Al Gore"s Energy Usage Exceeds U.S. Average [cont.]
Gore's retort
Through a spokesperson, Gore has responded to criticism of his bloated electric bill by arguing that his lifestyle is effectively "carbon neutral" because 1) he purchases 100% of his electricity through a program that supplies "green energy" at premium prices, and 2) he offsets 100% of any remaining environmental impact by investing in projects that promote renewable resources and reduce energy consumption overall.
The latter strategy, known as "carbon offsetting," has won acceptance among some environmental advocates as a way to effectively zero out their "carbon footprint" without living in a grass hut. Others argue that carbon offsets are a cop-out ? the ecological equivalent of expiating one's sins by purchasing indulgences from the church ? but supporters tout them as a crucial weapon in the long-term fight against global warming. You can count Al Gore among the latter.
So, is Al Gore a hypocrite or not?
We are urged to view Gore's lifestyle as hypocritical because he advocates energy conservation by all on the one hand, while on the other consuming an "extravagant" amount of energy in his own home. And put in just those terms, it may seem an open and shut case. But how far, really, do Al Gore's deeds differ from his words?
In the book version of An Inconvenient Truth where Gore discusses what families and ordinary citizens can do to help combat global warming, he stops well short of calling for deep sacrifice or major lifestyle change.
He doesn't tell people to move into smaller homes, for example. His actual proposals are rather modest.
First, he lists a number of steps individual families can take to make their homes and activities more environmentally friendly ? like using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, and using less hot water when possible ? all of which are economically as well as ecologically beneficial, and none of which we have any reason to believe Gore isn't taking himself.
Second, he preaches activism ? voting for environmentally enlightened measures and candidates and spreading he gospel of global warming. And in these we know Al Gore has played an exemplary role.
Third, he advocates that everyone work toward a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. How? In addition to the two measures above, by doing precisely what he does ? offsetting one's environmental impact through investments in projects and enterprises aimed at reducing energy consumption overall (i.e., carbon offsets).
So, where's the disjunct between what Gore says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there actually isn't much of one to be found. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if rich folks like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out big bucks for carbon offsets ? and you might even be right ? but that's a policy disagreement, not proof that he doesn't live by his own principles.
Critics on both the left and the right will no doubt continue to call him "hypocritical" just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not the ex-Vice President practices what he preaches, the case against him is weak.
Update:A Tale of Two Houses - A "companion piece" of sorts to this forwarded email compares the eco-friendliness of Al Gore's Nashville mansion to President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch.
Sources and further reading:
Last updated: 03/02/07
Current Hoaxes / Netlore
The Urban Legends Top 25
Through a spokesperson, Gore has responded to criticism of his bloated electric bill by arguing that his lifestyle is effectively "carbon neutral" because 1) he purchases 100% of his electricity through a program that supplies "green energy" at premium prices, and 2) he offsets 100% of any remaining environmental impact by investing in projects that promote renewable resources and reduce energy consumption overall.
The latter strategy, known as "carbon offsetting," has won acceptance among some environmental advocates as a way to effectively zero out their "carbon footprint" without living in a grass hut. Others argue that carbon offsets are a cop-out ? the ecological equivalent of expiating one's sins by purchasing indulgences from the church ? but supporters tout them as a crucial weapon in the long-term fight against global warming. You can count Al Gore among the latter.
So, is Al Gore a hypocrite or not?
We are urged to view Gore's lifestyle as hypocritical because he advocates energy conservation by all on the one hand, while on the other consuming an "extravagant" amount of energy in his own home. And put in just those terms, it may seem an open and shut case. But how far, really, do Al Gore's deeds differ from his words?
In the book version of An Inconvenient Truth where Gore discusses what families and ordinary citizens can do to help combat global warming, he stops well short of calling for deep sacrifice or major lifestyle change.
He doesn't tell people to move into smaller homes, for example. His actual proposals are rather modest.
First, he lists a number of steps individual families can take to make their homes and activities more environmentally friendly ? like using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, and using less hot water when possible ? all of which are economically as well as ecologically beneficial, and none of which we have any reason to believe Gore isn't taking himself.
Second, he preaches activism ? voting for environmentally enlightened measures and candidates and spreading he gospel of global warming. And in these we know Al Gore has played an exemplary role.
Third, he advocates that everyone work toward a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. How? In addition to the two measures above, by doing precisely what he does ? offsetting one's environmental impact through investments in projects and enterprises aimed at reducing energy consumption overall (i.e., carbon offsets).
So, where's the disjunct between what Gore says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there actually isn't much of one to be found. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if rich folks like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out big bucks for carbon offsets ? and you might even be right ? but that's a policy disagreement, not proof that he doesn't live by his own principles.
Critics on both the left and the right will no doubt continue to call him "hypocritical" just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not the ex-Vice President practices what he preaches, the case against him is weak.
Update:A Tale of Two Houses - A "companion piece" of sorts to this forwarded email compares the eco-friendliness of Al Gore's Nashville mansion to President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch.
Share This Article
Sources and further reading:
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own 'Inconvenient Truth'
Press release, Tennessee Center for Policy Research, 26 February 2007
Gore Catching Heat Over Use of Electricity at Family Home
Associated Press, 28 February 2007
Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth? - A $30,000 Utility Bill
ABC News, 26 February 2007
End-Use Consumption of Electricity 2001
Energy Information Administration, 25 April 2005
Americans Try to Shift into 'Carbon Neutral'
Christian Science Monitor, 6 December 2006
Last updated: 03/02/07
Current Hoaxes / Netlore
The Urban Legends Top 25
Source...