Um, did I just see people posting in all-caps because of an effin' thread drift? These political threads (and dammit, why am I in them again?) always bring up multiple strains of bacteria conversation. I do not see anything wrong with pointing out further political hypocrisy when the topic is addressed. And Kevin, you did bring up political hypocricy. And you may have started the thread, but we all know from years of posting together that it's the group, not just the OP, that determines where a discussion will go. So I reassert the question: are you as amused when any other politician is hypocritical?

Am I happy that Gore isn't living 100% as-he-preaches? No. But do I think he's human and accept the good that he is doing? Yes, I do.

You might be interested in some of the comments to the link I posted above. Apparently quite a few regions do have programs you can sign up for to use solar or wind generated power (I doubt they actually segrate the power sources but rather you're payments go for continued development of the green power). There are comments that talk about how different regions are doing it and someone mentions that TVA (which would cover Gore's Carthage ranch at least) does it.

I'm still stuck on the house size comments made earlier.

There are many things that one can do to one's house to conserve energy. A small, poorly insulated but overly ACed or heated house might just use as much as a large house on a conservation plan. There are many things you can do go "go green" that don't involve downsizing your living space. Does he have dual paned windows? How about solar panal additions to the structures? Energy efficient appliances? A zoned AC/heating unit? But, a large,efficient house is a greener place to live than a smaller house which wastes resources.

I have 1320 square feet of house with old windows, big drafts and ineffeciant heating and air conditioning. I wonder how my usage compares with larger but greener houses.

It's not just the house itself.....what about the yard? Is it being mowed with a push mower, an electric mower, or a maybe a two-stroke tractor?

Does he use a clothes-line?(I know that there are energy efficient dryers, but even those are really no friend of the enviroment)

Does he walk to destinations that are within walking distance? Even evergy efficient cars do some damage.

------I ask these questions because, even though I am no enviromentalist by any stretch of the imagination I do use a push mower, a clothes line(except in the Winter) and walk to and from work(about 3.9 miles each way) at least twice a week. I also live in an 1100 square foot home that is heated and cooled by an energy efficient heat pump.

Who is worse? Someone who believes global warming is real but does only what is convenient to help stop it or someone who doesn't buy into it at all but still tries to live a life with as little waste as possible but for selfish reasons?

I think most people could point to things they do that are good for the enviroment.......even Gore. But if one is going to ask others to sacrifice even more than they already do that person should at least be prepared to give up a little more than they already do too.

Again, what Gore does or doesn't do isn't the problem for me. If he weren't so apolocalyptic about the whole thing, it wouldn't be a story. It was like Jimmy Swaggart in the car with a prostitute and a playboy. Not the first man to do it, I'm sure, and not the last either, but in spite of his lack of infallability, it was a story because of his high profile status as some sort of moral leader.

Likewise, there was so much criticism of Bush for not going to Vietnam.....legitimate criticism. When it would come up, if I would dare to mention that Clinton not only didn't go, he spoke of loathing ithe military and now wanted to be commander in chief, I would be rebuked here about changing the subject from Bush to Clinton. "We aren't talking about Clinton!" was the repeated cry.

So, I completely respect, though disagree, with what Alex is saying. As far as justifying hypocrisy by pointing out that we are all hypocrits....it is an obvious thing to point out. I count myself among the worst as a professing Christian who does stupid and non Christian things daily.

I agree, the size of one's house does not have to correlate to its energy efficiency.

You probably use more, newer houses are normally more efficient because of building code requirements. I believe attics are required to have insulation now with a high R-value. But there are many things you can do to make your house more efficient, as you have pointed out.They don't all have to be expensive. I just got done adding extra insulation to our attic, retrofitting dual glaze lowE windows, and swapping out incandescent light bulbs for the compact flourescent lighting. The new insulation really helped the upstairs temperature, and the new windows are great, no drafts and do a good job of cutting out the outside noise. Its amazing how much cooler the bathroom is when you remove 2 60 watt incandescent bulbs and replace them with 2 13 watt flourescent bulbs and get the same amount of light for less energy.

Apples to oranges, Leo. I wasn't defending Gore by mentioning Bush. I could understand the charge if I had brought up Bush's environmental record or some such. I was contributing to what I thought was a thread about political hypocrisy.



On the subject of Gore, I drive a hybrid but not one of the more fuel efficient models. Sometimes we ride our bikes to go get dinner but we usually take the car. i recycle but sometimes it's easier to throw my plastic water bottle in the nearest garbage can. Do these things disqualify me from teaching my children to be environmentally conscious? Should I be banned from speaking at the city council meeting where they will consider allowing housing developments in our wetlands?

I remember you stating that seeing Reagan speak live in Sacramento shaped you politically. Do you believe you would have been similarly inspired by a conference call?

I'm not justifying hypocrisy by saying we are all hypocrites. I'm saying it is not hypocrisy when someone fails to live up to your standards of how they should live.

Gore does not say we should emit no carbon, he says we should be carbon neutral. This means he could be the biggest carbon emitter on the planet and still not be a hypocrite so long as he is also the biggest carbon reducer on the planet.

I'm also saying that failure to achieve perfection is also not hypocrisy. So even if Gore were proposing the lifestyle several people in this thread are erroneously trying to hold him to, it is not necessarily hypocrisy if he fails to acheive it 100%.

Public Alex mojo.

I also agree with what Alex has said in this thread. Thanks for the well-worded comments.