Is it morally justifiable flying around in a private jet telling people to cut CO2?

Great Debates
1

Well it’s back in the conservative talk radio circles. Big rich liberals, such as Al Gore flying around the country in his private jet telling us we have to reduce our carbon footprint, stop driving SUV’s and the like.

Is this behavior morally justifiable?

IIRC one way flight could consume as much fuel as a SUV does in a year. Is the real message to the people only rich people should be able to burn fuel because there aren’t as many of them and the environment can handle that, but if the middle and lower classes jump in the whole system goes to pot? If so it is morally justifiable to leave that part out of your message? If Al Gore and his ilk don’t believe this then why is he flying around in a private jet?

2

Yes, if traveling is necessary for Gore to convince large amounts of people, including entire governments and corporations, to reduce their footprint.

And I would argue that it is.

God, this is such a lame argument.

3

Sure, why not?
If one man’s private flight helps convince 10,000 to be a little more conservative in their fuel burning habits, we all benefit from it.
This is just faux PC bitching by the APG naysayers.

4

It does indeed look very hypocritical.

There was an interesting program on British TV the other day where a documentary maker flew around the world engaging with religious leaders who were behind anthropogenic climate change. The Bishop of London had deemed plane users “sinful”. So the documentary maker got the Bish to sign a pledge not to fly for a year. He was caught by surprise, and taken aback, but in the end he had to do it. I salute him.

In return, however, the documentary maker signed a pledge not to fly unless it was necessary. Hypocrite?

And yet, despite the large amount of CO2 put out by planes, they only contribute (IIRC) 5% of carbon output. If the documentary maker, or Gore, can persuade entire countries to reduce their energy-generation footprint by embracing nuclear or wind or tide, then the flying would indeed have been worth it. So, on balance, yes, but no.

5

Considering that Paramount (who owns the jet) has actually purchased renewable energy credits to offset the CO2 produced by the film, this argument goes from ‘lame’ to ‘super-lame’.

6

In practical terms, it’s likely more efficient to get around a bit faster in order to spread the message to large numbers of people whose slight individual CO2 savings will outweigh the output of the jet.

On the other hand, as long as we’re talking about practicality, how many people defending the environmentalist jets would also defend a pastor who indulges in occasional vices contrary to his teaching, in order to keep him at the top of his preaching game?

7

There were others mentioned besides Al Gore. Anyway did one less CO2 molecule go into the atmosphere because Al Gore bought the equivalent of a environmental sin indulgence? If these credits actually helped wouldn’t it be better for him to buy them and not fly on a private jet, at the very least fly first class on a commercial airline? Again not specifically targeted at Al Gore, who has the status of a former VP and need a certain amount of SS protection.

8

Here’s my thinking about the OP:

  1. Can we all agree that global warming is real, and that human industry is contributing substantially to it?

If yes, then good. If no, then nice talking to you.

  1. Now that we’ve agreed it’s real, what are the obstacles to doing something real about it, and how do we rid ourselves of them?

We in the U.S. are in a representative democracy. Seems like, whatever the obstacles, the way to confront them is to get people to put pressure on their elected representatives. That’s what Gore is doing.

The reality is that individual choices won’t save the world from greenhouse gases. Carbon taxes and similar government interventions will. If it costs some carbon emissions to bring about those interventions, it’s no more hypocritical than a businessman who spends money up front on a business venture in the expectation of increasing his profit later.

9

The idea is that each molecule is in fact sequestrated with a carbon sink (in this case a tree) that otherwise wouldn’t be there. So, in the way you asked the question, no, but in effect, yes.

(Whether or not the actual sequestration is correct volumetrically, and over what timescale it happens, or whether or not the tree would have been planted anyway, and when it might be cut down or otherwise release the sequestered carbon, is open to question, but the general principle is fine, though it is opposed by left-wing environmental groups for the same reason you appear to be objecting.)

10

Why do righties so badly want to catch Al Gore in some kind of hypocrisy anyway? If Gore can be demonstrated to be a hypocrite, would that prove that Global Warming isn’t real? The fact of anthropogenic global climate change does not rest on the personal authority or credibility of Al Gore. If you want to say that Gore is a hypocrite, fine, call him a hypocrite. I won’t try to change your mind. Let’s just agree that he’s a hypocrite. Ok. So what?

11

Find another way to get around quickly that doesn’t involve CO2 generation and we’ll talk then, okay? Maybe the one the “conservative talk radio circles” you cite use?

Oh yeah, for you, the problem is hypocrisy, not the deliberate spreading of ignorance.

12

I’m surprised they haven’t brought up the trees used to print Gore’s articles/books about global warming, or worse, the natural gas an coal used to fire the internet upon which the story of APG is promulgated.
Did you know that Al Gore invented the internet, and is thus responsible for the countless, planet warming, Gigawatts of electrical power that are poured into it yearly? Turn off your computers people. It is hypocritical to use them and still claim you care about the heat death of Mother Earth!

13

All these precious electrons are irreplaceable, people! We only have a finite supply to last all of humanity forever!

14

I don’t think Gore’s point is to get in each individual’s face and demand that you immediately stop driving and travelling. It’s to persuade people to support an eventual change in societal values. We all need to start thinking about reducing our emissions as well as supporting top-down policies by government and industry. But first we need to agree that it’s neccessary and the right thing to do.

Once that critical mass has been achieved, I’m sure Al Gore will consider his job done and will stop flying on private planes.

15

Forget Al Gore for a second - how about John Edwards preaching about the environment and living in a 29,000 sq ft mansion? How about those environmental conferences in place like Banff where the enviro-cognoscenti jet in every year, talk about how important it is to save the environment, and while they’re at it get in some good skiing?

I have a friend who is very wealthy, and an ‘environmentalist’. We visited her in her summer home on an island off of Vancouver. We had to sit there and listen to lectures about how environmentally responsible she was, because they were building their summer house with composting toilets, earth berm insulation, yada yada. Of course, she had to drive her car (an Escalade, natch) onto a large diesel-powered ferry just to GET to her environmentally conscious home, all the materials had to be transported in by boat or air, and the environment would have been ever so much better off had she not clearcut two acres out of the center of this pristine island to build her home in the first place. Her multi-million dollar home in Vancouver was apparently not good enough.

Listening to her go on about how everyone must learn to conserve was almost unbearable.

I love the rationalizations in this thread - “Al Gore needs his jet to convince everyone to conserve! IF he can convince enough people, it was worth it!” Of course, he could convince them equally well if he flew coach to his talks. Or took a train when possible.

Does Al also need his 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and his 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington Virginia to convince people to cut back? How about his third home in Tennessee?

As for the jet, if we assume he’s flying a Gulfstream, then to fly a max range flight will burn up about 6,500 lbs of fuel (about 970 gallons), put 285 lbs of CO2 into the air, and about 300 lbs of NOx. At the CAFE standard for light trucks, it would take 20,000 miles of driving to equal one trip in Al’s jet.

As for convincing people that global warming is real, don’t you think it would be a little more convincing if he actually walked the walk? How much damage is he doing the movement by giving opponents fodder like this?

16

Zero. Lunatics will always rave about something; Al Gore, or no Al Gore.

17

As you point out, planting a tree that wouldn’t be there is a temporary carbon store, perhaps it would help by keeping CO2 levels slightly lower while the tree lives, but that tree will eventually die, decay or burn and every last bit of CO2 will be re-released. Perhaps this is buying time, but then again I’m sure that fuel was used in the planting of that tree, and fuel in the SUV’s of the people who work in the CO2 credit market.

It’s not Al Gore so much, just he is a very visible target, it’s the concept of people running around in SUV’s and flying private jets telling us we have to all walk, take a bike or take mass transit, or if you really must take a electric golf cart to work that you recharge with a bike hooked up to a generator.

It would be far more honest IMHO if they just came right out and said fuel should only be for the rich.

The conservative message on this point is pretty honest, if you can afford to drive a hummer or fly in a private plane more power to you.

I have never heard a conservative talk radio host say you should not fly in a private jet, they object to someone who choses this mode of transportation telling the rest of us we should stop.

18

That was as blatant a display of hypocrisy as I’ve ever seen.
I have, right now, my woodstove going to make the house toasty 'cause it’s really cold out there. I can burn wood with ridiculous efficiency with this thing, because on top of everything else it has a catalytic converter that starts a second fire that both cuts back the pollution and increases the efficiency, to the point that it’s rated at 80%, in terms of its ability to capture the heat cranked out by the wood.
Which only makes me a statistical outlier, nothing more.
Global warming will only be cut back by positive measures, and that means advocacy, even if that advocacy involves the use of private jets, or lectures while sitting in some limousine liberal’s country home. Because the actions of any one person mean squat to a problem that is a systematic problem, and therefore beyond the reach of any individual to affect.
That said, it’s true that no one really needs 10,000 square feet of living space. Up until now, I never saw a right-winger object to that, though. First time for everything, I suppose.

19

Gore hasn’t told the rest of us we should stop before him. One of the points that gets missed with this kind of “gotcha” is that the problem is beynd the behavior of any single individual. We are all, including Gore, still compelled to perputate these practices whether we want to or not.

20

Prolly haven’t ever heard one admit that global warming is real, either, huh? Just poking fun at people who say so, all them pointy-headed science types and the geeks who try to tell us what it means, huh? That’s the ignorance-spreading I’m referring to.