Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

Al Gore's Carbon Footprint Is Big.

Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on February 27, 2007

I’ve wanted to write a piece on the carbon footprints of famous people who are for sustainability and against global warming because I’ve noticed that many of them live in many very big houses, drive many very big cars and fly in private jets. The World Economic Forum in Davos was “carbon neutral,” despite all these folks flying it to attend, because in large part, people donated money to third world countries to plant trees or build hydoelectric dams for electricity. The upcoming TED conference is supposed to be carbon neutral as well and I am curious to see how they do it. Will people be flying into the TED conference in Monterey, CA in their private jets and paying peasants to plant more trees in the Amazon to stay carbon neutral? And does it matter as long as the planet keeps its cool?

But before I could write my story, Al Gore got an Oscor for An Inconvenient Truth and someone did some analysis of his carbon footprint and found it was pretty big. I don’t know much about the source.

Here’s the story:


The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”

OK. We need to do carbon footprints of lots of people—but how do you measure it? House/houses size, cars, private jets—what else should we include. And how do you offset these with hybrid cars, solar heating, wind turbines, etc.?

We need an algorithm folks. Got one out there?


Reader Comments


March 2, 2007 8:50 PM

Al can help offset his carbon footprint by installing a portable windmill in front of his podium. When he talks, the green energy generated can be pumped back into the power grid.


March 2, 2007 9:10 PM

This story has been completely debunked long before you published it.

Whenever you see something promoted by a right-wing organization, you should assume it's false until proven otherwise.


March 4, 2007 10:49 AM

Gore's publicist responded that he purchases energy credits and donates to various places to offset his carbon footprint (such as what you were talking about in the intro to this post).

I guess you just have to believe who you want to believe.

Rich K

March 6, 2007 10:17 PM

Debunked?? His energy bill is public record and it is exactly what they claimed it was. Why is it some Hype-Master like Al Gore has defenders when it is proven hes a total hypocrite?

Buy 'offsets'? Yeah, from his own company which btw is tax exempt. Al runs around telling everyone they need to conserve, starts his own 'Carbon Offset' company, and tells everyone they can buy carbon offsets for their energy usage. So if everyone were to believe Al Gore's theory, who will end up making a lot of money? Al Gore.

Now thats Convenient.


March 12, 2007 5:05 PM

Right because Left-Wing news sources tend to be completely objective and neutral about what they report. If only those right-wing liars would learn...

Joe Mackenlly

March 15, 2007 3:02 AM

Al just needs us to use less power so there is more for him. So, I cut off my power and have to use the computers here in the public library. I am doing my part for you Al Gore my hero.


March 15, 2007 6:01 PM

Al Gore is the typical liberal, do what I say not as I do. Does anyone believe that Barbara Streisand air-dries her clothes like she tells people to do on her website? Why hasn’t Al Gore converted his house power to wind power? He has told all of us to do it. I don’t believe anything that the libs say. It saves me a lot of time and effort. But I am still really scared by people that freely believe the manure spewed by the left because it makes their feelings tingle. When you grow up and stop making decisions based on your feelings you will be amazed by what you can accomplish. This post has been made by an evil conservative. I believe in teaching people to help themselves instead of giving a free handout. Teach a person to fish and you feed them for live, give them a fish you feed them for a day.


March 17, 2007 4:56 PM

What we REALLY need is an "Al Gore ithm" to calculate just how much hot air is being spewed forth every time this hypocrite opens his mouth!!! Not that we'll ever hear much about this due to the fair-and-balanced approach of the liberal media; kind of like the coverage (what coverage, when did this happen) of Sandy Berger stealing classified documents relating to investigation of the 911 terrorist attacks vs. the "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame by Scooter Libby (which apparently was not really much of a secret, as her husband Joe Wilson "outed" her at nearly ever cocktail party they attended). End result, nothing has been done to Sandy Berger, and Scooter Libby may be going to jail for lying to the FBI (not for the "outing", but trying to cover it up). Seems fair, huh?!?!

Larry Schadler

March 19, 2007 1:20 PM

I believe these 'offsets' are more commonly known as 'indulgences'.

This is the ultimate scheme of all time dating back at least to the Romans. Pay his website (him) to have your carbon score reduced. (???)

Rene Volpi

March 27, 2007 8:16 PM

Today 27 th of March an article was published by The Miami Herald Metro & State section that discloses the findings of the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.The study's lead author and geographer Jack Williams warns that if Co2 and other greenhouse gases go unchecked temperatures in tropical and sub-tropical areas could rise by 5 to 7 degrees bt the end of the century.That will mean less rain carrying ominous implications for a region already impacted by water-use restrictions.The study, released Monday states that Florida weather as we know it could boil over and be replaced with warmer,dryer and unknown conditions in today's world.


April 3, 2007 4:35 AM

You'd think if he was smart enough to invent the internet that he could figure out a way to use less polution @ his two homes,at his Zink mine & also on his plane.
Everyone should have more "energy awareness" including him (maybe him more than others)!!!

Haha Guy

April 9, 2007 7:06 PM

When Al moves into an energy efficient 3,000 sq ft home on a 1/3 acre lot, drives a Toyota Prius, and starts flying commercial airlines rather than in a private jet, I will worry about my energy consumption.


April 11, 2007 7:03 PM

Yep he pollutes and so do you and I. Now that you all feel better by exposing a fellow polluter, how are you going to change your ways about the factual data concerning global warming? Feel good that you don't like Gore, but shouldn't you stop pointing and get off your duff and do something to contribute? I am sure you are all just yapping your jaws to hear your voice. Action means results.

Dave Brook

April 16, 2007 12:13 AM

Instead of ranting you may want to check out's take on Al Gore's energy consumption.
Yes, it's bigger than it should be and it's too bad he isn't Amory Lovins. But it would appears that the group that put out the information is also having some fun with statistics.
Meanwhile, what are YOU doing about your home energy and auto energy consumption?

bruce nussbaum

April 16, 2007 12:28 AM

You ask the right question. Living in NYC, I'm trying to take the subway more often instead of taxis,walking a heck of a lot more, turning the lights and heat out when I leave the apartment, using a bit less and reusing a bit more.
I spend a lot of my time birding so much of my energy goes to saving habitat.
Keep asking that question.


April 18, 2007 2:20 AM

I equate buying carbon credits as buying penance to get into heaven - money is not a cure-all. Why can't Al and Tipper shut off a few lights, turn down the thermistat and "suffer" like the rest of us. I say "suffer" because we, as Americans, enjoy a lifestyle of exuberance above and beyond the rest of the world yet are unwilling to make small sacrifices for the good of all man-kind.


April 20, 2007 4:16 PM

Numbers for a house shouldn't be compared to numbers for a house plus two offices minus daily commutes. The average house isn't used during the day, the workplace isn't listed on the footprint calculator, and the daily commute is a HUGE number. And they pay extra to buy from renewable sources, so that large power bill actually means LESS carbon output.


April 25, 2007 4:08 AM

Whether we love Al or George or Hilary or Rudy, the bottom line is that we have a responsibility to our children to conserve, and try to reduce our "carbon footprints" Shoot the messenger if you must, but at least listen to the facts. Don't use the them vs us position,cuz as far as I know, we all live on the same planet.


April 29, 2007 4:19 PM

This information about Al Gore may well be true, but what kind of information are you giving readers to decide whether they believe it or not? I'm shocked you don't seem to know anything about the source and don't even cite the source. That's the kind of shabby rumor-mongering I'd expect from Gawker or The Enquirer. If you want to make a point, then do the legwork to support it.

Bob Elod

May 2, 2007 5:41 AM

All I can say is that. yes we all have the responsiblity to conserve. I just wish people would get off their high and mighty chairs and do something about it (Gore). Also if people would just tell the truth instead of always lying about things then the world would be a better place (Hillary, Bill, Bush). Also if people would stop pulling out the don't judge others card. Come on people we all need to make a million judgements a day. I have to judge if I will wear a style of cloths, if I will hire a certain person, etc etc. So stop saying we can't judge others hipocrites.


May 2, 2007 3:06 PM

I think it is appalling, the leader/spokesperson for the GW movement energy records indict him as an abuser. These are facts, his utility usage showing he does not conserve energy. The problem I see is, the left with not hold their leaders accountable for their actions. I am a conservative and believe in conservation, the only incandesant lights in my home are in the frig, oven and other appliances. I bike to work, weather permitting, 12 miles each way. Forget carbon credits, just tools of the upper-crust. We all should do make strong efforts to protect the environment and if a leader’s hypocrisy is exposed, send him packing.


May 6, 2007 6:30 PM

I'm an environmental activist and I'm appalled by Gore's consumption. The buying of "credits" by him (his defense) only further emphasizes that conservation is only for the poor, and the rich can buy whatever they want, without having to make any sacrifice.

I live in a very small house, heated by solar energy. I grow my own vegetables and eat only small amounts of wild caught animal protein. When the rich guys start living like I do, maybe I'll consider they have something to say to me. Until then, I say "Shut the f*ck up!"


May 7, 2007 4:38 PM

Even if I believed everything I hear from right-wing think-tanks, Al Gore's apparently profligate energy consumption does nothing to change the fact that energy conservation will be necessary to the future survival of our civilization. Should Mr. Gore use less energy? Absolutely. But of greater concern to me is the number of SUVs I see in the NY/NJ area. This is one of those "he who is without sin" issues, and I know of very few who should be casting stones.


May 7, 2007 5:30 PM

Not only is Gore a hypocrite who must believe that only the self-appointed elite should be able to live the good live. The rest of us peasants must scale back and stop asking questions. He is also profoundly wrong on man-made global warming. If global warming is man-made, what accounts for all the warming trends in the long history of Earth? Did cavemen have SUV's and factories? If you want to find a culprit for warming, look to solar activity trends and their correllation to heating and cooling. It is the ultimate in arrogance to believe that we puny humans have the ability to utterly save or destroy the planet. We could all disappear and Mother Earth would barely notice. Yeah, lets not waste and cut pollution as much as possible. We are to be good stewards after all. However, we should not buy into every trend ju-jour and run around like chicken littles.


May 8, 2007 2:31 AM

Due to these global warming idiots I have had to leave my diesel pick up idling in the drive way every night. If these idiots keep this up we will slip into the ice age they were warning us about back in the 70s


June 13, 2007 5:00 PM

Idiots! It is well known that we are coming out of the second ice age now and that there have been several periods where greenhouse gases exceeded current levels significantly. When asteriods and meteors hit the earth that plunge it back into an ice age. What do you think happened to the dinosaurs. Also, forget about mankind. The world would be much better off without humans - they savage one another for no reason. Need I cite various meaningless wars as evidence?

Al Gore Idiots! It is well known that we are coming out of the second ice age now and that there have been several periods where greenhouse gases exceeded current levels significantly. When asteriods and meteors hit the earth that plunge it back into an ice age. What do you think happened to the dinosaurs. Also, forget about mankind. The world would be much better off without humans - they savage one another for no reason. Need I cite various meaningless wars as evidence?

Al Gore


June 23, 2007 4:32 AM

"Idiots! It is well known that we are coming out of the second ice age now and that there have been several periods where greenhouse gases exceeded current levels significantly. When asteriods and meteors blah, blah, blah........................"

To the guy that wrote this, I'm sure you're the same guy that believes in the story of Jesus riding up into heaven in a spaceship too... and people that believe Global warming is realy happening are idiots, right?

I'll be honest, I really had to think long and hard before responding to your email b/c I didn't think it was worth my time arguing with an ignorant hard headed individual such as yourself. However, because some readers might actually believe your B.S I feel obligated to to repsond. I have an BS Environmental science and an MS in Hyrology and Climatology. 'People', global warming is a fact, it is not fiction. Although some slight warming (over the last several thousand years) is possibly due to natural changes in climate, a much larger degree of warming (over just the past 100 years) is human induced. This is do to the large amounts of carbon dioxide and aerosols we are pumping into our atmosphere. In addition to global warming, ground level tropospheric ozone within urban areas (small and large towns), caused when nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as xylene, react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight, is causing major increases in asthma in kids. Empirical evidence also shows that more and more adults are developing asthma too.

Bottom line is this. If you don't believe me go take a night course or read scientific books and literture yourself. Don't do like the guy above, and read BS right wing magazine articles based on scientist who either work for, have worked for, or have been indirectly funded by oil businesses.

Also, don't be so hard on Al. Yes he is a little hypocritical, but not nearly as bad as the right-wing folks are saying. For God sakes he is a politician! Name me one politician on the left or right that isn't guilty of hypocracy once in a while. Humans are hypocrits. I am a hypocrit... and certainly all of the bash-brother right-wing professional bloggers above are hypocrits. The big picture here is that what Gore is trying to accomplisb is a change in policy in this country. Because the truth is, we are facing a climate crisis. The message is no longer "educate and hope people will make a difference". The message now is "let the Federal and state governments step in an make people and businesses change their practices and technology". And guess what, this will happen soon and Al Gore will be largely responsible for it. So like him or not, he has offered more to HELP this problem than anyone today. Hopefully he's just not too late.

Al, personally I'm a strong supporter. Keep rocking it out. You've got mine and my entire family's votes!


June 24, 2007 12:59 PM

Al Gore was able to communicate a very important message to a lot of people. Without his 'large footprint' he likely wouldn't have been able to do it. Bashing Gore and rationalizing away his message may seem like the right thing to do--but it's not!


June 27, 2007 11:23 PM

Bravo, you cynics. Rhett, while global warming may be a "fact," the warming trends are in no way alarming, given the earth's recent history. Forget ice ages, read this article, and see if perhaps you don't agree with the majority of your scientific colleagues, and buy a sweater or two -- you'll need them!

The following is quoted from "Read the sunspots", published June 20, '07 in Canada's National Post. Google the title and click on the "cached" link. You'll be able to read the entirety -- it's eye opening, especially when it refers to the expected cooling trend.

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.


July 2, 2007 1:23 AM

Paul I appreciate the article and I do agree that more research needs to be done. However, I have read a considerable amount of articles on this subject and it is in my professional opinion that we are impacting our planet. Its easy to google and find a couple of articles that argue that Global Warming is a conspiracy; But I tend to lean on the side of the IPCC - the most authoritative body of climate scientists in the world, whose work is peer reviewed! I just find it hard to believe that all of these scientists have gotten together and said, "let's exagerrate this 'Global Warming thing' and see how many people we can scare". Come on people; get your head out of your asses on this one! I'll agree with you on one thing Paul, how significant global warming is and will be to future generations, is still to be determined. Is the answer then, ignore the current climate trend in Global warming and just wait and see what happens?


July 5, 2007 5:16 AM

Al, you did not invent the internet.
You invented carbon credits.
Oh, wait, you are hired by European carbon credit trade bankers as their US spokesperson/lobbyist.
You invented hypocrisy. Oh, well, no you did not invent that either.

Big Daddy

July 6, 2007 5:46 AM

Al can eat my carbon footprint. Why can't I have a big SUV? A big house? A vacation home? Lots of refrigrated air? Why can't I have the perks and niceties that Al and Barbara and the other elitest rich folks have? If I earn it, I will have it. The global warming scare is so elitest and so ultimately hypocritical that we should FLUSH every bit of propaganda from The Goracle right down our low-flush toilets. Flush twice because the big turds are stubborn.


July 7, 2007 8:08 PM

You are the one who needs to get his head out of his ass.
I may not be quite as educated as you, but I do have a BA in biology that I received nearly 20 years ago, and the education that nearly 45 years on this planet has given me.
You say that Global Warming is a fact. Maybe. And it 'may' be true that human beings contribute about 0.01% to that warming. We are in fact exiting an ice age, defined as ice at both polls, and glacier and ice movements on the continents.
The facts are scientist have been warning of biological, meteorlogical, geological etc... disasters since there was such a thing as science. And it is a fact that politicians, religious leaders, cult leaders, whoever, have been using these warnings to control and manipulate the ignorant masses.
You may not think you are one of them, but you are.
The fact is Al Gore is a hypocrite. He is using this position as a means of politcal grandstanding, despite other facts that dispute his 'theory.' If he truly believed what he is preaching, then he would not live as he does.
And you are one of the suckers who believe him.


August 6, 2007 10:30 PM

Not all of the scientists that wrote articles for the IPCC agreed with the IPCC's conclusion. One of the lead author's even criticized it.


August 16, 2007 2:45 AM

After reading about Mr Gore for the past couple of years, I have decided to post a few blogs about the History of our planet. Only the previous post by 'Blu' addressed the fact about the Previous Ice age that we are exiting. The fact is totally missed that Ice Caps and any Ice in particular is so rare on this planet as to be extremely noteworthy. The vast majority of this planets life has been absolutely 'no' ice whatsoever. See
as well as click on
I can't believe that so many people are in the dark about this History of our planet. I equate it with knowing absolutely nothing about your own dwelling, but being more than willing to inform others how they should live.


August 30, 2007 8:35 PM

On the basis of this discussion we are all doomed. So much for the internet and all its advances making our race smarter and stronger.

To me it appears that now we have 1 billion experts in why the earth's atmosphere will (insert your own choice here) A. Heat up and cause the planet to explode; B. Heat up, cause the glaciers to melt, stop the great oceanic cycles and lead to an ice-age; C. Turn St John, Newfoundland into the next Cancun; D. Do nothing; E. Heat up but offset the fact that the sun is heading into hibernation.

I work for a global resources company which some would say is the cause of our doomed fate. In its defense, that company is setting some tough targets for the reduction of its carbon footprint. One thing that the company's employees are taught is that you don't start making decisions on something until you study the numbers, and you can only start studying numbers if you start measuring (six Sigma).

Forget the hype, don't be swayed into one camp based on how effective the speaker for that group is. If you want to save the world, get out there and start measuring and looking for historical measures yourselves - base your decisions on facts!

By the way, anyone know what a condo in St John goes for?


September 3, 2007 1:21 AM

Why don't people get it? Carbon offsetting is like an obese person paying a skinny person to become anorexic. They can continue their unhealthy lifestyle in good conscience.

Anyone who buys carbon offsets is a hypocrite. If you sell carbon offsets you are a mercenary. If you do both then how do you sleep at night?


September 6, 2007 7:32 AM

Gore bought an 80yr old house and turned it green. That's the real truth behind his home. A 4-5K square foot home is a fairly common size home. Gores' 10K sqft home is not that large for a former Vice President especially considering that the Gores have two home offices there.

It also turns out that their per cubic foot energy use is about average for their region, which is hot and muggy in the summer and cold in the winter. In addition, they purchase green energy blocks to support renewable energy infrastructure in the TN valley area. Their entire Carbon footprint is carbon-offset on top of that.

They've solarized their roof, and were working on installing a geothermal climate system and other improvements. They had been waiting for their local zoning laws to permit the installation of solar panels well before the Oscars ceremony of 2007, just after which the unfair attacks against Al Gore have been launched.

Given that tearing an old house down to build a new one would likely contribute a large amount of CO2 and other pollution from the materials and construction, renovating their existing home and turning it green is a better approach, which is exactly what they are doing.

Gore also flies commercial almost all of the time, and drives a hybrid.

These attacks on Gore is a textbook case of "Shoot the messenger." History tells us that, time and again, Gore has been proven right.


September 6, 2007 4:38 PM

'On the basis of this discussion we are all doomed. So much for the internet and all its advances making our race smarter and stronger"

I'm not sure I get your point. This is a discussion on the hypocrisy of al gore and his likes.

I think that most people would agree that a certain amount of ecology, remember that term from the 70's?, is necessary and none of us are encouraging the pollution of our environment and planet.

The problem is we have a growing number of demagogues using false science to create this hysteria with the sole purpose of keeping there names in the public eye and filling their own bank accounts with millions.

My point is if Al Gore REALLY believes what he is preaching, then he would not fly private jets, own zinc mines, 30 thousand sq. ft. homes, etc.

It is so easy for him, and many of the hollywood types to preach to us unwashed masses about giving up so much for the sake of the planet, but they still live these extraordinary lifestyles. My gas and electric bill last month for my modest 1700 square ft. home last month was about $250. I drive a fairly efficient small car because that is what I can afford. I do my part without even thinking about it. Do they? How much energy do you think Al Gore, Leonardo whatshisname, Edwards, "name your hypocryte here", used?

It's all BS and the people who buy in to it are just ignorant.


September 26, 2007 8:18 AM

Whether this 'typical liberal' is a hypocrite or not, it wouldn't hurt for us to each step up and do something about the problem. Who cares if HE does these things? He's not lying when he says that there are ways we can all pitch in.

Personally, I would say that there certainly are all kinds of actions that could make up for his enormous energy consumption. It's possible that he really is doing what he can to offset all the carbon he's been responsible for releasing into the atmosphere. I have no way to know if he does or doesn't.... I don't really care.


October 1, 2007 4:47 PM

Its just not sexy in today's political climate to point out the fallacy of these the-sky-is-falling advocates like Al Gore. I have said for a few years now that Global Warming is a political term, not a scientific term. Big Al is like every other environment pimp, lots of ideas on how to curtail my energy consumption, but no intention to curb his consumption....or China's....or India's. Of course, Big Al is doing Gods work, right? At least he has developed a sense of humor and can now make several different facial expressions. Is the globe warming? Certainly. Just as it has warmed and cooled in natural cycles for all of its existance. In the early '80's we were told a new Ice Age was upon us. Now its the opposite. It's the Y2K scare event for this decade. By the way, where were all those killer Cat 5 hurricanes last (2006) summer-fall? Why did the Antarctic ice pack increase last summer and the Arctic decrease this last winter? I'm all for government, business and scientific research efforts to limit the effects of pollution on the enviroment, lets just remove the hysteria from the equation.....and the special interest groups...and the lemming-like acceptance of whatever some celebrity du jure advocates. Jeez people, start car pooling to your Green concerts in something other than your personal 747 or your new Hummer, and then I'll be more receptive to your arguments.

john rogers

October 7, 2007 9:55 PM

I should like to hear from anyone who can explain why the energy saving measures proposed by our wise leaders will have any affect whatsoever on CO2 emissions. Our so called "carbon footprint" is in fact a function of all the money we spend - not just the amount we spend directly on fuel and energy.

Unless the money I save by turning my TV off standby, turning my heating down or using low energy light bulbs is NEVER spent on anything else, then the energy saving is futile.

Every penny I spend on products or services has an energy component, the rest is returned into the spending cycle for someone else to spend on products and services, which in turn have an energy component. Ultimately every bit of my expenditure goes on energy.

The only way for us humans to reduce our carbon footprint is for us to reduce our overall expenditure, which, for the world as a whole, would mean a reduction to gross product and recession.

Bill Smith

October 12, 2007 5:47 PM

To my mind, credibility is strained when a primary protagonist fails to follow his own preaching. If Al's not worried enough about Global Warming to actually DO something about it himself (other than the carbon credit feel-good excuse), then that sorta tells me that it's not something I need to worry about doing either. I have heard it said that (from time to time) actions speak louder than words - at least to those who are willing to pay attention anyway. To reference the writer above who talked about the irony of driving your Hummer to a 'Green' meeting - it's kinda like seeing a bumper sticker urging us to conserve gas on the back on that same Hummer.


October 13, 2007 12:59 AM

I would like to know the facts in context: compared to people of his income bracket and social standing. We cannot compare what is not comparable. You cannot compare the carbon-footprint of a family below poverty level to a middle-class family and therefore you cannot compare a rich person to a middle class person. However the type of car he chooses, the bulbs in his lamps and the types of windows he has in his house as well as to what temperature he heats his house in the winter are things that should be made public and compared.


October 14, 2007 2:24 AM

Just two questions: 1) How much CO2 exists in our atmosphere currently? 2) How much CO2 do we emit by burning fossil fuels? The reason I ask these two questions is that our scientific "experts" on the subject make widely varying claims which differ as much as 300 % from each other on these quantities. The truth is the earth is gradually warming (very, very gradually), and it has been for the last 40,000 years. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Lets face it; the two greatest forces affecting our global climate are meteor impacts and activity on the sun. Our contribution to global warming is miniscule by comparison. Activity on the sun can raise our average temperature as much as five degrees F in one year, yet we think we somehow must be to blame. Our average annual temperature has risen a whole one half degree in the last 150 years. Think about how much less accurate, and how many fewer readings there were of our atmospheric temperatures 150 years ago. Should they be relied on to make an argument which desires to stop the global economy. Let's all stop driving cars and trucks. Lets not heat our homes, or air condition them. Oh, did In forget to mention the carbon footprint of horse farts and fireplaces?

August Hunter

October 15, 2007 5:31 AM

I believe we should stop bickering among ourselves and protect our home. There are 6 billion plus people on this planet. More than there has ever been. We are bound to have an effect on our climate and environment. Even if that amount is only 5% we should be acting on the problem. What do you do when you find roaches in your kitchen? You act, Right? You act before they reproduce. How much more time before our mother earth reacts to protect herself from the likes of humans who destroy everything, eat everything and waste her resources like they do? We only have one Earth, one spaceship, one home. Alot of you folks should simply open your eyes, Or is breathing smog something you prefer?


October 25, 2007 3:33 PM

Insulting the light and/or the left may feel good but will not help any of us do anything. I think Bruce Nussbaum hit the target at the end of his article when he said we need an algorithm to help us calculate and manage our own personal CO2 Footprint. Think of the algorithm as a kind of a budget. When you first try to budget your money, and track your spending, all you can do is feel bad, but soon you begin to see where you can make changes. An algorithm that is easy to use will allow people to make their own CO2 output calculation, but it will also allow us to see which of our activities produce the largest amounts of CO2. Only when we can ientify the causes can we begin to maximize our reduction efforts.


October 30, 2007 2:47 PM

The Earth is flat and all the well respected scientist agree, so no other opinion will be accepted!

Mad Scientist Circa 800 AD


November 5, 2007 2:14 PM

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 4:44 PM ET

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (

“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

Climate fears reduced to ‘children’s games’

Other scientists are echoing Wilson’s analysis. Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.”

“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,” Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (

“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,” Motl explained.

“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity,” Motl concluded.

Overturning IPCC consensus ‘in one fell swoop’

The new study was also touted as “overturning the UN IPCC 'consensus’ in one fell swoop” by the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Joel Schwartz in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (

“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes,” wrote AEI’s Schwartz, who hold a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.

The study’s “result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming,” AEI’s Schwartz explained.

“In other words, there’s hardly any additional warming ‘in the pipeline’ from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth’s average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing,” he added.

“Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific ‘consensus’, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?” AEI’s Schwartz concluded.

UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!

Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered “consensus” on climate change.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (, noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),” (,23739,21920043-27197,00.html)

In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. ( The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.

Southern Hemisphere is COOLING

UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6, 2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained. (

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, who launched the skeptical website in 2007, recently declared the “global warming movement [is] falling apart.”

“A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won’t start until 2009,” Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post on his website. (

Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'

But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (

Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, recently echoed Renwick’s sentiments about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess." (

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," declared “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (

“All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,'” Gray noted.

In addtion, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers."

"I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society," Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007. (

Sampling of very recent inconvenient scientific developments for proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming:

1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (

2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (

3) Updated: September 27, 2007: New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.” (

4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
[Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)]


November 21, 2007 9:46 AM

what is the average families carbon footprint


November 25, 2007 5:06 AM

Can some one tell me what size is Al's carbon foot print? I want to be like our great green leader and follow in his foot prints.
That would be cool. I could fly all over and have a couple of houses and be like our green leader.
I want to be like Al


November 30, 2007 4:42 AM

To solve environmental problems you can not be looking at litle problems, for example, how much electricity he uses compared to so and so etc.

check web site this is where you start looking to solve environmental problems

James Nickell

December 14, 2007 4:22 PM

No Clinton, you look at the example set by those leaders advocating a severe behavior change by everyone other than themselves. And don't give me off-sets. That's like an obese person paying an anexoric teenager to skip a meal. Al Gore is milking a fortune from his movie, books, speaking, his EU carbon trading company, and he gets to jet-set with brain dead movie stars. Weather-scare mongering leads to big research bucks and grants, what's not to love as long as the myth can be perpetuated. Read the damned IPCC sceintific reports and then compare that to the "final version" after the politicians edit the results. Its getting warmer. Its a natural cycle. Get over it and prepare for the change.

Dave 26 from PHX

December 17, 2007 11:56 PM

I am still amazed everyone beieves in this stuff. It's all a money scheme for Gore and his followers. It's called "Global Cycling" and it has happened 4 times since the early 1900's. Just do some simple research. In the 1970's, the big scare was a life-ending Ice Age caused by "Global Cooling" and how it was all the humans fault. The earth "cycles", and these cycles usually last around 20 years or so. The sad thing is, once this "warming" cycle is over, and it does start cooling AGAIN, I'm sure Al Gore will be telling us it's all cause we faught "global Warming" and it worked... Give me a break, use logical thinking people, don't listen to what a wanna-be politician after money is saying. I once believed Gore and thought he was "right-on", until I did my own research. So, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT! Start fires, pollute, litter, take the long way to work in your gas-guzzler, and just relax. The planet is WAY smarter than us, and can take care of it's self. Global Cycling (and yes, you can Google that term) has been around, and will be until long after we are all dead.


December 18, 2007 12:09 AM

All this sounds familiar, perhaps it's a... hmmm... cycle? Allow me to take you back to the 1970's, when we were heading for a "devastating Ice
Age" caused by "Global Cooling". IT'S A NATURAL CYCLE... WARMS, COOLS, WARMS, COOLS, COME ON PEOPLE! Anyway, here we go...

"The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."


January 4, 2008 9:31 PM

Alright I'm 12 years old and here's my opinion on the situation of global warming and stuff:

I'm going to change the world and don't tell me otherwise. I'm going to try and lead the world in the direction of a petroleum free world. Because we honestly don't need it. I'm going to try my hardest and I know i can do it. People are greedy and you know what if the world doesn't prepare to run out of petroleum and get rid of it before it goes away we'll be screwed. Because there will be no cars to get us the things we need. So, by the time I'm about 19 the patent for electric cars will be up and I'm going to get them out there. Basically, I'm going to change the world and no one is going to stop me I don't care about Al Gore I'm going to make this world right, and make those oil companies see that its either money or the life of this planet

Jay Nickell

January 10, 2008 4:47 PM

Carly, you sound just like Al Gore. You both have a similar grasp of the situation and the same enthusiasm for change. I admire your involvement at 12 years of age, misguided though it is.


February 7, 2008 3:04 AM

global warming isnt real it has often been hotter then it is now and very little greenhouse gas is even caused by man if you need attention that badly that your going to spend millions on a movie that has false information you probably shouldnt be telling us what to do especially with his carbon footprint


March 7, 2008 12:10 AM

Temperatures have been flat since 1998 and have been dropping hard for the past year. This could be a blip, but if it turns out to be a new cooling trend, are all the global warming alarmists going to be held liable for the money wasted on this BS?

Clinton Woods

March 12, 2008 3:27 PM

Enough Al Gore bashing, in his own way what ever that is he would like to solve environmental problems the problem is he just does not know how to go about it.As a Time Keeper watching and seeing how people behave in an ignorant manner is sad because earth is the garden of Eden in our solar system, it is easy to take a heaven and turn it into a hell than taking a hell and turning it into a heaven. One can not solve global problems if one does not know his position in the problem, or is not willing to take responsibility for all of mankind's actions over time, this means the good with the bad.To measure time and distance on earth and in space from a position he/she can see, understand and work from you need to work with this cut off 09/09/1999. This date marks time in the form of (Past - Present - Future) this is equal to "or" the same as the following(before 09/09/1999 - 09/09/1999 - after 09/09/1999)People born before 09/09/1999 are totally responsible for all people that were born on or after 09/09/1999.That is just how the cookie crumbled, at some point in time some generation had to take responsibility for all of mankind's deeds and actions belonging to the past whether good or bad. To solve environmental problems you will need a written formula that can be used at ground level in the North East West and South. to continue - check this site under construction.  about the time keeper.                                 


March 25, 2008 6:08 PM

I'm not going to comment on Al Gore, nor criticize "Liberals" and "Conservatives". I am not afraid of expressing my opinions on those matters, but my interests current don't lie in doing so. Ultimately, the conclusion to disagree with the point which someone promotes because you do not trust them or like them personally is unfair and shows lack of reason and foresight. If Joe ate at McDonalds, and then promoted eating locally food produced/transported with a smaller carbon footprint, would one then conclude that he is wrong? Objectively, whether or not Al Gore's carbon footprint is larger than yours (and lets agree that information can be manipulated and to support any end if need be) his points and information explained in the film are some worth contemplating and listening to. The reaction of "Well I hate him, so I disagree with his point" is somewhat impulsive.

What foot print?

June 22, 2008 7:59 PM

The only thing I am worried about is how much I pay each month for my bills. If more efficient things means less money that I have to pay every month then I am all for it. And yes this is the way every typical American thinks. The only carbon foot print I am concered with is the one that I would love to shove into Al Gore's green house gas emitting mouth for lying.


June 27, 2008 4:26 AM

The polar icecaps ARE melting......on Mars!!! I do what I can to reduce my "carbon footprint" just because it is the right thing to do, not because of the phony "politico-psuedo-science" many would have us believe. We should be at a sunspot maxima, yet there are currently very few if any sunspots right now. Ask a scientist what that might mean and if they are honest they will tell you that it could mean we are in for an ice age. Al Gore is a on the outside and RED on the inside.


June 29, 2008 11:56 PM

If you want to convince people to change the way they live, you need to find a credible spokesman. Al Gore is clearly not credible to all but rabid environmentalists and partisan democrats. He does not live the way he wants us to. He has huge financial and political interest in selling the agenda. And he has no real credentials to speak as an expert. And the lack of credibility of liberals such as "No wind power near my house" Ted Kennedy means that conservatives who care about this issue have difficulty rallying. It is interesting to me that the media has been universally critical of G Bush for having an evnironmentally friendly home (can the man do nothing right for you people?). Any thinking person knows that high gas prices and conservation CANNOT resolve this issue. We cant all build a hobbit hole in teh mountains and live off turnips we grow in the garden. Lets be real - if you want real progress. The complexity of the issue was clearly shown in the ethanol debacle. The fact is, we need more nuclear, wind, water, and solar - AND we need to develop the oil and coal resources we have as well. I believe in fixing this issue - in fundamentally changing the way we live. But I know that this will not be quick or easy. Complex systems cannot be managed with simple measures - and you need to be able to adapt beyond your eco doctrine as things evolve. Sadly, this kind of logic and adaptation is probably beyond our society. It is certainly beyond our politicians.


August 4, 2008 2:45 AM

What a forum!! Libs on the left, cons on the right, 12 tr old Carly in the middle...fight! Wait a minute. Who cares about Al Gore's carbon footprint? Well, maybe I do, and we all should for sure. Lets take a look at the pollution problems we actually face in the world and address those real problems. Certainly we can all agree that there are clean solutions that can provide us all with energy. Do we really have a reason to keep providing the Middle East dictatorships with in-door ski resorts? I have not heard a compelling reason for our nation to do anything other than lead the way toward an eco freindly future using renewable energy sources. This should be regardless of feelings for particular politicians and their personal investments. Please try to lean toward the direction of little Carly when you make your own minds up. It does'nt take a masters in climatology to figure out that burning coal is nasty business. Then consider the burning oil, burning garbage, floating toxic waste barges that never find a port and eventually sink into the sea, and a list so long otherwise I won't even bother going further. You don't have to run off and join Green peace tomorrow but at least enjoy the birth or re-birth of commomn sense to occur for you. I thought people had learned a long time ago that you should avoid this kind of behavior. It is very simple reasoning, If a person dumps a can of oil, antifreeze, etc on the ground, very soon it will end up in the water table. If you had a well soon you would be drinking it. If you had a crop you would have the same results and would taste the pollutants in your food. These types of things are toxic to humans as anyone should know. Hopefully we can undergo a revolution in our collective thoughts and action for future generations of humans and other species alike. This is where I stand in the middle and my clear senses force me to lean to the left because the right has proven itself wrong.


August 27, 2008 5:33 AM

I think Gore left out a few suggestions on saving energy
1.Stop the press. Newspapers waste millions of gallons of fuel everyday and are ran by Liberals to spew their slanted surprise ....(get your news from internet,TV,Radio)
2.Stop the stupid sports games where the teams play two games at home then three across the country somewhere then two more back at stupid is that for wasting fuel?
3. Talk to people about tax incentives for smaller families NOT larger ones like the Liberals promote to expand their voter rolls.
4. Make prisoners run on generator treadmills to produce electricity and stay in shape.They could knock off one hour of their sentence by clocking in one hour on the treadmill.
5.Pay homeless people,welfare recipients etc for time spent on treadmills.
6.Encourage Magazines with tax incentives to publish online rather than in paper.
7.Give tax incentives to businesses to use home based employment.
8.Make our entire coast line into wind farms.There is always a breeze at the ocean.Top Liberal Democrat Kennedy won't like it but thats tough.
9. Make people like Al Gore hold his get conferences with Hollywood snob Liberals and University speeches with the stupid young people on a computer rather than fly around the globe using 8700 lbs of fuel per hour.
10.Encourage all continents to find their own fuel resources to reduce the fuel spent by big tankers transporting across the oceans.


August 28, 2008 12:00 AM

W's home energy savings more than offsets his 747 / Air Force One's flight every time he needs a vacation in Texas.


August 28, 2008 7:59 AM

Al Gore needs to get on a treadmill!

James Meyer

August 29, 2008 12:58 PM

Yes I agree with you Iam, but is CHINA /INDIA LISTENING?


October 17, 2008 11:19 AM

Exactly as 'Iam' says stop waiting to follow someone. We are individuals and not puppy dogs !

Do what is right and right now whether someone else does it or not, its only ethical to reduce our carbon footprint and do it for the sake of our nature, for the sake of what gives us life.

carry your own brains and own shopping bags to start with !


October 18, 2008 10:49 PM

and idiots who think Arabs did 9/11 will spend untold sums on diesel, bombs and murder.

9/11 was an inside job

Religion = Dictator Worship


October 20, 2008 10:02 PM

I can't afford Carbon Credits so I am opting for the traditional method of appeasing mother nature. I shall sacrifice a goat. The end affect will be the same.


October 31, 2008 7:09 PM

Wow, you people are all freaks. You're right, we shouldn't care about the planet we live on. I mean it's just our tiny span of life that matters.
I think most conservatives are pretty selfish. Try thinking about something besides yourselves for a few minutes. You might learn something.

stupid teenager

November 3, 2008 3:35 AM

You're all hypocrites.

Everybody who calls someone else a hypocrite is a hypocrite.

So get a life, and who cares what Al Gore does? He's a hypocrite...which only means he's human. HUMAN. You know...human LIKE YOU ARE!!!

We all have an opportunity to do our share, right?


January 22, 2009 12:49 AM

Has anyone noticed how cold it is??? Just thought I'd bring it up since here in Florida we're having record cold temps - someone above mentioned that we would all be under water soon, but that darned ice keeps getting on all of the plants down here and ruining that prediction!!


January 28, 2009 3:19 PM

You libearl types have major problems with your brains not functioning correctly. Grow a brain and understand that the global warming is a myth and that they can control you if you are scared. You fruit loops that think big government is good, move to a communist country! I for one do not need anybody to feed me or to pay my bills. You peopel make me so angry and I wish you all the best. I will pray for you.


January 28, 2009 10:39 PM

I think I understand; because the Earth's temperature has risen one degree in the last one hundred years, the Earth is going to burn itself up!


March 25, 2009 1:22 PM

He has helped to save millions of times more pollution then he could possibly give off.


April 10, 2009 7:48 AM

Rather than go back and forth about who is using how much of what, let's take a look at the facts. This is completely about money. Global warming is real, yes, but the fact of the matter is it isn't PEOPLE that are causing this. It's the sun! Solar activity has been much greater than decades before, which translates into a warming effect on the Earth. If people are causing this, explain to me the reason that Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are experiencing similar effects! They are further from the sun than we are, and their ice-composed moons are melting. Is this to be blamed on people too? Bottom line: global warming is a natural occurrence that is being used to exploit the emotions of the American people in order to put more money in the pockets of politicians and the global elite. Do your research. History repeats itself because we don't learn from it. We fall for this deception due to our lack of being informed. Don't watch MSNBC; do RESEARCH, and your questions will be answered rather easily. On top of that, if anyone (let's use the example of Al Gore, but this applies to anyone) is advocating that the public adjust their lifestyles for the sake of a cause (let's use Global warming due to a "carbon footprint"), and they themselves don't adjust their lives for such a cause (or even do the exact opposite as Al Gore has clearly shown himself to be doing), IT IS NOT A CAUSE WORTH FOLLOWING! Once again, Global Warming is a natural occurrence that has nothing to do with our "carbon footprint", and it's being used to exploit and swindle the American people and put money into the hands of those deceiving us.


April 21, 2009 4:51 AM

I vow to keep my carbon footprint smaller than Al Gore's. i have a sports car with a v8 engine, a full sized pickup and a boat. No matter how much time I spend with my hydrocarbon guzzling CO2 emitting toys, I don't think I produce as much CO2 in a year as Al does in a month. I will, however, continue to look at him as an example to follow


April 25, 2009 2:37 AM

I live in a 2 story old farm house built in 1927 ive insulated and some new windows nothing green by no means. Last month my electric bill was $32.61 i used 327 kilowatt hours of electric. In Iowa July our hottest month we havent set a new record high temp since 1955 and June July and August our 3 hottest months we havent set a new record high temp since 1988. This last winter it was the coldest day ive seen in the 43 yrs i been alive Jan 15th 2009 it was -27 below. When Mr Blow hard can show me a electric bill cheaper than mine then maybe i will consider changing my ways.


April 29, 2009 9:08 AM

For 300 years there has been global warming. The last 4 years tempatures have dropped. In the last 100 years sea levels have only raised a maxamim of 7inches. CO2 is esential for plant life. 2/3 of global warming activity is caused by the sun. Just some fun facts.

Joe Shea

June 30, 2009 6:33 PM

The greatest greenhouse gas is water vapor from the ocean (95%) what are we doing about that? Check out the map of Piri Reis with the coast of Antarctica with no ice. How about polar melting on Mars. Maybe my SUV is worse than Al Gore says it is. In 8 years, he has made 50x what he was worth as a politician on inconvenient truths (from 2 to over 100 million dollars).... Now cap and Trade promises to cost a minimum of $100 per household per month plus increases in everything we buy through carbon taxes. it's all a scam.


July 27, 2009 1:01 AM

What does it matter how much Al Gore uses for energy except to show him for the hypocritical elitist he is? His whole religion about anthropogenic global warming is an economic scam not backed up by anything but junk science. Anyone who can't see that it is a brassy grab by governments to control everything we do just isn't looking. Thousands of scientists refute the church of global warming hysteria and the acolytes of the religion won't listen to them. What will you tell your kids 20 years from now when there is no global warming and the only talk about it is about how blind, stupid or biased the Jim Jones type believers were?

Old Wife

September 10, 2009 8:02 PM

Hey Folks, just to keep things honest...the validity of this article checks out 100% on This is NOT an urban ledgend, nor is it a falshood.

The moral of the story is..the real truth always surfaces.

jym shortz

December 10, 2009 8:16 PM

i had to laugh at the liberal left calling for factual data to be used. now that climategate has exposed their facts as fluff, i really wonder what all this fear mongering of global warming based off of fluff is really about? taxes to a global governance, maybe? one world government, maybe? green is the new communism. al is a hypocrite. i tend to believe a person's integrity is based off of their walk not their talk. when al-baby starts practicing what he preaches and can explain how solar ice caps shrinking on mars is caused by hummers, i will bow down. till then i will continue to drive my uncorked diesel and continue ride my dirt bike. he is a door knob and the sheep that follow lock step are mindless fools!


March 1, 2010 1:42 PM

Just because Al Gore and these other idiots BUY carbon credits doesn't mean that they didn't pollute the environment!! That's like saying it's okay to rob, rape and murder as long as their willing to go to jail. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't absolve the crime. If he really cared about the environment he would just reduce his carbon footprint - lord knows he has the money to put incorporate solar, wind, geothermal etc,. Just because you have the ability to pay and are willing to pay to pollute doesn't mean you can or should.


March 2, 2010 2:52 AM

If you people would only research. Follow the money. Who stands to gain huge profits? Al Gore. Just do the research. Al is a fraud. Global warming is a fraud. If you really want to help our children, prove me wrong.

King Condor

March 5, 2010 11:15 PM

This guy has a big time chip on his shoulder its the big block of wood on top of his neck with two eyes,a nose and a big fat blabering mouth on the front

Post a comment



Want to stop talking about innovation and learn how to make it work for you? Bruce Nussbaum takes you deep into the latest thinking about innovation and design with daily scoops, provocative perspectives and case studies. Nussbaum is at the center of a global conversation on the growing discipline of innovation and the deepening field of design thinking. Read him to discover what social networking works—and what doesn’t. Discover where service innovation is going and how experience design is shaping up. Learn which schools are graduating the most creative talent and which consulting firms are the hottest. And get his take on what the smartest companies are doing in the U.S., Asia and Europe, far ahead of the pack.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!