Impeach Bush!

I bike to work, reuse my water bottle until its time to recycle, drive a Prius and use a drip line for my clothes, recycle everything, compost, eco soaps for laundry and by organic food at the farmers market (local foods, low carbon footprint)... and what else OH yeah I encourage others to do the same by setting an example

So Dubya (tf) is concerned about the environment and he is reducing his carbon footprint? but why? this will only delay judgment day ... oh what would Dubya do?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shnepplehead @ Sep 1 2007, 12:32 AM) [snapback]505317[/snapback]</div>

He's doing it for himself to save on his personal bills.

But what is he doing beyond that? I don't hear him encouraging others. I don't hear him educating the public on what they can do. He's not even just silent. He talks as if there is no problem. So he may have an energy efficient house but he is acting completely 180 to Gore.

Gore is working with what he has. He's not relocating. He's not quitting his "job". He's not tearing his house to the ground and rebuilding. He's doing what everyone else will have to do...look at what they have and what they can do within those limitations. And he's living what he preaches.

Who is more effective in getting people to change their lifestyles? Well, Bush is very good at getting people to make no changes whatsoever and to fight tooth and nail to resist change. And to attack anything that may lead to change.....like Al Gore.

So in the end everything Bush does completely negates the fact that his personal home is energy efficient.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 1 2007, 12:12 AM) [snapback]505309[/snapback]</div>

Nope, just the righttards.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 1 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]505445[/snapback]</div>

Yes, but how well would the fight on global warming go if everyone tried to live in the manner that gore does? Even though he's greenly retrofitting his house, does it entirely offset the environmental impacts of a Macmansion? What if everyone wanted a green macmansion? Intuitively, I don't think 100 million mac mansions with solar panels would be compatible with our environmental goals. Yet how could he criticize those who wanted a macmansion like his?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 1 2007, 12:14 PM) [snapback]505460[/snapback]</div>

Not everyone wants a MacMansion. Not everyone can afford a MacMansion. Shouldn't those with existing MacMansions do as he does? *They* CAN afford it. It's not a solution but it is certainly a step in the right direction. If all roofs in California that could have highly efficient solar did have it, we wouldnt' be going through flex power and stage 2 alerts right now. But few can afford to pay for it up front. And the incentives to do so could be a LOT better.

Not everyone that lives in a house his size uses it as he does. He has what equals a large business operating out of his home. Not everyone is a former Vice President of the United States. There's a difference between the SUV single drive that just commutes to work and the SUV driver that hauls 5 people or the truck owner that hauls construction materials and has to drive offroad to sites. Gore is lowering the "mpg" on his house and he uses his house. He is not the SUV driver the commutes alone and who's car is pristine having never hauled one board from Home Depot.

Do you really suggest that Gore and his family don hair shirts and move into a 600 sq ft condo? Or maybe they should live in cardboard boxes under a freeway overpass? Would that motivate people to change?

And when it comes to influence, don't you think Bush could influence people to change? The government isn't doing enough. I have to pay for my PV up front. And I only get a rebate on exactly the amount of panels to offset my use. If I put in MORE, I don't get any credit for that. So there is no incentive for providing more power than for personal use. AND there is no law in place that forces utility companies to buy excess. So if I produce more than I need....I'm giving it away for free. Both of these are very poor policies. There is no incentive for looking beyond your own needs. Those that could put up a lot more PV and generate beyond what they use are penalized because they have to pay for it out of pocket, do not get compensated for the cost or paid for the power they generate. No wonder Germany leads the world in solar.

Gore is showing that you can do a lot with what you have. 33 panels. I only have 16. If he's put up enough solar to completely offset his use it doesn't matter how big his house is. If in the end he ends up using less than the average 1200 sq foot home, then it doesn't matter how big his house is. Especially if he's doing it in an existing home.

Bush shows what you can do when you have a LOT of money. Sorry, but I can't afford to level my home and rebuild green from the ground up. But I can do what Gore is doing with his house, modified to scale. Future plans call for tankless water heater, solar water, more insulation and recycling of rain water with gutters and rain barrels. My home is only 1277 sq ft. Am I to be ridiculed because I use more water and energy than someone in a 450 sq ft condo? Or maybe I'm not entitled to my home because I'm a single person and there are families of 4-5 living in smaller houses than mine?

Go beat up on all of the other politicians, movie stars, musicians, models and sport figures living in houses larger than Gore's and DOING NOTHING.

If Gore lived like Ed Begley Jr he'd receive just as much if not more ridicule and be less effective.

 

Someone's not thinking here. If we impeach Bush, who becomes President?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micheal @ Aug 31 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]505303[/snapback]</div>

This is where some argue that we need a new story to enact. Our current story is unsustainable and simply does no work in the long term. In fact, I believe it looks rather infantile and lacks a level of maturity one would expct after such a long history of "civilization". We will have to adapt and mature as a global community or we will be left with a reduced standard of living in the near future. That is not simple romanticising, it seems a very logical conclusion based on historical facts and current activities, if our consumption and population growth doesn't kill us, some nut job with great politcal power and access to nuclear weapons and a religious book will.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Sep 1 2007, 12:53 PM) [snapback]505473[/snapback]</div>

LOL. I always said you have to get rid of Cheney FIRST, then Bush.

 

Oh please Cheney's heart is just not in it

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 1 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]505545[/snapback]</div>

Like they did with Agnew before they impeached Nixon. But in this case it ain't gonna happen. The Democrats have no balls. And they'd rather let Bush drag the country down even further, to improve their own chances in the polls next year. If they impeach now, the Republicans would have a better chance in '08.

Plus, Nixon set a very dangerous precedent when they let him appoint his own successor: The Constitution does not specify how a new VP will be chosen after a sitting VP is impeached. So Nixon was allowed to appoint Ford, who then pardoned Nixon for any and all crimes he may have committed, once he (Ford) was president.

If they impeach Cheney, Bush will appoint the VP who will replace him if he is impeached. Congress could have insisted that the Speaker of the House become VP, thus preserving the Constitutional order of succession, but they blew it, and now the precedent would be hard to reverse.

 

Godiva, FANTASTIC posts to put the rightard Gore swift-boating where they belong.

I'm still amazed that a house can burn 16k Kwh in a month, but if Gore has used his money to consume clean energy, I say he can use all he wants. The sun can handle it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Sep 2 2007, 06:18 PM) [snapback]506052[/snapback]</div>

Yes, ignore the facts, keep living in your fantasy world. Can't critisize the number one GW fearmonger trying to increase his personal wealth by lying about climate change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Sep 2 2007, 06:18 PM) [snapback]506052[/snapback]</div>

Where did you get that figure? If it was the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that's a rightwing swiftboat blog. Since the utility company did not release Al Gore's energy bills to them or anyone else, there's no telling where they come up with their figures. Maybe.....make them up? A number of newspapers have tried to estimate his use but I haven't found any official release of exactly how much he uses. Nashville's average is 50% higher than the average.

"
The TCPR hasn't revealed how it obtained the usage figures attributed to Gore's household, though the press release claims the information came from the Nashville Electric Service, which denies it. How accurate are the figures? The Associated Press conducted its own examination of Gore's 2006 utility bills and found the TCPR's numbers to be slightly inflated, though the documents confirmed that the Gore family indeed consumes far more electricity in a year than the average American household. The correct amounts, as reported by AP, are as follows:

• Al Gore's average monthly electric bill in 2006: $1,200 (source: AP).
• Al Gore's total electric consumption in 2006: 191,000 kilowatt hours (source: AP).

• Average annual electric consumption per U.S. household (in 2001): 10,656 kilowatt hours (source: EIA). That's 888 kwh per month. (My highest month is 450.) 2001 is pretty out of date.

Based on the above, Al Gore consumed roughly 18 times the national household average in kWh of electricity last year -- a differential which is probably only slightly mitigated by the following:

• The stated national household average, though accurate, is six years old and no doubt on the low side.
• Average usage varies widely by region. First, he lists a number of modest steps individuals can take to make their homes and activities more environmentally friendly -- like using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, and using less hot water when possible -- all of which are economically as well as ecologically beneficial, and none of which we have any reason to believe Gore is not taking himself.

Second, he preaches activism -- voting for environmentally enlightened measures and candidates and spreading he gospel of global warming. And in these we know Al Gore has played an exemplary role.

Third, he argues that everyone ought to try to achieve a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. How? By doing precisely what he does -- offsetting one's environmental impact through investments in projects and enterprises aimed at reducing energy consumption overall.

So, where is the disjunct between what he says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there isn't one. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if people like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out bucks for carbon offsets -- and you might even be right -- but that's a policy disagreement, not proof that he's a hypocrite. Folks who dislike his politics will no doubt call him hypocritical just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches, the case against him is a sham."

Al Gore's Energy Use.

Al Gore isn't an average citizen. But he's doing more than the average citizen to mitigate his carbon footprint.

He's got 33 PV panels. I'm betting he bought top of the line. I figure he's generating something in the neighborhood of 6800+ a month (83,000 a year) That's a little less than half of what he uses. What he's not generating, he's buying green. (At least he has a choice.) He also plans to:

* install a geothermal system that will, among other things, drastically reduce the cost of heating his pool. (Which reduces the use of natural gas for heating)
* upgrade windows and ductwork. (Which will reduces the use of natural gas for heating)
* install more energy-efficient light bulbs.
* create a rainwater collection system for irrigation and water management.

Is he following what he preaches in his book? Yes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 2 2007, 08:13 PM) [snapback]506137[/snapback]</div>

Lying about climate change? Jesus will you get your head out of the sand and open your eyes to the fact that this is a global issue and that Al Gore is acting as a messanger, not as an orchestrator for some big hoax? There are way too many highly educated people, around the world,working on this issue and that all agree on a lot of concepts of global warming. To think you or any of the other talking-heads, that are NOT educated in the subject, have any... ahh hell with it. I can only shake my head at the inability of some people to let go of their political/religious hardheadedness. There is so much more to this world than democrats/republican or christians/muslims.

 

kow,

Why don't you find out, rather than just spew and fume innuendo ? And if true, find what what fraction of the company is owned by him. And find out what fraction of his total offsets payments is to this company. And find out what fraction is payments to this company make their way to clean energy production.

Or... continue to be rabid riightard entertainment

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 3 2007, 01:32 AM) [snapback]506222[/snapback]</div>

This charge of "hypocrisy" I just don't get. Let's say Gore invents a machine that scrubs greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere, sets up a production company and offers the machines for sale, and advertises them. Isn't that precisely the kind of entrepreneurship conservatives are supposed to champion? You think making a profit from an enterprise that makes the world more livable is "hypocrisy?" How?!?! Or is making a profit only acceptable if your enterprise increases environmental ruin?

One can argue whether Gore's "scrubbing machine" of carbon offsets isn't effective (it's be a weak and ultimately futile argument, but one can argue it nonetheless), but as an enterprise invented in good faith to keep the world habitable, why insist that its inventor NOT purchase his own invention?

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 3 2007, 12:11 AM) [snapback]506183[/snapback]</div>

More than one of Al's claims have been shown to be false/inaccurate and he continues to make the same claims. Keep shaking your head at the real world. It isn't a hoax, but Al is using it to promote himself. And for someone that is as anti-religous as yourself why do you accept without question (meaning on faith) ideas just because they come from acedemia? It isn't possible they are not any different than any other segment of our society with self-promotion, lying, pursuit of profit, etc as their motivating force. Just because someone is a scientist/professor doesn't mean they are more honest, ethical, or any different from any other group. Pull your own head out of the sand and look at world without the filter of acedemia.