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!

The left is only changing the rules because they feel those rules might be turned back on themselves.

Having helped to start the argument and discussion you are referencing, you get credit for a great catch.  I had already mention Nader.  He's considered a kook by some, but I give the guy credit for living the lifestyle.  He lives a very modest life, donates most of his income to charities and tries hard to leave the world a better place for all.

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).

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.

Now the latest: I get a dig for "being so poor I have to run a scrapyard" from one of our lefties because I make a few extra peanuts off of recycling.

I have long said they don't support the lifestyles they advocate, now they're starting to prove it.

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?

The best thing that has happened for conservatives (and Brad was on the forefront of this), was to allow them power.

What are you referring to? Are you saying someone allowed the dems to have the majority?

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?

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

He tried to when he was having his house renovated, but city ordinance wouldn't let him. That is being changed and when that happens he is going to add solar panels.

"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."

I read a couple or lefty sites and I have not seen what you describe. In fact most of the articles are critical of Gore's approach (I only know this by the titles of the articles, I don't read them because Gore's ideas have never interested me very much). Yes, you can point to instances that support your position, but as far as I can see those are the minority.

Gore's "solution" centers on buying carbon credits. If you can't afford them, screw you!

I don't think that's a fair interpretation of the situation. It's my understanding that purchasing credits means that the energy company has to use the money to produce energy from renewable resources and then distribute it at the same cost. So really, Gore is doing just the opposite of what you accuse him of (if I understand it all correctly).

Somehow the whole idea of teaching environmentally friendly living has totally escaped the left. Why?

I really don't think anyone can honestly argue that position. One only has to quickly visit a bunch of lefty sites to see that it isn't true.

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.

Left, schmeft. Right, schmight. *cue the jingle music*

Left wing, right wing, left wing, right wing,
everybody sucks but me!

"Cut! That's a wrap!"

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

What research are you basing this statement on? I'm not asking you to show that the nation's energy consumption has increased; I'm asking you to show research that the left as a whole has not been taking measures to reduce consumption.



How is that relevant? Do you know that Gore didn't speak to the president on the issue? If Clinton decided not to act how is that Gore's fault?



Aren't you changing the subject here? You quote me when I responded to your assertion that the left no longer teaches how to live an environmentally conscience life, and I explained why that isn't so. "Teach" is not synonymous with "action".




What does this prove? Just because California isn't perfect doesn't mean that they are hypocrites. Overall isn't California one of the more environmentally friendly states? Is everyone in CA on the Left? Is everyone on the left an environmentalist? Pointing to a specific thing while ignoring the whole isn't a strong argument.



When did this become the issue?



As far as I know the standards they preach are something along the lines of using environmentally friendly products and reducing your energy consumption. Are you saying that nobody in Hollywood does this?

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.

Are you talking about me? As I've said before, I'm no environmentalist. We can reduce and reuse, but there's no point getting overexcited about the environment. It's pretty robust and more than capable of looking after itself.

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.

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.