Al Gore received a barrage of criticism about his electrical bill (some of it most eloquently here, here, and here — all courtesy of Bill Hobbs here at Ecotality). It will be interesting to see the reaction when Gore’s renovated home receives certification for its energy efficiency.
Gore is upgrading windows and ductwork, installing more energy-efficient light bulbs and creating a rainwater collection system for irrigation and water management.
The first indication as to the reaction …
Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the group that initially criticized Gore, said the “renovations are obviously in direct response to our finding that he’s a hypocrite on the issue of global warming.”
One of the problems with that assertion: Gore had been working since well before that news to seek a change to the building code to allow installation of his solar panels. The renovation — already underway when Johnson levied his broadside.
0 responses so far ↓
1 Doug Snodgrass // Jun 10, 2007 at 8:53 am
The Vice President’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” received its Academy Award on February 25, 2007. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research put out its press release on February 26, 2007. An incredible coincidence don’t you think?
What’s kind of funny about the whole thing though is that despite the enormous amount of hyperventilating over this by those who already carried an anti-Gore bias, it didn’t make a bit of difference to those in the real world. Take a look at Gore’s USA Today/Gallup poll favorability ratings before, during, and since the incredible coincidence.
I know that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research won’t be pleased with those numbers, particularly since it was the only time anybody other than a handful of people in Tennessee had ever even heard of them. They have proven to be – and I’m being generous – utterly insignificant.
2 Green man // Jun 10, 2007 at 10:24 am
Great, his electricity bill will come down to 5 times normal, even with the solar. Way to go Gore!!
3 Doug Snodgrass // Jun 10, 2007 at 10:55 am
Green man, I would suggest that you seek a good 12-step program for Goreophobics. :wink_ee:
4 A Siegel // Jun 10, 2007 at 1:22 pm
And, Green Man …
1. Wonder where your figure is from?
2. What is “normal”? Gore was already below average, per square foot, for his area. Wonder what his electricity use is compared to the average multi-millionaire with a security detail and several offices in his home? Remember, he has offices for himself, Tipper, and Secret Service personnel … hmmm … thus, how would that factor in your 5x?
5 Mark Ostrom // Jun 10, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Way to go Gore! That’s showen those name callers. I wish I could afford to install a rain water irrigation system and some solar pannels.
6 Green man // Jun 10, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I didn’t realize that we were giving out passes based on square footage, does that mean we give out passes based on pound for cars, so a Hummer is now okay? Newsflash for the Ecotality authors, no one NEEDS a mansion. Wasteful consumption is how we got into this mess, more of it won’t get us out.
My wife has a home office, we still use less than 5k KWH (electric and gas) a year for the household. Average is 11k in the US. I generously gave him 5 times this, although I suspect in reality his electric and gas bill will be much more. Perhaps he could end the doubt and release them? Show the world how individual households going green is done maybe, or at least me.
I am just not big on hypocrites, I prefer those who talk the talk to also walk the walk.
7 Doug Snodgrass // Jun 10, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I would suspect that your wife’s home office has need for a smaller staff than the former Vice President would need. I’m also guessing that it requires less of a staff than Tipper Gore’s home office. Also, we are looking at a staff of secret service protection round-the-clock. I’m not trying to say anything negative about your wife or her business and I wish her and you the best. It is however absurd to make a judgment about the living situation of someone who you don’t know.
8 A Siegel // Jun 10, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Green Man,
I am not sure that it is appropriate to call Gore a hypocrite. He is doing, it seems, what he calls on people to do, which is to reduce energy demand (that geothermal, the CFLs, etc…), use renewable power (his solar PV, purchasing green credits for 100% of his electricity use), and have carbon credits for what is not covered in the first two.
Many, in fact, would argue that Gore is not aggressive enough in his actions, in the degree of his warning, and his call for action — for, could we say, “sacrifice” — to avoid / reduce future risks.
If Gore were ‘calling on people to live in caves’, then he would be a hypocrite for not living in one. But he is, it seems, offering very much an Amory Lovins‘ like view of how innovation and technological development can mitigate/prevent Global Warming. (See Overshooting: Was Malthus right?)
9 Bill Hobbs // Jun 11, 2007 at 9:35 am
There’s no “incredible coincidence” to when the TCPR’s press release came out. They timed the release for maximum exposure. Smart PR. I’ve done media relations work and had I been advising them (I wasn’t) I would have told them to release it the day after Gore’s film won the Oscar.
10 Doug Snodgrass // Jun 11, 2007 at 11:35 am
Bill, we appear to actually be in agreement in regards to the intent of the timing. I’ve done media relations work too. My personal feeling though is that this was a self-serving tactic which ultimately undermined the credibility of the messenger. A good parallel is the 2000 presidential campaign, with the curious timing of the “discovery” of Bush’s drunk driving arrest from 25 years prior. The timing was clearly intentional, and I detested that as well. You may also consider that to have been smart PR and it wouldn’t make me a more moral person than you.
11 Climateer // Jun 11, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Mark Ostrom,
I think you may be mistaken about ex-veeps getting Secret Service protection.
12 Climateer // Jun 11, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Sorry Mark,
above comment should have been addressed to A. Siegel.
13 Doug Snodgrass // Jun 11, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Climateer – you are correct. I checked and it looks like the law specifies protection for six months after leaving office. Retracted with thanks.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that Gore requires a pretty serious security detail. It simply appears that this isn’t being paid for by our tax dollars.