Apparently Al Gore needs to review his own carbon footprint…
Tennessee Center for Policy Research reports that Al Gore’s mansion uses $30,000 worth of Electricity and Natural Gas each year… Hmmm… That’s definitely more than 15 times my usage…
Please remember that, as interesting and funny as it is… This report is yet to be confirmed by a major news outlet, or admitted to by Gore et al…
February 28th, 2007
I suspect this isn’t nearly as shocking or outrageous as the group revealing it hopes. A quick calculation of my own annual electric and natural gas use shows that I consume about $3,800. My home is a 3 bedroom ranch with a finished basement. I keep my thermostat at 60 degrees in winter and 72 degrees in summer. If I kept it warmer in winter and cooler in summer, the bill would be significantly higher. I run things as I do in order to balance saving money against comfort. I can run an inexpensive fan during summer on me in whichever room I occupy and in winter, I simply put on more clothes.
While this isn’t scientifically valid, I believe his mansion has 20 rooms which could account for over six fold increase. I suspect many of his rooms are bigger. He has a pool and pool house which he operates, and a separate guest house. Maybe these energy sources are cheaper in Tennessee than here, hence outrage over extravagance or appearance of same. Chances are that this is simply more political mud being slung which is so much more useful than discussing the issues of the day in a civil manner. Using the numbers offered by this organization, Mr. Gore’s energy usage averages closer to $29,000 rather than $30,000. I will grant you this is not significant but the psychological impact offered by blaring “nearly $30,000 ” certainly makes me wonder at their claim of non-partisanship.
I’ve just finished hunting for articles related to this press release. My hunch about this being politically motivated as smear seems right. There are folks shouting “Amen!” and others rushing to defend Mr. Gore. Pity. The costs associated with such a massive housing complex don’t seem out of line to me, particularly for one whom I suspect entertains regularly and often. I do question, as I do often with every instance I see, why a married couple with no children at home would choose to live in such a huge home, with its attendant expenses. I have regularly posed this question to myself since I find my own home overly large. In my case, the decision to purchase was made by someone no longer with us who had plans to put all this space to work. I would move to a smaller, more efficient place but it makes no economic sense to do so at this time. I regularly re-evaluate this in the event circumstances change to favor moving to a smaller place.
In regards to your comment about confirmation, the newspaper, “The Nashville Tennesseean” has reported this is accurate as they asked for the same public records from the utility companies. They also report information left out of the press release. http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702270382 .
February 28th, 2007
Whether it is politically motivated or not it is still quite hypocritical imho. He can afford it so no problem there, but as one of the main champions of environmentalism do you not think he should lead by example? This is simply do as I say not as I do type behavior that we see on both sides of the isle. Additionally, it is much to common (not just Gore) that the celebrity environmentalists are notorious for this behavior. They will buy a prius to make a statement, but they still fly around in a private jet, that in one trip uses as much fuel as my car does in 6 mo’s.
Just because something is politically motivated does not make it false.
P.S. Mark, I have a feeling, that while I have never been to Mr. Gore’s house (although my secretary used to babysit for him and gave me the details) I am sure yours is quite smaller and thus you moving to a smaller house would likely be a negligible change in energy usage.
March 1st, 2007
It may be hypocritical if one demands absolutism and lockstep action to match one’s words, assuming one’s words are absolutism. I’ve not paid much attention to Mr. Gore or his message. I’ve never seen his movie, read a review, or a summary. I’ve never read his book. He is a politician and his views are his own. He is entitled to them but I have trouble criticizing them without having given them at least a cursory review. I am reasonably certain that most folks who squawk loudly about him both in favor and opposition have either not taken the time to study what he has to say or they do not understand it. As such, it strikes me that the original press release was political fodder since it failed to point out that Mr. Gore has purchased renewable energy at a higher cost to offset some of his carbon footprint. It may also be understood that even the very wealthy who advocate that we try to conserve our non-renewable resources may not wish to purchase very expensive and inefficient alternative energy arrangements when we’ve got a perfectly good power grid from which to purchase energy.
Since I am not acquainted with Mr. Gore nearly so much as I am his blind admirers and equally blind detractors, I will try to explain myself as example. I have long expressed the view that we should be heavily investing in alternatives to petroleum and coal derived energy. These are non-renewable, dirty, and come with horribly high costs. In the case of coal, we lose large swaths of land including some lovely mountains that this Great Indoorsman will never visit, but wishes they stayed just the same. Petroleum is even worse in that it has cost millions of lives lost to war, pestilence, loss of habitat for humans due to poor or non-existent oversight by governments purchased by companies extracting the petroleum. Our own foreign policy and economy are driven by petroleum and we’d be much better off in the long run getting away from it for only those reasons, let alone the others which I find compelling. However, this view of mine has not kept me from investing in publicly held petroleum companies or other companies which make use of these non-renewable resources. They are here, they are at times profitable, and it makes no sense to me to avoid interacting with the world as it is rather than as I’d like it to be. As with many cases in our history, the government must take the lead in funding and undertaking this research. Most of what has been done the past 40 years has been drops in a huge bucket to pacify those whose concern is at best marginal. That would cover most of us since the issues at play are complex and people tend to avoid complex things. Am I a hypocrite because I practice conservation on a personal basis, advocate it on a wider basis, but continue to consume energy far in excess of my needs by enjoying luxuries such as my huge car, huge house, and other examples too numerous to mention?
In your own case, as argument against pragmatism, I submit that you are a bankruptcy attorney. You give the impression that you care about your clients, their creditors, the system within which you operate, and you have spoken against the recent changes to bankruptcy law. In absolutism, one might argue that you should cease practicing in an environment you oppose and put forth all effort to changing it to your liking; that is, a more equitable one. I would argue against this view because you can do more good by carrying your caring attitude and practices into the increasingly hostile, to your clients, environment where you can perhaps do some good and one day help bring about positive change.
Celebrities have used their higher altitude soap box for as long as they’ve existed as a phenomenon. I’ve never cared much for this phenomenon and as result, I pay as little attention to what they do & say as is possible in our media saturated society. I’m fully aware that celebrities will often say one thing and do another, just as most of us do. They are no different from us aside from usually being considerably more wealthy and possessed of a public visibility most of us would find terrifying. People should rely on their own critical thinking skills, assuming they’ve developed any, and seek out those who have experience, training, and greater exposure to their special subject matter. If someone wants advice about bankruptcy, they’d be far better served by speaking with you than with Donald Trump, someone I gather has made a hobby of using bankruptcy to his advantage on more than one occasion. They would certainly be better served than by speaking to me about it. I’d direct them to you or one of your peers. The celebrity should be avoided unless you enjoy the entertainment they offer.
I will grant you that political attacks may or may not be true in their substance. However, their relevance is often something else. What, exactly, was contributed to a meaningful, civil dialogue about our energy habits and future by the press release and its subsequent discussion by the entertainment news presenters and the people who rely on them for their points of view? I see nothing. Perhaps if they had bothered to research a large number politicians who have expressed their views on energy conservation and use, comparing their words to their actions, we might see something of value. As it stands, they singled out one particularly loud voice to point out what they claim looks like hypocrisy to them.
I saw more than one reference to the size of Mr. Gore’s main house. The largest I recollect was 20,000 square feet. By comparison, my own home is 3,200 square feet. If this information is correct, his energy cost annually is 7.7 times mine. If this measure of his home is correct, he has 6.2 times as much space. This does not include additional structures such as his guest house and swimming pool, neither of which I have on my property. This is why in my original post I said his bill did not sound outrageous to me unless Tennessee energy costs are substantially lower than those in Georgia. Given the age of my home, its relatively poor windows, insulation, and damage from settling, I leak energy considerably more than a newer, smaller dwelling will. Even if I only saved a third of my current energy costs annually, that would add up to $1,230 or so per year. That, sadly, is insufficient to motivate me to move given the huge appreciation of property in the Atlanta area. It would cost me significantly more to to purchase that smaller, more efficient home than my cost to remain where I am. The same reasoning holds true for my auto. I spend between $500-1,000 annually to keep my 1997 Lincoln Towncar running, despite the fact I never get better than 25 miles per gallon out of it, and considerably less when driving in the city. I rarely drive more than 10,000 miles per year and car has only stranded me once with mechanical failure in 10 years. That incident turned out to be a recall I’d missed so Ford picked up all my expenses save for time lost. I’d love to have another car, and I’d consider a Prius, though I’d do so realizing I’ll likely never save any money. The fuel efficiency does not offset the higher price tag for the technology. I’d make the purchase as a token effort toward helping to make newer technologies viable with none of the smugness I’ve seen effected by so many drivers of comparable vehicles. If I could bring myself to purchase something with a manual transmission, as I prefer driving them, I might consider one of VW’s diesels as they do very well for efficiency. However, the density of traffic where I live would make a clutch most unpleasant and clutches would probably not last long.
Sorry if I’ve rambled, but you gave me pause for thought and it seemed worthwhile to share it.
March 6th, 2007
Sorry, I don’t find it a requirement to be on the Gore lovers or Gore haters list to think it’s funny.
It leaves me wondering if the most important part of the “Carbon Footprint” self assessment process is the assessment itself. I would have thought the most important part was in trying to change your lifestyle to get you as close to the minimum carbon impact you are willing to live with.
It may well be that, among the political celebrity global warming science circle, a 20,000 square foot mansion might well be the baseline for “basic human need”…