Actually, the story about Gore's energy usage is incorrect. The Nashville Electric Service confirmed as much in their response to this story. Check it out at http://prezpolitics.blogspot.com

The story was a smear against Gore, and was completely unjustified.

So, what's your point, Sam? That the Algore household only uses 15 times as much energy as the average American household, instead of 20?

(I checked out that blog link. Evidently there's no dispute that Algore spends $30k per year on electricity and gas... but his defenders say he's not getting as good a deal as implied by his detractors. How can the man stand there with his trademark "straight face" and lecture people on their energy-consuming ways?)

Give me an honest answer to this question: If everybody's energy-consumption habits were the same as Al Gore's, would the world be better-off environmentally, or worse-off?

Yes, I believe they would. The point of the link I provided is that the report that brought up this story specifically ignored data from the Nashville Electric co. to make up a point about Gore's energy usage. They simply took the dollar figure provided by the utility and calculated how much energy his house uses, but didn't take into account the purchase of renewable energy which offsets his standard energy consumption. This, despite the fact that renewable energy data was provided by the utility.

I'm saying the original story is a lie. It's a made-up smear.

Sam, I'm just a regular lower-middle-class guy. Before the term "global warming" was even invented, I was turning off the water while I brushed my teeth, yelling at my kids for leaving the TV and lights on, arguing with my wife about where the thermostat was set... it was a matter of economy. I've been a dedicated transportation cyclist for 22+ years. (Interestingly and providentially, it generally costs LESS to live in an earth-friendly manner.)

Now, that report about Algore's wasteful ways probably had plenty of "spin" on it, and may very well have distorted the facts, just as you assert.

But, c'mon! This man spends $30,000 a year on electricity and gas for his mansion! No matter how you cut it (and I'd love to see his kWh's burned; he oughtta disclose them if it's been so distorted) that is a LOT of energy use for the undisputed leader of the conservation movement! To me, that seems a bit like the preacher who rants against gays, and then it turns out he IS one, when he's not presenting his lecture!

Offsets are a crock. They have no bearing in reality whatsoever since there is no guaranteed CO2 offset happening. The money goes to some enviromentally-friendly company that will plant trees, etc. Most interesting is that the offsets that Gore purchased were from...himself! He owns stock and - if I recall correctly - is Chairman of the eco-investment firm from which he purchased the 'offsets', so he is merely enriching himself. Mr. Gore wants everyone else to sacrifice, but apparently not himself. It is almost like religion to him the way he preaches. But the double standard is obvious. Recall that Evangelical minister that was caught preaching against homosexuality but engaging in it. He was rightfully pilloried for his hypocrisy, and he (mercifully) stepped down. but not Gore. Plus, if he were a little more careful with his 'facts' in his 'documentary' - in other words, if he didn't exaggerate so grotesquely - he would never have gained the press and adulation (not to mention as Oscar) from the 'Do what I say, not as I do' crowd. No one disputes that global warming is happening. Keep in mind that we have had warmer periods in the past, and 30 years ago we were in the midst of 'global cooling'. my, how things change. No one has demonstrated that CO2 is the primary cause, and no one has shown how ruining economies would achieve any success in slowing the warming - which is most likely the cause of solar activity. the alarmists are even trying to squelch debate, instead of fostering it. Let's get all the facts out, now! Notice that Gore never, ever takes questions from anyone he perceives to be potentially hostile to his positions. folks on both sides of this debate are too shrill for my taste. Why not start by having a good national debate with all facts on the table. and if you believe in your heart that warming is primarily due to man, then do you part.