OK, why don’t you tell me what YOU think his message is.
I understood the original post to posit that Mr Gore was consuming, in some way, more than his “share” of CO2-producing resources. While it used an unsubstantiated energy bill, I took the core question to be: If Mr Gore’s lifestyle uses more than his share of CO2 production, does that make him a hypocrite?
The point has been well made here that Mr Gore has done more than most–way more than most–to reduce his prior impact. He has also done more than most–way, way more than most–to reduce the impact others make.
The point has also been well made that a personal attack on Mr Gore’s integrity has no impact on whether or not a problem exists. Assigning him a label of “hypocrite” certainly seems like an attack unless one defines in advance what the standard should be.
If the standard is a passionate, effective message against CO2 production, and a personal lifestyle that reflects a marked personal change in behaviour to reflect that core belief, it is unfair to call him a hypocrite.
I didn’t create the original thread, but I would have preferred this wording: “If he personally consumes more than the average per-capita production of CO2 that would be required to effect changes in global warming, do you find him persuasive?” That is admittedly a much tougher standard for a wealthy man in a wealthy country to meet, but it’s the crux of the problem. I don’t see nearly enough calculations for our enormous daily consumption. It’s just too easy to only quantitate power plants and cars.
But that power is being used to fuel industries that create our coffee mugs and our furniture that we toss out when we get bored of it. The power is generated in the first place to run the textile mill so that when I stay in a nice hotel I don’t complain about the beat up carpet. And on and on, but you get the idea. That’s why it’s not the limo fuel; it’s the limo. I’m not talking about luxury items here; I’m talking about all the things we consider ordinary consumption.
I was in Chongqing last July. Yellow, dirty air so thick from industries belching out pollutants that you could look directly at the sun without blinking. I thought it was terrible. On my way home, I threw away some stuff because the cost of replacing it was trivial compared to the nuisance of lugging it back home. That’s hypocrisy. Those factories were belching out CO2 to make my stuff, and China’s per-capita CO2 production is soaring to meet my consumption “needs.” I don’t think I have a leg to stand on and preach about what you should do about GW until my lifestyle is compliant with what it would take. To quote Gandhi for the zillionth time: I must be the change I want to see in the world.
Suppose I’m living on an island with a finite food resource. I am blessed to have 5000 calories/day while some are going hungry on 500 calories. If everyone had 2000 calories per day, there is enough food resource for everyone. I recognize the problem, sound an alarm, and cut back to 3500 calories a day. Are you persuaded by me, or are you unimpressed? Notice that the answer to the question has nothing to do with whether the resource is, in fact, limited, and nothing to do with whether or not you are personally willing to help ameliorate the problem.
The question is, IF Mr Gore is consuming more than his per-capita share, IS he still persuasive to some people?
The answers I see posted here suggest that many do not accept the premise that he is consuming more than his share of CO2 production, and that he is, in any case, persuasive.
My impression of his message is: 1) human action contributes to global climate change, and 2) human action is needed to forestall further negative consequences.
His prescription (and it’s not his invention) is gradual change and cooperative action. His desire is lowered emissions, not lowered energy use.
He does not call for us to live a less-“American” life, or for individuals to reduce their consumption to some per-capita average. He asks individuals to investigate their carbon overhead, and to take steps to reduce it. He further asks for individuals to act politically and as consumers to exert pressure on governments and corporations.
It seems to me that he has demonstrably walked each of these paths pre-and post talking them.
All my opinion, of course, after watching the movie. Which is really rather basic.
OK, good…we have the same basic idea of what his message is. I just think my interpretation of what it means to “take steps to reduce it” might be different from some other folks’.
It’s just that- you seem to think that he’s saying “use less power” or “consume less” and forgive me but he’s really not. He’s saying “throw off less carbon”.
Of course, the simplest way to do that for most people is to reduce consumption. But you can reduce emissions without consuming less- and if I may go outside his explicit message for a moment, we are never going to be able to reduce consumption to a level that will work. We need to get our energy from different sources, and we need to use it differently- i.e. screwing in a compact flourescent or an LED instead of an incandescent.
True, but this is why there has been discussion here about where he is getting his electricity…because where he lives, it is mostly coal-produced. I already said that if he is really 100% green, then he can burn the lights all night for all I care.
You really, really just cannot begin to accept that he purchases his energy through the Green Power Switch program, and is 100% green, can you?
Oh, geez…I didn’t mean for that post to bring that up again. My point to stolichnaya was merely that I understand the difference between energy use in general, and carbon-producing energy use.
Again, I am not as convinced as you are that he is 100% green, but I am glad that he is making the effort to get there.
Otherwise the terrorists win?
Not trying to be snarky, either, just pointing that it sounds a lot like what we were told after 9/11. Just go about in a normal way.
What evidence would convince you?
I think I have already answered that, so instead I am going to link to this post in the Pit thread on the same subject. I think T_SQUARE nails it here. You can say what you want about the good things Gore has done, and I agree that raising awareness is a great mission. But you can’t convince me that his lifestyle is “green.”
I see. We’ve been talking about his power consumption. You’re looking for a green “lifestyle.” I see we are at cross purposes.
Well, I think it’s all part of the same thing…you live with conservation in mind, or you don’t. I did say that if Gore is using all green electricity, then I don’t have a quarrel with him from that standpoint. But the point of T_SQUARE’s post is that the way Gore lives is not conservation-minded. One thing that has been brought up here time and time again is that Gore’s concern for the environment is all about CO2 and global warming. Well, that’s great, but it’s not the only environmental issue there is. And Gore has championed other environmental causes in the past…he has just settled on this one as the one that he thinks is the most important. Well, I think he is right about that, but it doesn’t mean that there aren’t other ways in which an extravagant lifestyle damages the earth, and that he is as responsible as everyone else is to try to minimize that impact.
It takes a lot of power to build a house. A lot of CO2 emissions happen from the manufacturing, the transporting, the installation of the building components. Why can’t I figure it in to the power consumption?
In addition, the energy it takes to maintain a household like that is enormous. Not just the light bill, Hentor. All the other costs. The furnishings, the hired help that must come. The landscaping and the care needed for it. The caterers, the minimally two fridges, two dishwashers. The heated pool, etc, etc.
All these things are manufactured off site. This takes energy to make, and to transport, and to install.
A huge amount of power consumption, and CO2 emissions.
Meant to say in my last posts that your comments in the Pit thread were right on target, too, dahfisheroo. Great points.
The issue he has picked, seems to be the most hard to prove, we can’t even get a accurate 3 day forcast, and he wants to claim we understand how the atmosphere, with it’s relation with the hydrosphere, lithospheres, and the Sun all come together, due to man, to heat up the planet.
The issue he has picked seems to demand the most dramatic change in our lifestyle. Theories about peak oil still give us time to adjust and expand our energy base (tar sands, deep wells, etc.) which would allow for a orderly switch.
The message Al Gore is presenting seems to be a mixed one, become carbon neutral and ignore the rest of the problems.
And I know that Al Gore claims to fly commercial when he can, but frankly I don’t believe him. I’m sure that he has flown commercial sometimes when he can, but unless I see a report from a independent auditor, based on AL Gores pattern of excessive energy consumption I can not believe him. I’m sure he can justify every private jet flight in his own mind however.
As for the question of the big house, and the counter argument that if he doesn’t have it, someone else would. Well, there are only so many 10K ft^2 houses in existence in the world, so his selling it would perhaps prevent another one from going up somewhere.
But that’s a side issue, Al Gore has a golden opportunity at his hands, one that will dismiss all criticisms of him on this issue - stop his excess consumption.
Well I’m sure some will claim Al Gore planned this all along, to live large till it was pointed out,then switch totally and completely.
Yup, you’ve got to be a vegetarian to avoid charges of hypocricy when the environment’s your issue:
Interesting, I also recently heard that 18% of the greenhouse gases are emitted by livestock/livestock industry, while cars are 4% - I have no idea if it’s true, or how they relate the difference between CH4 and CO2, as CH4 IIRC is many more times worse then CO2 in greenhouse gas / global warming theory.
Ok Found it:
From
You guys clearly are just not getting it. I mean really. Seriously. I’m not sure that any more can be said, but dafisheroo is still going on about energy consumption and the number of houses he has.
You guys want to bash Gore for the number of houses he has, the fact that greenhouse gases are emitted during the building of a house, or by livestock, and well, since I just don’t understand the point, there’s nothing left to say.