Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #1  
    Because the area of topic of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's Drudge Report political campaign against Al Gore is not relevant to Global Climate Change, and is purely political in nature, let's separate fact from fiction.

    The Basics
    Starting with the fundamentals, Al Gore is a former Congressman, former Senator, and former 2-term Vice President of the United States. Do his detractors expect that he and his family should live with their security team and office staff in their hybrid SUV when the sole challenge he is presenting is to take reasonable responsibility and actions to lower your carbon footprint? Nothing more.

    The TCPR VS Reality
    Let's assume for argument's sake (even though the Associated Press corrected the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's homework for them) that the (TCPR figures) 221,000 KWH/Year used by Al Gore's home is correct. TCPR got their 10,656 average KWH/Household/Year figure from the Department of Energy as the national average energy used. What is not referenced in TCPR's report is that this annual average figure includes mobile homes and apartment units, thus skewing the average per single family residence low, per the Department of Energy.

    Additionally, the East South Central Region [Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi] has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, 50% higher [at 15,447 KWH/Household/Year - Same Year's Report] than the national average quoted in the TCPR's press release, according to the same DoE report.

    Incidentally, the AP reported that TCPR president Jason "Drew" Johnson "said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never received a request from the policy center and never gave it any information."

    The Results Are In
    By doing the conservation standard math of energy consumption per Sq. Ft. we can objectively bottom-line the following conclusions [by use of the DoE's statistical report]:

    Using the same nation-wide average household consumption figure that TCPR used of 10,656 KWH/Household/Year, the DoE arrives at an average energy consumption per square foot reference of 13.7, which, again, includes all mobile homes and apartment units.

    However, using the more appropriate DoE's East South Central Region [Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi] for comparison, the average is 15,447 KWH/Household/Year, which receives the DoE's average energy consumption per square foot reference of 19.83 . By using the actual energy usage figures of the Gore residence for the period TCPR references [2006], the Gore residence receives the DoE's average energy consumption reference of 19.43, 2% lower than the East South Region's annual per household average. This fact also does not take into account the addition expense of separately purchasing Green renewable energy at the additional average cost of $432.00 per month. I only cite this dollar reference for those basing their primary argument on the expenses reported. The dollars involved is a non-issue and a form of class warfare-in-(transparent) disguise.

    The Real Gore Home
    Originally built in 1981, the Gore's home, purchased in June 2002, is very large at 10,000 sq ft. Their home has been through many renovations since their purchase to improve plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems according to construction permits files with Belle Meade. Both Al and his wife Tipper operate individually staffed offices out of their home to maintain their multiple businesses and charities. Their energy use is documented, year-to-year, at averaging 7% annual reduction by way of reasonable energy-saving measures which the Gore's advocate.

    The Source of the Campaign
    Related to the original source of this political campaign against Al Gore, TCPR is Tennessee's only member of the RightWing State Policy Network who provides a Step-By-Step, Do-It-Yourself 'How To Start A Thinktank' Checklist http://www.spn.org/thinktank/ and solely references highly conservative agenda membership/partner relationships.

    Headed by 27 year old Drew Johnson, formerly of the Exxon-funded American Enterprise Institute and rightwing-funded National Taxpayers Foundation, the TCPR has been deemed 'not legitimate' by the Tennessee Department of Revenue regarding its advocacy position on Tennessee tax matters.


    Take Personal Action! http://www.carbonfootprint.com/


    Source(s):

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/rec...ailcetbls.html [10,656 Annual Average KWH/Household including Mobile Homes and Apartment Units]

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/rec...region2001.pdf [South Central Region Data / 15,447 Annual Average KWH/Household including Mobile Homes and Apartment Units]

    http://www.news2wkrn.com/goreelectricbill.pdf
  2. #2  
    1. Dividing by square feet doesn't make any sense. We're talking about Gore's consumption of energy. He doesn't have to live in a 20-room mansion.
    2. Electricity usage is only one portion of his energy usage. He still has huge natural gas consumption for heating.
    3. Going along with the per sf line of thought:
    How are you calculating average energy consumption per square foot? If it's supposed to be kWh/Yr divided by square feet, then your numbers seem to be way off.

    East South Central: 15,447 kWh divided by 2,066 sf = 7.48

    Gore: 221,000 kWh divided by 10,000 sf = 22.1
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    1. Dividing by square feet doesn't make any sense. We're talking about Gore's consumption of energy. He doesn't have to live in a 20-room mansion.
    1a-Energy industry standard.
    1b-No. We're talking about the Gore's residence consumption.
    1c-Class-warfare statement

    2. Electricity usage is only one portion of his energy usage. He still has huge natural gas consumption for heating.
    2a- No validation of this claim has been provided independent of the Drudge Report/TCPR's press release, neither one of which provided any references to substantiate their claims.

    3. East South Central: 15,447 kWh divided by 2,066 sf = 7.48

    Gore: 221,000 kWh divided by 10,000 sf = 22.1
    3a- Mixing skewed Apples with skewed Oranges. You cannot divide the avg energy consumption of 15,447,which is inclusive of all Mobile Homes and Apartment Units in the DoE's East South Region, by the national average Single-Family [stand-alone] residence Sq. Ft. and arrive at a reliable, reproducible result.

    3b- You're using the TCPR's falsified consumption numbers. The figures in the OP are correct as verified by the DoE.
    Last edited by backbeat; 04/29/2007 at 06:09 PM.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    1a-Energy industry standard.
    1b-No. We're talking about the Gore's residence consumption.
    1c-Class-warfare statement
    1a. Doesn't matter. Still not relevant.
    1b. No. We're talking about Gore's total consumption relative to the rest of America and the world. That includes his cars and plane.
    1c. His energy consumption is directly proportional to the size of his house. He has the freedom to choose how big his house is. Plenty of rich people live in modest-sized houses.


    2a- No validation of this claim has been provided independent of the Drudge Report/TCPR's press release, neither one of which provided any references to substantiate their claims.
    2a. Gore hasn't disputed TCPR's numbers. If you question them, you have Johnson's email address. Feel free to ask him.


    3a- Mixing skewed Apples with skewed Oranges. You cannot divide the avg energy consumption of 15,447,which is inclusive of all Mobile Homes and Apartment Units in the DoE's East South Region, by the national average Single-Family [stand-alone] residence Sq. Ft. and arrive at a reliable, reproducible result.

    3b- You're using the TCPR's falsified consumption numbers. The figures in the OP are correct as verified by the DoE.
    3a. The square footage average figure includes mobile homes and apartments. If you have a regional figure that's different, please share.
    3b. I'm using your consumption figures. And you haven't shown anything that indicates that TCPR has falsified any numbers.
    3c. There's no reason to exclude mobile homes and apartments. We're comparing Gore to the average American.
    3d. You still haven't explained how you derived your numbers.
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #5  
    ^ Your primary questions are completely answered either within the body of the OP or in the referenced Sources. If you choose not to take the time to digest them in full, any response from me will not make any difference to you.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ^ Your primary questions are completely answered either within the body of the OP or in the referenced Sources. If you choose not to take the time to digest them in full, any response from me will not make any difference to you.
    If your calculations are based on what you explained, then they're completely wrong. It's a shame that after you apparently put so much work into this write-up, you had to falsify the numbers to make Gore look reasonable.
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #7  
    I'll take an unqualified/unfounded remark like that as all the confirmation I could ever ask for. Cheers!
  8. #8  
    Keep on swinging.
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #9  
    With moonballs forged from gorilla-dust like Master Drew's false-charges, you're going to make the next 18 months a pure joyride ... A n y d a y o f t h e w e e k, m a t e!
  10. #10  
    Bush's crawford ranch is more environmentally friendly than Gore's house.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #11  
    ^ Off the topic and not germain to the false accusations [Drudge Report / TCPR press release] you and cohorts presented elsewhere.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ^ Off the topic and not germain to the false accusations [Drudge Report / TCPR press release] you and cohorts presented elsewhere.
    Unless you take into consideration that snopes presents TCPR's accusations as True
  13. #13  
    You really have problems with anyone posting anything contrary to anything you post. Poor boy.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ^ Off the topic and not germain to the false accusations [Drudge Report / TCPR press release] you and cohorts presented elsewhere.
  14. #14  
    Of particular interest, snopes quotes Gore as advocating a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." On the face, it seems like the purchasing of indulgences. You can "balance out" the amount of carbon emission by utilizing renewable energy sources as well, despite the fact that use of renewables "in addition to" fossil fuels as opposed to "instead of" in no way reduces the carbon emission of the fossil fuel used.
  15. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #15  
    This thread has a specific focus due to partisan attacks within the 'Global Warming ...' thread. In order to separate Politics from the general issue, if you need to indulge in other topics related to global warming, please do so there. Thanks.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Of particular interest, snopes quotes Gore as advocating a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." On the face, it seems like the purchasing of indulgences. You can "balance out" the amount of carbon emission by utilizing renewable energy sources as well, despite the fact that use of renewables "in addition to" fossil fuels as opposed to "instead of" in no way reduces the carbon emission of the fossil fuel used.
    Here is a post I have over in the other thread, but in light of Gore's claim of living a "Carbon Free Lifestyle" I think it is appropiate here:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Here is one solution I see no more than a guilty conscience being resolved fad, personally. It is one thing to donate money to a worthy cause doing good work in any field of interest one may wish to support. But it is quite another to donate to one to help compensate for one's own actions that the cause is trying to fight against............

    Here is an article from The New York Times (I could just see what some would say if this article was from Fox News):


    Global Coolness: Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?

    THE rush to go on a carbon diet, even if by proxy, is in overdrive.

    ------------

    In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.

    But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?

    On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree.

    ------------------

    As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.

    At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.

    “The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”

    “This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.

    Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.


    --------------------

    Michael R. Solomon, the author of “Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being” and a professor at Auburn University, said he was not surprised by the allure of the carbon-offsetting market.

    “Consumers are always going to gravitate toward a more parsimonious solution that requires less behavioral change,” he said. “We know that new products or ideas are more likely to be adopted if they don’t require us to alter our routines very much.”

    But he said there was danger ahead, “if we become trained to substitute dollars for deeds — kind of an ‘I gave at the office’ prescription for the environment.”

    ------------------------

    SOURCE:
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #17  
    Can't sustain a rational defense of the argument on Drew's behalf either? Poor thing.

Posting Permissions