Skip to main content

Some of you may remember Peter Schweizer's hit-piece which the USA Today happily published as "news". Schweizer boldly claimed that "there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy".

Now it turns out, thanks to another right-wing hit-piece which then prompted some journalists to take a closer look at Gore's energy bill, that he in fact has signed up for green power big time, paying for 108 blocks ($432 plus/month) which covers his total electricity usage.

Funny how one wingnut can discredit another if both try very hard to discredit Gore.

The problem is that even some Kossacks switched to outrage mode at the sight of such blatant hypocrisy. Oh well...
It's not that Gore encourages people to use more green energy. It's that he wants them to move to smaller houses!

Whatever...

In case anyone had doubt that this indeed means 100% green power:

"The Center for Resource Solutions (CRS), an independent nonprofit organization, will perform an annual audit of Green Power Switch to verify that electricity from green power sources is sufficient to supply the amount of power sold."

http://www.tva.com/...

Those who say Gore should use less not more green power should keep this in mind:

By choosing to pay a little more for Green Power Switch, you help advance the technology and increase the amount of electricity generated from cleaner sources. The dollars from every block of green power you buy go directly back into Green Power Switch.

http://www.tva.com/...

The Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) is a national nonprofit working to build a robust renewable energy market by increasing the demand for and supply of renewable resources.

http://www.resource-solutions.org/...

Today "fossil-fuel plants produce about 60 percent of TVA’s power, nuclear plants about 30 percent, and hydropower dams about 10 percent"
Between Nov 2006 and Jan 2007 they generated 31,533,948 kwh green energy.

http://www.tva.com/...
http://www.tva.com/...

TVA wants more demand for green power not less. And prices will not go down without the input from those who can afford to pay today. Don't wait for the government to invest. They will not do it.

By stimulating public interest in and demand for solar power, TVA intends to encourage further technological development that could help bring the cost down over time.

http://www.tva.com/...

Fifteen wind turbines have been added to TVA’s wind power generating site on Buffalo Mountain near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These turbines are much larger than the original three at the site, and they greatly expand the generating capacity of the site. Wind energy is now a major contributor to Green Power Switch.

http://www.tva.com/...

Besides diminishing global warming, the use of methane fuel eliminates the consumption of more than 20,000 tons of coal per year, reducing regional and local pollution. The project has been approved by the Center for Resource Solutions, the organization that accredits Green Power Switch.

http://www.tva.com/...

I say if every rich guy who believes  global warming is a threat  would put his money where his mouth is , like Gore does, we would be much closer to solving this problem.
And in fact I don't see any other way out of this crisis.
Either supply-and-demand will trigger a large expansion of the green energy market or we are royally screwed.

Originally posted to elender on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:11 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They hate that Al Gore... (4+ / 0-)

    is a succesful environmentalist who doesn't live in cave. Al Gore is trying to change the system so that all Americans can have a smaller environmental impact, and he currently puts his money where his mouth is too. I'd love to see him run, but he has more than enough reasons not to.

    Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat. -Harry Emerson Fosdick

    by Jawis on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:13:02 AM PST

    •  Absolutely (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jawis, hypersphere01

      He's still my favorite candidate too, but I wouldn't blame him if he didn't run. He's been able to free himself from the bullshit somewhat in his time out of office, and that's been good to see.

      I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

      by incertus on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:15:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    incertus, Jawis

      where the idiots are now, the ones that cried that Gore was no different than Bush. Thanks to those fools (particularly in FL and NH) we now have Bush. I wonder if Gore has proven himself to these narrow minded, righteous idiots. If not, then nothing will ever satisfy him to them.

  •  I heard another version of this argument. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    incertus, highacidity, Urizen

    The argument goes that the energy in question is really mixed in with other power sources so that Gore's committment to 100% Green Power is therefore meaningless.

    Another question I heard was, how big was he going to build the solar panels on his house?

    •  The the issue is... (0+ / 0-)

      that they buy carbon offsets for the rest of their carbon footprint. Yeah, offsets aren't the best option, but they further invest in building a renewable energy infrastructure which we desperately need.

      Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat. -Harry Emerson Fosdick

      by Jawis on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:20:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course it is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eternal Hope, Urizen, hypersphere01

      ...the energy in question is really mixed in with other power sources...

      There's no way to get watts from one particular generator to one particular customer. The point of buying into "green" energy is that you put a kWh of renewable energy into the grid for every kWh of electricity you use.

      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Mark Twain

      by Joe Bob on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:26:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe Bob

        and on my green power switch I buy the kilowatts I use and then I buy two units green power at a $4 or $8 surcharge - so my green power switch charge (mine $16/month Gore's is $432 per month) doesn't mean I'm using $16 dollars more in power a month than an identical user - it just means I'm voluntarily paying an extra $16 a month so that my power company will continue to put money into renewables.

        If I understand correctly those looking at Gore's power bill ought to back out his green power surcharge to get his actual bill to compare with others.

        If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams

        by trillian on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:30:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's no true. If you buy green power you get (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eternal Hope, JayBat, hypersphere01

      green power -- unless Center for Resource Solutions is a fraud it's not.

      If it was meanigless then you wouldn't have any solar, wind and methane-based energy in that mix.
      TVA is about business. And green power today is rather expensive. They wouldn't provide it if they lost money on it.

      And by paying for more you contribute to create more. That's good old fashioned capitalism.

      "Another question I heard was, how big was he going to build the solar panels on his house?"

      Why doesn't he check it for himself?
      Given that the vast majority of US buildings do not have solar panels this question is rather silly.

    •  It's great that he pays extra for his power (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      ben masel, foxfire burns
      Hidden by:
      hypersphere01

      but the actual power that he actually uses is 60% coal, 30% nuclear, and 10% hydroelectric just like everyone else on the grid he's plugged into.  It's a good thing that he pays more (I wish everyone would do it), but the real immediate environmental impact is the same no matter how much he pays.

      The way to change that in the here and now would be to generate green power at its own source with photovoltaic panels, windmills, or one of the other appropriate technologies to reduce or eliminate his draw from the grid.  I was surprized to learn he hadn't done anything like that during all the years he's been an environment spokesperson.  It seems sort of basic to me (my house uses 0% grid power, fr'instance, several of my friends use less than 50%).  It's not like he can't afford it, which is the reason most people who care don't.

      •   The real immediate environmental impact (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        latts, Jawis, hypersphere01

        is that more energy is generated from renewable sources  instead of burning coal to keep up with demand. More solar panels, more and larger wind turbines more methane gas and part of the money goes to fund yet more green projects and so on.
        If you don't pay for it you don't get it because they don't produce it. If people wouldn't pay for green power TVA would burn more coal to provide the energy they consume.

        Moreover it's not that tomorrow Florida will be under water. You have to think about the long run much more than about the immediate impact.

        The way to change that in the here and now would be to generate green power at its own source with photovoltaic panels, windmills, or one of the other appropriate technologies to reduce or eliminate his draw from the grid.

        That will not happen. Very few buildings can have all of those. For example you cannot put wind turbines whereever you want. Also turning and old building into a green building can  be more difficult than building a green one from scratch.

        You for one thing do not have a 10,000 sq feet house, I guess and you don't even need it because you don't invite as many people to your house as Gore does and you don't have offices and employees or security measures.

        (That your house uses 0% grid power...I believe it when I see it and given your track record I don't believe it just because you say so.)

        The solution is to make utilities to provide more green power and that will not happen without more investment from those who can buy it today.

        •  Any building can have some of those. (0+ / 0-)

          You don't have any idea of what you're talking about.  There are dozens of different systems that can be adapted to dozens of applications.  All that's required is the will and the money to do it.

          And every little bit helps.  Say he'd cut his demand by 20%,  that would have lowered his contribution to global warming.  Right now, today.

          There are many partial solutions and one of them (down the line) is paying more for grid power.  Another (right now) is using less grid power.  Capitalism isn't the magic bullet for everything (what do you think made this into such a problem in the first pace?).  Letting corporations solve our problems isn't the only way life can go on.  Some people think it might guarantee that it doesn't.

          Does calling me a liar make you feel better about being a fool?

          •  This explains so much: (0+ / 0-)

            "Capitalism isn't the magic bullet for everything"

            So, your attack is not on Gore, but capitalism?  Tell us Mr. Urizen, about how dirty and evil capitalism is, and how only communism can solve all the worlds problems.

            •  Jeez, y'all can't confront the reality (0+ / 0-)

              you need to put your own invented words into my mouth and your own invented  ideas into my head to demonize me for not being part of your echo chamber.  

              Does calling me a commie (I'm not one) make you feel better about being a fool?

              BTW, I'm not attacking Gore as much as the statement that he "uses 100% green power".  That's a fallacy.  He pays for 100% green power.  I applaud that.  He uses 60% coal power just like everyone else on his power grid.  That's the inconvenient truth.

              Runaway capitalism has polluted the earth, held billions in poverty, denied healthcare to millions of americans, etc.  Yeah, I think there's plenty wrong with it?  I don't think it's the last word on how humans relate to one another.

              •  Wow, capitalism has done all that? (0+ / 0-)

                "polluted the earth, held billions in poverty, denied healthcare to millions of americans, etc."

                Blaming all of those things on capitalism is factually inaccurate.  Those types of problems are merely a fact of life.  There will always be billions in poverty, and pollution of the earth.  You're idealistic view of some type of utopia is absurd.  Without suffering, there would be no compassion.  Humans have suffered long before capitalism, and will continue to suffer long after it's demise.

              •  So you say that if Gore didn't pay for (0+ / 0-)

                green power then TVA's would not burn more coal
                to supply the energy which those in Gore's house consume?
                And if they did that somehow wouldn't increase Gore's carbon footprint?
                Conversely, if his own share of energy is generated from green sources how would you calculate the house's carbon footprint?

                You keep repeating that 60% comes from coal. But that's irrelevant in terms of what Gore does. If he pays for green power then his share will come from green sources therefore his energy usage will not harm the environment. It's pretty much the same as not using coal. Do you know what equivalent means?

                And would you explain exactly how will TVA provide more green energy if people will not demand more?
                And how will they demand more if prices are that high?
                And how will prices go down if those who can afford it now will pay and TVA will invest that money  to create more projects? (No, it's not the same as buying solar panels because TVA charges you for the service itself every month, not just for the panels.)

                Of course,  TVA should just forget coal because that's dirty and what not. But it's a business. And they will not change unless consumers make them change.

                So what's your blueprint here in a CAPITALIST economy? (Not in your rosy wunderland but here in  reality.)

          •  You didn't say some. You said 100% could be (0+ / 0-)

            covered that way.

            That's bullshit.

            A lot of factors have to be considered:

            • the place where the building is
            • the functions of the building
            • the size of the building
            • the age of the building
            • the technology with which it was built

            And every little bit helps.  Say he'd cut his demand by 20%,  that would have lowered his contribution to global warming.  Right now, today./

            No, not every little bit helps. That claim has no scientific basis.
            If he'd cut his demand by 20% (which is actually not his demand but that of everyone who uses that house and you have no idea about the per capita consumption over there) that would have no impact on the climate whatsoever. Not today not tomorrow.

            If millions of people would cut their consumption by 20% that would have an impact but that won't happen. The economy will grow, the population will grow and energy consumption will grow. Get over it.

            Now with that in mind what's your solution?
            Nothing usable. You tell people to turn their houses 100% self-sufficient which most owners can't do, not even if they wanted to. (I wonder why Edwards has not gone off grind. )

            But if Gore and people like him invest more in green power that will expand that market and that will have a big impact. In fact that's the only way to combat global warming given that most people will not give up their current lifestyle.
            And I don't think they should, by the way.

            If you in fact has an off-grid house (which I don't believe) that doesn't help the environment in any significant way. But if you spent your money to invest in green energy projects that would do much more good.

            Capitalism isn't the magic bullet for everything

            It's certainly a better magic bullet than your nonsense about making utilities obsolete.

            And without capitalism you will sure not mitigate global warming.

            •  You obviously don't know what (0+ / 0-)

              your talking about.  Your need to worship your sacred cow overpowers your capacity to reason.  His 20% reduction in his own use would be a drop in the bucket, but if all of us did that it would be significant.  A leader would lead in this.  I respect everybody who rides a bike instead of driving, who recycles, who does their own small bit to make the world a better place, everybody who takes responsibility for what they use and how they contribute instead of waiting for businessmen to fix it.  The first freedom riders didn't solve racism in a day either, maybe you think they should've not bothered and waited for the businessmen to fix it.

              •  You're really reaching here. (0+ / 0-)

                "A leader would lead on this"?  Please, Al Gore has lead a resurgence in environmental knowledge unlike anything the U.S. has seen in quite some time.  And whether you like it or not, the future of the environment will depend on those businesses that you are attempting to marginalize.

                •  Yes he has (2+ / 2-)
                  Recommended by:
                  foxfire burns, melvin
                  Hidden by:
                  NeuvoLiberal, 0wn

                  And I admire and respect him for that.  On a macro level he's the most important spokeperson enviromentalists have.  On the micro level, in his own life, no, he's the status quo even if he's paying extra to be.  It's disappointing for many of us who care that our most visible representative hasn't made the same kind of effort keeping his own house in order as he's he's telling the planet at large to do.  It's kind of like that old proverb about the cobbler's children going barefoot.  Or the anti immigration zealot pol turning out to have an undocumented nanny.

                  Saddest about it is that it makes him look hypocritical.  It's been a 30+ years uphill battle to get the world to pay attention to the mess it's making of itself.  For way less than the price of a single private jet flight he could have hooked something up at his house that would have been an example to the world that we can make power in nonpolluting ways.  He also would've been giving great PR not only to himself but to whoever designed and built the system he chose.

                  Y'all making excuses for him makes it look even worse, y'know?  

                  •  For the last time. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NeuvoLiberal

                    Al Gore does not a have a fucking private jet.  You've been told over and over again.  Enough is enough.  

                  •  This (Urizen's comment) does not (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Urizen

                    deserve a troll rating even though I do not really agree completely.

                    •  He lied. It was not an innocent mistake. (0+ / 0-)

                      It was a lie. He is a troll.

                      He doesn't even know what Gore has done with that house since he bought it how much he has invested to make it greener.
                      Apparently the only things which matter in his world are solar panels on your roof and windmills in your garden. If you chose to reduce your carbon footprint in a different way you somehow hurt the environment.

                      There are other technologies which are less spectacular but which nonetheless improve efficiency. Urizen was never in that house and he doesn't know that house, he doesn't have a clue whether Gore has installed those things but he feels perfectly confident nonetheless to essentially declare Gore a hypocrite.
                      Even though Gore did not recommend either in the movie or the book that people should generate their own energy at home.

                      •  It was an innocent mistake. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        foxfire burns

                        I'd heard he'd taken a charter somewhere (maybe to the oscars).  I thought that's what he did.  I was UTTERLY COMPLETELY WRONG.  I did state it as a question and did say I'd happily stand corrected.  And I do.

                    •  Thank you Melvin (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      foxfire burns

                      I get a lot of troll ratings from these folks.  They think we all need to sing in unison, I guess.  I prefer counterpoint myself (more interesting music) and I respect the right of anybody to disagree with me.  

              •  I obvisouly do know what I'm talking about. (0+ / 0-)

                His 20% reduction in his own use would be a drop in the bucket, but if all of us did that it would be significant.

                Yeah that's the key phrase here: IF all of us.

                But most of us will not do that. Which part of that you are unable to understand?

                The US economy will grow. The population will grow.
                And with that energy usage will grow. You are talking about a pipedream.

                The reality is that we will have to find a way to create green energy in very large quantity or we are screwed. And your idea about how people should go off grid has no more credibility than the neocon's plan to stabilize Iraq. It's nothing but a fantasy.

                If you want more people to use green power give it to them where they will and can in fact buy it. And that's the utilities.

                Otherwise you can wait and wait and wait until most people will put solar panels on their houses and windmills in their garden. You can wait forever.
                Meanwhile CO2 level will go up. Great plan, indeed.

              •  But those first freedom riders couldn't solve (0+ / 0-)

                this current crisis for sure. Like it or not this is about business. Not some kind of happy hippie lifestyle change.

                If businesses will not solve global warming nothing will. Wanna bet?

                Or you want to wait for the moment when most Americans will suddenly reduce their consumption by 20% and go off grid?

                Get real.

              •  And I respect those who earned a bunch of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                0wn

                money and use it to make green power more available therefore more affordable overtime.
                Those people have a much bigger impact than you do.
                Infact your preferred method doesn't make anything better because it's unrealistic and does not work on a mass scale.

                Gore  absolutely should not lead the way you would like him to lead. How many people would follow him?
                Especially among Americans? Most  do not want to ride a bike and will not.

                But with this talk you only help the Coulter-type right wing nuts who for decades portrayed enviromentalist as anti-capitalists eager to destroy the American lifestyle. You've been very successful with that strategy, right?

      •  Actually they have installed solar cells. nt (0+ / 0-)

        Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat. -Harry Emerson Fosdick

        by Jawis on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:56:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Must've been very recent (0+ / 0-)

          what I read, from Gore's office last week, was that they were "installing" solar panels implying it hadn't been done yet.

          •  And? What's your point? It's not that solar panel (0+ / 0-)

            will provide the energy that house needs.

            •  Any power at all (0+ / 0-)

              generated greenly at its point of consumption reduces the demand on the mostly non green power from the grid.  Am I going to fast for you?  Is this too tricky?

              •  And if you reduce the consumption (0+ / 0-)

                of green power which utilities provide than you sure will not make those utilities less dependent on fossil fuels.

                The issue is mass consumption. Not your house. That's irrelevant.

                TVA will never go up from 10% if people don't buy green power from them.

                Whether they operate the solar panels or you do doesn't matter. The source or the energy does not change.
                The difference is that unlike you companies will invest part of that money to create more green power which will ultimately lower prices, hence make green energy more affordable for more people, including those who cannot afford to put solar panels on their roof.

                Am I going to fast for you?  Is this too tricky?

                •  When I bought my panels (0+ / 0-)

                  I was investing in the company that built them, wasn't I?  The money they got from me will go into their R&D, into improving their efficiency and lowering their prices.

                  So, say Al uses his 60% coal power he's using now, but he adds some green gerating technology that supplies 50% of his load, then he's only using half as much of that 60% coal power and reducing his impact.  As I said before I was suprised to learn he wasn't doing that.

                  This isn't an either/or.  Nothing prevents him from doing both except his not doing it.  I would have thought he'd want to set an example.

                  •  Gore does not use coal power. (0+ / 0-)

                    He gets his energy from green sources just like everyone who has signed up for GPS.
                    If he didn't pay for it TVA would not produce it. They would burn coal instead to generate the same amount of electricity. Get it?

                    Now if Gore and others do not pay for green power TVA's will sure use 60% coal in the future as well.
                    But what will reduce that number? Going off grid?
                    Idiot.

                    I would have thought he'd want to set an example.

                    And that's exactly what he has done. Unlike you who still doesn't understand the diffence between mass usage and one house.

                    Most people will not buy solar panels. (That's it about you "investing in the company".)
                    But they do buy electricity from their utilities.

                    TVA's green power comes from solar, wind and methane. Not just solar. Solar panels alone could not provide enough energy for most buildings (especially not in that region).
                    Now if you want to say that everyone should buy a wind turbine or somehow produce methane in their garden then you need rehab.

                    What you were talking about is going off grid. That's not going to happen. Therefore your whole concept is crap.

                    •  Are you a complete idiot? (0+ / 0-)

                      The power that flows through the TVA grid has no way of distinguishing what source it comes from, it's just a bunch of electrons at that point.  Customers have the option of paying more for power so that the utility will include more green power in the feed to everyone.  Everybody on the grid, no matter what they pay, is using 60% coal power.  The more power they use the more coal gets burned.  Just the way it is.

                      The only way any home can use 100% green power at this point in time is to produce it greenly themselves.  There are no 100% green utilities.  Anybody who produces any amount of green power reduces the use of the 60% coal power by that amount.  Is this so hard to understand?

                      Nobody has to go off the grid when they use solar, wind, biomass, etc. on their own property.  They use that renewable power instead of the feed from the utility (and use the feed when they can't meet their own demand.  I never said anything about Gore going off grid (most people with solar don't -- I'd be on the grid too if it wasn't more expensive, I had to choose between making my own power and paying for the power to get to my remote location through the utility and I chose to make my own).  

                      You misread what I write and then insult me for your own stupidity.  Try reading more carefully and less defensively, you might learn something.

                      •  You repeat yourself and you still (0+ / 0-)

                        don't show any sign of understanding how GPS works.

                        Now go back to school.

                        •  Dude I understand how electricty (0+ / 0-)

                          works.  I've wired a dozen or so houses.  Electricity doesn't care what source it comes from, what price tag it wears on a piece of paper.  If 60% of it comes from coal, 60% of it comes from coal.

                          •  But dude you don't understand what would (0+ / 0-)

                            happen if Gore didn't pay for green energy.
                            It requires some more complex thinking, I know.
                            It's not a soundbite like "if 60% of it comes from coal, 60% of it comes from coal." But, still, you may try again.

                            Read this very slowly:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          •  As I said I'm glad he pays for green energy (0+ / 0-)

                            That's a good thing to do.  It helps.  I think that was the first thing that I wrote.  I wish everybody did it.  But no matter what he pays for, he gets what the grid has to offer and that's 60% coal generated.    

                            In a theoretical sense he only uses green energy, but in reality he's using exactly the same mix of sources as everybody else is.  That's just the way it works.  The more of that he uses the more coal gets burned to generate it.  If he produced green power at his own house and didn't draw some or all the power he used from the grid that much less coal would be burned and that much less carbon would end up in the atmosphere.

                            Pretty simple.  If he wanted to he could donate what he saved on his bill to the TVA to continue his support of their green power program.  Win/win.

                            Maybe, by being a visible person generating clean power at his own home he'd inspire others to do the same and lots of others to insist that the utilities do it too (instead of lying about how coal oil and nuclear are the only ways to make electricity).  

                            The corporate utilities are terrified of solar and wind power.  When homeowners figure it out and enough people get into it so that the prices for the equipment become affordable, they'll lose their monopoly.  Six years ago my system cost about 15 grand.  What'll happen when it gets to 5?  To 3?  Technology always gets cheaper and better.  Who's going to want to be the last one on their block paying a big electric bill?  How many people will pay smaller bills or nothing at all?  A trickle at first, then a flow.  Eventually a river.  Already a lot of new construction is including solar elements for water heating and electricity.  Soon it will be something consumers demand from new houses.  A few friends of mine who make their livings buying old houses and fixing them up always include that in the refurbs.  Great selling point.  Nobody likes paying bills and nobody wants to pollute if they don't have to.  Solar and wind power from individual homes, connected to the grid will steeply reduce the amount of power utilities have to generate (and they make money selling themselves the coal and the oil).  In some cases they'd even be buying green power from their customers.  

                            One of the roadblocks in developing solar and wind power has been that it works better on a decetralized model spread over a large area (since the sun doesn't shine on only one place and the wind doesn't blow in only one area) than a centralized one and that has made it a problem for capitalist businesses.  They can't own the sun or the wind.  They love their big plants because they can own them and charge accordingly.  If power came from everywhere they'd only have the grid (which they'd make a service charge from).  The problem with renewables is that they don't belong to anybody and they can't be treated as commodity in the traditional sense.  Just yesterday or the day before there was a diary about the government suing a guy who was making his own biodiesel because they didn't have a viable way to tax him for it.  The threat posed to utilities and oil companies by green technologies has them shitting their pants.    

                            Capitalism has been essentially getting in the way of these technologies for the the last thirty years because they undermine the basic structure of their model.  The mindset that monopolies are the solution to our energy future is incorrect and unimaginative.  The same way the decentralized internet has begun to supplant centralized TV and wireless cellphones are supplanting centralized landlines, the new energy technologies are going to supplant the centralized power generators.  What were seeing from utility companies right now is a last ditch effort to retain their monopolies.  

                            The grid will still have to exist (which is why I never said Al should get off grid) for all the various sources to feed into it.

                          •  I will not address your chronic (0+ / 0-)

                            anti-capitalist paranoia anymore. You are after all in a very small minority with those views and therefore politically irrelevant.

                            But back to the original subject.
                            So it helps? And how does it help exactly if not by reducing CO2 emission -- which is exactly what this issue is all about?
                            And how can it reduce CO2 emission? By generating energy without burning fossil fuels. But despite all that Gore somehow doesn't walk the walk.
                            As I said you don't  make any sense, man.

                            You kept repeating that 60% comes from coal. But that's irrelevant when we talk about Gore's efforts to reduce his own carbon footprint. To generate the energy that he is using TVA does no have to burn coal. And that's the only thing that matters.
                            If he didn't pay it the same amount of energy would come from coal therefore hurting the enviroment.

                            He doesn't have to have solar panels on his roof
                            to use green power. TVA has its own solar panels, thank you. Let's give them more money so they will buy more and more wind turbines and produce more methane gas and lower price so then more people will buy green energy which ultimately will replace coal-based energy.
                            This can actually work.

                            Your solar panels on your house could achieve nothing like that. It's only about you not about the masses.
                            Your theory about how people would buy solar panels and windmills themselves and create their own energy while reducing consumption by 20% is unrealistic bullshit.
                            There is a reason why Gore never advocated such a scheme.

                            The grid will still have to exist (which is why I never said Al should get off grid) for all the various sources to feed into it.

                            Oh sure it will exist. And most American will get most of their energy from the grid. Therefore your "solution" is useless.

                            Read the last two paragraphs:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          •  I guess your kind of thinking (0+ / 0-)

                            is the kind that said the world was flat, that planes would never fly, that the internet fad would only last a couple of years.

                            The green power idea will work to some extent and so will the program I explained.  It already is in some areas.  But hold on to those monopolies if that's what you want.  Obviously people who live in apartment buildings won't have their own generation sources and the juice will have to come from elsewhere.

                            See I don't think in black and white like you do.  I don't do binary logic.  I think it's stupid.  Works great in a machine (like a computer) but not in life.  There's never a single answer to anything.  

                            You need enemies so badly you need me to be one.  I don't have enemies.  Not you, not anybody.  We all contribute, that's the point of democracy.  The rigid thinkers like you, who can't venture beyond your preconceptions usually end up on the sidelines in the long run.  Waiting for someone to tell you what to think.  If it makes you happy to be there, good on ya.

                          •  My kind of thinking takes one (0+ / 0-)

                            important factor into account: reality.

                            Your insane and dishonest charge that because Gore doesn't generate his own energy he doesn't walk the walk however tells a lot about you kind of thinking: you are a troll.

                            You need enemies so badly you need me to be one.  I don't have enemies.  Not you, not anybody.  

                            And no, so far you have no contributed in any way as your ideas are useless, as I already mentioned that.

                            See I don't think in black and white like you do.  I don't do binary logic.

                            Was this a joke? Let me show you some binary "logic":

                            "if 60% of it comes from coal, 60% of it comes from coal."

                            The green power idea will work to some extent and so will the program I explained.  It already is in some areas.

                            To some extent? Some areas?  We are talking about millions of costumers! What the fuck can we do with your some areas? We need green power in mass quantity not some hippies burning biomass in their backyard.

                            Yeah Gore was talking about the Elecranet. But that's for tomorrow. Decades from now, at best.
                            But we can't wait. We need solutions now that will yield result in the near future. Your solar panels so far have yielded nothing. They solved nothing. They didn't help mitigate global warming.

      •  Part of TVAs (0+ / 0-)

        green power dollars are supposed to go to buy and operate the windmills on sharp's ridge or wherever.

        If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams

        by trillian on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:32:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can anybody find out how much (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pattyp

    electricity is used by the White House?  Then we would know how much Gore power use the Supreme Court saved when they stole the election and gave it to Bush.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:25:23 AM PST

  •  Posted to DailyKos Environmentalists (0+ / 0-)

    Check out the group here.

    Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat. -Harry Emerson Fosdick

    by Jawis on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:26:57 AM PST

  •  The economics of green offsets are bogus (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    ben masel, Urizen
    Hidden by:
    hypersphere01

    Doesn't buying high priced green energy alternatives increase the supply of dirty energy? This lowers dirty energy price, which increases dirty energy consumption...and so on.

    The only way to lower one's carbon footprint is to use less carbon. (Which will still have the price lowering effect - but without the fraud of increased personal consumption of energy.)

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      Doesn't buying high priced green energy alternatives increase the supply of dirty energy? This lowers dirty energy price, which increases dirty energy consumption...and so on.

      When someone switches to "green power", the demand on "dirty energy" also decreases. One can also argue that the power companies would generate more "green power" (and less non-green power) because of higher profitablity.

      People should do what they can to reduce their foot print, and to the extent they can afford, look to using non fossil fuels based sources of energy. There won't be an overnight transformation since this is a free world, but over time, change would get phased in.

      Gore's electricity consumption per square foot is only about twice that in his region (and not the misleading 20x or more that the rightwing is trying to paing it as), and he probably does have legitimate reasons coming from ex-VP security, two home offices, and other factors.

      Beat back the rightwing smearing of Gore! Find Rebuttal Arguments here

      by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:56:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually it's not twice. It's below average. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SamSinister, hypersphere01, 0wn

        The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself.

        The Department of Energy lists the average nationwide energy consumption per household as 10,656 kwh and the average consumption per square foot as 13.7 kwh. But for the East South Central region (Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi), the average is 15,447 kwh per household and 19.83 kwh per square foot. As you state in your post, Gore’s consumption is 19.43 kwh per square foot, which is less than the average.

        http://www.anonymousliberal.com/...

        The real number is 191,000 kwh by the way not 221,000 kwh.

        The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
        The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.
        But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

        http://hosted.ap.org/...

    •  No it's not bogus. And we are not talking about (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NeuvoLiberal, Jawis, hypersphere01, 0wn

      offsets here, by the way. That's another issue.
      We are talking about people buying green energy. It's not that complicated.

      "Doesn't buying high priced green energy alternatives increase the supply of dirty energy?"

      No it doesn't.
      TVA's GPS did not lower carbon-based energy prices. Where from the hell do you get that from?

      The money that is paid for green power goes to just that: to provide green power.

      "The only way to lower one's carbon footprint is to use less carbon. "

      Which is exactly what happens when you use solar, wing and methane gas energy.

      "Which will still have the price lowering effect - but without the fraud of increased personal consumption of energy."

      There is no such fraud. You don't seem to understand how offsets work or how GPS works.

  •  Tee hee. (0+ / 0-)

    Funny how one wingnut can discredit another if both try very hard to discredit Gore.

    That made me laugh.

    What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. - Albert Pine

    by pattyp on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:38:58 AM PST

  •  On a similar note (4+ / 0-)

    The "Official Rock Star" of the Stephanie Miller Show, Melissa Etheridge, called in last Friday to share her Oscar win and Stephanie asked her about the hubbub surrounding Gore's energy usage.
    Etheridge talked about people getting on her case as well, because she did the song for An Inconvenient Truth. She said folks were lambasting her for using plane travel.
    Melissa said, "Well, when they come up with a biodiesel -powered plane, I'll use it. But until then, I don't have much choice!"
    This whole argument, where the right is getting on Gore, and folks who are like-minded, is so hypocritical in the extreme. After all, They (Gore,
    Etheridge, etc.) are doing something, whatever they can do, using what ever sources are available. All the right does is delay or prevent alternative fuel sources from ever being implemented. Then they turn around and point fingers at those who preach green, but are forced to use non-green sources because there is nothing else.
    I remember the first awakening of environmentalism back when I was in high school (Earth Day, etc.) Back then Nixon was in power. And all we heard were things like, solar energy is fine, but it isn't enough. The technology isn't there, blah, blah, blah. Well, sorry, but what if we'd spent the last 35 years studying it (and wind, geothermal, etc) - I mean really studying it and making it technologically possibble as well as affordable? What if?
    How much longer must we wait?

    "Keep raisin' hell!" - Molly Ivins

    by MA Liberal on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:42:20 AM PST

    •  The technology is there (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      ben masel, foxfire burns
      Hidden by:
      hypersphere01

      (not for planes yet) and easily affordable for someone with as much money as Al Gore has.  People have been working on appropriate technology for years.  But what message does it send when the leading spokesperson for reducing carbon doesn't use any of it?  It isn't just the right that's criticizing him for this.  Thousands of people with nowhere near his financial resources have installed green generating systems at their homes to reduce their grid demands, taking direct responsibility for their own consumption and impact on the planet.

      •  any of it? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FriendlyNeighbor, NeuvoLiberal

        troll rated..  because it should be.

        Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985)

        by hypersphere01 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:03:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This character Urizen is in the habit (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        latts, 0wn

        of finding whatever he can to throw at Gore.

        ~~~~~~~

        To the readers: Gore's electricity usage per square foot is only about twice that in his region, and the Gores likely have legitimate reasons as mentioned here.

        Beat back the rightwing smearing of Gore! Find Rebuttal Arguments here

        by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:08:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, the techology is not there for every house (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        latts, 0wn

        no matter how big it is, no matter how it was built originally  or where it is.

        You simply cannot make every building in the US completely self-sufficient. We will need the utilities, regardless of what you are dreaming about.
        And they will provide the vast majority of power
        most buildings use.

        Don't you think he has looked into this already?
        He knows his house and you don't. It's not that he is not willing to spend money to make his house greener. He already has spent a bunch to make it more efficient, to buy green energy and offsets. If there was  better way to use his money he would choose that.

        But if you are such an expert and you know better what could be done in this particular case why don't you go to that house and explain to Gore how exactly he could turn his house into a 100% self-sufficient building?

        •  I didn't say anything about self-sufficient (0+ / 0-)

          I said reduce his draw on the grid.  

          Y'all are so defensive you can't even read most of the time.

          Versions of the technologies have existed for more than thirty years.  

          •  No you said that he should go off grid. (0+ / 0-)

            That's making his house self-sufficient.

            And you cannot do that with most buildings, especially not with big old ones like the Gore mansion.

            Y'all are so defensive you can't even read most of the time.

            I read everything you wrote and that's why I know that you don't make any sense.

            Versions of the technologies have existed for more than thirty years.  

            And that means that every building could go off grid?

            OK, stop smoking that stuff.

    •  Planes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Urizen, hypersphere01

      The Air Force is bidding out a contract to supply 1/2 of their jet fighter fuel from renewables.

      Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

      by ben masel on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:57:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No .. not renewables ... (0+ / 0-)

        actually, from Coal-to-Liquids. And, I don't think that there is a bid out there for 50%. They are testing and building up to being able to do so, but believe far from situation to be contracting for 50%. (Which, by the way, would mean a heavy share of total USG fuel use -- since USAF aviation is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels in the US government.)

        Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

        by A Siegel on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:16:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Perhaps were discussing different animals (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Urizen

          Fighter fuel vs all AF fuel? I was only hired for a couple days coaching on biomass gasifiers, but was told they were preparing an actual longterm bid.

          Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

          by ben masel on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:25:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this info (0+ / 0-)

    Local station was ragging on Gore last week.  I will forward the link.

  •  Learn to go off grid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, NeuvoLiberal, Jawis

    Midwest Renewable Energy Fair June 15-17, Custer, Wisconsin

    Hundreds of workshops, exhibits, vendors.

    Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

    by ben masel on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:56:03 AM PST

    •  Not everyone can go off grind. It depends on a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NeuvoLiberal

      lot of circumstances. And it will not work for the vast majority of US buldings.

      •  Was Al's home/hq built from scratch, or bought? (0+ / 0-)

        Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

        by ben masel on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:21:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't have to (0+ / 0-)

        Using alternative technologies doesn't neccessarily disconnect you from the grid, most people stay connected, some even run their meters backwards.  The point is that they use less power from polluting sources.  You might try knowing you're talking about sometime.  

        •  Great. Then use alternative energy which (0+ / 0-)

          your utility provides. With that you can do much more good than creating your own energy because that's just about you and does not contribute to create more green energy sources.

          The point is that they use less power from polluting sources.

          If you get solar wind and methane gas energy from TVA that's not from a polluting source.
          Are you really that slow?

          It doesn't matter whether you have the solar panels or the utility. The difference is in investment and growth. Which you don't help  but Gore does. If you were living on an island your plan would be OK. But in a large and growing economy it's useless.

        •  If Gore has built a green building from scratch (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          latts, 0wn

          you would be here asking: and how does this help the US as a whole? It's just his house. Why didn't he spent those millions to fund green projects instead?

          •  No I wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

            I'd say "Cool, he's walking  the walk as well as talking the talk."

            •  Of course you would and you lie again. (0+ / 0-)

              It's like that private plane stuff, you know.

              Gore is walking the walk except not the idiotic way you would walk it -- to nowhere.

              •  No I was wrong about that (0+ / 0-)

                (the charters) UTTERLY COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

                •  No man, you lied. And you were caught. (0+ / 0-)

                  It's that simple.

                  Why did you believe that Gore doesn't fly commercial to being with?
                  Because you wanted to to believe that.
                  That's how it works with liars.

                  Apparently you are also "wrong" about what Gore asks other people to do to reduce their carbon footprint. So you can say that he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
                  Even though he doesn't talk that talk at all.

                  See this list:

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  •  No, I was just wrong (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't lie.  I do make mistakes.  I admit them when I make them.  I distictly remember hearing he was chartering a jet someplace (might have been the oscars).  My bad.  I apologize.  Will you apologize for saying I wrote that Al should be off grid?  That was your mistake.  I don't assume you were lying.

                    •  Of course you do lie. You lie about 2000, about (0+ / 0-)

                      Lieberman about Gore's recommendations on how to reduce your home's carbon footprint.

                      I distictly remember hearing he was chartering a jet someplace (might have been the oscars).

                      And if you hear something somewhere then you uncritically accept it as fact, right? Sheep.

                      Will you apologize for saying I wrote that Al should be off grid?

                      No because that was your entire message. To hell with the utilities, let's create our own power.
                      And if you don't you don't walk the walk.

                      Now you try to spin your way out of it and say OK not 100% but at least... oh well? How much? 5%? 20% 30%? Exactly what would it take  to be really really green in your "progressive" wunderland?

                      •  He charters sometimes (0+ / 0-)

                        I heard about one of those.  I thought that's what he did.  Glad he doesn't.  I admit my error.  Happily.

                        I never said anywhere Al should be off grid (wouldn't have entered my mind).

                         You're a small person when you can't admit you're wrong.  Enjoy your self-righteousness.

            •  You don't even know what he talks about (0+ / 0-)

              REDUCE YOUR IMPACT AT HOME

              Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)

              Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer

              Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner

              Install a programmable thermostat

              Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases

              Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket

              Use less hot water

              Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible

              Turn off electronic devices you’re not using

              Unplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them

              Only run your dishwasher when there’s a full load and use the energy-saving setting

              Insulate and weatherize your home

              Buy recycled paper products

              Plant a tree

              Get a home energy audit

              Switch to green power
              In many areas, you can switch to energy generated by clean, renewable sources such as wind and solar. The Green Power Network is a good place to start to figure out what’s available in your area.

              http://www.climatecrisis.net/...

              So where did he say that people should generate their own electricity at home? It's not his talk. Therefore it's his walk, either. And for good reason. It wouldn't work.

          •  Just curious (0+ / 0-)

            Why do you have such a compulsion to ascribe ideas to me that I don't have?  Why not just stick to what I actually write instead of making something up that I didn't say so you can disagree with it as you project your own idiocy onto me?

            •  your lies in this very diary (0+ / 0-)

              as here. Don't you have anything better to do than troll against one of our better leaders?

              Beat back the rightwing smearing of Gore! Find Rebuttal Arguments here

              by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:58:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't share your opinion that he's one of our (0+ / 0-)

                better leaders.  On Global warming, sure, the best we have.  On other things over his career, no.  Choice, no.  Nafta, no.  Winning the election, no.  Holy Joe, no, no, no.

                I'm glad we have him, I just can't get to your level sacred cow worship.  I've been watching him for years and to me he doesn't warrant that.  I don't think anybody, any politician short of Gandhi, does.  Gore's a far cry from Gandhi, or don't you think so?

            •  if you really are a Democrat (0+ / 0-)

              and a progressive one that, as you claim, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

              Beat back the rightwing smearing of Gore! Find Rebuttal Arguments here

              by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:59:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  a more progressive one than you (0+ / 0-)

                I'd say.  I never bought into the DLC.  I don't think Joe Lieberman was ever ok.

                I was misinformed about the charters.  Don't remember where I got that from.  I stand corrected.  I WAS COMPLETELY WRONG.  UTTERLY ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT MERIT IN THAT STATEMENT.  I'm glad to hear he flies commercial.  That's one mistake and I apologize for it.  When are you going to apologize for the lie that he's always been a hardcore populist?  Be fair, be honest.  I could've tr'd for that, for many other statements like "he always supported Roe v Wade", which isn't true either.  

            •  You do have these ideas and you made (0+ / 0-)

              that clear here and in previous threads.

              Whatever method Gore preferred to combat global warming you would find a way to trash him because, obviously, he is Gore and you don't like him.
              In that regard you are not different from all those monkeys on Fox. Except you trash capitalism, too.

              Now that you have proven your utter inability to understand how GPS actually works and why it's a much better way to combat global warming than trying to convince people they should generate their own electricity or reduce their energy consumption by 20% I'm confident that your ideas will show the way out of this mess we call anthropogenic climate change.

              I'm eager to watch as  hell freezes over at the exact moment when most Americans will decide to use 20% less energy.

              Just a few more questions: exactly how much energy should Gore generate himself to be called a leader by delusional hippies like you? Gimme an exact number and a precise plan as to how anyone could make that happen -- without telling Gore that he should leave that house and look for another one or build one from scratch.

              Also, you should calculate the exact impact of that bold move on the general population in terms of their sudden desire to follow Gore's example and generate their own electricity and from that
              the exact amount of CO2 which we will not add to the atmoshpere.

  •  Love this! Thanks! I knew it! (0+ / 0-)

    And I suspected as much myself. I've added some more tags so your diary rises up the google for all those people likely to be searching for stories about that hypocrit Al Gore and his electricity bill.

    By the time the oceans take Manhattan it will be over with...

    by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:54:06 PM PST

  •  If you send this info to Jay Leno, (0+ / 0-)

    do you think he'll retract the "joke" he told about Gore's (supposed) excessive energy use?  I doubt it.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:06:15 PM PST

  •  40% is good enough (0+ / 0-)

    Also, with the Watts Bar Unit Two set for completion by 2013, that number should jump considerably.

    •  Yes. I think TVA has been doing a good job on (0+ / 0-)

      this not perfect but much better than other providers in the country.

      Gore should talk about this in his presentation to show what going green can mean in practice without sacrificing our current living standard.

      The wingnut nutjobs will not stop telling the public that being green means being a caveman.
      The best way to counter this stereotype is to point to successful profitable green projects.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site