No it wouldn’t, it would just be something for the Right Wing to complain about other than actually discussing the issue. Same old song and dance for you guys, attack the man, don’t discuss the message. 
From Gandhi: I must be the change I want to see in the world.
Of course Mr Gore is hypocrytical. So are we all.
The amount of change required here is too great to be achievable. Moderate adjustments in the lifestyles of the developed world will not change the amount of CO2 enough to make any significant difference. Severe changes will not be made. As a rough approximation CO2 output correlates with wealth. The rest of the world is getting wealthier, fairly rapidly. Reducing our emissions in the developed world may make us feel better; buying carbon credits may make us feel great. Neither is going to make a enough of a change to make a difference.
How is it you know this with such certainty? Have you studied the matter, did you hear it from the lips of God or some equally wise being?
It puzzles me that some who were so certain for so long that APG was a myth, a left wing conspiracy if you will, are now, over the course of weeks, equally certain that the problem is too large for us mortals to deal with in any significant way.
But you still haven’t made a convincing case that his actions are hypocritical.
Look, if Gore were telling us, “Everybody must cut their CO2 emissions as much as possible at all times! Nobody should ever do something as wasteful as traveling in a private jet!”, then yes, of course it would be hypocritical of him to travel by private jet himself.
But AFAICT, he’s not saying that. He’s simply saying that we need to take some significant actions to cut our emissions substantially. His own actions are in line with his preaching. Therefore, he’s not a hypocrite.
You’re the one who has unilaterally decided (well, not you personally, but the right-wing noise machine) that any use of private planes for air travel crosses some arbitrary line between Environmentally Conscious Enough and Not Environmentally Conscious Enough. But this is just an arbitrary condition that you made up so that you could call Gore a hypocrite. There’s no reason any of the rest of us have to accept it as valid.
Excellent post, Kimstu. And I’ll reiterate my point, which is that at this point in time, Gore is contributing to the building of a societal consensus that a significant effort must be made to slow global warming. Without that consensus, the efforts to cut back by a few tree-huggers so inclined won’t be enough. And besides just getting ordinary individuals to start thinking about what they can do to help fight global warming, a major part of the process is to get the attention of major players like industry and government and to build public pressure on them to adopt greener policies. When the critical mass of support is achieved–hopefully just a few years down the line–we’ll have gotten a jump on the technology so as to ease everyone into a reduced-emissions lifestyle.
I don’t remember posting that a few weeks ago. Can you remind me where it is?
Suppose that the US, the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, the European Union, and China together account for about 65% of the CO2 production, but only represent about 35% of the population…
As the developing world develops and becomes more wealthy, its CO2 production is going to soar; the 65% is going to try and catch up to the industrialized world. As an example, there’s a nice story in today’s Wall Street journal about a family in Iran which has eight cars where the prior generation had none. This is likely to more than offset any reduction done in the developed world, not heretofore known for making sacrifices.
Feel free to post alternate numbers, but perhaps this is one of those areas where just filing it away and revisiting it in ten years will prove the most educational about whose position was right.
I don’t take a personal position on global warming other than the brouhaha about it is not so far removed from brouhaha about, say, a comet on its way. Not much is going to change what is going to happen. I do think Mr. Gore is a good example of this. Overall I suspect he’s living pretty large. Most people want to fly private jet instead of first; first instead of coach; coach instead of car; car instead of bus; bus instead of bicycle–on and on down the whole consumption path. CO2 correlates with wealth and enjoying the fruits of wealth is a pretty hard thing to stamp out.
I must admit to wondering when Mr Gore will convince himself, but judging from the posts above, that is not necessary and any hypocrisy is overlooked because of his status and other contributions (seem my Gandhi quote). The thing is, my observation is that we all want a lifestyle like Mr Gore’s–perhaps just on a smaller scale. And so we forgive ourselves our own indiscretions. Plus the really cynical side of me is waiting to hear that Mr. Gore is shorting beachfront property.
As far as the OP, by the way, on the “moral” issue. I read a nice comment on an anti-airline site that compared buying carbon credits to a man who contributes to shelters for abused women so that he can feel more comfortable in continuing to beat his wife. 
I did say since Al Gore was a former VP, the private jet may be justified for security reasons - I don’t know what type of security a former VP gets, but this thread is about Al Gore and his liberal ilk, including John Edwards and others mentioned above.
And the point that if a perpetual forest is created instead of just a bunch of one shot trees is valid as a long term store of carbon, just how do you go about creating a forest when there wasn’t one seems questionable.
Some have pointed put that Al Gore’s carbon is neglegable by himself, but isn’t Al Gore’s message that Joe Sixpack can make a difference by selecting a Prius instead of a Hummer, that these little choices add up? Why isn’t Al Gore contributing also? Could he not have planned a train trip AND made that a MAJOR selling point AND bough the pollution credits anyway, making his trip carbon negative?
As pointed out above, using a private jet, discredits his message and opens him up to justified attack, after all that is, except for rockets, jets are most fuel intensive form of travel.
I’m no expert on the subject, but I’m going to take a wild guess and say, “Plant a bunch of trees.”
I know, it sounds crazy…
Well, if you are arguing that we are pretty much doomed if the developing world develops in the same fossil-fuel-intensive way that we did, then I would not argue with you. That is why it is so important for the developed world, which has the means (and is also responsible for the lion’s share) of the elevation in CO2 levels thus far) to develop the technologies that are going to lead to future energy use on a less carbon-intensive path (and/or with the sequestration of CO2). And, the way that these technologies will get developed is if the market incentives are there for them to be developed; if we continue thinking of the atmosphere as a free sewer for our greenhouse gas emissions, the economic incentives to minimize those emissions just don’t exist.
First of all, carbon credits are obtained from more than just planting trees. I believe they are earned through the development of non-greenhouse-gas emitting energy sources like wind power projects and the like, for example.
Second of all, while it is true that there are limitations in how much carbon can be sequestered in trees, it is not completely zero-sum as you imply: If we reforest significant regions, we can pretty much indefinitely store the additional carbon in those regions.
But that’s Hard, jshore. It’s far easier to skip from denial that there is a problem, right on over to despair that anything at all can be done about it.
I didn’t mean to argue that we are “doomed” but simply that we won’t be able to significantly reduce CO2. I plan to invest in those CO2-reducing technologies because it’s the cause du jour. There is money to be made off this frenzy.
I will be very surprised if the results of global warming are even remotely close to the extreme end of predictions but sooner or later someone’s The-End-of-the-world-as-we-know-it theory might end up being right. There have been a lot of them over the years, that’s for sure.
You gotta love the way the developed world has tamed our own land, gotten used to living large, and wants to help the next generation conserve their resources and live more responsibly cuz there are not enough resources for everyone to live like we do, and we ain’t about to pick up primitive living again between now and the time we figger out how to live more prudently.
I’m going to answer the OP in terms a conservative will understand.
Morally justifiable? Is it morally justifiable when conservatives like Mark Foley and Ted Haggard are molesting little boys and buying drugs from male prostitutes? Is that what conservatives consider morally justifiable?
This has got to be one of the most annoying things that pops up in any political discussion. Saying “what about your guy” when we’re talking about someone in specific adds nothing to the conversation and is usually aimed at simply ending the conversation. I hate it when people do it with Clinton, Bush, or arnyone else. This thread isn’t about Mark fucking Foley or Ted Haggard it’s about Al Gore and his use of private jets vs. his message about the environment.
Marc
I think people are inherently fucked.
The papers here yesterday were full of reports of the Australian government’s plan to outlaw incandescent light bulbs in 2010, due to their carbon dioxide footprint. It was all very feel-good, with politicians, editors, and readers all saying what a responsible idea it is. The same papers carried the same people’s voices oohing and aahing over the arrival on the Queen Mary 2 and the QE2 in Sydney Harbour. The QM2 is the biggest liner in the world. Just imagine the amount of fuel used per passenger journey. Yet I have to change all my light fittings in my little flat. Over a lifetime of living here with fluorescent bulbs or LEDs or whatever, I doubt I’d even make a dent in the greenhouse gases released by one rich retiree’s world cruise on that ship. It’s enough to make you just give up.
Pardon the hijack:
What is this about “purchasing CO2 credits”?
Who collects the money?
What are they supposed to do with this money?
If they are required to use the money for green projects, is there some oversight/monitoring organisation making sure they do?
For example, let’s say Al Gore buys CO2 credits from the Bahamian Government (who isnt planning on building any factories anytime soon).
Is the Bahamian government supposed to donate that money to the Sierra Club? Plant more palm trees? Invest in R&D for greener technology?
How does buying credits actually reduce the amount of CO2 being produced and introduced into the atmosphere?
It seems that the “rich” (nations, corporations, or individuals) will just be able to pay this “CO2 tax” and go on polluting… please fight my ignorance.
As a middle of the road guy, I do think this is much ado about nothing. As mentioned previously, I think his ability to get the message out is eclipsed by the emission that his private plane gives out. I’d be much more interested in how he manages his private life. Does he lead by example at home? If he has three SUV’s sitting in the driveway, then I think he’s a hypocrite.
What the hell. Maybe if it’s posted three times, someone will actually read it:
mlees, here is a wikiepedia primer on the subject of national carbon credits, and here is one on the personal version.
The idea, in both cases, is that everyone gets an amount of acceptable emissions, and if you use too many yourself, you can purchase extras from someone else who hasn’t used up their share. You can also get extras by doing things to reduce emissions.
Did I shoot your dig too?? :rolleyes: