Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth"

[snopes]

Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average

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, 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," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research
President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and
natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

[BringTheNoise]

A big house uses lots of electricity, you say? I'm shocked, or, yanno, not. If Gore isn't trying to reduce his energy use, that's bad, but I don't see why he has to give up his house to call for everyone to do their share.

[rhiandmoi]

That was the press release from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367


I wonder how they accessed his account to find out his usage. Or maybe they camp out in his bushes and read his meter.

Source: Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”

[RBCal]

Mr Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider did not deny the figures, but said that both Mr Gore and his wife Tipper worked from home, implying that they were therefore likely to use more energy.

The family was trying to reduce carbon emissions by getting energy from a local programme which generated energy from renewable resources such as solar and wind power instead of fossil fuels, she told ABC News.

They were also in the process of installing solar panels and low-energy light bulbs to reduce consumption from the grid, she added.

A former aide said he suspected a campaign by Mr Gore's political opponents.

"Considering that he spends an overwhelming majority of his time advocating on behalf of and trying to affect change on this issue, it's not surprising that people who have a vested interest in protecting the status quo would go after him," he told ABC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6401489.stm

In my opinion it is a bit hypocritical of Gore. However, Air Force One burns more fossil fuels in a few hours than Gore's house uses in a year. The passengers on Air Force One are a major source of hot air and incredibly destructive of the world and its environment.

[rhiandmoi]

I would be interested to see the actual data. Because even with a heated pool and an electric gate, which many people have, I have a hard time imagining how a household can use that much electricity.

http://www.cpi.coop/home_energy/billestimator.php

ETA:If they both work from home it is possible that they both have full office staffs there. They could be running office machines and computers, both of which take a ton of electricity. But still that is a lot. My office only has 2 people but we have 2 computers, a copy machine, a fax machine, 2 televisions and 2 space heaters and we only run around $300 a month.

[jw]

Al Gore's stand in taking on the naysayers to global warming should not be dismissed because of his own usage. He's hardly going to live in a tent, and go back to basics for his energy use, when all he's saying is pragmatic advice.

If he's wrong, time will prove him so, but if he's right which I believe he is, we will all bear the brunt of not heeding the warnings which many scientists much more knowledgeable than me have been making.

The family was trying to reduce carbon emissions by getting energy from a local programme which generated energy from renewable resources such as solar and wind power instead of fossil fuels, she told ABC News.

They were also in the process of installing solar panels and low-energy light bulbs to reduce consumption from the grid, she added.

They also should check out Southwest Wind Power which is the first company to develop affordable home wind power generators (8-11k USD).

[RealityChuck]

The figures for a single year prove nothing. What was his energy usage (in kWh, not cost) before he started giving global warming lectures? He might have dropped it considerably.

Also, how was the house used? While he was VP, his energy bill would have been less, since he wouldn't have been living there. You really need to compare the kWh used on days where he was present before and after.

[rangerdog]

You people amaze me. You don't see the idiosyncrasy at all between Mr. Gore's lifestyle and his movie message do you?

[wanderwoman]

Originally Posted by rangerdog

You people amaze me. You don't see the idiosyncrasy at all between Mr. Gore's lifestyle and his movie message do you?

rangerdog, is that a joke that I'm not getting? Your post doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by rangerdog

You people amaze me. You don't see the idiosyncrasy at all between Mr. Gore's lifestyle and his movie message do you?

The thing is, Al Gore is not an "average" American. The real question would be how does he use energy compared to those of his peers (other globe-trotting politicians). Using the logic of the OP, we would all be homeless and live in the street. That would make our footprint VERY small.

[Christie]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

The thing is, Al Gore is not an "average" American. The real question would be how does he use energy compared to those of his peers (other globe-trotting politicians). Using the logic of the OP, we would all be homeless and live in the street. That would make our footprint VERY small.

But Doug you're being a buzzkiller. Don't offer up suggestions that make sense!

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

The thing is, Al Gore is not an "average" American. The real question would be how does he use energy compared to those of his peers (other globe-trotting politicians). Using the logic of the OP, we would all be homeless and live in the street. That would make our footprint VERY small.

So it's cool to gobble up gobs and gobs of electricity, simply because of his "stature."

To me the question is, if energy consumption is harming us, why does his energy consumption harm us less?

Originally Posted by Unklesam

So it's cool to gobble up gobs and gobs of electricity, simply because of his "stature."

To me the question is, if energy consumption is harming us, why does his energy consumption harm us less?

Because (thank God!) there are not that many of him.

I mean look at the President (if you must). He gobbles up a heck of a lot more energy than Al Gore (he has his own FLEET of 747s). Should he be required to take a public bus to his meetings?

[Christie]

Originally Posted by Unklesam

So it's cool to gobble up gobs and gobs of electricity, simply because of his "stature."

The problem is that anytime a wealthy person speaks out about global warming they get shot down because, apparently, they are not living in a treehouse eschewing all the mod cons. It's silly, it's unrealistic and it has damn all to do with the real issue. It's just another example of Republican Deflection.

Originally Posted by Christie

The problem is that anytime a wealthy person speaks out about global warming they get shot down because, apparently, they are not living in a treehouse eschewing all the mod cons. It's silly, it's unrealistic and it has damn all to do with the real issue. It's just another example of Republican Deflection.

I disagree. I don't think asking someone who is asking people to turn the thermostat down a bit, and take the bus from time to time, to curb their own consumption is the equivelant "asking them to live in a treehouse."

If the issue is consumption=bad, then I would think personal consumption, especially when that consumption seems to be at the rate of almost 20 times that of a typical household, would have damn to do with the issue.

Originally Posted by Christie

The problem is that anytime a wealthy person speaks out about global warming they get shot down because, apparently, they are not living in a treehouse eschewing all the mod cons. It's silly, it's unrealistic and it has damn all to do with the real issue. It's just another example of Republican Deflection.

Now it would be nice if Al Gore put solar panels on his house and put in wind mills & geothermal heat exchangers, but that might be against his local zoning laws. Of course, if he really went "off the grid", people might think he was crazy....

[justusfour]

Originally Posted by Unklesam

I disagree. I don't think asking someone who is asking people to turn the thermostat down a bit, and take the bus from time to time, to curb their own consumption is the equivelant "asking them to live in a treehouse."

If the issue is consumption=bad, than I would think personal consumption, especially when that consumption seems to be at the rate of almost 20 times that of a typical household, would have damn to do with the issue.

You have to take "20 more times than average" with a grain of salt. My electric bill during the summer in Texas is 20 times more than my father's was in Orange, CA. A "typical household" doesn't compare to a very, very large household that also doubles as offices for staff. It's all relative, and your statement doesn't have any merit in that light.

Originally Posted by Unklesam

I disagree. I don't think asking someone who is asking people to turn the thermostat down a bit, and take the bus from time to time, to curb their own consumption is the equivelant "asking them to live in a treehouse."

If the issue is consumption=bad, then I would think personal consumption, especially when that consumption seems to be at the rate of almost 20 times that of a typical household, would have damn to do with the issue.

The "sad" fact is that Al Gore is likey 20X more wealthy than a "typical" household. Look at me. My household likely consumes at least twice the "average" household because I have more kids, more jobs, and a much bigger house than the "average" person.

Now is Al Gore doing anything to lower his "footprint"? If not, then I can see your point. But there is no way someone of that wealth (he comes from a rich family) can simple live within a footprint of an "average" household, unless he does live in an average house.