Al Gore Rumbled

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Wow. I've been gone awhile, but you haven't changed much.

What, exactly, is "dumb" about this? I mean, besides the fact you SAY its "dumb"...

[Drake Tungsten]

Al Gore's stance has nothing to do with conserving energy. Al Gore's stance is to find, produce, and switch to renewable energy that doesn't harm the environment. THAT'S the point.

There is a difference, which is: no matter how much oil, natural gas, etc. he consumes, IT WILL RUN OUT. He wants to find alternate sources, ones that are renewable, ones he can pay 30,000 per year for that his children can pay loads for in 50 years, which will not further harm the environment.

No emphasis on energy conservation. Focus on expensive renewable sources of energy as opposed to clean and economical energy sources like nuclear power. Finding alternate energy sources that people "can pay 30,000 per year for" now and that our children will still "pay loads for in 50 years". Gore's stance, as you describe, does indeed seem pretty dumb...

[Kuciwalker]

Focus on expensive renewable sources of energy as opposed to clean and economical energy sources like nuclear power.

I'm pretty sure nuclear power is not economical once the risks are added in.

[Drake Tungsten]

As far as I know, the risks associated with modern pebble-bed reactors are extremely low. Then again, I'm just a liberal arts major...

[Kuciwalker]

Here's the measure: would a private insurance company be willing to insure it? If not, it's probably not economical.

[DinoDoc]

I'm curious. Let's say for the sake of arguement that Gore's house is outfitted with solar panels, if he's still using 20x the energy of the average American doesn't that hint at exactly how wasteful he is?

I'm also not sold on the usefulness of carbon taxes/credits as an effective measure to reduce the footprint Gore decries. It strikes me as merely a figleaf rich people use in an attempt to cover the "waste" they decry in other people while doing nothing of substance to really live by the standards they try to set for others as they travel around in private jets.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm pretty sure nuclear power is not economical once the risks are added in.

Risks or irrational fear?

[ixnay]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm curious. Let's say for the sake of arguement that Gore's house is outfitted with solar panels, if he's still using 20x the energy of the average American doesn't that hint at exactly how wasteful he is?

Gore's house also doubles as offices, plus they have a full-time security staff, so of course they're going to use more energy than a normal house. They use compact flourescent light bulbs and hybrid vehicles, so they're not being purposefully wasteful.

BTW, for any of you who believe that the group who found this is an innocent, self-described "non-partisan" organization who loves nature and ****, check this out:

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/index...s&news_id=54683 - "Last week, our paper reported on a series of internal e-mails within the revenue department deeming the Tennessee Center for Policy Research “not a legitimate group.” "

Its a think-tank. Does anyone take think-tanks, either side of the aisle, seriously anymore?

Drew Johnson, the president of this "non-partisan" think-tank comes from the American Enterprise Institute, which is funded by oil companies and has tried to bribe scientists into attacking global warming theories. Obviously he doesn't have any bias against Mr. Gore!

[Admiral]

This bears mentioning: the Tennessee center for policy research is in no way a nonpartisan observer. They're a free market advocacy group fundamentally opposed to any of the measures proposed by Al Gore, and instead of wanting to debate the issues, are trying to discredit the messenger. The Dept of Revenue, for the record, does not consider them a legitimate organization. This is no different than Hannity trying to smear Gore for using private planes while VP. And even if everything in the story is true, which I doubt, who the hell cares about Gore's lifestyle. He's not running for anything, he is representing nothing. Deal with the issue at hand.

[Dis]

Nuclear power is more expensive than most forms of energy. Mainly because of the licensing fees, waste disposal, and large safety measures needed to operate a plant.

I don't have exact numbers though. But I do believe it is cheaper than solar.

just a quick search yields this article, but it doesn't seem to be including all the costs. As I said, licensing and legal fees account for alot. Not to mention the article is for EU. Nuclear power is more expensive in the U.S. than over there.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

[Drake Tungsten]

Drew Johnson, the president of this "non-partisan" think-tank comes from the American Enterprise Institute, which is funded by oil companies and has tried to bribe scientists into attacking global warming theories.

AEI is one of the most important think-tanks in the country; it's hardly surprising that they've recieved money from oil companies. If you're going to accuse someone of bias because they worked at AEI, at least do it because AEI is full of "right-wing nutjobs" or the like. The whole business of ignoring any person or institution that has ever had any association whatsoever with oil companies has become ridiculous...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No emphasis on energy conservation. Focus on expensive renewable sources of energy as opposed to clean and economical energy sources like nuclear power. Finding alternate energy sources that people "can pay 30,000 per year for" now and that our children will still "pay loads for in 50 years". Gore's stance, as you describe, does indeed seem pretty dumb...

1.) Conservation efforts on Oil make little sense compared to finding alternate sources. Money should go to the latter rather than the former. Any efforts made to conserve oil are rediculous as we will reach peak oil consumption in a matter of years, regardless of contemporary consumption. The point is not to make sure we use a little bit less oil each year; instead, it is to make sure we use more of the renewable energies each year.

2.) Nuclear powered cars? Nuclear powered personal generators? Nuclear power is ok when largesse is your option, but you cannot believe that our consumer vehicles can be powered like our military machines.

3.) The "30,000 a year" thing is only to note that regardless of the type of energy, any monetary amount placed on energy will be paid on a greater scale by those who use more of it. The only reason his children will pay more than the average is because, guess what, they live in a bigger house, regardless of the type of energy. His kids will probably need more windmills than mine will.

[Berzerker]

But Drake was talking about whether people would choose to follow Gore voluntarily.

It would help if youd actually read the damned thread.

You compared a tax to charity... Thats what Gore is "asking" for, a tax, lots of taxes... You said he aint a hypocrite because of your charity analogy...

geez, if its a question of poverty, Im sure Goreman would be willing to give income tax credits to the poor to enable them to afford the tax. Its called an offset (cause you give income tax credits, and still collect a carbon tax, you still keep the incentive effects to use less carbon, since you dont lose the income tax credits when you use less carbon)

Ya ya, Gore will decide who is poor now too. I imagine the truly poor will be exempt, but that will leave a bunch of people on fixed incomes and savings paying another tax.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

You make it sound like Gore is running for President. He's not, and he won't.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Risks or irrational fear?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Here's the measure: would a private insurance company be willing to insure it? If not, it's probably not economical.