Gore Refuses to take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think the point was that if Gore truely believes his alarmist rhetoric that the existance of human civilization depends on the actions we take today, he should take part in the sacrifices he's urging people to take.

I wonder how Gore will be more efficient against global warming:
- Continuing his advocacy, that had a worldwide audience.
- Stopping his advocacy, which would result in the equivalent of 19 fewer households consuming electricty

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Are you going to respond to the counter-points made, or just continue to restate the original point?

What counter-points? The one about the purchase of Church indulgences? Or the stupid one about how the only way he could be enviromentally responsible and live according to the ideals he espouses would be to not advocate for enviromental responsiblity?

[General Ludd]

Either, or preferably both. That's generally how a conversation works.

But you can continue restating yourself if that makes you happy.

[DinoDoc]

I'm flattered you hold a higher opinion of me than the other posters in this thread.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lonestar
If I pay my wife/GF to be faith, then I go whore around am I not still cheating?

It's not quite the same thing. Someone who has a house uses more electricity than me, because they have a bigger place and more appliances. Someone who has his own business is going to use more electricity than the average homeowner, because they have at least two places.

I personally think carbon offsets are BS. He should do whatever he can to minimize his electricity usage.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I wonder how Gore will be more efficient against global warming:
- Continuing his advocacy, that had a worldwide audience.
- Stopping his advocacy, which would result in the equivalent of 19 fewer households consuming electricty

Stop heating his pool?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I wonder how Gore will be more efficient against global warming:
- Continuing his advocacy, that had a worldwide audience.
- Stopping his advocacy, which would result in the equivalent of 19 fewer households consuming electricity

So, his household energy expenditure is tied exclusively into his work?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I wonder how Gore will be more efficient against global warming:
- Continuing his advocacy, that had a worldwide audience.
- Stopping his advocacy, which would result in the equivalent of 19 fewer households consuming electricty

That's the real choice summed up nicely as Spiffor normally does.

[Elok]

Words cannot express how deeply and passionately I fail to give a **** about this important issue.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lonestar
So, his household energy expenditure is tied exclusively into his work?

Exclusively? Probably not.

Could he continue his work if he divided his energy consumption by 20? Probably not either.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I wonder how Gore will be more efficient against global warming:
- Continuing his advocacy, that had a worldwide audience.
- Stopping his advocacy, which would result in the equivalent of 19 fewer households consuming electricty

I wonder how Thomas Jefferson could have been more efficient against slavery:
- Continuing his advocacy, which had a nationwide audience.
- Stopping his advocacy by freeing his slaves, eliminating the financial base off of which he could run for office

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I wonder how Thomas Jefferson could have been more efficient against slavery:
- Continuing his advocacy, which had a nationwide audience.
- Stopping his advocacy by freeing his slaves, eliminating the financial base off of which he could run for office

Wrong target.

[Kuciwalker]

It wasn't aimed at you.

[Drake Tungsten]

Thomas Jefferson

[Kuciwalker]