Al Gore’s Hypocrisy and the Failure of the Modern GOP

Ree,

Great article. You raise some interesting points that I think deem reiteration. Though, I do disagree with your characterizing Gore as a \"Glutton\". I think that he might fall short of officially practicing what he preaches in terms of energy consumption, but I wouldn\'t put that on the same plane as the inappropriate behavior of JFK or FDR.

Your best point is this, the Republicans are concerned more intently with proving Gore to be a hypocrite, than they are with acknowledging the over-whelming evidence that indicates that we MUST MAKE CHANGES, or else our global reality will change dramatically. The bottomline is that if Gore is wrong, we will still have overhauled our energy usage and become a much more self-sufficient nation, that will stand to benefit economically through having acted as the worldwide leaders in a new industry. And….well….if Gore is right….we\'ll all owe him a deep debt of gratitude.

Republicans are more concerned with their investments and bank accounts than they are with the safety and stability of the globe\'s population. If they want to \"practice what they preach\", they should follow the same methodology that they used for invading Iraq…..which would be that it is for the ensuring of freedom and Democracy. Cause it is evident that neither freedom nor democracy can survive a global catastrophy.

I enjoyed your post, but I have to disagree with the assertion that Al Gore is a hypocrite. Gore is not saying that we should live joyless lives. He is not saying we shouldn’t have any of the good things in life. He is saying that we need to find a way to make the good things in life compatible with a healthy planet. If he uses a lot of energy in the constant pursuit of expounding his message, in work, and, yes, in enjoying the good life and then, through the purchase of green power and offsets, reduces the net impact of his life and life style, I say fine. I say he is doing exactly what he is asking others to do. He is finding a way to make his life compatible with a healthy planet. He is rich so he can afford to live a grander sustainable life style than most of us, but that is one of the benefits of being rich and does not mean he is a hypocrite. He uses twenty times more energy than the average American, fine. Now if the average American would start doing one twentieth the amount of work he does everyday in pursuit of a cleaner, healthier, cooler world, then we would be getting somewhere.

Right on great insight

The key fact that everyone is missing is that <i>the energy Gore spends, the world saves because of awareness</i>.

Ree,

Great article. You raise some interesting points that I think deem reiteration. Though, I do disagree with your characterizing Gore as a “Glutton”. I think that he might fall short of officially practicing what he preaches in terms of energy consumption, but I wouldn’t put that on the same plane as the inappropriate behavior of JFK or FDR.

Your best point is this, the Republicans are concerned more intently with proving Gore to be a hypocrite, than they are with acknowledging the over-whelming evidence that indicates that we MUST MAKE CHANGES, or else our global reality will change dramatically. The bottomline is that if Gore is wrong, we will still have overhauled our energy usage and become a much more self-sufficient nation, that will stand to benefit economically through having acted as the worldwide leaders in a new industry. And….well….if Gore is right….we’ll all owe him a deep debt of gratitude.

Republicans are more concerned with their investments and bank accounts than they are with the safety and stability of the globe’s population. If they want to “practice what they preach”, they should follow the same methodology that they used for invading Iraq…..which would be that it is for the ensuring of freedom and Democracy. Cause it is evident that neither freedom nor democracy can survive a global catastrophy.

Kudos to Tom, JW, and Simmons for the combined effect of their responses. I wish to add the following to the conversation: With the average American owing over $18,000 to Best Buy in order to purchase foreign electronics, and owning a foreign car that burns fossil fuel in order to operate, and having taken on an ARM in order to get into a house he/she cannot afford, said American is already doing a job on the economy. To add insult to injury, what is he/she doing to limit his/her carbon footprint? I wholeheartedly disagree with Ree\'s notion that Al Gore is a hypocrite. The man is not only leading by example in paying for carbon credits that bring his estate\'s carbon footprint to zero, but in the process is showing us that the new American Dream is no longer picket-fence white, but can be a lean, clean, difference-making green if we just put our minds to it.

We are of the same mind on this one. I wrote about the revealing of Gore\'s electricity here
<a href=\"http://taureandevi.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-al-gor...rel=\"nofollow\">
I found it funny that a few people took me the wrong way and felt as though I too believed Al Gore to be a hypocrite. I also wrote of the Tennessee Center for Policy research that caused a debate between two women.
The point is our future is in jeopardy and change is needed.

Great post.

Wishing you well

I enjoyed your post, but I have to disagree with the assertion that Al Gore is a hypocrite. Gore is not saying that we should live joyless lives. He is not saying we shouldn’t have any of the good things in life. He is saying that we need to find a way to make the good things in life compatible with a healthy planet. If he uses a lot of energy in the constant pursuit of expounding his message, in work, and, yes, in enjoying the good life and then, through the purchase of green power and offsets, reduces the net impact of his life and life style, I say fine. I say he is doing exactly what he is asking others to do. He is finding a way to make his life compatible with a healthy planet. He is rich so he can afford to live a grander sustainable life style than most of us, but that is one of the benefits of being rich and does not mean he is a hypocrite. He uses twenty times more energy than the average American, fine. Now if the average American would start doing one twentieth the amount of work he does everyday in pursuit of a cleaner, healthier, cooler world, then we would be getting somewhere.

Thanks Danielle…..Let me just throw this out there that I am a huge Al Gore fan. I think he is a great man and is pointing us in the right direction. My intention was not to shine a light on Al but rather his great work and the failures who attack him. I certainly should have used language similar to Jon\'s: Al Gore \"falls just short of practicing what he preaches.\" As for the Glutton term, I should have explained better. I was implying that it doesn\'t matter if he is one because his public policy goal is good. I don\'t really feel Al is the definition of a glutton, far from it.

Simmons: right on!

If someone wishes something to be better … regarding the environment, economy, education, whatever, will the value of there opinion … their ability to even express an opinion without being called a hypocrite … be determined by the degree to which they first solve the problem?

Why would any thinking person allow the right wing yahoos such as Inhofe to define the debate in this manner? Is it not obvious that this is a ploy and nothing more? Are people really that stupid?

See:
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=549

Right on great insight

The key fact that everyone is missing is that the energy Gore spends, the world saves because of awareness.

Kudos to Tom, JW, and Simmons for the combined effect of their responses. I wish to add the following to the conversation: With the average American owing over $18,000 to Best Buy in order to purchase foreign electronics, and owning a foreign car that burns fossil fuel in order to operate, and having taken on an ARM in order to get into a house he/she cannot afford, said American is already doing a job on the economy. To add insult to injury, what is he/she doing to limit his/her carbon footprint? I wholeheartedly disagree with Ree’s notion that Al Gore is a hypocrite. The man is not only leading by example in paying for carbon credits that bring his estate’s carbon footprint to zero, but in the process is showing us that the new American Dream is no longer picket-fence white, but can be a lean, clean, difference-making green if we just put our minds to it.

We are of the same mind on this one. I wrote about the revealing of Gore’s electricity here

I found it funny that a few people took me the wrong way and felt as though I too believed Al Gore to be a hypocrite. I also wrote of the Tennessee Center for Policy research that caused a debate between two women.
The point is our future is in jeopardy and change is needed.

Wishing you well

If someone wishes something to be better … regarding the environment, economy, education, whatever, will the value of there opinion … their ability to even express an opinion without being called a hypocrite … be determined by the degree to which they first solve the problem?

Why would any thinking person allow the right wing yahoos such as Inhofe to define the debate in this manner? Is it not obvious that this is a ploy and nothing more? Are people really that stupid?

See:
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=549

Al Gore wagging his finger at the US on “global warming,” urging us to get out of the way on combating this potential problem is the equivalent of a doctor telling a 300 pound man with heart congestion who smokes three packs of cigarettes per day to start wearing his seat belt!

He may have pin-pointed an issued that needs to be addressed (maybe, still not proven), but by blaming America first, he is falling into the typical pattern of the anti-American one worlders who are at the helm in places like the UN, EU, and other globalist institutions.

Perhaps Al should save his lecture for the Chinese and the Indians and then some others before coming into congressional committees (complete with hack senator Barbara Boxer basically making love to him during said hearing) and telling Americans to get their acts together.

Just as shameful as Democrats passing an Iraq pull out bill filled up with pork laden projects! This is a party with no shame that deserves be returned to minority status.

To those of you who feel it costs more for clean energy… View this Yahoo news story on a real green home in NJ.

If Mr Gore was really dedicated to helping the environment, he would have paid the money (and he has tons of it) to modify his house(s) to be self sufficient, similar to the link above.

He chose the option which would benefit him and the companies he invests in rather than choosing the best solution.

A couple of things…………My good friend Shrader points out that Dems should be returned to minority status. I\'m sure that the GOP would ride back in and do great things for America, right? The first thing that would happen is the pork would go to corporate executives instead of a varied projects. Both parties champion pork, the Dems just use pork to actually benefit average Americans. No matter how dithering the Dems are, atleast they actually have concern for America. The GOP\'s only concern is helping corporate bigshots who shelter their money and investments offshore anyway. These are the least patrioitc men in the country. They could care less about America\'s future as long as they can lock themselves in their gated communities with guards from Blackwater, Inc. keeping them safe from the commoners. So go ahead lets put the GOP back in power and see who benefits.
As for confronting the energy consumption of India and China, I\'m all for it. Their disregard for the environment (and our future) is just as pressing as here at home.

Get em\' Ree.

And global warming has been proven. It\'s just difficult to rationalize if your a person who only reads the cartoon fiction scientific studies that come out of the Bush Administration.

Get em’ Ree.

And global warming has been proven. It’s just difficult to rationalize if your a person who only reads the cartoon fiction scientific studies that come out of the Bush Administration.

Please forgive me if this is against blogger ettiquette, but I am entirely new to this whole \"internets\" thing and do i\'m not quite sure what is permissable and what is not. I have recently posted an article on my own blog regarding the motives of of Al Gore and since nobody actually reads my blog yet and the article is relevant to your debate I am quoting it here. Please let me know if that is all wrong and I won\'t do it again.

\"Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Yes. An opportunist? Absolutely. Of course he is. We all are. Our political system is rigged up in such a way that it would be absolutely impossible to rise to the top if you were not. Al Gore was vice president for 8 years during which time he did absolutely Nada for the environment, Jack shit , zilch.

But does that invalidate the work he has done since? Does it invalidate the message? Al Gore, the man, does not matter. That which lies deep down within the confines of his soul is of no consequence. Let him sort that out with his god when he dies. A hundred years from now nobody\'s going to care if Albert Gore was a good man. Eventually it is only the actions of a politician that are of meaning, and right now Al Gore is spreading the truth about the greatest threat our planet has ever known.

Personally I believe that Al Gore is essentially a good man, but a weak man. Like many liberal politicians he became involved in politics for many of the right reasons, but then as it always does the ego and the thirst for power took over. At every junction on the jagged pathway to the top he took the wrong option the easy option, the sell out option, all the while deceiving himself that it was all for the greater good, if he could only get just a little bit more power that he could redeem himself, atone for his sins.

Had he beaten me in the 2000 election (well he did, but you know what I mean) if he had become president at that time he may perhaps have continued along this spineless path, probably doing the odd piece of good here and there, but generally ducking and dodging the spears and arrows of his own conscience as he strove to consolidate and enhance his own power, in all likely hood improving just a little in the dead duck days of his second presidency ( if he had lasted that long) and would have spent the rest of his days wrestling with the inner demons which told him that he could have done so much more.

But when he lost that election (well he didn’t really, but you know what I mean) a mightily powerful thing happened to Al Gore. In the days and months that followed he came to a terrible realisation. If he had followed his heart, if he had done and said just a little more of what he believed and a little less of what he judged to be politically expedient at the time then a whole lot of those people who went with Ralph Nader and the Green party might have ended up voting for him and all those hanging chads in Florida wouldn’t have mattered.

When I look at Al Gore I see a man who’s had a life changing experience. A man who’s sold his soul to the Devil and got jipped, short changed, geshwisled. It isn’t easy to look at yourself in the mirror and know that if only you had been a better man you would have gotten what you wanted all along. I see a man who’s cursed himself a thousand times and sworn a thousand oaths that he won’t sell out what’s in his heart again. And that is why I believe he would make a good president. Al Gore is a snake, con man and a phoney. Of coarse he is, we all are. But having once paid the price for silencing those inner screams of truth I genuinely believe he is just a little less likely than all those other bleating liberals to do it again.\"

Excellent article. Just a note to those who are criticising the amount of energy Al Gore\'s home consumes. He has tried to add solar panels, but the town zoning regulations won\'t permit it:

<a href=\"http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/G/GORE_SOLA...rel=\"nofollow\">Zoning Rules Thwart Gore\'s Solar Dreams</a>

Zoning rules in Al Gore\'s upscale Tennessee neighborhood have prevented the former vice president and environmental activist from installing solar panels on his roof.

Gore bought his multimillion dollar home in 2002 in Belle Meade, an exclusive city encircled by metropolitan Nashville, and he has embarked on an ambitious renovation. But his contractors ran into a legal barrier last summer when they sought to apply for a permit to install solar panels on the roof.

Terry Franklin, Belle Meade\'s building officer, said the town only allows power generating equipment to be placed on the ground level. \"Solar panels are generators,\" Franklin said.

\"We told them they couldn\'t do it,\" he said. \"They wanted to try anyway, but we convinced them it was something the board wouldn\'t allow.\"

A conservative group that disputes the findings about global warming criticized Gore last month, complaining that his home uses too much electricity. (continues)

Excellent article. Just a note to those who are criticising the amount of energy Al Gore\'s home consumes. He has tried to add solar panels, but the town zoning regulations won\'t permit it:

<a href=\"http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/G/GORE_SOLA...rel=\"nofollow\">Zoning Rules Thwart Gore\'s Solar Dreams</a>

Zoning rules in Al Gore\'s upscale Tennessee neighborhood have prevented the former vice president and environmental activist from installing solar panels on his roof.

Gore bought his multimillion dollar home in 2002 in Belle Meade, an exclusive city encircled by metropolitan Nashville, and he has embarked on an ambitious renovation. But his contractors ran into a legal barrier last summer when they sought to apply for a permit to install solar panels on the roof.

Terry Franklin, Belle Meade\'s building officer, said the town only allows power generating equipment to be placed on the ground level. \"Solar panels are generators,\" Franklin said.

\"We told them they couldn\'t do it,\" he said. \"They wanted to try anyway, but we convinced them it was something the board wouldn\'t allow.\"

A conservative group that disputes the findings about global warming criticized Gore last month, complaining that his home uses too much electricity. (continues)

Please forgive me if this is against blogger ettiquette, but I am entirely new to this whole “internets” thing and do i’m not quite sure what is permissable and what is not. I have recently posted an article on my own blog regarding the motives of of Al Gore and since nobody actually reads my blog yet and the article is relevant to your debate I am quoting it here. Please let me know if that is all wrong and I won’t do it again.

“Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Yes. An opportunist? Absolutely. Of course he is. We all are. Our political system is rigged up in such a way that it would be absolutely impossible to rise to the top if you were not. Al Gore was vice president for 8 years during which time he did absolutely Nada for the environment, Jack shit , zilch.

But does that invalidate the work he has done since? Does it invalidate the message? Al Gore, the man, does not matter. That which lies deep down within the confines of his soul is of no consequence. Let him sort that out with his god when he dies. A hundred years from now nobody’s going to care if Albert Gore was a good man. Eventually it is only the actions of a politician that are of meaning, and right now Al Gore is spreading the truth about the greatest threat our planet has ever known.

Personally I believe that Al Gore is essentially a good man, but a weak man. Like many liberal politicians he became involved in politics for many of the right reasons, but then as it always does the ego and the thirst for power took over. At every junction on the jagged pathway to the top he took the wrong option the easy option, the sell out option, all the while deceiving himself that it was all for the greater good, if he could only get just a little bit more power that he could redeem himself, atone for his sins.

Had he beaten me in the 2000 election (well he did, but you know what I mean) if he had become president at that time he may perhaps have continued along this spineless path, probably doing the odd piece of good here and there, but generally ducking and dodging the spears and arrows of his own conscience as he strove to consolidate and enhance his own power, in all likely hood improving just a little in the dead duck days of his second presidency ( if he had lasted that long) and would have spent the rest of his days wrestling with the inner demons which told him that he could have done so much more.

But when he lost that election (well he didn’t really, but you know what I mean) a mightily powerful thing happened to Al Gore. In the days and months that followed he came to a terrible realisation. If he had followed his heart, if he had done and said just a little more of what he believed and a little less of what he judged to be politically expedient at the time then a whole lot of those people who went with Ralph Nader and the Green party might have ended up voting for him and all those hanging chads in Florida wouldn’t have mattered.

When I look at Al Gore I see a man who’s had a life changing experience. A man who’s sold his soul to the Devil and got jipped, short changed, geshwisled. It isn’t easy to look at yourself in the mirror and know that if only you had been a better man you would have gotten what you wanted all along. I see a man who’s cursed himself a thousand times and sworn a thousand oaths that he won’t sell out what’s in his heart again. And that is why I believe he would make a good president. Al Gore is a snake, con man and a phoney. Of coarse he is, we all are. But having once paid the price for silencing those inner screams of truth I genuinely believe he is just a little less likely than all those other bleating liberals to do it again.”

Excellent article. Just a note to those who are criticising the amount of energy Al Gore’s home consumes. He has tried to add solar panels, but the town zoning regulations won’t permit it:

Zoning Rules Thwart Gore’s Solar Dreams

Zoning rules in Al Gore’s upscale Tennessee neighborhood have prevented the former vice president and environmental activist from installing solar panels on his roof.

Gore bought his multimillion dollar home in 2002 in Belle Meade, an exclusive city encircled by metropolitan Nashville, and he has embarked on an ambitious renovation. But his contractors ran into a legal barrier last summer when they sought to apply for a permit to install solar panels on the roof.

Terry Franklin, Belle Meade’s building officer, said the town only allows power generating equipment to be placed on the ground level. “Solar panels are generators,” Franklin said.

“We told them they couldn’t do it,” he said. “They wanted to try anyway, but we convinced them it was something the board wouldn’t allow.”

A conservative group that disputes the findings about global warming criticized Gore last month, complaining that his home uses too much electricity. (continues)

I have my own personal opinion of Al Gore, the Democratic Party, and the GOP, but I think all of that skirts the issue. Al Gore is telling everyone who will listen that Global Warming is a fact, it is directly caused by man, and that we have to do something about it, or the seas will raise and there will be Armageddon. Mr. Gore is not the only one preaching the Man Made Global Warming and Consensus Science. The problem is, Man Made Global Warming is a consensus policy, it isn’t science. Science is about numbers, facts, and models that can be proven over and over again. The global warming group doesn’t have that.

The Earth is warming slightly (something around 1 degree over the last 100 years). The questions that we need to answer are the following:

1) Is global warming a bad thing? Are there benefits to an slight increase in temperature that we might adjust to?
2) If global warming is a bad thing, does mankind have any significant impact on it?
3) If so, is there anything we can do about it?
4) Should we do anything about it? If the best we could do is make a very slight change to the temperature, and the cost would potentially prevent developing countries from developing, should we do anything about it?

Calling Al Gore names because he champions global warming, or calling the GOP names because one doesn’t like their policies only hides the real issues. We need to put aside the politics of global warming and really examine the science. Then we might find a solution or even realize we don’t have a problem in the first place.

1) Global warming is a bad thing. Besides increased droughts, wildfires, more disease (malaria), and stronger hurricanes, melted polar ice caps will raise sea levels, probably flooding some coastal areas.

There are probably some benefits. Warmer winters may lead to less deaths from the cold. But, <b>the benefits do not outweigh the negative consequences</b>.

2) Human kind has a huge impact on the temperature of Earth. This is complicated, but here is a simplified, but still just as factual, version:

Here\'s a short summary of what\'s happening in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide molecules have 3 atoms: 1 carbon, 2 oxygen. This makes it a greenhouse gas. Gases with 3 molecules or more are greenhouse gases. Why do they have to have 3 atoms, you ask? 3 atoms make them just big enough to block stop radiation from leaving the atmosphere. To explain this, you need to know about the greenhouse effect.

Energy from the sun travels to Earth as electromagnetic waves. It first encounters the atmosphere. Some infrared radiation and most ultraviolet radiation are reflected by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some of the rays are reflected by clouds, gases, or dust particles. The energy that gets past the atmosphere next encounters Earth’s surface. Some of it is reflected back into the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed. When the surface is heated, it radiates some of the energy back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation. This radiation cannot escape back into space. Instead, much of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. These gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane make life on Earth possible through this effect. This process by which gases hold heat in the air is called the greenhouse effect.

There is no question, even among global warming doubters, that burning fossil fuels releases CO2. CO2 is the biggest cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect, or man made global warming. Global warming doubters will say, \"What about water vapor, the most common greenhouse gas?!\" It is true that water vapor is the biggest cause of the natural greenhouse effect. Why doesn\'t water vapor contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect? Because of saturation. The air can only hold so much water. There is always the same amount of water on Earth because of this and because of the water cycle. Therefore, water vapor always contributes the same amount to the greenhouse effect no matter what.

More can be found at <a href=\"http://thethoughtsontheworld.blogspot.com\" rel=\"nofollow\">Thoughts on the World</a> and a lot more<a href=\"http://thethoughtsontheworld.blogspot.com/2007/02...rel=\"nofollow\">here</a>.

3) There are many things we can do about it. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is one of them. Stop cutting down forests is another.

Cutting greenhouse gases can be done in variety of ways. Somehow though, they have to lower the amount of greenhouse gases burned. Using less electricity anyway possible <i>probably</i> slows greenhouse gas emissions. The most common way electricity is created is through burning coal or other fossil fuels. This releases greenhouse gases, causing the enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming).

There are many ways, and every <a href=\"http://thoughtsonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/searc...of the Day\" rel=\"nofollow\">small</a> thing makes a difference.

4. This comment is long enough already, so this answer will be short. We should do something because <b>if we keep putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the strength of global warming will keep increasing until we run out of fossil fuels</b>.
———————————

The politicians have to figure this out. Global warming is not going to APOCALYPTIC, but will hinder our species advancement (to put it in fancy terms).

1) Global warming is a bad thing. Besides increased droughts, wildfires, more disease (malaria), and stronger hurricanes, melted polar ice caps will raise sea levels, probably flooding some coastal areas.

There are probably some benefits. Warmer winters may lead to less deaths from the cold. But, the benefits do not outweigh the negative consequences.

2) Human kind has a huge impact on the temperature of Earth. This is complicated, but here is a simplified, but still just as factual, version:

Here’s a short summary of what’s happening in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide molecules have 3 atoms: 1 carbon, 2 oxygen. This makes it a greenhouse gas. Gases with 3 molecules or more are greenhouse gases. Why do they have to have 3 atoms, you ask? 3 atoms make them just big enough to block stop radiation from leaving the atmosphere. To explain this, you need to know about the greenhouse effect.

Energy from the sun travels to Earth as electromagnetic waves. It first encounters the atmosphere. Some infrared radiation and most ultraviolet radiation are reflected by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some of the rays are reflected by clouds, gases, or dust particles. The energy that gets past the atmosphere next encounters Earth’s surface. Some of it is reflected back into the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed. When the surface is heated, it radiates some of the energy back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation. This radiation cannot escape back into space. Instead, much of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. These gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane make life on Earth possible through this effect. This process by which gases hold heat in the air is called the greenhouse effect.

There is no question, even among global warming doubters, that burning fossil fuels releases CO2. CO2 is the biggest cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect, or man made global warming. Global warming doubters will say, “What about water vapor, the most common greenhouse gas?!” It is true that water vapor is the biggest cause of the natural greenhouse effect. Why doesn’t water vapor contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect? Because of saturation. The air can only hold so much water. There is always the same amount of water on Earth because of this and because of the water cycle. Therefore, water vapor always contributes the same amount to the greenhouse effect no matter what.

More can be found at Thoughts on the World and a lot morehere.

3) There are many things we can do about it. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is one of them. Stop cutting down forests is another.

Cutting greenhouse gases can be done in variety of ways. Somehow though, they have to lower the amount of greenhouse gases burned. Using less electricity anyway possible probably slows greenhouse gas emissions. The most common way electricity is created is through burning coal or other fossil fuels. This releases greenhouse gases, causing the enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming).

There are many ways, and every small thing makes a difference.

4. This comment is long enough already, so this answer will be short. We should do something because if we keep putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the strength of global warming will keep increasing until we run out of fossil fuels.
———————————

The politicians have to figure this out. Global warming is not going to APOCALYPTIC, but will hinder our species advancement (to put it in fancy terms).