Please tell me you are going to become a permanent member?
I was hoping this, as well…GREAT posts, Chief!
Really?? The idea that the evidence for global warming is anything like the evidence for any and all issues like Chief Pedant refers to is extremely foolish. I’d rather we did not experience increasing posts that serve only to distract and are not on point, logically sound or relevant.
I agree. Nothing against CP, pre se, but I didn’t find those posts to be enlightening wrt this debate, and the dismissal of Global Warming as a mere scare tactic is eyebrow raising, to say the least.
Global warming is a fact-- as much a fact as science can produce. How best to address that fact is a matter we’ve debated here a number of times. This particular thread is a discussion of whether or not Al Gore lives a lifestyle consistent with that of a key spokesman for addressing the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change. He seems to be doing a lot of good things, but there are still some open questions. With luck, we’ll have a good analysis from Snopes at some point. In Mr. Gores’ case, there are mitigating circumstances that do have to be taken into account, too. He needs to jet around the world to spread his message, and until someone invents a solar powered aircraft, he’s still probably doing much more good than harm using conventional travel methods-- it’s nuts to begrudge him that. It may not be easy, or even possible, to separate out his personal life from his professional life wrt carbon emissions, and I don’t think we can ask much more than that he does all that can reasonably be done with current technology.
I agree with you on his last post, which I found more amusing than anything. The point I thought was interesting and relevant was this one:
But we’ve discussed that ad naseum. Apart from the air travel mentioned there, there is essentially no CO2 production required for the energy for his house. Sure, there was some, I’m sure, that went into the actual building of the house, but I hope you’re not going to argue that Gore is at fault for the absence of green power construction practices.
If I’ve neglected to make this clear, he, like all of us, could reduce our energy consumption even further.
But consider this: who has had a greater positive impact on education around global warming: Al Gore or Ed Begley, Jr?
It’s like saying “Buying stocks is a losing proposition. You’re already out money right at the get go. You should only take penny stocks or wait for someone to give them to you for free.” Gore’s carbon footprint for his travel is an investment in a much larger payoff for reduced carbon output worldwide. But over and above this, he purchases offsets for the emissions that he is responsible for.
Despite the fact that I have stated why I am unconvinced that his energy use is 100% green (if it is already, why is he installing the solar panels now?), I think you and I are at an impasse with that discussion. What we have read satisfies you on that point, but it does not satisfy me. But I agree with Chief’s point that Gore’s consumption is really beside the point (and pretty much a teeny tiny drop in the bucket, anyway). The point is that many many people in this country live way outside what is necessary when it comes to fuel usage, and the richer a person is, the more that tends to be true, and to a greater degree. It is extremely difficult to control behavior in this regard, because no one ever looks upon themselves as the cause of the problem…and really, that’s because they aren’t. The problem is the aggregate. We need, as a society, to not worry so much about individual behaviors, as to find solutions for this problem that do not infringe on the lifestyles people want to have. I know that this is what Al Gore is trying to work towards, and for this I applaud him.
To reduce the actual amount he takes from the grid.
The amount he takes from the grid he offsets by means already mentioned. Now he’s trying to do more.
Here is a little drop of sanity in the sea of gross speculation about this issue. Some highlights:
[ul]
[li]Gore … has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff.[/li][li]The “average” home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average… In Gore’s climatic zone, the East South Central, the average is much higher.[/li][li]Within that zone, Gore’s usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average.[/li][li]The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the “Tennessee Center for Policy Research,” which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It’s run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box.[/li][/ul]
It’s also stated that most of the electricity in Tennessee is nuclear and hydro, but I’m not sure that applies to that specific area of the state.
Yes, my comment about Chief Pendant was for the post #152. Sorry I didn’t quote the correct post.
On the other hand, one could argue that being a useful role model for carbon-cutting practices is an important part of Gore’s ACC-reduction mission. Even if Gore really does lead a totally carbon-neutral or carbon-negative lifestyle—supporting green power and other carbon offsets to an extent that cancels out all the greenhouse-gas emissions his own activities produce—he’s not doing so at present in a way that most Americans will be able to imitate.
Most of us don’t have ready access to enough renewably-generated power to supply all our energy needs, nor can we afford to buy enough carbon offsets to neutralize all of our greenhouse-gas generation from other sources. For the vast majority of us, significantly reducing greenhouse-gas emissions will mean significantly reducing energy consumption. Therefore, it does blur Gore’s message somewhat when he advocates cutting emissions but uses oodles of energy himself, even if he does so in a completely carbon-neutral manner.
So I think it would be perfectly fair for Gore-bashers to argue that Gore is being somewhat unwise, or selfish, or irresponsible, not to strengthen his message by seeking a more modest personal lifestyle. (Pace John, I doubt his large-scale energy use can be solely attributed to his activism and professional/political status, though I’m sure those contribute a lot; but I know I read the words “heated swimming pool” in one of the newspaper stories, and there’s no way that’s anything but a rich man’s optional luxury.) Gore’s cutting back on energy use would set a good example for the rest of us, who can’t afford to spend our way to carbon neutrality like him but are going to have to save our way there instead.
Where the Gore-bashers went off the rails was in trying to claim that Gore is literally being a hypocrite in this matter. There’s no logically valid way to make the charge of hypocrisy stick. Gore advocates reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, and he does reduce his greenhouse-gas emissions; therefore he’s practicing what he preaches.
Do you have a cite for this claim that the carbon impact of making housing and transportation, even including a relatively small number of luxury items like limos and mansions and jets, is significantly more important than the carbon impact of using them?
Because AFAICT from discussions of greenhouse-gas emissions such as this one, the exact opposite is true:
In other words, if we could all make our power generation and transportation carbon-neutral, as Gore apparently does, we would knock out the majority of greenhouse-gas emissions right there. The impact of luxury-goods production is comparatively small potatoes.
Two points on that list interest me,Gore’s electricity company has no record of being contacted about his bills.
Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.so it’s entirely possible that Gore buys more electricity than he actually uses, and is in effect subsidizing the TVA’s Green Power Switch® program.
CMC fnord!
Yeah, thanks for the polite but still dismissive pat on the head, Chief Pedant, but I’m 40 – hardly some dewy-eyed granola-eating college kid. This isn’t some fashionable ‘cause du jour’ that you can or should roll your eyes at and cynically ride out until the hippies get bored and discover the plight of the migrating laden African swallow.
As John Mace and Hentor the Barbarian ably state, the reality of global climate change has been proven. That’s beside the point of this debate – I thought the debate here was about whether Gore is, or is not, using too much energy, and whether if he is, that makes him a hypocrite.
Erik the Viking* has reiterated my point: that comparing the usage of a what’s basically a home-cum-office building and the average U.S. home is utterly false prospect from the get-go. Meanwhile, Sarahfeena ignores that and points out a heated swimming pool that she thinks she read about somewhere in some article. That’s the kind of mindset we’re dealing with, where facts are ignored and rumors are treated as evidence.
Well, let’s say this hypothetical pool exists. I admit that if it does, and if Gore’s been blasting everyone and trying to intimidate people into removing all vestiges of luxury from their lifestyle, this heated pool would indeed be a sign of hypocrisy. Alas for those who decry Gore’s position – especially those who haven’t even seen the fucking movie or watched his presentation and thus don’t know what his exact position is – the truth is, Gore does not and has not advocated a monk-like existence. Each individual reducing his carbon footprint will help, and he surely advocates and follows that, but it’s the bigger picture that Gore is preaching; he’s trying to get people to put pressure aimed squarely at corporations and governments both regional and global alike. Saying that Gore’s message is invalid or hypocritical because of (what turns out to be a false/misleading report about) his home energy usage is like chiding a librarian for shouting at home.
- It’s comforting that we can have representatives from both the Barbarians and the Vikings on the same side of a debate thread!
I think that was me, just above in post#171. I don’t recall Sarahfeena talking about Gore’s swimming pool.
Remember, throughout this thread I’ve been solidly supporting the “Gore is not a hypocrite” side of the debate. In an earlier post I even suggested that it’s plausible that Gore’s massive consumption of renewably-generated energy is a good thing for the green-power market and hence for the spread of green power.
However, I think it’s perfectly fair to discuss the PR aspects of Gore’s behavior as well as whether or not it strictly conforms to principled consistency. I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out that while Gore is not being a hypocrite in advocating emissions reduction, his own lavish use of energy (even green energy) can blur his message and make it easier for unprincipled critics to damage his cause.
I’ve seen the assertion that he has a heated swimming pool as well. I think that in a reasonable, logical discussion, one might suggest that this is an energy use that is outside the norm, and one for which Gore might be subject to a little heat.
The problem is that these discussions are not reasonable or logical. It isn’t as if someone said, “Hey, here’s all the data on Gore’s use of energy, its sources, its impact. What do you think?”
No, this one was brought to us in the same way that the “concerns” about John Kerry and the merits of his medals were brought to us, or whether Gore believes he tinkered around and came up with the internet, or whether being a member of the ACLU is a bad thing. Questionable half-stories aimed not at understanding what the real story is, but getting a single nugget out there in the public consciousness purely for political reasons.
Ah, thank you for the correction, Kimtsu. I apologize then to Sarahfeena. Clearly my dewy-eyed passion for the cause blurs the posts together. 
But I still think it’s silly for her to take Gore to task when she hasn’t even seen his presentation or film, and thus doesn’t know precisely what his message is.
PR value, I grant, Hentor. It would be ideal if Gore lived and worked in a tiny house with no heated swimming pool.
This whole argument still misses the point of Gore’s message, the obfuscation of which is exactly the purpose of the Tennessee ‘Swift Boat’ Council’s press release. They don’t care about whether Gore’s a hypocrite; as far as they’re concerned, they’d be happy if he heated his pool with jet fuel. The idea is to get idiots like us talking about this non-issue, rather than concentrating on the big picture.
Hopefully at least some of the ridiculousness of this attack is getting through. You simply cannot rationally compare the work/living space of the Gores, their office staffers and security team with a group that includes singles living in studio apartments.
Thanks for the retraction (and thanks for pointing out the mistake, Kimstu!), but honestly, I don’t think you need to see the film to know what his message is…he has made it quite plain for a number of years. In aggregate, I think I have read just as much about his mission through articles and such to make up for not seeing the film.
So, Gore’s message is: “live in a small house, and avoid air travel”. Got it.
I never said that it was.
I never said that you said that. It just seems to me, if he’s a hypocrite, that must be what his message is.
I did see the movie, but I must have misunderstood.