The Carbon Footprints of Al Gore & George Bush, etc...

[Machjo]

Nobody is quiet regarding A Gore, YJ. Gore is respected universally for his work in promoting global warming awareness (he got the Nobel Prize for that, much to the disgust of right wing extremists)).

And we have discussed this before. it is nonsense to compare his carbon footprint with yours and mine, and then claim it is too high. How does his carbon footprint compare with others with similar income? Is it higher than them or lower than them? Unless you have that information, it is nonsense to talk about his carbon footprints.

So you're saying the wealthier a person is, the more entitled he is to consume natural resources?

I'd argue this is true of services and finished products. As for natural resources though, they belong to the earth and as such we all have an equal right to that at least. Besides, if he's rich, he could also afford more solar cells for his home, no? And Skype and the internet and a computer camera to teleconference?

You're just as bad as Youkey here, pretending that liberals can do no harm.

Thus my carbon footprint is going to be much larger than that of an impoverished man living in the third world, with no access to running water, no electricity, no mode of transport except walking. That means nothing, my footprint must be compared with those who have similar income as me.

And that's acceptable in your view? Again, we could argue the correlation between wealth and access to services and finished product, but certainly natural resources ought to be equally available to all, no? It's not like we work for such resources; they're just lying there for the taking.

 

[petros]

Living in several 20,000 sq ft mansions, flying private jets, using more energy than Heaven knows how many decent hard-working citizens, and claiming that his carbon foot print (now here is THE crowning achievement of liberal idiocy) is smaller than yours or mine because he invests in his own company to plant trees.

Yukon ]Jack is just jealous of Gore's success and apparently anyone else who uses their noggin to make a capitalist buck. Are you now part of the proliteriate Jack?

 

[Avro]

So you're saying the wealthier a person is, the more entitled he is to consume natural resources?

I'd argue this is true of services and finished products. As for natural resources though, they belong to the earth and as such we all have an equal right to that at least. Besides, if he's rich, he could also afford more solar cells for his home, no? And Skype and the internet and a computer camera to teleconference?

You're just as bad as Youkey here, pretending that liberals can do no harm.



And that's acceptable in your view? Again, we could argue the correlation between wealth and access to services and finished product, but certainly natural resources ought to be equally available to all, no? It's not like we work for such resources; they're just lying there for the taking.

I have tried in many ways to conserve, solar panels, wind turbine, automated home, geothermal heating and cooling, fuel efficient cars and hydro electric power.

However I'd still say I use more energy than the average Joe.

If I did nothing, it would be way more.

 

[Machjo]

Yukon ]Jack is just jealous of Gore's success and apparently anyone else who uses their noggin to make a capitalist buck. Are you now part of the proliteriate Jack?

The OP does have a point. The main flaw in it though is that it tries to suggest that somehow conservatives are above the same kind of hypocrisy.

 

[petros]

When it's a big scam by all parties it's all hypocrisy.

 

[YukonJack]

Machjo, I am guilty of not expressing my thoughts exactly as I meant. I should have said in the OP

"If any jackass (and you know who you are) ever comes and claims that ONLY the conservatives are hypocrites, proves that their view of reality or their idea of honesty is greatly flawed."

Which is exactly what SirJosephPorter claims, time after time.

 

[DaSleeper]

Who does this remind you of??:lol::lol::lol:

 

[petros]

Both YJ & SJP ned to give their heads a shake and come to the reality that party politics is a smokescreen in our fascist corporate controlled world.

 

[Avro]

Machjo, I am guilty of not expressing my thoughts exactly as I meant. I should have said in the OP

"If any jackass (and you know who you are) ever comes and claims that ONLY the conservatives are hypocrites, proves that their view of reality or their idea of honesty is greatly flawed."

Which is exactly what SirJosephPorter claims, time after time.

That's lovely, now can you give us an example of conservative hypocrisy since you so aptly pointed out one from the left?

 

[Machjo]

That's lovely, now can you give us an example of conservative hypocrisy since you so aptly pointed out one from the left?

YJ being critical of a Conservative? Why he does it all the time:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What SirJosephPorter seems to be unable to comprehend that regardless of wealth, it is HYPOCRITICAL for one to lecture the world about something that one does not practice himself.

Al Gore is the perfect example of that. You know: HYPOCRISY!

But that is exactly the point, how do you know that he is not practicing it himself? Have you compared his footprint with those of others in his economic class? You probably haven't.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So you're saying the wealthier a person is, the more entitled he is to consume natural resources?

I'd argue this is true of services and finished products. As for natural resources though, they belong to the earth and as such we all have an equal right to that at least. Besides, if he's rich, he could also afford more solar cells for his home, no? And Skype and the internet and a computer camera to teleconference?

And how do you know that he is not doing all that?

And that's acceptable in your view? Again, we could argue the correlation between wealth and access to services and finished product, but certainly natural resources ought to be equally available to all, no? It's not like we work for such resources; they're just lying there for the taking.

You cannot get wealth, access to services, being able to afford finished products without leaving carbon footprint. Are you saying that services and finished products do not consume any natural resources?

The more wealth you have, more services and finished products you can afford. More services and products you consume, more natural resources you are going to consume, bigger your footprint. It is simple.

Services, finished products and natural resources are related.

 

[Machjo]

And how do you know that he is not doing all that?

You might be right.

You cannot get wealth, access to services, being able to afford finished products without leaving carbon footprint. Are you saying that services and finished products do not consume any natural resources?

The more wealth you have, more services and finished products you can afford. More services and products you consume, more natural resources you are going to consume, bigger your footprint. It is simple.

Services, finished products and natural resources are related.

I had taken that into account. While a rich man should not be entitled to more natural resources than the poor man in principle, he should compensate for it. The natural resources used in the provision of the services, etc. could reasonably be taxed to compensate for any damage it may cause to others. For example, if I drive, I'm contributing to traffic, more highway construction or at least road construction, more noise and more pollution. Clearly a person living near a highway has a right to be at least indirectly compensated for this. Whether he's poor or not, he never asked for these inconveniences. So yes, he's entitled to have car drivers subsidize his health care needs caused by pollution, or building overhead walkways to compensate for the inconvenience of the highway, etc. Again, it's not a question of whether he could afford it or not, but rather that another person's spending is affecting him in a negative way, which is not the same thing as another person's spending having no effect on him whatsoever.

So certainly a person's consumption of resources come with a responsibility to compensate those who may be adversely affected by that consumption.

Though I'm not necessarily in favour of any political party, I do think the Green Party does have some legitimate points on this.

 

[Tonington]

What SirJosephPorter seems to be unable to comprehend that regardless of wealth, it is HYPOCRITICAL for one to lecture the world about something that one does not practice himself.

Al Gore is the perfect example of that. You know: HYPOCRISY!

It would be hypocritical if he did nothing. He does something. Whether or not you agree with it, he uses offsets. He advocates their use, as well as many other initiatives.

If he did nothing you would have a point, but that is not the case, so you really have no point. It's a popular meme though.

 

[AnnaG]

It would be hypocritical if he did nothing. He does something. Whether or not you agree with it, he uses offsets. He advocates their use, as well as many other initiatives.

If he did nothing you would have a point, but that is not the case, so you really have no point. It's a popular meme though.

Yup.

And just because someone is richer than others is not necessarily grounds to assume that they have a bigger C footprint than others else.

For instance, we have a neighbor who uses gas to heat their place and they cook with gas. We have more disposable income than they and although we use strictly electric for energy here, we are off grid. That means we have a smaller impact on the environment. We also have only 2 vehicles. They have 4.

 

[Tonington]

Yup.

And just because someone is richer than others is not necessarily grounds to assume that they have a bigger C footprint than others else.

For instance, we have a neighbor who uses gas to heat their place and they cook with gas. We have more disposable income than they and although we use strictly electric for energy here, we are off grid. That means we have a smaller impact on the environment. We also have only 2 vehicles. They have 4.

Sure. It's based I think on an old notion that GDP and emissions are inexorably linked. That was true, but times change. People like you and Les, companies are voluntarily looking for energy savings, and government's are encouraging this trend further.

 

[YukonJack]

Tonnington lectured me thus:

"It would be hypocritical if he did nothing. He does something. Whether or not you agree with it, he uses offsets. He advocates their use, as well as many other initiatives.

If he did nothing you would have a point, but that is not the case, so you really have no point. It's a popular meme though."

Those so called offsets are a sham and a scam. What Al Gore does is nothing more than a physician, like Jack Kerorkian or another Jack, the Ripper - who is a serial killer - would claim that he is a great saver of lives, because he wrote prescriptions for headaches and incontinance.

In other words, PHONY and HYPOCRITE of the first degree.

 

[Tonington]

Those so called offsets are a sham and a scam.

That's debatable. But the point stands, you accused him of lecturing about a problem and doing nothing. He is doing something. He believes they are something, and he invests in them as well, and advises others to do so.

So that would not be hypocritical at all. He does practice what he advises others to do. So I fail to see how that would satisfy any version of what a hypocrite is.

 

[Slim Chance]

The OP does have a point. The main flaw in it though is that it tries to suggest that somehow conservatives are above the same kind of hypocrisy.

Where in the OP does it come remotely close to mentioning Conservatives?

The only reference I saw was to the world's greatest eco-crite, Al Gore.

 

[Tonington]

Where in the OP does it come remotely close to mentioning Conservatives?

The only reference I saw was to the world's greatest eco-crite, Al Gore.

We all remember the Senator/Vice President/Oscar Winner/Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore.

If anyone is deserving of the title KING OF HYPOCRITES, it is this phony a$$hole.

Living in several 20,000 sq ft mansions, flying private jets, using more energy than Heaven knows how many decent hard-working citizens, and claiming that his carbon foot print (now here is THE crowning achievement of liberal idiocy) is smaller than yours or mine because he invests in his own company to plant trees.

If any jackass (and you know who you are) ever comes and claims that conservatives are hypocrites, proves that their view of reality or their idea of honesty is greatly flawed.

:idea: