keith


 Terry Dyck
 
 From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)
 
 The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
  So how true is it - at least to him.
  If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont.
  So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.
 
  You might want to look

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-03-01 Thread Terry Dyck


Hi Keith,

You asked for a link to the the UCS quote.  It was from the Green Issue of 
the Vancouver Sun newspaper in Nov. (Vancouver, BC, Can.)  The actual quote 
was, Methane produced by waste on cattle and hog farms is as hard on the 
atmospher as 33 million cars. 18% of total global emissions.


Terry Dyck



From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900

Hello Terry

Hi Kirk,

If all of us did what we should be doing our houses would be one
room heated with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by solar and
we would walk or bike almost everywere

This:

and we would be totally Vegan.

... is nonsense, as we've established quite thoroughly many times.
Please go to the archives and check it out.

There is no way of raising crops sustainably without using livestock
in the production system. No vegetarian farming system has ever
survived the test of time.

Please don't argue about it until you've checked it out, no need to
go over the same old ground yet another time.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that because of the amount
of Methane gas caused from feed lots, etc. that the total of all
livestock on this planet is equivalent to taking 33 million cars of
the road.

Feed lots, etc? What does the etc mean?

I'm sure the amount of GHGs emitted by trees etc is even worse,
should we cut them all down too?

Do trees share blame for global warming?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
Globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of
global methane emissions.

I haven't seen the UCS report you mention, would you give us a
reference or a link please?

Anyway you're talking about feedlots, CAFOs, Confined Animal Feeding
Operations, industrialised factory farms. No CAFOs no meat? That's
the same mistake enviros make when they attack fuel ethanol because
they don't like Archer Daniel Midlands and Cargill. There are other
ways of doing things, as we ought to know by now.

There've been a number of high-profile critiques of industrial meat
production and global warming, this is the main one:

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
Livestock's long shadow - Environmental issues and options
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Feedlot cattle, pigs and poultry eat industrialised grain, produced
with high dependence on fossil-fuel inputs and at high environmental
cost, and the same applies to the CAFO livestock production system
itself. Check out how carbon-neutral industrialised grain turns out
to be. Pastured livestock eat forage.

With CAFOs most of the methane emissions result from the manure
storage, especially in with pigs. With pastured livestock, especially
with rotational pasture, the manure provides the soil fertility to
produce multiple following crops, displaces the need for fossil-fuel
based chemical fertilisers, and does so at a healthy profit. Such
pasture soils sequester very large amounts of carbon.

I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a paltry
33 million cars' worth of GHGs. Well so what, it doesn't have any
future anyway, any more than the rest of the industrial agriculture
disaster does. It's fossil-fuel dependent every step of the way, and
measured in food miles that comes to a hell of a long way. It'll bust
all their bottom-lines when carbon accounting starts hitting the
global trade it depends on, the insane distribution system, the
processing. Apart from all of which CAFOs have become a major
bio-hazard.

No need for it anyway. The future is small, sustainable, family-run
mixed farms with integrated crop and livestock production, low input,
high output, local markets.

Best

Keith


Terry Dyck

From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)

The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do 
it.

 So how true is it - at least to him.
 If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont.
 So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.

 You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the
board of directors.

 Kirk

Tom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Hi Kirk and all,
 When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok,
so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but
there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world.
It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man.
 Tom Irwin





-

From:  Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To:  biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject:  [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date:  Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Doug Younker

OK, one more hypocrite in a nation full of them.  When I read someone 
harping about an electric gate, I have to think how much more of the 
article contains other silly concerns.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread AltEnergyNetwork


Another tidbit on this I saw on the tube last night,
 the IRS does not recognise the Tennessee Center for Policy Research
as a legitimate organisation.   Looks just like another smear campaign.
You are right, Keith, AEI, CEI and a long list of cohorts are evil, oil soaked
traitors to the planet,

regards
tallex

  ---Original Message---
  From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
  Sent: 28 Feb '07 07:26
  
  :-)
  
  Spin sure works well huh? See how easy it is to distract and redirect
  attention from what matters to what doesn't. And how nobody thinks to
  apply the same thinking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research,
  for instance, or to see how well the epithets they throw at Gore
  might apply to them, to those whose pockets they're in, and indeed
  generally to the so-called free market that they espouse. Where
  exactly is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research coming from? From
  the American Enterprise Institute, for one.
  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
  American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch
  
  There's a lot about where the AEI is coming from in the list
  archives. See how deep you can dig before you hit ExxonMobil and all
  the rest of the usual suspects.
  
  What sort of lamps do they have burning in their yard, do you think?
  
  Thought we'd've learnt a little more here by now.
  
  What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
  isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
  
  What exactly would you do if what were?
  
  Best
  
  Keith
  
  
  Weakness?
  gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too
  fast or fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen.
  If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would
  accept Bush as a spokesman for civil liberty
  and honesty in politics.
  
  Kirk
  
  Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  Hi Kirk,
  
  When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to be
  people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the other hand I
  am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public about
  Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7,
  2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and
  make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour
  concert all over this planet.
  When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the media
  hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P
  federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power and
  heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by
  very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets lots
  of publicity about green issues and doesn't do much in the way of actions.
  
  Terry Dyck
  
  
 




 Get your daily alternative energy news

Alternate Energy Resource Network
1000+ news sources-resources
  updated daily

http://www.alternate-energy.net



Next_Generation_Grid

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid

Alternative_Energy_Politics

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics


http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/


Tomorrow-energy

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy


Earth_Rescue_International

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Earth_Rescue_International

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Chip Mefford

Randall wrote:
 Terry,
BIG SNIP

 But, I suppose the important and inconvenient truth in this matter is that 
 Al is a politician--period.  Actions speak MUCH MUCH louder than words..

Nonsense, they most certainly do not.

End of the day, there are hundreds of thousands of folks walking the
talk. Millions perhaps if you look at it world wide.

Walking the talk in this particular arena, *almost* by definition
translates into having very little if *any* political power.

Gore's documentary wasn't news to me. I already knew all the back
story, and I thought his presentation of the science was
a soft sell. And I nearly fell asleep during the 'human interest'
bits. Nearly everyone I've exposed to it, has complained that
Gore's use of the word I was way too heavy.

The science he presented, has all been presented before,
in many arenas, in many ways, by many folks. Some of
whom ride bikes to work, and all that stuff.

But until Al took the show on the road, who heard
it?

Folks who were directly interested.

Al has broadened the audience, very much so.
In the year since documentary was released, I personally
(from this US centric view) have been just flat out
stunned by the shift in the dialog.

Fact is, Al Gore (whom I used to refer to as the Manchurian
Candidate) was *almost* president of the US. Some say he
in fact was elected to the office. This I will not debate,
because there really is no point. However, you don't get
to be president by living a low impact life. There are
a number of brilliant folks living low impact lifestyles
out there, some of which would no doubt be up to the task
of directing the show here in the US. However, we'll not
hear from them, because they are busy. Busy living
low impact lives. It is a lot of effort, as any of
us who are expending effort in this direction know quite well.

As to his energy holdings, make note of the sad fact that
money is fungible. Folks who hold interest in diversified
funds, all hold bits and pieces of energy companies. Some
more than others. The more you are vested, the more influence
you have. If you have no influence, then who cares what you
think?


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Chip Mefford

Kirk McLoren wrote:
 If he used the power in his business ok but
   natural gas lanterns in his yard
   Those are decorative - if you want light you dont burn a torch.
   So if he wont curb personal indulgance he doesnt believe what he espouses 
 for the rest of us..
   Forget weak flesh - how about belief.
   He doesnt believe what he tells us.
   That is a liar not a hypocrite.
   Are we destroying the world or not? for ambiance at his parties?

Hey Kirk, please see my earlier response to Randall.
Not exactly point for point, but overall applicable.


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

Hi Tallex

Another tidbit on this I saw on the tube last night,
 the IRS does not recognise the Tennessee Center for Policy Research
as a legitimate organisation. 

It's the state's Department of Revenue, apparently not on account of 
their rightwing ideology but because of their complete lack of 
professionalism.

Looks just like another smear campaign.

Yes. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is doing well out of it 
though, their website just got its first hits:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.tennesseepolicy.org
Related Info for: tennesseepolicy.org/

:-)

CNN Headline News called them an environmental group, I guess that 
makes for a better story angle but it's probably deeply insulting for 
a free-market group like the Tennessee Center for Policy Research to 
be lumped in with all the hated treehuggers. That makes them no 
better than Al Gore, maybe they'll sue.

Whatever, Drew Johnson's the little blue-eyed boy of the right now, 
he'll never look back. I'll bet he's ecstatic, seeing himself in the 
White House next.

Watch the noise-level go up (Coulter, Limbaugh etc) and the signal go down.

There's a blow-by-blow at Huffington Post:
http://snipurl.com/1bkti

You are right, Keith, AEI, CEI and a long list of cohorts are evil, oil soaked
traitors to the planet,

:-) Not an unfair description.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/
Think Progress » Gore Responds To Drudge's Latest Hysterics

Vice President Gore's office told ThinkProgress:

1) Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon 
footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 
percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar 
panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving 
technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets 
to offset the family's carbon footprint - a concept the right-wing 
fails to understand. Gore's office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon 
footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have 
done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore's 
do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

Let's wait and see how this plays out. It should be a good measure of 
democracy in action in the USA today. What wins, facts or thuggery?

Best

Keith



regards
tallex

   ---Original Message---
   From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
   Sent: 28 Feb '07 07:26
 
   :-)
 
   Spin sure works well huh? See how easy it is to distract and redirect
   attention from what matters to what doesn't. And how nobody thinks to
   apply the same thinking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research,
   for instance, or to see how well the epithets they throw at Gore
   might apply to them, to those whose pockets they're in, and indeed
   generally to the so-called free market that they espouse. Where
   exactly is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research coming from? From
   the American Enterprise Institute, for one.
   http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
   American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch
 
   There's a lot about where the AEI is coming from in the list
   archives. See how deep you can dig before you hit ExxonMobil and all
   the rest of the usual suspects.
 
   What sort of lamps do they have burning in their yard, do you think?
 
   Thought we'd've learnt a little more here by now.
 
   What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
   isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
 
   What exactly would you do if what were?
 
   Best
 
   Keith
 
 
   Weakness?
   gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too
   fast or fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen.
   If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would
   accept Bush as a spokesman for civil liberty
   and honesty in politics.
   
   Kirk
   
   Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
   Hi Kirk,
   
   When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always 
going to be
   people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the 
other hand I
   am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the 
public about
   Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7,
   2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and
   make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour
   concert all over this planet.
   When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this 
and the media
   hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P
   federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has 
solar power and
   heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by
   very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of 
Canada gets

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Fred Oliff

I would like to personally thank all of you in helping to cure my ignorance.

From:Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate:Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900Hi Fred actually to me both are important.I think one of the worst things one can be called is a hypocrite.Sticks and stones, and plenty of folks with their own agendas tothrow stones if there's aught to be gained from it. Both sides ofsuch accusations need checking for hipocrisy. if Al Gore's squanders energy perhaps they ought to find someone esle to be the spokesperson for the Earth."They" ought to? Who's 
"they"?Did you ever notice Darryl's sig?"It's your planet.If you won't look after it, who will?"Like everybody else, YOU are the spokesperson for the Earth, not someother guy appointed by "them".BestKeith From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.org To:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject:Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)   The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.  So how true is it - at least to him.  If it doent motivate him 
maybe he knows something we dont.  So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the board of directors.Kirk  Tom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Hi Kirk and all,  When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man.  Tom Irwin  
  From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.org To:biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject:[Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST) ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Steve Knox

Enough already! We can kick the messenger, but the message is still relevant. 
By winning the Oscar, An Inconvenient Truth got lots of publicity, and just 
maybe will help spread the word.

Steve
  - Original Message - 
  From: Fred Oliff 
  To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

  I would like to personally thank all of you in helping to cure my ignorance.

From:  Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject:  Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date:  Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900
Hi Fred

 actually to me both are important.  I think one of the worst things
 one can be called is a hypocrite.

Sticks and stones, and plenty of folks with their own agendas to
throw stones if there's aught to be gained from it. Both sides of
such accusations need checking for hipocrisy.

 if Al Gore's squanders energy perhaps they ought to find someone
 esle to be the spokesperson for the Earth.

They ought to? Who's they?

Did you ever notice Darryl's sig?

It's your planet.  If you won't look after it, who will?

Like everybody else, YOU are the spokesperson for the Earth, not some
other guy appointed by them.

Best

Keith

 From:  Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject:  Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date:  Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)

 The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.

 So how true is it - at least to him.

 If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont.

 So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.

 You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the
 board of directors.

 Kirk

 Tom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hi Kirk and all,

 When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok,
 so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but
 there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world.
 It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man.

 Tom Irwin

 From:  Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To:  biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject:  [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date:  Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

--

  ___
  Biofuel mailing list
  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Randall

Hello Keith,


 How do you equate GHGs to overall pollution?


I equate GHG's to overall pollution in this instance because Mr. Gore 
positions himself as an environmental advocate.  Granted, most recently, Mr. 
Gore has spoken almost entirely about Global Warming.  I see no reason to 
limit the discussion in this forum to just one aspect of protecting the 
environment, since it is all related.  BTW:  Mr. Gore started his 
environmental discussions/career in the 1970's around toxic waste and other 
pollution, not Global Warming...that started in the 1980's.


 To keep it to GHGs, did you calculate the carbon emissions of the
 more than a few people you're betting travelled more than 20 minutes
 against the potential reduction in carbon emissions if they bought
 the message they went to hear, especially if they spread it?


Did you?  I agree, if a significant number of people that hear Gore's 
message actually do anything to reduce their contribution of GHG's, it is a 
good thing.  However, wouldn't it be an EVEN BETTER thing if when delivering 
the message to those same people, they found a method that was the most 
efficient with regards to GHG emissions?  Wouldn't that be a good, first 
practical lesson to all of those people?  Just a thought.


 If you were planning such a media and publicity campaign would you
 choose video conferences or personal appearances? This is for an
 Oscar-winner, right? In America.


If I was planning such a campaign, 'In America' ... I would do it in such a 
way that allows the vast majority sit on their couches, watching TV and not 
actually needing to go somewhere or do something to hear the message.  :-)


 So he just does it for the money? Oh, well that's okay then, we can
 all buy another SUV.


(sarcasm duly noted an accepted) :-)


 His attackers also assume something of a moral high ground in
 delivering their message, why don't you also suggest examining their
 motives?


Excellent point!  I agree wholeheartedly!  (and it appears that in later 
posts, you and other have done this...bravo!)  However, Mr. Gore does assume 
a moral stance on this issue, so the criticism is not unfair:

From his Academy Award speech:  My fellow Americans, people all over the 
world, we need to solve the climate crisis, it's not a political issue, it's 
a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible 
exception of the will to act, that's a renewable resource, let's renew 
it. --  
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/gore-wins-hollywood-in-a-landslide/

Otherwise you will need to bring back a bunch of fallen
televangelists.  :-)  IMO he is simply another person that wants (or 
needs)
to be heard and doesn't really HONESTLY care what happens as a result.

 Why do you conclude that? Make up your mind, is it the money or the
 personal attention he needs? Or both?


Because, if he really BELIEVES his message, he would do more in his personal 
life, even if it was inconvenient.  So, I exercise my right (as previously 
stated) to be skeptical of the man and his motives.  Nothing more.   Granted 
Mr. Gore purchases carbon offsets when he flies 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) and his family drives hybrid 
cars...but why not also downsize their lifestyle and resulting impact on the 
environment?  Why do they need so much power for their home?  Why stop 
there?


 You mean Gore could just as well have left the stage arm in arm with
 Jerry Falwell as with Leonardo DiCaprio?


In my personal opinion (and that is all that this is, really)...YES.  I do 
not like (insert name) and I do not trust (insert same name).  Feel free to 
choose from Al Gore, Jerry Falwell or your recent addition to my list, 
Leonardo DiCaprio.  Why should I trust any one of them?


 I think your US party political views are leaking. Much more
 important than the global warming crisis is which wing of the US
 Business Party people should vote for, I guess.

 Well done AEI! LOL!


Care to guess what my party political leanings actually are?  They are 
likely not what you are implying...   :-)   Last time I checked, AEI doesn't 
speak for me.

--Randall 


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Randall

Chip,


 But, I suppose the important and inconvenient truth in this matter is 
 that
 Al is a politician--period.  Actions speak MUCH MUCH louder than words..

 Nonsense, they most certainly do not.


Then we can all rest easy...Big Business is going to help...and they care

...At ExxonMobil, we work to balance these different needs. It's why we 
have invested more than $74 billion in the past five years to expand energy 
supplies. It's why we have promoted energy efficiency in our industry. It's 
why we have developed leading-edge technology partnerships. It's why we 
continue to invest so much in research - both into existing energy 
technologies for the short term and into new technologies for the decades 
ahead. And it's why we initiated the largest privately funded 
low-greenhouse-gas-energy research effort in history. By balancing all of 
these different energy demands, we will be able to address one of the 
greatest challenges of our age.
http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/CCR5/index.asp

So...since they talk the talk...all is good?  Of course not...it is what 
they are actually doing that matters.  Same thing...different 
venue...different actors.



 Walking the talk in this particular arena, *almost* by definition
 translates into having very little if *any* political power.


Easy enough for Mr. Gore...he doesn't have much political power right now, 
so he should be walking the walk pretty well.  :-)



 But until Al took the show on the road, who heard
 it?


Millions of people...but they haven't heard (until recently) why it actually 
affects them and why they should care.  All of my family and friends, 
co-workers and acquaintances know about the issues...the movie didn't change 
that.


 Al has broadened the audience, very much so.
 In the year since documentary was released, I personally
 (from this US centric view) have been just flat out
 stunned by the shift in the dialog.


The shift (from my point of view) was happening long before the movie hit 
the theaters.  I do not know anyone personally that was affected by the 
movie.  That doesn't mean it didn't influence other people, but I think its 
influence is overrated. (Just my opinion based on personal observation)


 Fact is, Al Gore (whom I used to refer to as the Manchurian
 Candidate) was *almost* president of the US. Some say he
 in fact was elected to the office. This I will not debate,
 because there really is no point. However, you don't get
 to be president by living a low impact life. There are
 a number of brilliant folks living low impact lifestyles
 out there, some of which would no doubt be up to the task
 of directing the show here in the US. However, we'll not
 hear from them, because they are busy. Busy living
 low impact lives. It is a lot of effort, as any of
 us who are expending effort in this direction know quite well.


I would generally say that most people that are NOT involved in politics are 
too busy living to be heard from.  That's life.  However, you can be a world 
leader without living a high impact life...a couple examples come quickly to 
mind...GandhiMother Theresa...and I would not rate top US politicians 
in the same category.  Since Mr. Gore has significant financial resources, 
he could try demonstrating that you can have an impact on the issue at hand, 
without being so easily criticized for hypocrisy by not living the message. 
Why let controversy about the messenger get in the way of the message when 
it can so easily be avoided?


 As to his energy holdings, make note of the sad fact that
 money is fungible. Folks who hold interest in diversified
 funds, all hold bits and pieces of energy companies. Some
 more than others. The more you are vested, the more influence
 you have. If you have no influence, then who cares what you
 think?


Then why care what most of the people of the world think, if they are not 
rich and vested?


--Randall 


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

Hello Randall

Hello Keith,

  How do you equate GHGs to overall pollution?

I equate GHG's to overall pollution in this instance because Mr. Gore
positions himself as an environmental advocate.  Granted, most recently, Mr.
Gore has spoken almost entirely about Global Warming.  I see no reason to
limit the discussion in this forum to just one aspect of protecting the
environment, since it is all related.

Indeed it is, but the subject under discussion is about global 
warming, not about general pollution, and I think I agree with 
Michael Klare about how relevant general pollution issues are to 
dealing with global warming (not very relevant). It's about energy, 
not pollution. The attack on Gore is about energy, not pollution. 
There's a difference between broadening the discussion and 
smokescreening.

BTW:  Mr. Gore started his
environmental discussions/career in the 1970's around toxic waste and other
pollution, not Global Warming...that started in the 1980's.

  To keep it to GHGs, did you calculate the carbon emissions of the
  more than a few people you're betting travelled more than 20 minutes
  against the potential reduction in carbon emissions if they bought
  the message they went to hear, especially if they spread it?

Did you?

It's a good bet, I'd have taken a chance on it.

I agree, if a significant number of people that hear Gore's
message actually do anything to reduce their contribution of GHG's, it is a
good thing.  However, wouldn't it be an EVEN BETTER thing if when delivering
the message to those same people, they found a method that was the most
efficient with regards to GHG emissions?  Wouldn't that be a good, first
practical lesson to all of those people?  Just a thought.

It's not just a thought, Randall. You're using it to try to discredit 
what is being accomplished as well as the man himself.

  If you were planning such a media and publicity campaign would you
  choose video conferences or personal appearances? This is for an
  Oscar-winner, right? In America.

If I was planning such a campaign, 'In America' ... I would do it in such a
way that allows the vast majority sit on their couches, watching TV and not
actually needing to go somewhere or do something to hear the message.  :-)

I guess that's what the movie accomplishes, no? I'd advise against 
your seeking employment as a publicist.

  So he just does it for the money? Oh, well that's okay then, we can
  all buy another SUV.

(sarcasm duly noted an accepted) :-)

Does that mean he doesn't just do it for the money?

  His attackers also assume something of a moral high ground in
  delivering their message, why don't you also suggest examining their
  motives?

Excellent point!  I agree wholeheartedly!  (and it appears that in later
posts, you and other have done this...bravo!)  However, Mr. Gore does assume
a moral stance on this issue,

Yes, so I said.

so the criticism is not unfair:

You're saying it's a moral criticism? Do you actually believe that? 
It's typical of the kind of morally bankrupt cheap hits one has come 
to expect from such sources.

 From his Academy Award speech:  My fellow Americans, people all over the
world, we need to solve the climate crisis, it's not a political issue, it's
a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible
exception of the will to act, that's a renewable resource, let's renew
it. --
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/gore-wins-hollywood-in- 
a-landslide/

 Otherwise you will need to bring back a bunch of fallen
 televangelists.  :-)  IMO he is simply another person that wants (or
 needs)
 to be heard and doesn't really HONESTLY care what happens as a result.
 
  Why do you conclude that? Make up your mind, is it the money or the
  personal attention he needs? Or both?

Because, if he really BELIEVES his message, he would do more in his personal
life, even if it was inconvenient.

And if he did do more, if he did do EVEN BETTER, would it ever be 
enough, in your judgment? At what stage would his doing more allow 
for the possibility that he might actually believe his message, this 
man you say has been campaigning on environmental issues for the last 
30 years?

Why don't you apply the same criteria to the Tennessee Center for 
Policy Research? Do you think they really believe their message? Or 
should they do more?

So, I exercise my right (as previously
stated) to be skeptical of the man and his motives.  Nothing more.

Yes it was, it was not even-handed, it was biased, and it included 
some ugly accusations you're not prepared to substantiate. More like 
character assassination than honest scepticism.

Granted
Mr. Gore purchases carbon offsets when he flies
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) and his family drives hybrid
cars...but why not also downsize their lifestyle and resulting impact on the
environment?  Why do they need so much power for their home?  Why stop
there?

Who said they stopped?

You didn't answer the

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

Well said Chip!

I haven't seen it, but I was wondering when someone would say the 
movie is a soft sell. It would have to be, wouldn't it?

As for whether actions speak louder than words, another case in point 
is the speech that put environmental issues on the map and on 
everybody's lips almost overnight (well, maybe not in the US). It was 
a speech made to Britain's Royal Society on 27 Sep 1988 by Margaret 
Thatcher, not otherwise widely known for her environmental activism, 
in which she called for action on global warming, the hole in the 
ozone layer, and acid rain.

Heaven knows if she actually meant it or it was just a political 
ploy. IIRC she made the speech on the advice of her personal adviser, 
Sir Alan Walters, a controversial figure. It's said she subsequently 
regretted raising the spectre of human-caused global warming, but she 
also made later speeches calling for action on climate change: the 
cost of doing nothing, of a policy of wait and see, would be much 
higher than those of taking preventive action now to stop the damage 
getting worse.

The global warming message didn't sink in, any more than it did with 
James Hansen's address to the US Congress the year before. But the 
general environment message did sink in, and it didn't go away again. 
Chopping down rainforests suddenly became a Bad Thing To Do.

There wasn't any action, just words, Thatcher hadn't done anything in 
particular, or rather she'd done nothing at all, and as with Al 
Gore's movie now she didn't say anything new. I guess the scales were 
ready to be tipped, and she went and tipped them, quite possibly to 
her dismay. Even Maggie Thatcher says so - environmental issues 
weren't just for shaggy-looking folks in sandals anymore.

Here's the relevant excerpt from her speech:

The environment

Mr. President, the Royal Society's Fellows and other scientists, 
through hypothesis, experiment and deduction have solved many of the 
world's problems.

-Research on medicine has saved millions and millions of lives as 
you have tackled diseases such as malaria, smallpox, tuberculosis 
and others. Consequently, the world's population which was 1 billion 
in 1800, 2 billion in 1927 is now 5 billion souls and rising.

-Research on agriculture has developed seeds and fertilizers 
sufficient to sustain that rising population contrary to the gloomy 
prophesies of two or three decades ago. But we are left with 
pollution from nitrates and an enormous increase in methane which is 
causing problems.

-Engineering and scientific advance have given us transport by land 
and air, the capacity and need to exploit fossil fuels which had 
lain unused for millions of years. One result is a vast increase in 
carbon dioxide. And this has happened just when great tracts of 
forests which help to absorb it have been cut down.

For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would 
leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and 
atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous 
changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated 
into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a 
massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.

Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar 
subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse 
gases-carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons-which has led 
some to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could 
lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 
1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural 
habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of 
glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several 
feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the 
Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of 
the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the 
Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 
177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century 
of records have all been in the 1980s-though we may not have seen 
much evidence in Britain!

The second matter under discussion is the discovery by the British 
Antarctic Survey of a large hole in the ozone layer which protects 
life from ultra-violet radiation. We don't know the full 
implications of the ozone hole nor how it may interact with the 
greenhouse effect. Nevertheless it was common sense to support a 
worldwide agreement in Montreal last year to halve world consumption 
of chlorofluorocarbons by the end of the century. As the sole 
measure to limit ozone depletion, this may be insufficient but it is 
a start in reducing the pace of change while we continue the 
detailed study of the problem on which our (the British) 
Stratospheric Ozone Review Group is about to report.

The third matter is acid deposition which has affected soils, lakes 
and trees downwind from industrial

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Randall

Hello Keith,


 Indeed it is, but the subject under discussion is about global
 warming, not about general pollution, and I think I agree with
 Michael Klare about how relevant general pollution issues are to
 dealing with global warming (not very relevant). It's about energy,
 not pollution. The attack on Gore is about energy, not pollution.
 There's a difference between broadening the discussion and
 smokescreening.


Ok.  If it isn't relevant, then I have learned more today than I knew when I 
woke up.


  To keep it to GHGs, did you calculate the carbon emissions of the
  more than a few people you're betting travelled more than 20 minutes
  against the potential reduction in carbon emissions if they bought
  the message they went to hear, especially if they spread it?

Did you?

 It's a good bet, I'd have taken a chance on it.


Then you would care to share your results?  But, my guess (yes, a guess, not 
a calculation) would be that someone staying local to their home and either 
seeing a FREE screening of the movie, or seeing it on television would 
result in lower GHG emissions compared to the GHG emissions of many people 
traveling to some central location, along with all the extra people needed 
traveling to such an event to make it possible.


 It's not just a thought, Randall. You're using it to try to discredit
 what is being accomplished as well as the man himself.


Nope.  Just common sense.  I applaud what is trying to be accomplished, but 
I do not applaud Mr. Gore's lifestyle or choice of proposed methods to 
deliver his message.  You can try as much as you like to write or assume 
more into my statements if you so choose, but you will be wrong.  Just 
because a news item comes from someone opposed to Mr. Gore, or the message 
he is delivering, doesn't make it untrue.  'nuff said.


If I was planning such a campaign, 'In America' ... I would do it in such 
a
way that allows the vast majority sit on their couches, watching TV and 
not
actually needing to go somewhere or do something to hear the message.  :-)

 I guess that's what the movie accomplishes, no? I'd advise against
 your seeking employment as a publicist.


That is my point...if the movie was so influential, then there is no need 
for large gatherings, before less environmentally unfriendly methods are 
first used.

Never considered that as a career but thanks, I guess.


  So he just does it for the money? Oh, well that's okay then, we can
  all buy another SUV.

(sarcasm duly noted an accepted) :-)

 Does that mean he doesn't just do it for the money?


I am quite certain that he doesn't just do it for the money, as is obvious 
by his long record of environmental causes and then Global Warming. 
However, it does show a lack of personal accountability for his choices 
despite his stated beliefs.  Once again, the messenger is getting in the way 
of the message...much like the much maligned Televangelists.


so the criticism is not unfair:

 You're saying it's a moral criticism? Do you actually believe that?
 It's typical of the kind of morally bankrupt cheap hits one has come
 to expect from such sources.


Morally bankrupt?  Please explain.  Such sources?  Tennessee Center for 
Policy Research ?

Because, if he really BELIEVES his message, he would do more in his 
personal
life, even if it was inconvenient.

 And if he did do more, if he did do EVEN BETTER, would it ever be
 enough, in your judgment? At what stage would his doing more allow
 for the possibility that he might actually believe his message, this
 man you say has been campaigning on environmental issues for the last
 30 years?

 Why don't you apply the same criteria to the Tennessee Center for
 Policy Research? Do you think they really believe their message? Or
 should they do more?


Yes.  Actually, if he did more, especially within his means, that would be 
wonderful!

Actually, I think the TCPR does believe their message--that doesn't make the 
message correct...but that also doesn't make some of their facts incorrect, 
either.

But, if that is important that TCPR believes their message, then it is 
certainly important if Mr. Gore believes his message.


So, I exercise my right (as previously
stated) to be skeptical of the man and his motives.  Nothing more.

 Yes it was, it was not even-handed, it was biased, and it included
 some ugly accusations you're not prepared to substantiate. More like
 character assassination than honest scepticism.


Do you mean like what you are doing to me?

Granted
Mr. Gore purchases carbon offsets when he flies
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) and his family drives hybrid
cars...but why not also downsize their lifestyle and resulting impact on 
the
environment?  Why do they need so much power for their home?  Why stop
there?

 Who said they stopped?

 You didn't answer the question.


Since I haven't read about anything else they have done in their personal 
lives that is particularly pro-environmental (solar hot

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Zeke Yewdall


On 2/28/07, Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Then you would care to share your results?  But, my guess (yes, a guess,
not
a calculation) would be that someone staying local to their home and
either
seeing a FREE screening of the movie, or seeing it on television would
result in lower GHG emissions compared to the GHG emissions of many people
traveling to some central location, along with all the extra people needed
traveling to such an event to make it possible.



But, would that central event cause more people, or a great percentage of
the people who saw it, to adjust their behaviour with regards to greenhouse
gasses.   Just for the sake of argument, say that 10 people in a certain
community see it in their own homes, and 80% of them modify their behaviour
because of seeing it.  8 people lowering their emissions, with very little
emissions to make them take this action.  But if you have a great big party
and 50 people come.  Because of the social effects of seeing everyone else
there, it makes a bigger impact on them than just watching it at home (peer
pressure -- if they see it at home, they can decided to do something, but
then back out because no one is holding them to do what they privately
decided to do, but if their neighbors and friends are there, and they all
promise in the excitement of the big event to all take public transportation
two days a week instead of driving -- they can't as easily back out, because
they told someone else they'd do it).   But, in a bigger crowd, you also
have a higher percentage of non-believers than in the self selected crowd
that sees it in their own home.  People who their brother or co-worker
dragged to this event.  So, this cancels out alot of the social pressure
from seeing it as a group.  Only half of the people modify their behavior.
That's still 25 people -- three times as many.  Did having the big even
cause three times as much emissions as people seeing it in their houses?
That's the cost/benefit equation that we're talking about here, it seems to
me.   It's way complicated to really calculate this, but I think that the
peer pressure effect could cause a much higher incidence of modification of
behaviour, compared to individual viewing and action, and therefore outweigh
the higher emissions necessary to build to the scale where peer pressure
occurs.

Z
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Terry Dyck

Hi Randall,

The Live Earth 24 hour concert for Global Warming Awareness is a Live 
Video conference which will happen on the 7 day, 7 month, 2007.  Hope you 
can forgive Al Gore's  80 year old house, that uses more energy because of 
it's age, and realize that he is retro fitting that old building to be more 
energy efficient, so that you can over look this materialistic possession to 
see the good the concert will bring.

Terry Dyck


From: Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:18:29 -0500

Terry,

Why can't Al do video conferences instead of traveling, or is he simply too
important not to make personal appearances?   Bet there are more than a
few people that traveled more than 20 minutes just to see/hear him speak.
What did that extra travelling by the audience, staff, promoters,
concessions people, security, law enforcement, etc contribute to overall
pollution instead of people being able to simply watching Al on TV or their
computer.  I bet he gets MUCH more money for making a personal appearance
than just a conference call or distributing a video.  He had the right idea
with his movie...

But, I suppose the important and inconvenient truth in this matter is 
that
Al is a politician--period.  Actions speak MUCH MUCH louder than 
words...and
that is why it is ok to attack (or at least seriously question) the
messenger's motives when the messenger is delivering an ethical
message---Otherwise you will need to bring back a bunch of fallen
televangelists.  :-)  IMO he is simply another person that wants (or needs)
to be heard and doesn't really HONESTLY care what happens as a result.I
rank him up there with Jerry Falwell and any number of failed politicos.

---Randall


- Original Message -
From: Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


  Hi Fre,
 
  I attended Dr. David Suzuki's event in Kelowna 2 days ago and he 
mentioned
  that he travels with his family to the Okanagan every summer to pick
  cherries and I know that Dr. Suzuki was the first person in Canada to 
buy
  a
  Prius Hybrid car.  So he probally uses the hybrid to travel to the
  Okanagan
  valley.  As far as the environmental tour called, If your were Prime
  Minister what would you do? I am sure that he has to cover a lot of
  terrritory in a short period of time.
 
  The main issue is that both Al Gore and Dr. Suzuki are influencing alot 
of
  people which is the most important thing now.  Time is important because
  2007 could be the pivitol year to save this planet.
 
  Terry Dyck
 
 
 From: Fred Oliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:40:30 -0500
 
 
 
 Al Gore flew from Montreal to Toronto last week. I would have thought a
 true advocate for climate change could have found someone with 1)maybe a
 Smart car to drive him, 2)powered with biodiesel or some other renewable
 fuel. David Suzuki is on a 50-city cross Canada tour and I understand he
 is also flying everywhere. When does the medium (i.e. the messenger)
 become more important than the message?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To: biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut 
back,
 he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else.
 http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659
 
 Heated pools.electronic gates.gas lanterns in yard.and $30,000 a year in
 utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
 
 (2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in
 his
 suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in 
the
 Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired 
and
 in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to 
make
 that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental
 hypocrisy.
 
 Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee
 Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric 
bills
 for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured
 nearly
 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average 
of
 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
 
 If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I
 wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson.
 But
 he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.
 
 Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-28 Thread Kirk McLoren

What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It 
isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
   
  That is Gores message. It isnt worth doing. Things worth doing get done. 
Especially if it is just for ambiance.
  I can understand keeping the house at 77 instead of opening the windows to 85 
evening air. Thats human. Selfish - but human.
  But to carry the message we are killing the planet and indulge in nat gas 
ambiance - that is incomprehensible. It means in his heart it is a no sale. or 
he is mad as a hatter.
   
  Kirk

Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  :-)

Spin sure works well huh? See how easy it is to distract and redirect 
attention from what matters to what doesn't. And how nobody thinks to 
apply the same thinking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, 
for instance, or to see how well the epithets they throw at Gore 
might apply to them, to those whose pockets they're in, and indeed 
generally to the so-called free market that they espouse. Where 
exactly is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research coming from? From 
the American Enterprise Institute, for one.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch

There's a lot about where the AEI is coming from in the list 
archives. See how deep you can dig before you hit ExxonMobil and all 
the rest of the usual suspects.

What sort of lamps do they have burning in their yard, do you think?

Thought we'd've learnt a little more here by now.

What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It 
isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.

What exactly would you do if what were?

Best

Keith


Weakness?
gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too 
fast or fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen.
If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would 
accept Bush as a spokesman for civil liberty
and honesty in politics.

Kirk

Terry Dyck wrote:

Hi Kirk,

When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to be
people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the other hand I
am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public about
Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7,
2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and
make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour
concert all over this planet.
When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the media
hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P
federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power and
heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by
very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets lots
of publicity about green issues and doesn't do much in the way of actions.

Terry Dyck


 From: Kirk McLoren
 Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To: biofuel
 Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)
 
 
 
  st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
  Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut
 back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else
  http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659
 
  Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year in
 utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
 
  (2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in
 his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in
 the Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired
 and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to
 make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental
 hypocrisy.
 
  Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee
 Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills
 for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly
 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of
 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
 
  If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I
 wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. But
 he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.
 
  Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I think what you're seeing
 here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely
 lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most
 effective opponent.
 
  Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the
 Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed
 out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that
 the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And
 what Vice

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

You're flailing about Randall, it's getting quite funny, if only it weren't so downright tedious. 

Actually, I think the TCPR does believe their message--that doesn't make the 
message correct...but that also doesn't make some of their facts incorrect, 
either.

But, if that is important that TCPR believes their message, then it is
certainly important if Mr. Gore believes his message.

LOL! You keep round and round, you've gone and gotten your trousers on back to front already. 

Only so belatedly do you begin to notice the mudslingers eh? And you give them a rubber-stamp for credibility. 

snip> 

> Indeed it is, but the subject under discussion is about global
> warming, not about general pollution, and I think I agree with
> Michael Klare about how relevant general pollution issues are to
> dealing with global warming (not very relevant). It's about energy,
> not pollution. The attack on Gore is about energy, not pollution.
> There's a difference between broadening the discussion and
> smokescreening.
>

Ok.  If it isn't relevant,

... to dealing with global warming...

then I have learned more today than I knew when I 
woke up.

Today?

Posted 21 Feb 2007:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg68795.html
[Biofuel] Global Warming: It's All About Energy
Michael T. Klare | February 15, 2007
When talk of global warming is introduced into the public discourse, 
as in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, it is generally characterized 
as an environmental problem, akin to water pollution, air pollution, 
pesticide abuse, and so on. This implies that it can be addressed - 
like those other problems - through a concerted effort to clean up 
our resource-utilization behavior, by substituting green products 
for ordinary ones, by restricting the release of toxic substances, 
and so on. But global warming is not an environmental problem in the same 
sense as these others - it is an energy problem, first and foremost.

snip> 

You can try as much as you like to write or assume 
more into my statements if you so choose, but you will be wrong. 

Nope, I didn't put anything into it, I exposed what was underneath it, and you've just been proving it. 

I speak as loudly and clearly for AEI as you do. 

I expose lies and spin and one-sided attacks that have no integrity. You are propelled by lies and spin into making one-sided attacks, and all the denial and smokescreens and overloud protests in the world won't hide it. You did just what AEI, CEI, TCPR and the rest intend. You acted from prejudice, and lent your weight to a typical right-wing smear campaign, QED.

However, it does show a lack of personal accountability for his choices 
despite his stated beliefs.  Once again, the messenger is getting in the way 
of the message...much like the much maligned Televangelists.

I can see I'll have to put a stop to this. Your repeated attempts to align Al Gore with the likes of Jerry Falwell extend the smear beyond TCPR's wildest dreams. It's not only odious, you've now implied twice that Gore's global warming message is on a par with the televangelists' message of millennial dispensation. I think you're about as nuts as they are.

Cease and desist, no more wriggling, no more smokescreening, by order, or else.

Keith Addison 
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/
Biofuel list owner




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

 What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
 isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.

That is Gores message. It isnt worth doing. Things worth doing get 
done. Especially if it is just for ambiance.
I can understand keeping the house at 77 instead of opening the 
windows to 85 evening air. Thats human. Selfish - but human.
But to carry the message we are killing the planet and indulge in 
nat gas ambiance - that is incomprehensible. It means in his heart 
it is a no sale. or he is mad as a hatter.

Kirk

He's a closet nat gas ambience indulger?

:-/

Sorry Kirk, as a demonstration of his sincerity or lack of it that's 
right up there with his doing live shows instead of video 
conferencing. IMHO,

It fails to distract from the point, which is that Al Gore and his 
soft-sell movie have been THE major factor in breaking through the 
laager of global warming denial in the US, putting it on the map 
throughout the media and the community with a high priority level, 
and opening the way for the changes we see everywhere now, in stark 
contrast to the inaction of a year ago. About bloody time too, 20 
years later, 20 years plus many billions of tons of carbon emissions.

The purpose of this smear was just that, to distract from that point, 
and it seems to have worked in some cases at least. It won't get far, 
too late for that now, though Drew Johnson of the Tennessee Center 
for Policy Research will no doubt not go short of grants from Big 
Fossil nor ever higher fees for rightwing speaking engagements. So 
what.

Best

Keith


Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

:-)

Spin sure works well huh? See how easy it is to distract and redirect
attention from what matters to what doesn't. And how nobody thinks to
apply the same thinking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research,
for instance, or to see how well the epithets they throw at Gore
might apply to them, to those whose pockets they're in, and indeed
generally to the so-called free market that they espouse. Where
exactly is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research coming from? From
the American Enterprise Institute, for one.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch

There's a lot about where the AEI is coming from in the list
archives. See how deep you can dig before you hit ExxonMobil and all
the rest of the usual suspects.

What sort of lamps do they have burning in their yard, do you think?

Thought we'd've learnt a little more here by now.

What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.

What exactly would you do if what were?

Best

Keith


 Weakness?
 gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too
 fast or fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen.
 If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would
 accept Bush as a spokesman for civil liberty
 and honesty in politics.
 
 Kirk
 
 Terry Dyck wrote:
 
 Hi Kirk,
 
 When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to be
 people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the other hand I
 am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public about
 Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7,
 2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and
 make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour
 concert all over this planet.
 When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the media
 hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P
 federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power and
 heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by
 very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets lots
 of publicity about green issues and doesn't do much in the way of actions.
 
 Terry Dyck
 
 
  From: Kirk McLoren
  Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
  To: biofuel
  Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
  Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)
  
  
  
   st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
   Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut
  back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else
   http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659
  
   Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year in
  utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
  
   (2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in
  his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in
  the Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired
  and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to
  make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental
  hypocrisy.
  
   Armed with Gore's utility

[Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use



st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }  
  Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth':  While telling the rest of us to cut back, he 
uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else
  http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659
   
  Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year in 
utility bills.  How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
   
  (2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his 
suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the 
Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired and in 
which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that 
very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.
   
  Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center 
for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the 
former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 
kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 
kilowatt-hours.
   
  If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I 
wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. But he 
tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.
   
  Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I think what you're seeing here 
is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the 
debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective 
opponent.
   
  Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's 
figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both 
Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that the bottom line 
is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President 
Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to 
reduce and offset it. 
   
  A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each 
person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation 
and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual 
breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can calculate your own carbon 
footprint on the website http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)
   
  The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to 
offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green 
Power Switch program  electricity generated through renewable resources such 
as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. In 
addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which 
will enable them to use less power, Kreider added. They also use compact 
fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase 
offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to 
zero.
   
  These efforts did little to impress Johnson. I appreciate the solar panels, 
he said, but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and 
an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, 
he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates.
   
  The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 
2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 
kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. 
During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a 
month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the 
main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 
in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.
   



 
-
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-27 Thread Tom Irwin

Hi Kirk and all,
When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man.
Tom Irwin

From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:[Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659

Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year in utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

(2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."

Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."

Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can calculate your own carbon footprint on the website http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)

The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

These efforts did little to impress Johnson. "I appreciate the solar panels," he said, "but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."

The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.

Bored stiff? Loosen up...Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Download today it's FREE!

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
  So how true is it - at least to him.
  If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont.
  So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.
   
  You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the board of 
directors.
   
  Kirk

Tom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kirk and all,
  When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, so Gore 
doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but there is a long way to 
go for most everyone in the developed world. It´s the message that´s inportant, 
not the man. 
  Tom Irwin



  

-

From:  Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To:  biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject:  [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date:  Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)
  



  

-
  


 
-
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question 
on Yahoo! Answers.___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-27 Thread Chip Mefford

Kirk McLoren wrote:
 
 st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }  
   Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth':  While telling the rest of us to cut back, 
 he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else…
   http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659

   Heated pools…electronic gates…gas lanterns in yard…and $30,000 a year in 
 utility bills.  How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

I spell it ad hominem

From wikipedia;

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
argument to the person, argument against the man) consists of
replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making
the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem
abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or
personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit
that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem
circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is
directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad
hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the
arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

cit-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-27 Thread Fred Oliff


Al Gore flew from Montreal to Toronto last week. I would have thought a true advocate for climate change could have found someone with 1)maybe a Smart car to drive him, 2)powered with biodiesel or some other renewable fuel. David Suzuki is on a 50-city cross Canada tour and I understand he is also flying everywhere. When does the medium (i.e. the messenger) become more important than the message?




From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:[Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)








Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659

Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year in utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

(2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."

Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."


Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it." 

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can calculate your own carbon footprint on the website http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)

The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program  electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."


These efforts did little to impress Johnson. "I appreciate the solar panels," he said, "but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."

The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.






Bored stiff? Loosen up...Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


Hi Kirk,

When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to be 
people who will point out weeknesses that he may have.  On the other hand I 
am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public about 
Global Warming.  The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7, 
2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and 
make them aware of GHG s.  Billions of people will watch this 24 hour 
concert all over this planet.
When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the media 
hasn't really picked up on it.  In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P 
federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power and 
heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by 
very many people.  On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets lots 
of publicity about green issues and doesn't do much in the way of actions.


Terry Dyck



From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)



st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
  Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth':  While telling the rest of us to cut 
back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else

  http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659

  Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year in 
utility bills.  How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?


  (2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in 
his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in 
the Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired 
and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to 
make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental 
hypocrisy.


  Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee 
Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills 
for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 
221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 
10,656 kilowatt-hours.


  If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I 
wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. But 
he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.


  Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I think what you're seeing 
here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely 
lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most 
effective opponent.


  Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the 
Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed 
out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that 
the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And 
what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that 
footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.


  A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions 
each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her 
transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the 
manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can 
calculate your own carbon footprint on the website 
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)


  The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries 
to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local 
Green Power Switch program  electricity generated through renewable 
resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and 
pollution. In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels 
on their home, which will enable them to use less power, Kreider added. 
They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency 
measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring 
their carbon footprint down to zero.


  These efforts did little to impress Johnson. I appreciate the solar 
panels, he said, but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a 
heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching 
out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates.


  The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the 
Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 
18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours 
in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an 
average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 
2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That 
averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, 
$31,512 in 2005

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-27 Thread Fred Oliff

Tom,
I like your answer better.


From: "Tom Irwin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:40:38 +


Hi Kirk and all,
When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man. 
Tom Irwin




From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:[Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)








Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659

Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year in utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

(2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."

Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."


Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it." 

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can calculate your own carbon footprint on the website http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)

The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program  electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."


These efforts did little to impress Johnson. "I appreciate the solar panels," he said, "but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."

The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.






Bored stiff? Loosen up...Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Download today it's FREE!

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


Hi Fre,

I attended Dr. David Suzuki's event in Kelowna 2 days ago and he mentioned 
that he travels with his family to the Okanagan every summer to pick 
cherries and I know that Dr. Suzuki was the first person in Canada to buy a 
Prius Hybrid car.  So he probally uses the hybrid to travel to the Okanagan 
valley.  As far as the environmental tour called, If your were Prime 
Minister what would you do? I am sure that he has to cover a lot of 
terrritory in a short period of time.


The main issue is that both Al Gore and Dr. Suzuki are influencing alot of 
people which is the most important thing now.  Time is important because 
2007 could be the pivitol year to save this planet.


Terry Dyck



From: Fred Oliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:40:30 -0500



Al Gore flew from Montreal to Toronto last week.  I would have thought a 
true advocate for climate change could have found someone with 1)maybe a 
Smart car to drive him, 2)powered with biodiesel or some other renewable 
fuel.  David Suzuki is on a 50-city cross Canada tour and I understand he 
is also flying everywhere.  When does the medium (i.e. the messenger) 
become more important than the message?







From:  Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:  biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject:  [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date:  Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)




  





  
  
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth':  While telling the rest of us to cut back, 
he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else  

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659  
   
Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year in 
utility bills.  How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?  

   
(2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his 
suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the 
Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired and 
in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make 
that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental 
hypocrisy.  

   
Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee 
Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills 
for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 
221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 
10,656 kilowatt-hours.  

   
If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I 
wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. But 
he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.  

   
Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I think what you're seeing here 
is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost 
the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective 
opponent.

  
   
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's 
figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that 
both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that the 
bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what 
Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint 
and take steps to reduce and offset it.   

   
A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each 
person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her 
transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the 
manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can 
calculate your own carbon footprint on the website 
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)  

   
The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to 
offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local 
Green Power Switch program  electricity generated through renewable 
resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and 
pollution. In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels 
on their home, which will enable them to use less power, Kreider added. 
They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency 
measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring 
their carbon footprint down to zero.

  
   
These efforts did little to impress Johnson. I appreciate the solar 
panels, he said, but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a 
heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching 
out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates.  

   
The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores 
in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 
kilowatt-hours

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-27 Thread Fred Oliff


actually to me both are important. I think one of the worst things one can be called is a hypocrite. if Al Gore's squanders energy perhaps they ought to find someone esle to be the spokesperson for the Earth.




From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)

The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
So how true is it - at least to him.
If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont.
So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.

You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the board of directors.

KirkTom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Hi Kirk and all,
When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man. 
Tom Irwin




From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:[Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)










Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on
Yahoo! Answers.

___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use




Hi Kirk,

If all of us did what we should be doing our houses would be one room heated 
with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by solar and we would walk or 
bike almost everywere and we would be totally Vegan.  The Union of Concerned 
Scientists reports that because of the amount of Methane gas caused from 
feed lots, etc. that the total of all livestock on this planet is equivalent 
to taking 33 million cars of the road.


Terry Dyck


From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)

The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
  So how true is it - at least to him.
  If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont.
  So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.

  You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the board 
of directors.


  Kirk

Tom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kirk and all,
  When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, so 
Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but there is a 
long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. It´s the message 
that´s inportant, not the man.

  Tom Irwin





-

From:  Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To:  biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject:  [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date:  Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)






-




-
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your 
question on Yahoo! Answers.




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



_
Windows Live Spaces: share your New Year pictures! 
http://spaces.live.com/?mkt=en-ca



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


Hi Chip,

Want to here about hypocrits; here in Canada, were reducing green house 
gases is the top political priority, some political parties are accepting 
campaign funds from Oil Companies and telling Canadians that they want to 
reduce emmissions.


Terry Dyck



From: Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:48:26 -0500

Kirk McLoren wrote:

 st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
   Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth':  While telling the rest of us to cut 
back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else

   http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659

   Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year 
in utility bills.  How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?


I spell it ad hominem

From wikipedia;

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
argument to the person, argument against the man) consists of
replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making
the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem
abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or
personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit
that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem
circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is
directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad
hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the
arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

cit-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



_
Dont waste time standing in linetry shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN 
Shopping today! http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


Hi Fred,

Okay, maybe you or I could be that person but it wouldn't work because we 
don't have the high profile or the credentials and in my case , not knowing 
your income, the money to do what Al Gore is doing.  So let Al Gore do that 
job and eventually he will see that he needs to cut down on material things 
just like the rest of us.


Terry Dyck



From: Fred Oliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:59:58 -0500





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



_
Your Space. Your Friends. Your Stories. Share your world with Windows Live 
Spaces. http://spaces.live.com/?mkt=en-ca

actually to me both are important. I think one of the worst things one can be called is a hypocrite. if Al Gore's squanders energy perhaps they ought to find someone esle to be the spokesperson for the Earth.




From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)

The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
So how true is it - at least to him.
If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont.
So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.

You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the board of directors.

KirkTom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Hi Kirk and all,
When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man. 
Tom Irwin




From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:[Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)










Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on
Yahoo! Answers.

___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-27 Thread Chip Mefford

Fred Oliff wrote:
 actually to me both are important.  I think one of the worst things one can 
 be 
 called is a hypocrite. 

Then you might want to do a bit of reading.

The knee jerk reaction is to recommend Jeremy Lott's
In Defense of Hypocrisy but that's a cheap shot.

There's a paper out there, that I of course can't
find,(I'll dig for it if you are interested), that
some say inspired Neal Stephenson to write this
passage given by one of his more interesting fictional characters
(as if he had any other kind) which goes:

--this is copyrighted work, quoted here in context and under
fair use

“You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of
vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You
see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise
others—after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what
grounds is there for criticism?”

…

“Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are
naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others’
shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated
it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you
see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to
criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what
he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment
whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his
behaviour—you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and
done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth
was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

…

“We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy,” Finkle-McGraw
continued. “In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite
was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign
of deception—he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely
violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that.
Most of the time it’s a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing.”

-end quote-
Neal Stephenson, the Diamond Age.


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-27 Thread Randall

Terry,

Why can't Al do video conferences instead of traveling, or is he simply too 
important not to make personal appearances?   Bet there are more than a 
few people that traveled more than 20 minutes just to see/hear him speak. 
What did that extra travelling by the audience, staff, promoters, 
concessions people, security, law enforcement, etc contribute to overall 
pollution instead of people being able to simply watching Al on TV or their 
computer.  I bet he gets MUCH more money for making a personal appearance 
than just a conference call or distributing a video.  He had the right idea 
with his movie...

But, I suppose the important and inconvenient truth in this matter is that 
Al is a politician--period.  Actions speak MUCH MUCH louder than words...and 
that is why it is ok to attack (or at least seriously question) the 
messenger's motives when the messenger is delivering an ethical 
message---Otherwise you will need to bring back a bunch of fallen 
televangelists.  :-)  IMO he is simply another person that wants (or needs) 
to be heard and doesn't really HONESTLY care what happens as a result.I 
rank him up there with Jerry Falwell and any number of failed politicos.

---Randall


- Original Message - 
From: Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


 Hi Fre,

 I attended Dr. David Suzuki's event in Kelowna 2 days ago and he mentioned
 that he travels with his family to the Okanagan every summer to pick
 cherries and I know that Dr. Suzuki was the first person in Canada to buy 
 a
 Prius Hybrid car.  So he probally uses the hybrid to travel to the 
 Okanagan
 valley.  As far as the environmental tour called, If your were Prime
 Minister what would you do? I am sure that he has to cover a lot of
 terrritory in a short period of time.

 The main issue is that both Al Gore and Dr. Suzuki are influencing alot of
 people which is the most important thing now.  Time is important because
 2007 could be the pivitol year to save this planet.

 Terry Dyck


From: Fred Oliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:40:30 -0500



Al Gore flew from Montreal to Toronto last week. I would have thought a
true advocate for climate change could have found someone with 1)maybe a
Smart car to drive him, 2)powered with biodiesel or some other renewable
fuel. David Suzuki is on a 50-city cross Canada tour and I understand he
is also flying everywhere. When does the medium (i.e. the messenger)
become more important than the message?






From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)












Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut back,
he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659

Heated pools.electronic gates.gas lanterns in yard.and $30,000 a year in
utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

(2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in 
his
suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the
Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired and
in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make
that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental
hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee
Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills
for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured 
nearly
221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of
10,656 kilowatt-hours.

If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I
wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. 
But
he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.

Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I think what you're seeing 
here
is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost
the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective
opponent.


Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's
figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that
both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that the
bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And 
what
Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint
and take steps to reduce and offset it.

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each
person is responsible for, either directly

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

2007-02-27 Thread swracz

Everyone seems to have missed that, based on the numbers given, Al  
Gore has reduced his power usage by 12% from 2005 to 2006 and has  
plans for more reductions. Isn't that what it's all about?

The fact that his bill has gone up is probably a function of the  
increased price of energy, not increased consumption. I'm sure it's  
the same for all of us.

Steve

Quoting Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]:



 st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
   Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth':  While telling the rest of us to   
 cut back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than   
 everyone else
   http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659

   Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a   
 year in utility bills.  How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

   (2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely   
 ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is   
 no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth,   
 the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local   
 free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic   
 of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

   Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the   
 Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and  
  electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and  
 pool  house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more  
 than 20  times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

   If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility   
 bills, I wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president,   
 Drew Johnson. But he tells other people how to live and he's not   
 following his own rules.

   Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I think what you're   
 seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've  
  completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just   
 attacking their most effective opponent.

   Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the   
 Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she   
 pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and   
 she argued that the bottom line is that every family has a   
 different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked   
 is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce  
  and offset it.

   A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel   
 emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of  
  his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly   
 because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or   
 she uses. (You can calculate your own carbon footprint on the   
 website http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)

   The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family   
 tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power   
 through the local Green Power Switch program  electricity generated  
  through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas,   
 which create less waste and pollution. In addition, they are in the  
  midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable   
 them to use less power, Kreider added. They also use compact   
 fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they  
  purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon   
 footprint down to zero.

   These efforts did little to impress Johnson. I appreciate the   
 solar panels, he said, but he also has natural gas lanterns in his  
  yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that   
 he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle   
 that he advocates.

   The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show   
 the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for   
 using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200   
 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company   
 billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and   
 $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and   
 $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in   
 gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.





 -
 Bored stiff? Loosen up...
 Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

If he used the power in his business ok but
  natural gas lanterns in his yard
  Those are decorative - if you want light you dont burn a torch.
  So if he wont curb personal indulgance he doesnt believe what he espouses for 
the rest of us..
  Forget weak flesh - how about belief.
  He doesnt believe what he tells us.
  That is a liar not a hypocrite.
  Are we destroying the world or not? for ambiance at his parties?
   
  Kirk
   
   
  
Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Fred Oliff wrote:
 actually to me both are important. I think one of the worst things one can be 
 called is a hypocrite. 

Then you might want to do a bit of reading.

The knee jerk reaction is to recommend Jeremy Lott's
In Defense of Hypocrisy but that's a cheap shot.

There's a paper out there, that I of course can't
find,(I'll dig for it if you are interested), that
some say inspired Neal Stephenson to write this
passage given by one of his more interesting fictional characters
(as if he had any other kind) which goes:

--this is copyrighted work, quoted here in context and under
fair use

You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of
vices, Finkle-McGraw said. It was all because of moral relativism. You
see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise
othersafter all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what
grounds is there for criticism?



Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are
naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others
shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated
it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you
see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to
criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what
he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment
whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his
behaviouryou are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and
done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth
was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.



We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy, Finkle-McGraw
continued. In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite
was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign
of deceptionhe never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely
violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that.
Most of the time its a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing.

-end quote-
Neal Stephenson, the Diamond Age.


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



 
-
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and 
always stay connected to friends.___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

Weakness?
  gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too fast or 
fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen.
  If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would accept Bush 
as a spokesman for civil liberty
  and honesty in politics.
   
  Kirk

Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Hi Kirk,

When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to be 
people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the other hand I 
am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public about 
Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7, 
2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and 
make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour 
concert all over this planet.
When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the media 
hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P 
federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power and 
heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by 
very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets lots 
of publicity about green issues and doesn't do much in the way of actions.

Terry Dyck


From: Kirk McLoren 
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel 
Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)



 st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
 Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut 
back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else
 http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659

 Heated poolselectronic gatesgas lanterns in yardand $30,000 a year in 
utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

 (2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in 
his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in 
the Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired 
and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to 
make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental 
hypocrisy.

 Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee 
Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills 
for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 
221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 
10,656 kilowatt-hours.

 If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I 
wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. But 
he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.

 Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I think what you're seeing 
here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely 
lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most 
effective opponent.

 Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the 
Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed 
out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that 
the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And 
what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that 
footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.

 A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions 
each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her 
transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the 
manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can 
calculate your own carbon footprint on the website 
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)

 The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries 
to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local 
Green Power Switch program  electricity generated through renewable 
resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and 
pollution. In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels 
on their home, which will enable them to use less power, Kreider added. 
They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency 
measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring 
their carbon footprint down to zero.

 These efforts did little to impress Johnson. I appreciate the solar 
panels, he said, but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a 
heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching 
out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates.

 The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the 
Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 
18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours 
in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an 
average

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

Hello Terry

Hi Kirk,

If all of us did what we should be doing our houses would be one 
room heated with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by solar and 
we would walk or bike almost everywere

This:

and we would be totally Vegan.

... is nonsense, as we've established quite thoroughly many times. 
Please go to the archives and check it out.

There is no way of raising crops sustainably without using livestock 
in the production system. No vegetarian farming system has ever 
survived the test of time.

Please don't argue about it until you've checked it out, no need to 
go over the same old ground yet another time.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that because of the amount 
of Methane gas caused from feed lots, etc. that the total of all 
livestock on this planet is equivalent to taking 33 million cars of 
the road.

Feed lots, etc? What does the etc mean?

I'm sure the amount of GHGs emitted by trees etc is even worse, 
should we cut them all down too?

Do trees share blame for global warming?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
Globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of 
global methane emissions.

I haven't seen the UCS report you mention, would you give us a 
reference or a link please?

Anyway you're talking about feedlots, CAFOs, Confined Animal Feeding 
Operations, industrialised factory farms. No CAFOs no meat? That's 
the same mistake enviros make when they attack fuel ethanol because 
they don't like Archer Daniel Midlands and Cargill. There are other 
ways of doing things, as we ought to know by now.

There've been a number of high-profile critiques of industrial meat 
production and global warming, this is the main one:

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
Livestock's long shadow - Environmental issues and options
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Feedlot cattle, pigs and poultry eat industrialised grain, produced 
with high dependence on fossil-fuel inputs and at high environmental 
cost, and the same applies to the CAFO livestock production system 
itself. Check out how carbon-neutral industrialised grain turns out 
to be. Pastured livestock eat forage.

With CAFOs most of the methane emissions result from the manure 
storage, especially in with pigs. With pastured livestock, especially 
with rotational pasture, the manure provides the soil fertility to 
produce multiple following crops, displaces the need for fossil-fuel 
based chemical fertilisers, and does so at a healthy profit. Such 
pasture soils sequester very large amounts of carbon.

I think the meat industry would account for a lot more than a paltry 
33 million cars' worth of GHGs. Well so what, it doesn't have any 
future anyway, any more than the rest of the industrial agriculture 
disaster does. It's fossil-fuel dependent every step of the way, and 
measured in food miles that comes to a hell of a long way. It'll bust 
all their bottom-lines when carbon accounting starts hitting the 
global trade it depends on, the insane distribution system, the 
processing. Apart from all of which CAFOs have become a major 
bio-hazard.

No need for it anyway. The future is small, sustainable, family-run 
mixed farms with integrated crop and livestock production, low input, 
high output, local markets.

Best

Keith


Terry Dyck

From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)

The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
 So how true is it - at least to him.
 If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont.
 So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.

 You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the 
board of directors.

 Kirk

Tom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Hi Kirk and all,
 When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, 
so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but 
there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. 
It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man.
 Tom Irwin





-

From:  Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To:  biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject:  [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date:  Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

Hello Randall

Terry,

Why can't Al do video conferences instead of traveling, or is he simply too
important not to make personal appearances?   Bet there are more than a
few people that traveled more than 20 minutes just to see/hear him speak.
What did that extra travelling by the audience, staff, promoters,
concessions people, security, law enforcement, etc contribute to overall
pollution instead of people being able to simply watching Al on TV or their
computer.

How do you equate GHGs to overall pollution?

To keep it to GHGs, did you calculate the carbon emissions of the 
more than a few people you're betting travelled more than 20 minutes 
against the potential reduction in carbon emissions if they bought 
the message they went to hear, especially if they spread it?

If you were planning such a media and publicity campaign would you 
choose video conferences or personal appearances? This is for an 
Oscar-winner, right? In America.

I bet he gets MUCH more money for making a personal appearance
than just a conference call or distributing a video.

So he just does it for the money? Oh, well that's okay then, we can 
all buy another SUV.

He had the right idea
with his movie...

But, I suppose the important and inconvenient truth in this matter is that
Al is a politician--period.  Actions speak MUCH MUCH louder than words...and
that is why it is ok to attack (or at least seriously question) the
messenger's motives when the messenger is delivering an ethical
message---

His attackers also assume something of a moral high ground in 
delivering their message, why don't you also suggest examining their 
motives?

Otherwise you will need to bring back a bunch of fallen
televangelists.  :-)  IMO he is simply another person that wants (or needs)
to be heard and doesn't really HONESTLY care what happens as a result.

Why do you conclude that? Make up your mind, is it the money or the 
personal attention he needs? Or both?

I
rank him up there with Jerry Falwell and any number of failed politicos.

You mean Gore could just as well have left the stage arm in arm with 
Jerry Falwell as with Leonardo DiCaprio?

Doesn't Jerry Falwell have slightly different views on global 
warming? According to AP Falwell just said global warming is Satan's 
attempt to redirect the church's primary focus from evangelism to 
environmentalism. Maybe he's just being subtle, he's just saying it's 
Satan's work rather than ExxonMobil's work because ultrarightwing 
Christian fundamentalists will relate better.

I think your US party political views are leaking. Much more 
important than the global warming crisis is which wing of the US 
Business Party people should vote for, I guess.

Well done AEI! LOL!

Best

Keith


---Randall


- Original Message -
From: Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use


  Hi Fre,
 
  I attended Dr. David Suzuki's event in Kelowna 2 days ago and he mentioned
  that he travels with his family to the Okanagan every summer to pick
  cherries and I know that Dr. Suzuki was the first person in Canada to buy
  a
  Prius Hybrid car.  So he probally uses the hybrid to travel to the
  Okanagan
  valley.  As far as the environmental tour called, If your were Prime
  Minister what would you do? I am sure that he has to cover a lot of
  terrritory in a short period of time.
 
  The main issue is that both Al Gore and Dr. Suzuki are influencing alot of
  people which is the most important thing now.  Time is important because
  2007 could be the pivitol year to save this planet.
 
  Terry Dyck
 
 
 From: Fred Oliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:40:30 -0500
 
 
 
 Al Gore flew from Montreal to Toronto last week. I would have thought a
 true advocate for climate change could have found someone with 1)maybe a
 Smart car to drive him, 2)powered with biodiesel or some other renewable
 fuel. David Suzuki is on a 50-city cross Canada tour and I understand he
 is also flying everywhere. When does the medium (i.e. the messenger)
 become more important than the message?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To: biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut back,
 he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else.
 http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659
 
 Heated pools.electronic gates.gas lanterns in yard.and $30,000 a year in
 utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
 
 (2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in
 his
 suburban

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use

Hi Fred

actually to me both are important.  I think one of the worst things 
one can be called is a hypocrite.

Sticks and stones, and plenty of folks with their own agendas to 
throw stones if there's aught to be gained from it. Both sides of 
such accusations need checking for hipocrisy.

if Al Gore's squanders energy perhaps they ought to find someone 
esle to be the spokesperson for the Earth.

They ought to? Who's they?

Did you ever notice Darryl's sig?

It's your planet.  If you won't look after it, who will?

Like everybody else, YOU are the spokesperson for the Earth, not some 
other guy appointed by them.

Best

Keith



From:  Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject:  Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date:  Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)


The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.

So how true is it - at least to him.

If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont.

So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.



You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the 
board of directors.



Kirk

Tom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:





Hi Kirk and all,

When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, 
so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but 
there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. 
It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man.

Tom Irwin







From:  Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To:  biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject:  [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date:  Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use