I think I read that statement, but do not recall where from.

But the fallacy (as you well know) of that statement - according to the Chicken Littles - is that energy is finite.  So you cannot replace it, only use it.  And the only way you can use more - is for others to use less (maybe that family in Niger can use less cow dung).

So let's all turn off a light so Algore can heat his bloated mansion!

It's a shame a lot of the rest of the "more mainstream" left can't seem to follow his lead. (Instead they hate the man because they seem to feel he helped cost AlGore the White House. Too bad those same clowns can't recall that their guy benefited greatly from a third party candidate back when Bubba was making his run).

Exactly!  He is their anathema!  He LIVES it!  And they just preach it.  And so he garners real greens, and they blame him for not letting true greens vote for them!

The best thing that has happened for conservatives (and Brad was on the forefront of this), was to allow them power.  SO that All (except the kooks - and we still have some here) could see what fools they are.

"Oh!  But they are not AS BAD as the right!  They mean well after all!".

So much for the road to hell.

Gideon, I would like to discuss some of the points in this article, and perhaps get some clarification. I'm not attacking you.

"OK, it is now clear to me. The mantra of "reduce, reuse, and recycle" apparently no longer applies. Not only do we have Al Gore refusing to reduce his consumption"

How do you conclude that it no longer applies? Has Gore ever refused to reduce consumption or did he just refuse to take Inhofe's pledge?

"Johnny, hold the phone! So now my consumption doesn't matter?"

Who said that consumption doesn't matter? Focusing on renewable energy doesn't mean to do it at the exclusion of all else. Does anyone know if Gore already has reduced his consumption?

'Frankly, I am sick and tired of the left constantly changing their argument when they're cornered on it."

Who changed their argument?

Gore's consumption is well documented and it is INSANE! Gore is not a consistent environmentalist like Nader, he uses up heavy doses of electricity. This is why Inhofe issued the challenge in the first place. Why did Gore refuse it? Why does he not want to do what we've been urged to do? Inquiring minds want to know!



Gore won't even address the issue, which leads me to believe no. If you can prove differently from a reliable source, I'm all ears, abe. Gore's "solution" centers on buying carbon credits. If you can't afford them, screw you! That's hardly a solution. A solution would center on taking the lead in reducing his impact.

Why does Gore, who could afford to power his homes entirely with alternative energy, not just do it? It would be great publicity.



For the most part, the left has. It is no longer "reduce, reuse, recycle" (in fact, I was pretty much derided by one of the lefties on this blog for recycling...go figure). it is now...buy carbon credits. Somehow the whole idea of teaching environmentally friendly living has totally escaped the left. Why?

No, you need to look at the fact that our natural gas and gasoline consumption has INCREASED, not decreased. If the left were consistent with their position, it would be decreasing.

Al Gore is, in my opinion, the worst of the worst. For EIGHT LONG YEARS, he had the ear of the president, and yet no major initiative was taken in reducing emissions. He only cares now because Ralph Nader very likely cost him the presidency in 2000.




No, let's look at action, not what loudmouths talk about on the Internet, shall we?

I don't think you would argue that southern California is one of the most left oriented areas of the country. Yet despite that, despite all of their money spent on xeriscaping, the municipalities do not have a serious plan for greywater reclamation systems in their homes. Southern California also uses significantly more energy than they produce, making it necessary to "transfer electricity from miles away to supply them, effectively losing power in attenuation and infrastructure maintenance costs. Southern California pipes their water from any place that will send it, leaving those other areas in water crises, rather than creating desalinization plants to use the seawater right beside their city.

I defy you to show me one of the loudmouth Hollywood types who use less energy than the average American. Yet they continue to preach their message, as does Mr. Gore. The inconvenient truth is that they don't care to live by the standards they wish to set for us. And no loudmouth on a blog site (yes, I know...I'm just as loud a mouth and no better a barometer than they are...or worse a barometer, for that matter) will tell me different.

No, I suck too...I just don't claim NOT to...there's the difference!

Oh, I hope you didn't see this as a slight against ya, Gid. I was just making fun of the use of the word "left" as an epithet. And it's true - everybody sucks but me.

Anyway, I also said I don't have a real problem with you recycling if you feel it necessary, but it does make your yard look like a scrapheap, and therefore it's hardly a surprise if the town council doesn't take kindly to it.

OK, so you agree that an open sewer line that acually creates a pond on the other individual's property is not a problem, where a metal heap is? Because if you agree with the city council's position, that is exactly what you are saying.

Recycling aluminum makes sense because aluminum, from my understanding, is VERY expensive to create from ore. That's why there's a cash value to aluminum recycling. You may not like it but ultimately we are doing some good by recycling, even if it is only enriching our own pockets.

I know people who make a fairly lucrative second income off of scrap metal. I don't think it is something that should be derided so regularly.

I am not a recycler. For some reason it's never been a priority for me. The military makes some recycling easy because we have bins for paper and all that.

Maybe I will start recycling. It would be good for the kids to learn. It's also a Cub Scout endorsed activity.

Here in HI we pay 5 cents per container as a fee that is returned if we recycle it. For those of us who are lazy, it's basically a tax.

It does add up, though. A 12 pack of sodas carries a 60 cent fee.

Ouch.

We've had problems here with availability of centers for turning them in, but still, I imagine if we always turned ours in, it would end up paying for a nice steak dinner once a year.

In MI, if you sell something with a deposit, you have to take the returns.  So, basically, all grocery stores give refunds.  People still throw out cans, though.  But, it gives the garbage pickers that the gas stations a way to pay for their next lunch, at least.