Is it fair to attack Al Gore's meat-eating diet?

The anti-environmentalist, meat-eating pig?

Mr. Gore talks about the dangers of global warming and what should be done to fight the problem, yet Mr. Gore follows almost none of his advice. This is supposedly justified because his messenger position is more important than his personal actions.

Additionally, Mr. Gore claims the end of the world is upon us if we don't act and act swiftly. Yet many studies indicate that meat-eating is, ultimately, far more of a global warming problem than anything on which Al Gore focuses.

If Al is so concerned, shouldn't he, minimally, recommend reducing meat consumption if he is so concerned about global warming? How can Mr. Gore ignore, possibly, the greatest cause of global warming and be taken seriously?

Carbon credits defrauding environmentalism?

Does carbon credit-environmentalism really work?

Al Gore has justified his less than environmentally friendly lifestyle because of carbon credits. Yet, is Mr. Gore, and other carbon credit purchasers, really helping the environment? Not according to a recent study.

"A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place. Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway."

Granted carbon credits are a new idea and could possibly be utilized correctly for a positive gain. Still, I wish the likes of Gore and other rich environmentalists did a little more walking and a little less talking. You can't buy your way out of everything. Move out of your mansion, Mr. Gore.

Live Earth: Protest global warming, make money, but do nothing?

Is Madonna another hypocrite following Al Gore?

Madonna, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and many other rock bands are going to rock the world into global warming action this Summer at Live Earth. Of course, they just might destroy the world first simply getting to concert locations with the massive carbon footprints these activists regularly create.

"The likes of Madonna and Red Hot Chili Peppers will perform at Live Earth at Wembley Stadium on July 7, yet campaigners say they are among the least "green" individuals on the planet" (DailyMail).

Al Gore is a millionaire. Madonna is a millionaire. These people have had the means to live the greenest of lives in the most comfortable fashion - essentially giving up nothing - and it wouldn't have cost them one bit of financial strain, yet, they have not. Not one of these stars lives in a house off the grid. Not one lives in an incredibly eco-friendly house. Nonetheless this 'any publicity is good publicity' crowd is going to tell the rest of the world how to live - the rest of the world whom has much, much more limited means? Please.

Use your millions to make a difference, to build a difference. Adding a couple of hybrid cars to your collection of limos, Maybachs, and RangerRovers while buying a few carbon credits is not nearly enough for these wealthy stars. They need to do much more, especially much more than talk about global warming.

It is good P.R. though! Bling, green, bling baby!

Al Gore's Senate Hearing - What bugs me

I watched some of Al Gore's Senate Committee appearance yesterday, and I was struck by one thing: the way some members talked about how Gore has been leading the environmental movement for 30 years - when he first entered Congress. Yet, after 30 years, Mr. Gore has yet to live like an environmentalist. That, however, didn't stop some members from calling Gore a prophet.

Only in Washington, where talking the talk is much more important than walking the walk, could Gore be a prophet. God bless the politicians!

While some argue that the global warming debate wouldn't exist without Gore, I say nonsense. The global warming debate has been gaining heat for many years. Sure Gore helped make this a more prominent issue sooner, but acting as if global warming wouldn't have been issue without Gore is like arguing the Internet wouldn't have been created without Gore.

Gore to warn Congress on global warming

Is Gore a liar?

Today Al Gore will present his beliefs regarding global warming to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and already the partisanship is heating up. Republicans claim that Gore is not only receiving special treatment, but that he is violating Committee hearing rules by not submitting his testimony to the committee 24 hours before he gives his testimony (The hearing rule calls for 48 hour submission deadline, but the Committee had already granted Gore just 24 hours).

Consequently, Republican members of the EPW wonder if Gore is "delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy". (more)

A great global warming debate?

Gore challenged to global warming debate

In the same setting as the "Great Debate" of evolution, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a former British policy adviser, hopes to debate Al Gore to a debate regarding the human effect on global warming. In a forum of science, Mr. Brenchlely believes that he can demonstrate that "that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide." (more)

He's not an environmentalist - Why I can't trust Al Gore

The environmentalist?

I am an environmentalist, but not a hardcore environmentalist; however, I have known a lot of hardcore environmentalists. People whom never shower, hate to flush toilets, eat only natural foods, and drive bio-diesel cars with bio-diesel they made in the basement (but whom only drove if they absolutely have to drive) - people obsessively concerned not just with their carbon footprint, but their entire footprint upon the world.

Al Gore is not one of these people. Read the rest of Why I can't trust Al Gore

Al Gore: An energy hog?

The Tennessee Policy Organization is making some strong accusations against Al Gore and questioning his commitment to reducing energy consumption. The organization states, "The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359."

The Organization also claims that Gore's energy consumption has gone up since the release of the global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth.

Mr. Gore has responded to this criticism, but I have not yet been able to access, however here's the link to his response.

Gallup poll indicates no Oscar bump for Gore

Is Al Gore's Presidential light out?

According to Gallup polls, Al Gore saw little bump in his approval ratings following the Oscars, where Mr. Gore won an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth. On Friday, I wondered whether an Oscar could catapult Mr. Gore into the 2008 Presidential race. I guess that question has been answered.

Treehugging at the Oscars?

Many use the Oscars for treehugging cred

Hybrid haters often love to poke fun at the hybrid driving stars of Hollywood whom jet set around the world in private planes that cause more global warming pollution in one trip than the average American causes in a lifetime. Still, many stars in Hollywood are extremely committed to the environment, for example Ed Begley Jr., whom avoids even conventional flights - preferring to drive his hybrid. Other stars, such as Leo DiCaprio, have given up most private flights, flying commercial instead.

However, for many other stars the environment is hot, as is driving hybrid cars - both have good 'image value'. And being a treehugger for a day - at the Oscars - is simply good PR, especially at this year's event, where Al Gore might win the Best Documentary Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth.

Read the rest of Oscar Irony

Could an Oscar lift Al Gore into the Presidential race?

Will Hollywood determine the next President?

While Barrack Obama seems to be impressing many in Hollywood, an ever increasing place of importance in Presidential politics, Al Gore has some credentials in Hollywood as well.

This Sunday it is almost guaranteed that Mr. Gore will win an Oscar for the Best Documentary for his role in "An Inconvenient Truth". While Mr. Gore has remained relatively quiet about a 2008 run at the White House, could an Oscar change this? That's what some are speculating according to a show I just watched on CNBC this morning.

While I'm not a fan of the Oscars, I might - and I mean might - watch the Oscars just to see if Gore wins and to hear his acceptance speech. Of course, I can always Youtube it later!

Is it time to kill the Kyoto Protocol? Prop. 87?

Has the Kyoto Protocol become a joke?

In the next 20 years, energy demand is supposed to rise significantly and most of that growth is expected to come from China and India - two countries largely unaffected by Kyoto. How can this make sense?

Global warming advocates, such as Al Gore, claim we have to act right now or it might be too late. Still, even if all of the world, except China and India, began to meet their Kyoto requirements, the world would still fail because China and India would more than cover the difference and global warming emissions would still be far too high.

China, already the 2nd largest contributor of global warming gases, is seeing massive increases in global warming pollution every year. Yet, China is building a new coal power plant on average EVERY 3 days. At this rate, China cannot be given a free pass for another decade if a Kyoto type plan is going to be effective.

Quite simply, Kyoto was a good P.R. campaign that helped raise awareness of the global warming problem, but it is already meaningless, and it is time to move on.

Even in Europe, where global warming is widely accepted, the majority of countries are failing to meet their emissions requirements. Unfortunately, at this point in time, carbon caps are seen as too expensive in the short term and too costly to economic growth.

Inevitably, the world will have to think beyond Kyoto. Carbon caps, while a great idea, simply won't be enough. Technology and innovation are not only integral, but the keys to success.

More important, greater appeal has to be made to the consumers of the world.

In places like California, Proposition 87 claims to fight some of these problems by blaming the oil companies and taxing them for the problem.

Please. I guarantee loophole after loophole in 87 will ultimately lead to nothing - not even cheaper fuel - just the waste of billions of dollars. Propositions are about politics. If Democrats so strongly believe in this campaign why not ask the Democrat-controlled California Congress to do something?

First and foremost consumers have to change. Driving flex-fuel guzzling SUVs instead of gas-guzzling SUVs isn't going to change anything, except for maybe the final destination of energy profits.

In California the focus should be on fuel efficiency and getting every day people to participate in that battle. Big oil might be a problem in California, but a bigger problem is all the big Hummers, Expeditions, Tahoes, etc. filled with only one occupant 90% of the time clogging the freeways.

How does 87 or Kyoto address that?

Giving people excuses and someone to blame is simply counter-productive. The problem with 87 and Kyoto is that they require no action from the people. The people simply aren't part of the solution. Yet, it is only by rallying the people that real change will be achieved.

Of course blame is always easier than responsibility, and it makes for better partisan politics.

The real problem with global warming and Al Gore

Just as Al Gore is beating the drum on global warming and inciting his treehugging supporters into a frenzy, almost every government in the world is spending less money to fight global warming according to the NYTimes.

For example, U.S. spending into global warming research and development is half what it was just 25 years ago, but it isn't just the U.S.

"Internationally, government energy research trends are little different from those in the United States. Japan is the only economic power that increased research spending in recent decades, with growth focused on efficiency and solar technology, according to the International Energy Agency."

Ironically, many energy experts expect total energy use to increase by some 50 percent in less than 20 years, with most of this increase coming from China and India. If we can't get control of energy consumption now, how are we going to do better in the next 2 decades when issues such as Kyoto don't even include these countries?

This should be cause for serious concern if you believe Gore. If the world is almost past the point of no return, yet energy consumption is still rapidly increasing, isn't Gore's battle already over?

I say Mr. Gore is simply telling the wrong story. Mr. Gore is a politician at heart, rather than an activist, and in the back of his mind, I think, Gore is simply posturing for another run at the Presidency. Global warming, Gore believes, might just be his ticket back to the big white house, and I say he's right, but he's also missing the point and his opportunity.

(Full Story)

'Manhattan Project' Approach to U.S. Energy Woes?

"The United States consumes one-fourth of the world's energy. China, India, Germany, Japan and Bangladesh have a combined population of 2.9 billion, and together consume less energy than the United States, with a population of 290 million." (more)

If you think George Bush is the reason for today's energy problems, then you need to wake up. This problem is much bigger than Bush. According to a panel of scientists that believe that a 'Manhattan Project' type approach must be taken to address America's energy concerns, such a project will probably take at least 50 years. Yes, Bush could do more to get that program going - as could have Clinton & Gore - so most politicians really don't have a foot to stand on. Americans simply need to take more responsibility, take more action and offer less blame. Buy some solar lights for your patio. Take a solar burner camping, instead of propane. Get out of your gas-guzzler and buy a hybrid. As consumers, Americans can greatly address this problem by rewarding companies that offer alternative energy products and punishing those that do not.

An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore is full of it?

"The man [Al Gore] is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science," states Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville in an article which claims that, contrary to Mr. Gore's assertions, many climate scientists do not believe Gore's global warming claims.

While I believe that the possibility of global warming is real and worth fighting against, when Mr. Gore obscures reality - providing deceptive and misleading data - he only strengthens the view of those whom disagree with global warming. Personally, with Gore's resources, I'd respect him much more if he developed companies, or helped promote companies, that are developing products which give consumers a real chance to fight global warming.

Leave the one-side documentaries to Mr. Moore, Mr. Gore.

In reality, Mr. Gore had a chance to accomplish real change when he was VP, but I guess he prefers to talk about global warming rather than to take real action to fight global warming. Sounding the alarm bell is the easy part, giving consumers the ability to act is the hard part.

America cannot conserve its way out of this problem, nor can the world. While conservation can help, only innovation will solve this problem. America needs leaders focused purely on innovation and solutions not on promoting problems.

In hindsight, Mr. Gore, stay in the movie business.

Al Gore finally flies green

When Al Gore was VP of the country one might have expected the author of Earth in the Balance to have led the Clinton Administration into environmental history. Instead, very little was accomplished in terms of environmental policy. Even when Gore campaigned for environmental issues he flew private, gross-gas-guzzling planes all around the world. Hypocrisy anyone? Consequently, Mr. Gore is now flying on commercial flights when plugging his new movie, An Inconvenient Truth. I say, finally. (More)

'A Prius in every pot': Not a kind smell

"It's taken over five years, but George W. Bush finally made a concession speech to Al Gore.

He conceded that America needs to conserve, by buying hybrid vehicles and developing new energy sources."

This is the lead to Maureen Dowd's A Prius in Every Pot editorial originally posted in the NY Times, in which Mrs. Dowd blames the entire gas crisis on Republicans, particularly Dick Cheney.

Just to be clear, Bush has been on the hybrid band wagon for at least year, even promoting plug-in hybrids last year, but why haggle over facts?

So, Mrs. Dowd would have us believe that Republicans like Cheney, Bush etc. would screw over Americans to make their oil co-conspirators rich at the expense of the entire Republican Party? So, these very rich Republicans are not only selling out their Presidential legacies, but the entire Republican Party, for a little more money?

That's just silly, especially since the current price of oil is decided in the open markets.

Certainly, Republicans deserve a great amount of blame for not helping to promote alternative fuels or alternative technologies, such as hybrid cars earlier. Democrats, on the other hand, deserve considerable blame for protecting the Unions of inefficient, gas-guzzling producing American auto companies.

For decades many Democrats have regularly joined Republicans, including recently, to prevent an increase in CAFE because they knew union members would lose their jobs.

More important, American citizens deserve much blame for not being more fuel efficient. When Europe pays $5.00 for a gallon of gas, did we really believe we could pay just $2.00 forever while always increasing our demand?

And to be fair, just what did President Clinton accomplish to reduce America's average fuel economy in his 8 years? According to statistics, nothing.

O.K., since gas prices weren't that high then, Americans didn't really care about this issue, so we just guzzled more gas. Was this also Bush and Cheney's fault?

Let's not forget, gas-guzzler sales really took off during the Clinton Administration, when Dowd's hero, Al Gore, was in office.

Inevitably, too many Americans, including most members of Congress, waste energy and guzzle gas. Earlier today I posted an article about how the members of Congress contribute to gas-guzzling. Most members of Congress are horrible conservationists and most drive gas-guzzlers, regardless of party.

With this kind of leadership to follow, is there really any wonder why America is in this energy crisis?

Inevitably, Democrats, Republicans, automakers, and many American citizens share the blame for America's oil problems. Too bad professional mudslingers, such as Mrs. Dowd, can't be more open-minded, dare I say fair-minded, for it is precisely this type of myopic, provincial vision that has caused this crisis in the first place.

'I don't care' about hybrid cars

Democrats often complain that George Bush doesn't have a mandate. I agree, but if Al Gore had won because of the popular vote, would he have had a mandate? Since both Bush and Gore could only muster up about 25% of the vote, wasn't the real mandate of the 2000 election, "I don't care"? In fact, has not only 'I don't care' become the mandate of most modern elections, but the mantra of America?

Speaking of politics, how about those tax incentives? No, I don't mean tax credits for hybrid cars and other fuel efficient technologies. Shoot, $3400.00 is small change compared to the $25,000 tax deduction you can take for buying a Hummer.

But who cares? If I can afford to gas-guzzle why should you care?

Sure, Nigerian rebels are kidnapping American oil workers and threatening to bomb foreign oil ships, and Iran is signing huge oil deals with China as it builds nuclear bombs. But who cares?

I mean so what if China started copying American oil consumption? Just because there wouldn't be close to enough oil for the world, who cares?

And that global warming mumbo-jumbo melting ice caps agenda, maybe that's just a part of your 'evolution' theory?

I say God bless American politicians. We cap tax credits for hybrids because we don't want too many of them and we cap them by manufacturer so that we can protect GM. Yet we don't put any limits on tax deductions for Hummers and other gas-guzzlers - we don't even monitor how many are using the deduction. Now that's American!

We're saving GM - isn't that what is important? With flex-fuel technology no one uses, faulty CAFE testing, and tax deductions we can make sure that GM will never have to take fuel efficiency seriously.

This is America, monkey boy, we don't have to think about the future or take responsibility for our actions and consumer choices - that's bin Laden's logic, not American logic.

Pollution, global warming, terrorism - who cares? In America cupholders are more important than fuel efficiency - at least for real Americans.