Well, according to the link, that’s the bill at the vice presidential mansion, so strictly speaking it’s not Mr. Cheney himself but the office of the vice president that’s using the power. I presume any random Veep might run up a similar bill.
Still could be an interesting debate in another thread, however. The company I work for has an eight-room converted house and a 50x100 foot warehouse with additional office space, with 15-20 people on site at any given time, and our highest monthly utility bill has been about $3700, with the average about half that. And heck, we’re in the oil industry.
Where’s the character assassination in my posts? I’m merely pointing out that the tempest du jour is another trumped up personal attack by the right-wing media designed to derail discussion from a serious issue. It originated on an obscure right-wing website, got picked up by Drudge, Rush has been hammering on it, and now it’s trickled into the real media.
Missing is any analysis about whether Gore’s electrical bills are unusual for a house of his size, whether other political figures are better or worse, or most importantly, whether it makes any damn difference at all to the big picture of global warming. Instead the media just mindlessly propagates the smear.
In response to your original questions:
Maybe … depends on if the allegations are true or not.
The goal of the original press release was to shift the discussion from global warming to Al Gore’s character. That’s the ad hominem attack. The fact that it’s been picked up by CNN shows that it’s working.
Well, the facts are what they are. An ad hominem attack is perfectly valid if the question concerns the character of the man.
To be perfectly clear, I am not attacking Gore, just asking questions. I would be perfectly happy to be convinced that the answers to my questions are 1) No, and 2) No.
What I was hoping for was a yes or no, followed by a chain of reason.
You lost me. My point is, that claiming that Gore’s conspicuous consumption is less than someone else’s conspicuous consumption is damning with faint praise, at best.
How about an Expedition vs. a Suburban. Is driving the one with the best fuel economy a good thing?
Does Gore’s house use 10% of the energy of other houses of comparable size?
If the stats are that far above the average American, then the answer is clearly “yes”.
It doesn’t change the scientific facts, but it makes him less than an ideal spokesman for his cause. He is, presumably, primarily interested in persuading people to reduce their energy consumption, and many of those people are looking for excuses not to listen. Why give them so much ammunition?
Thanks for clarifying my OP. I didn’t mean to suggest that the science was undercut, but that the effect may be. I thought it was clear, but apparently I was wrong.
I suppose if Al Gore had called upon people to move into smaller homes or not to live in large ones altogether, he could safely be called a hypocrite.
My recollection of the film and his other statements is that he does not make such calls, but does call for people to make changes in order to reduce their overall use and to become carbon neutral.
In fact, here is the What You Can Do section of the “An Inconvenient Truth” website. I don’t see anything on there about living in smaller houses.
It does sound from the article like Gore is doing things to offset his use and be carbon neutral, like purchasing green energy and installing solar panels. I don’t know if he is doing other things on the list of “What You Can Do,” but it seems like if he weren’t, he could be subject to charges of hypocrisy.
However, it is hard to argue that Al Gore hasn’t done more than any other single human being to raise awareness about global warming, and he has probably in turn had more indirect influence on reducing energy consumption and altering other people’s behavior in a positive impact than anyone ever has.
All right, let me throw this out again. To those who staunchly defend Gore’s violation of his own principles, would you attack an evangelical pastor who turned out to be, let’s say, gay? Or would that be character asassination and shooting of messengers?
I think it’s a huge violation of his principles. I admire anyone who takes on a cause they believe in, and tries to educate the public about it. But I lose a lot of that admiration if the person does not seem committed to living the lifestyle they champion. Think about it this way…he wants the average person to reduce their energy consumption, but he hasn’t taken steps, apparently, to reduce his even to the level of what the average person uses. Does he want everyone else to economize so that he doesn’t have to?
I don’t think comparing him to what other rich people do is valid. If there is a moral imperative to reducing energy, then all people…rich, middle class, whatever, should all be held to that imperative. Being rich doesn’t mean you NEED a big house that consumes a lot of energy. And if a person loudly proclaims that there is a moral imperative, and doesn’t even attempt to live up to it, then that person is a hypocrite.
How is it violation of his principles? Read Hentor’s post above, he’s taken all sort of measures. That’s all anyone can do.
This was the same argument that people used with Edwards regarding his house and I see it as a non-issue. I believe in doing what I can regarding energy consumption myself but I’m not going to take up residence on a park bench and sell my car.
Please bear in mind that I am not debating anthopomorphic climate change. Only the recent revelation about AGs power usage and how it impacts his message.
We are told climate change is a huge problem. From “An Inconvenient Truth”'s website
Serious stuff. And if one believes it to be true, one would do anything to combat it. We all have opportunities to change the way we live to make it more environmentally friendly. There is also the opportunity to purchase carbon offset credits to counter your own carbon footprint, making you carbon neutral.
Or…if you really believe in anthro. climate change…you could do both.
Gore has demonstrated that he is willing to purchase credits and green power with his largesse, but he is not willing to cut actual consumption. In fact he has demonstrated that he is a bit of a power hog.
So the one thing most people can do most readily, cut consumption, is the one thing AG will not do. If he won’t bother, why should anyone else. Most people don’t have access to “green” power generation and the average person cannot purchase offsets in sufficient quantities.
When they see AG not only consuming as much as, but significantly more that the average person, I have to wonder if he is buying what he is selling. Environmentalism has been labeled a “liberal” issue, for better or worse. That means there is a certain portion of the society who is going to poopoo enviro-causes on face value. I admit that is unfortunate. But this situation with Gore allows people not interested in green issues to more easily dismiss green issues as politically motivated pap.
Keep in mind, I am not debating the message, only Gore’s power consumtion and its imact on the message…
Now wait a minute; have we established that Gore is guilty of conspicuous consumption? All your cite established was that he spent $1500 a month on electricity, which has been pointed out is all generated with green fuel sources. How is that a contradiction of the movie?
Well, we know that all of the electricity is off the table, so that makes a large dent.
I don’t believe he has done “all anyone can do.” All anyone could do would be to move into an average-sized house and use electricity like an average person.
I am the same as you…I believe in economizing on energy, within reasonable limits. But I live as an average person does, as you probably do, too. Why is he entitled, morally speaking, to use more power than an average person, just because he is rich?