GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREAS

[WUB]

GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'

Nashville Electric Service/Gore House

2006

High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept
Low 12541 kWh Jan - Feb
Average: 18,414 kWh per month

2005

High 20532 Sept - October
Low 12955 Feb - March
Average: 16,200 kWh per month

Bill amounts

2006 – $895.60 (low) $1738.52 (high) $1359 (average)
2005 – $853.91 (low) $1461 (high)

Nashville Gas Company

Main House
2006 – $990(high) $170 (low) $536 (average)
2005 – $1080 (high) $200 (low) $640 (average)

Guest House/Pool House

2006 – $820 (high) $70 (low) $544 (average)
2005 – $1025 (high) $25 (low) $525 (average)

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,â€

[krosch]

Gotta love people who walk the walk like that. I mean obviously wealthly people like Gore can impact the enviroment with their consumption way more than I do because he makes up for it by going to hollywood parties.

Then again I am curious how if at all he has made changes to his estate to cut down on that bill. Because I wouldn't think he was so much of a hypocrite if he at least used a bunch of his money to make corrections on his house like thicker windows, light saving bulbs among other things. But I never heard former Vice President Gore talk about such things so I really don't know.

[krosch]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html

Al Gore has responded to charges that his house consumes more electricity every month than many American households use in an entire year, with the new Oscar winner saying he has taken many steps to reduce the carbon footprint in his home.

The office of the former vice president and former presidential candidate told Thinkprogress.org that he has signed up for 100 percent "green" power through Green Power Switch — a renewable energy program through the massive local electric distribution network, the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Gore's representatives said he also has installed solar panels and uses compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy-saving technology and he buys carbon offsets: a service that indirectly tries to reduce the total carbon emissions of individuals or organizations.

"What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible," Gore's office said, according to Thinkprogress.org. "Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gores do, to bring their footprint down to zero."

A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced. It is measured in units of carbon dioxide.

Gore was responding to a report issued by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, which cited figures from the Nashville Electric Service that showed Gore burned through 22,619 kilowatt-hours of electricity at his house last August, a rate that is twice the level used by an average U.S. household in an entire year.

Click here to read the research center's press release on the report.

On Sunday, Gore's global-warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar. The movie has won accolades from a wide berth of groups, including many in Hollywood. In the film, Gore calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

Using Gore's fresh win at the Oscars as a backdrop, the new report said Gore's energy consumption has jumped by about 14 percent since the movie's release. The Gore household averaged 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, and 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

The report also said that the Gore's natural gas bills for his mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson said in a statement.

Well I think with his statements compared to the bills released by this enviromental group tell the story. He seems to have taken some steps to reduce his footprint but still its pretty big... Also the 14% jump since the movie came out is likely total b.s. because electric bills jump in the winter (need more light for longer and thats not even considering if you use some power for heat).

[/quote]

[Anti_Liberal]

the technology is still far too expensive for most people to "go green" even changing light bulbs has a breakeven point measured in years. and global warming is bogus anyway. going "green" is a huge industry and its making a select few loads of money which is a conflict of interest among the liberal community.

[theprophet0]

the technology is still far too expensive for most people to "go green" even changing light bulbs has a breakeven point measured in years. and global warming is bogus anyway. going "green" is a huge industry and its making a select few loads of money which is a conflict of interest among the liberal community.

There are some light bulbs that you can buy at superone that even poor people can purchase. More expensive yes, last longer and uses less energy. It's not like making your roof completely loaded with solar panels in some dark dreary place.

Hey Wub I heard Al Gore left the bathroom light on at the Oscars. Damn Bastard!:evil

All mansions use more energy than the common household. Why? Because it's fucking huge!:twisted:

Articles about Milton Friedman the free trade genious and the one below are cleary neo-con slanted. So that Tennessee Center Policy For Research is not bipartisan despite them claiming it.

Minimum Wage Hike Means Maximum Harm for Working Poor

January 24, 2007


by Troy Senik

As early as this week, the Senate will consider increasing the federal minimum wage from its current rate of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour. With the House approving its version on January 10, and the tentative endorsement of President Bush, the Senate’s vote on a minimum wage spike appears a mere formality. Nevertheless, if it’s the working poor our senators intend help, they should do everything they can to stop the minimum wage hike in its tracks. An increase in the minimum wage promises to be ruinous for precisely those Americans that it supposedly helps.

On its face, the minimum wage seems difficult to oppose. Who wouldn’t be in favor of putting a few more dollars in the pockets of some of America’s hard-working laborers? Unfortunately, the actual effect of a minimum wage increase leaves many of those same workers unemployed and many of those same pockets empty.

The economic flaws of a minimum wage hike are vast and destructive. By raising the costs of hiring and retaining employees, an increased minimum wage drives up costs for businesses, leaving two options for employers. First, business owners may choose to pass the increased costs to their customers, driving up the price of everything from baby food to work boots and offsetting any increased spending power for America’s working poor.

Second, business owners can decide to reduce the cost of employees by having fewer of them. This means firing the least productive, least skilled workers. You don’t have to be an economist to understand that these are the same workers who are likely earning the minimum wage.

If a minimum wage increase will result in higher prices for everyone and unemployment for thousands of poor Americans, who is behind this detrimental effort to drive it up? The answer is America’s labor unions.

At first, it may seem odd that unions representing workers who make far more than the minimum wage are leading the battle to make it illegal to employ a consenting adult at a wage lower than $7.25 per hour. Unions, however, commonly index their own wages to minimum wage rates. The pay of a union worker is often multiplied by the minimum wage—with hourly wages set at four, six, even ten times the minimum wage. This means that a dollar-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost businesses hundreds more per week for each union employee, leading to an increase in the price of everything from cars and houses to monthly utility bills.

Americans can only hope that lawmakers are strong enough to withstand lobbying pressure from unions and have the economic commonsense to reject a public policy proposal as disastrous as a minimum wage hike. If our leaders in Congress want to show compassion for working poor, they should make sure that as many Americans as possible have the opportunity to work for a living. Nothing can provide that opportunity as easily as rejecting an increase in the minimum wage.


Troy Senik is a Research Fellow at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through the ideas of liberty.

[Anti_Liberal]

dont get me wrong proph. i'm all about saving energy when i can, because it means more money in my pocket.

people are opposed to minimum wage hikes because it means the cost of production goes up, which in turn means higher prices, which means, did they really get a wage increase? its going to hurt the middle class more than anyone because they wont get a wage increase (unless they're union) and they will pay more for products made in america. i guess its good a lot of stuff isnt made in america anymore or at least it will be another incentive to buy imported goods.

its good for the left because they are pandering "poor" and the "victims" of society, and it will increase taxes collected.

[mattcintosh]

I dunno where all those people are using so much electricity, I think my yearly use is about 5,000 kWh. Lets see, the light/fan in the kitchen 6pm - 1:30 am 100watts, bathroom lights 120 watts 6 hrs/day. furnace fan ~~~ 21"CRT monitor 5 hrs/day 110 watts. Chest freezer??? fridge??? Dryer 8 hrs/month. I just use power whenever I want and the bill never tops $30/month.

My beef is the water/sewer bill. I use half the city average, and it still costs me almost $60/month

I think of my parents that live in a rural area, they have a well and a septic tank. If they used as much water I did, and assuming the pump was 2000 watts, it would cost about $.52 (yes, thats a decimal) to pump the water out of the ground, and another $5/month average for the cost to pump out the tank every other year.


Where is the economies of scale???

[theprophet0]

people are opposed to minimum wage hikes because it means the cost of production goes up, which in turn means higher prices, which means, did they really get a wage increase? its going to hurt the middle class more than anyone because they wont get a wage increase (unless they're union) and they will pay more for products made in america. i guess its good a lot of stuff isnt made in america anymore or at least it will be another incentive to buy imported goods.

its good for the left because they are pandering "poor" and the "victims" of society, and it will increase taxes collected.

The only group of people that have been consistantly against wage increase is the business lobby. The Unions have been on a serious decline for over a quarter of century. It aint like if somebody making $5 now can start at $7 everything is going to sky rocket out of control. Right not much made here cause of free trade.

Free Trade=outsourcing to compete in the global market=loss of middle class jobs in at least 3 sectors=mfg/tech/service. The demand for cheap foriegn workers replacing the American middle class workers and not some minamum wage hike. What made up the middle class in this country was reasonable work/wages/benifits and job security.

Maybe in your life time you might see a real disaster of globalization. The growing trade deficits here and a global market collapse. Then you will end up getting your head stamped 666 just to put food on the table.

[krosch]

The big issue of minium wage increase is that goods up a tad and the minimum wage guy wins out. But what about the person making $8 an hour? His wage isn't going up yet the cost of goods goes up slightly and now that person is worse off then before. Its a trade off that should be carefully balanced. But that isn't how goverment does thigns they take big sweeping actions based on rhetoric to make huge changes rather than sitting back and looking at the problem at hand.

[theprophet0]

WUB your goal is to kill the messenger in a effort to kill the message.



Read it and weep.



http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006 ... hairs.html


The op-ed attacking former vice president Al Gore's environmental record was extremely misleading.

Former vice president Gore has worked to implement the recommendations from his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and that includes his personal commitment to live a zero-carbon lifestyle.

He reduces the global-warming pollution for which he is responsible and then, each year, finances additional reductions elsewhere until his net impact on the global climate is reduced to zero.

He has long since switched to a hybrid car and was already in the process of adding solar photovoltaic units to his home before the commentary was published.

In addition, the Gores have donated 100% of all the profits from his movie and book to the fight against global-warming pollution.

The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed. So, although Mr. Gore has and will continue to call on his fellow Americans to do their part to combat global warming, he isn't asking of them what he isn't willing to do himself.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=7648708

[Anti_Liberal]

so lets get this straight, gore continues to live a wasteful lifestyle, but feels ok about it because he throws money somewhere else that reduces energy? HA, nice try Al. oh and he's working on getting a solar panel? excuse me but that takes all of about a month or two if he's got to order parts? and he's been concerned about the environment for how long?

but more power to Al, if he wants to drive his foriegn hybrid SUV(not the most efficient option) and spend more on electricity in one week than i do all year i think thats great, its a free country. but no more "do as i say" BS. actions speak louder.

[theprophet0]

You're just jealous that he has a bigger house/s than you.



Did you just get done watching Limbaugh?

[Anti_Liberal]

I hate rush. ...and hannity, and orielly, and about 90% of all other conservative personalities.

i'm not really a fan of huge mansions. i'm more of a cozy tudor or craftsman kind of guy.

[WUB]

Carbon credits are hypocritical when used by liberals.

When Kyoto and other such treaties were proposed many suggested that companies should be allowed to buy "credits" from others that do not produce their fair share of waste rather than cripple America's economy. It would also drive investment in 3rd world economies.

The liberals protested loudly saying it was merely a way for American Corporations to get out of their responsibility to stop polluting.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and Al Gore and all the rich liberals with private jets and limos and mansions (multiple mansions) are telling us they live a "carbon neutral lifestyle". They are buying carbon credits to offset their lifestyle of riches rather than change their lifestyle one whit.

However they preach that the rest of us should ride bicycles, use public transit and stop using power. When we have one house or apartment and never use private jets or limousines.

Interesting double standard. Next they will propose a tax on OUR polluting lifestyle which Al Gore and his ilk will happily manage for us -- taxes equate to power. Power is what Al Gore seeks. If he sought changes in the environment don’t you think he would have changed his lifestyle a decade ago or at least when he started thumping the religion of global warming?!

Al Gore = Hypocrite.

[krosch]

Yeah thinking about it I believe Gore (I could be mistaken) was one of the big voices attacking Bush's carbon trading plan for power plants and factories. Though obviously thats on a bigger scale something some enviromentalists often do. Yeah I drive a hummer but if Detroit would make better mileage cars that would make so much bigger of an impact. My own vehicle does so little...

That being said I hope this bring more debate and exzamination of the issue rather than detrating from it by focusing only on Mr. Gore personally.

[Anti_Liberal]

ouch...

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself

It turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming,"

In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks.

[theprophet0]

The liberals protested loudly saying it was merely a way for American Corporations to get out of their responsibility to stop polluting.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and Al Gore and all the rich liberals with private jets and limos and mansions (multiple mansions) are telling us they live a "carbon neutral lifestyle". They are buying carbon credits to offset their lifestyle of riches rather than change their lifestyle one whit.

However they preach that the rest of us should ride bicycles, use public transit and stop using power. When we have one house or apartment and never use private jets or limousines.

Interesting double standard. Next they will propose a tax on OUR polluting lifestyle which Al Gore and his ilk will happily manage for us -- taxes equate to power. Power is what Al Gore seeks. If he sought changes in the environment don’t you think he would have changed his lifestyle a decade ago or at least when he started thumping the religion of global warming?!

Al Gore = Hypocrite.

He has been changing his lifestyle for at least since he sold daddy's of big stock of oil.

You don't really think Al Gore is going to be riding around the country on bicycle to let America be aware of the earth is heating because of pollution?

Private Jet obviously for security reasons.

[mill1535]

Al Gore hasnt been anywhere near a bicycle lately...

[WUB]

[Stang76]

I hate to fall off the bandwagon here, but if this guy is proposing introduction of a carbon tax and therefore is willing to have his own high carbon contributions taxed like anybody else's, how is that hypocritical?

You might as well say a rich person who doesn't contribute to charity but believes in instituting more progressive taxation scales would be a hypocrite. Or a civilian who supported invading Iraq despite having no relatives in the military, for that matter.

Yet again, American political debate devolves into personal bullshit instead of analyzing the pros and cons of actual policy. What else is new?

[mill1535]

The really big deal people are making of it is that its Gore...I really dont care, and I bet similar sized houses and such have comparable utility bills.

Sorry if it seemed personal...I just think its funny when prominent people let themselves go