Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

michaelskis

Al Gore and the Environmental Hypocrite Celebrities

50 posts in this topic

From what I have been informed, last night was the "Green Oscars" where there was a noticeable cry our for the world to take environmentalism and global warming seriously. Heck they even gave Al Gore an Oscar.

I wonder how many of them flew in on a private jet and took a private gas guzzling limo to the event, and then another private limo to each of the many parties afterwards. How many have sold their SUV for hybrid, abandoned the grid for solar panels, and will take a train instead of the private jet to their destinations.

The mighty Al Gore is the Bishop of this new enviro-liberal base, and when was the last time you saw him take public transportation? What about is multi-million dollar home that has enough square footage to house some third world nations?

Almost all of these celebrities are worthless in my mind. It is like taking financial advice from the homeless guy around the corner who lost everything and declared bankrupt. What are your thoughts on these raging hypocrites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Al Gore does own and drive a Toyota Prius. However as a former Vice President of the USA he has unique security requirements which complicate his travels. Can you imagine what these security restrictions would do if he got onto the NYC subway?

It would seem to me that picking on him, is quite unfair. If you are really concerned about conservation and being green, you should focus your efforts in criticizing people that are not doing anything but making the problems worse including our currently oil company president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the hypocrisy and also felt the message to be odd coming from an industry that is a prime example of our glutton and misdirected priorities. On the other hand, perhaps it is fitting that the message be conveyed via the channel that it is most likely to heard and heeded, with no small twist of irony of course. In the end, despite some misgivings, I am just happy that the message was at least broadcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almost all of these celebrities are worthless in my mind. It is like taking financial advice from the homeless guy around the corner who lost everything and declared bankrupt. What are your thoughts on these raging hypocrites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sick of celebrities in general. They make me ill with their pathetic marriages that never last, their petty fights with one another and their stupid opinions on matters they are ignorant too. True it's wonderful when a politician/celebrity like Al Gore speaks out for a cause like global warming, but their motives are always questionable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Recchia.

Also, I can understand the attraction in having a celebrity take up your cause, for the publicity alone, but most of these folks have no education or experience to back up what their opinions. Notice I said MOST. There are a few who do.

Now it does gall me a little when I'm chastised about energy usage by people with muti-thousand square feet homes. That does strike me as hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Al Gore does own and drive a Toyota Prius. However as a former Vice President of the USA he has unique security requirements which complicate his travels. Can you imagine what these security restrictions would do if he got onto the NYC subway?

It would seem to me that picking on him, is quite unfair. If you are really concerned about conservation and being green, you should focus your efforts in criticizing people that are not doing anything but making the problems worse including our currently oil company president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a typical conservative ploy: You can't attack the issue or put up a good argument against it, so you just attack the people that promote the issue.

Gore wastes a lot of resources, but while doing so he's promoting a message about stopping global warming. His movie and his research have doubtless helped people become conscious about global warming. He has probably had a net positive effect on the environment.

Other more oil friendly politicians waste just as many resources and rather than promoting saving the earth for future generations, they tell us how "addicted" we are to oil and then seek to invade other nations to keep a steady supply of oil for the next 20 years or so.

You tell me what is more hypocritical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Maybe, maybe not. If he got ten million people to notice there is an issue with global warming in attending this event then I don't have a problem with him traveling to the event to accept the award. If just 10% of that amount does something to conserve energy then I think we came out ahead.

I do find it interesting that you pick on a celebrity that is trying to do something good for the country and humanity than the hundreds that are not doing anything about it at all. It would seem to me to be a misplace sense of priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is rumor that Al Gore is setting himself up for a presidential bid in 2008. If he runs it will change the whole dynamics of the situation. Al Gore was the only one who didnt approve of congress giving Bush a blank check for the Iraq War and was against the war in the first place, While Hillary Clinton and John Edwards did support it at the time. plus he has far more experience than any candidate. He seem to be making himself a more likable person rather than the stiff person he was perceived in 2000. He could be setting himself up for a run in 2008. If Al Gore runs, it will greatly affect John Edwards chance for becoming president. Right now Edwards would likely get the nomination. But if Gore runs, dont be surprised to see a Gore-Edwards ticket. Gore certainly wouldnt make Hillary his VP becasue I hear the two really dont like each other. But Gore could also make Bill Clinton his VP. Even though Bill Clinton cant run for president any more, he can still be a VP. But I doubt that would happen. But it would be nice to see a repeat of the 1990s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ann Coulter: "Daryl, do you know how the light goes on, almost like magic, when you flick a switch in your house?"

Daryl Hannah: "I've been living off the grid for thirteen years."

Which one of them is the hypocrite?

Edit: Huffington Post has an interesting read on the latest right-wing smear campaign against Gore. Apparently, the statistics on his energy consumption originated with a Tennessee-based conservative think tank that few had ever heard of before yesterday, and that the Tennessee tax department considers "not a legitimate organization" based on their history of misrepresentation. Once again, the right shows that it doesn't need a reputable source to accept something as truth.

Also included in the article is Gore's response to the charges. According to his office, he has taken steps to offset his energy consumption, leading to zero net footprint. Not only do these offsets reduce one's environmental impact, they artificially inflate one's energy bill, leading to those large numbers we keep hearing thrown around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't figure out why some people, namely the conservative talking heads on Fox News discussed above, reject all the facts and are so belligerent towards people who believe using less energy is a good thing (which it is, no doubt, in more than one way). Do Hannity and Coulter go out of their way to use more energy I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I still can't figure out why some people, namely the conservative talking heads on Fox News discussed above, reject all the facts and are so belligerent towards people who believe using less energy is a good thing (which it is, no doubt, in more than one way). Do Hannity and Coulter go out of their way to use more energy I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YES OR NO, does it appear that Al Gore's life style uses more energy that most people in America? Because based on everything that I hear, he does not practice what he preaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gore is absolutely practicing what he preaches, unless you expect him to go live in a cave and use nothing but candles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow - i agree with almost everything everyone has said in this thread. except for ad hominem defenses of famous individuals, right and left.

my basic belief, FWIW, about high-level american two-party politics is that the two sides have a single fundamental disagreement, and only one. that is the disagreement over how to strategically influence public opinion. at the national level, liberals would not push the agenda they do unless they believed their agenda had a favorable chance of getting liberal politicians elected to office. at this same level, conservatives would not promote the classic right-wing agenda unless conservative politicians believed their constituencies would validate that agenda with votes.

in the current climate, there are all kinds of ways to manipulate people (morality, fiscal responsibility, spreading democracy, the role of the u.s. as a global citizen, etc.)

the tactic that i feel lies at the heart of this thread's topic is how politicians disagree over how best to manipulate people with fear. you have the conservative right, which has siezed upon the fear of failed security in the guise of protecting us from terrorism. compromised personal liberties, arbitrary interpretation of the limits of judicial process, opportunistic deals with oil companies and defense contractors, and so forth. then there's the left, which is casting about in various ways. fear of environmental catastrophe, coupled with fear of the loss of personal freedoms under the present administration, seem to be the golden tickets to swaying public opinion in liberals' favor at the moment.

i believe fear as a political tool, as wielded by both parties, is the most powerful of all the tools in the box. history bears that out. i also think that using fear to manipulate your public is the most loathsome, cynical, menacing and insidious method of persuasion a politician operating in a democracy can pursue.

of course politicians' motives don't have to stand in the way of my judgment about the issues set forth on both sides. you still have to vote. but individuals vote from a certain perspective of idealism, and if your man is elected, you can bet his agenda will, at some future time, part ways with yours at the moment that his agenda ceases to operate as an effective tool for manipulating public opinion. evey once in a while, on the national stage, a successful visionary - one who will go down in his ship, no matter the political repercussions - comes along to prove the exception to that rule. i'm not convinced that such a person exists at present, on either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're all hypocrites and nothing bores me more than the 'he's a hypocrite' attack. Get over it. Of course the celebrities at the Oscars are using immense amounts of fossil fuels to move about their absurd lives. No doubt about it. That doesn't mean that when they say we need to reduce carbon emissions that it isn't true. Think a little bit. Stop looking for any excuse you can find to continue to live as selfishly as you possibly can. Celebrities? Politicians? Good grief who cares? You're talking about two of the most selfish breeds of human being in the world. They are preaching but not practicing? That's pretty much all celebrities and politicians do. Nothing new here.

The point is that the celebrities and their well documented hypocrisy isn't what's important. What's important are the millions of people watching these celebrities and hearing these ideas and then...hopefully...thinking about them.

I don't expect people to reduce their carbon emissions because Al Gore does...but I do expect people to reduce their carbon emissions because they heard Al Gore and Leo DiCap talk about it and then they learned a bit and decided it was a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Click the above link. Also, he doesn't need to travel; use the internet! Gore doesn't give a rip about the environment and knows the war on carbon is a fraud. To him, this is a about $, power, & celebrity. Need further proof? Look at where he has made his $ in the past; dirty mining, dirty oil. Wake up and see the light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't an article, it was a news release. The intention of the news release was for it to be released. Here is the link to the news release:...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Click the above link. Also, he doesn't need to travel; use the internet! Gore doesn't give a rip about the environment and knows the war on carbon is a fraud. To him, this is a about $, power, & celebrity. Need further proof? Look at where he has made his $ in the past; dirty mining, dirty oil. Wake up and see the light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.