Another question:
It says in one press release (attacking Al Gore) that Gore’s documentary “calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.”
Is that true?
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Oh. So you’re opposed to this award because Gore hasn’t actually single-handedly caused a significant world-wide reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions? Because, according to you, it’s an impossible mission?
Okay, but in that case, I don’t see why you’re not equally upset about earlier Peace Prizes being awarded to people who didn’t actually bring about peace, or end torture, or effectively accomplish whatever it was they got the Prize for trying to do.
And I also don’t see how what you’re saying now jibes with what you wrote in your OP:
Then, you seemed to be saying that you oppose Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize because of his personal behavior, which you consider incompatible with his public mission.
Now, you seem to be saying that you oppose Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize because what he’s trying to do can’t be done (according to you).
Surely you don’t mean that you think the only significant obstacle to Gore’s accomplishing his mission is his high level of personal energy consumption? Are you seriously suggesting that if Gore would only stop using all those BTUs for his own lifestyle, the rest of the world (besides the few liberal professors, starry-eyed students, etc., who are already on board) would start acting on his recommendations? (And as other posters have already pointed out, how would he manage to get his message out worldwide if he were living a minimal-consumption lifestyle, anyway?)
That just seems silly, and I don’t think from your earlier posts that it’s the point you’re actually trying to make. If Gore is successful at raising awareness about AGW and inspiring effective action to mitigate it, then clearly the extent of his own personal consumption will be negligible compared to that massive accomplishment.
On the other hand, if, as you seem to think, it’s innately impossible for anyone to inspire effective action to mitigate AGW, then Gore’s own consumption level is basically irrelevant. If the world is indeed fundamentally unpersuadable on the subject of reducing emissions because we’re all so greedy for more, then it won’t matter whether the person trying to persuade us is Al Gore or Ed Begley, Jr.
So where’s the point in picking on Gore because of his high-consumption lifestyle? According to you, his mission would still be doomed no matter how low-consumption a lifestyle he chose, because we all just loooooooves us our new Chinese-made golf clubs so much.
In short, I still can’t figure out why you are, in your own words, “so upset” about this.
[/QUOTE]
I forgot to put the smiley after “so upset.” It didn’t really ruin my day. I do consider Mr Gore’s Nobel a farce, and perhaps there are other prize winners whose prize was equally farcical but one has to limit the conversation in a given post, especially when taking on the full spectrum of hilarity available when looking over the way the world works.
You put it best: I think Mr Gore’s personal behaviour is incompatible with his public mission. Whether a change in his personal behaviour would effect a change in the world is irrelevant to the point of whether or not it is a farce to give him the Nobel prize. Were he to exemplify the lifestyle required to make a real difference in AGW, I’d feel his Nobel was not a farce. As mentioned above, Nobel Peace prizes tend to be awards for doing the right thing more than actually producing world changes. The latter test is a bit more stringent since the world is full of narcissistic bozos.
And there is the problem: we humans have a fabulous history of lip service toward all and actual service to ourselves. If AGW is anywhere near correct, and consumption drives the CO2 causing it, then the worst role model to have is a high consumer. Right now the developed world is the high consumer and the developing world is hell-bent on getting there, GW be damned.
What gives us (individually and collectively) permission to increase and ignore our personal choices rather than reduce and mitigate our effect on the world? The next guy over who is sinning way worse than we are. The Indian wants a Tata http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/business/worldbusiness/12cars.html?em&ex=1192334400&en=eed03153aacc9ec7&ei=5087 ; the Westerner wants a Hummer; the Executive wants a jet; the Millionaire wants a yacht and everyone wants to make sure they are not personally short-shrifted of life’s pleasures.
Your math is fabulously better than mine 
and even with mine the persistence of current consumption levels in the developed world along with an increasing appetite (and consumers with purchasing power) in the developing world yields an inescapable conclusion: CO2 production is going to continue to rise dramatically. Nothing short of radical change is going to have any real effect.
It is my opinion, therefore, that the worst candidate for this particular Nobel is a high-profile high-consumer (incredibly, outrageously, ridiculously high compared to a per-person standard for the rest of the world) giving lip service and preaching prudence while he makes trivial and superficial changes in his own lifestyle. Because that is exactly why efforts at ameliorating AGW-unfriendly consumption will fail. We are all Al Gores. We are all concerned in general but unwilling to actually sacrifice in particular. We will all (except Ed Begley) content ourselves with feel-good no-pain “solutions.”
It’s not so much a question of whether or not Mr Gore is a hypocrite. As Miller notes, he may simply be a fool. Perhaps he hasn’t done the math of what would be required. It’s a question of whether or not someone who preaches against abuse and establishes shelters while beating his own wife senseless contributes to a cause or hurts it. Echoing Ghandi: I must be the change I want to see in the world. Mr Gore is not the preacher railing against promiscuity while he reads Cosmo in the WalMart checkout line. He’s the preacher who is doing the entire choir on the side.
I maintain that Mr Gore has raised awareness about AGW tremendously. The follow-on awareness will be that no real sacrifice is required–“Look at Al.” The consequence will be that no change will be effected. Mr Hutt wants us to eat less because of the coming famine; I am only 5X what my body weight should be so I’m fine since Mr Hutt, my spokesperson, is about 50X normal. There is little chance the developed world will be persuaded to sacrifice. There is no chance the developing world will be cheated of their long-awaited consumption before the Haves start sacrificing. No one is getting on board the sacrifice train until everyone gets on, and the Conductor hollering “All Aboard!” is consuming like there is no tomorrow. When too few people get on the train, it may become more obvious to you why I don’t think lauds are appropriate for the Conductor.
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
…I do consider Mr Gore’s Nobel a farce, and perhaps there are other prize winners whose prize was equally farcical…
[/quote]
Yassir Arafat, perhaps?
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
…You put it best: I think Mr Gore’s personal behaviour is incompatible with his public mission. Whether a change in his personal behaviour would effect a change in the world is irrelevant to the point of whether or not it is a farce to give him the Nobel prize. Were he to exemplify the lifestyle required to make a real difference in AGW, I’d feel his Nobel was not a farce. …
[/quote]
So, does this prove the President’s official actions relative to climate change are farcical as well? I’ve received numerous chain-letter type emails touting the Bush ranch’s energy efficiency, with the accompanying message that GWB is walking the walk and Al Gore is not. And yet the President’s public message is (or has been over the past 6 years) that AGW is still an open question and we should do as little as possible to address it. Certainly nothing that would cause anyone any hardship.
As much as anything, the issue of AGW demands publicity. The conventional media practice had, at least until recently, been to provide “balanced” coverage, meaning that the scientific consensus was “balanced” by skeptics who are often (not always) pusing a political agenda. This created a message that the scientific consensus was anything but a consensus and that the real science was being drowned out by anti-growth zealots. “An Inconvenient Truth” (along with the Supreme Court decision on CO2 regulation by EPA and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) began making it clear that AGW is indeed an issue, and a very serious one.
You may not agree with Mr. Gore’s message vs. his personal consumption habits, but his message has probably done more to make people aware of the issue than either the SCOTUS decision or the IPCC report. In my view, he received the Nobel because he raised awareness of AGW, not because of the rightness (or wrongness) of his personal behavior (and I recognize that you agree with that).
We’ve always had, and will always have, those who are excellent at the message and horrible at being a personal example of that message. Let’s have a war, as long as I or my family doesn’t have to participate. Let’s wipe out gay behavior, as long as I can duck into a bathroom stall for my fun. Let’s promote family values, as long as I can keep visiting prostitutes and having affairs. There are no shortage of examples from those along any point in the political spectrum.
It is the rare leader who fully practices what he/she preaches, and I would say that in some cases, it’s probably impossible (or certainly impractical). I certainly don’t want to head down the path of the “end justifies the means”, but at the same time, leaders are ultimately judged less on their personal behavior than on the final outcomes of their official actions. See, for instance, Jimmy Carter.
Again, this is why I think Gore is a more effective spokesperson for the cause than someone like Ed Begley. He understands that not everybody is going to convert their homes to run on bicycle generators and hemp oil, and that the changes that need to be encouraged are the ones people can make without totally uprooting themselves and upending their lives.
It wouldn’t save the world if everybody switched over to CF bulbs. But it would encourage people to be mindful of their environmental impact and feel good about doing something for the Earth. That leads to upward pressure on our leaders to make the large-scale changes that will really help.
If you want to argue that Gore’s approach is not aggressive enough, and that it requires a time scale that we just don’t have, that’s a legit argument. I think it’s the only approach with any chance of working, even if its chances may not be good.
[QUOTE=Public Animal No. 9]
So, does this prove the President’s official actions relative to climate change are farcical as well?
[/QUOTE]
Don’t even get me started on the dimmest candle on the public altar. Criticizing Mr Gore’s Nobel is shooting fish in a barrel; with Mr Bush the fish shoots itself. But I hijack my own thread…
[QUOTE=brazil84]
A few follow up questions:
When did Gore purchase this house? This cite says it was in 2002:
http://www.nysun.com/article/49438
I couldn’t find a cite that says he works from home. Can you?
This cite says that he has an office in Nashville:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E0D61F3EF937A25755C0A9679C8B63
Last, I notice that one of your articles says "He is . . . installing more energy-efficient light bulbs . . . . "
The article is dated June of 2007. Assuming that Gore purchased the house in 2002, why would it take him 5 years to be “installing more energy-efficient light bulbs”?
[/QUOTE]
I never suggested Al Gore worked from home, I believe another poster made a WAG of that. However, your link does not say that he does not work from home. More research would need to be done.
Just so you understand, while I think Al Gore is doing a good job bringing the message of AGW to those that normally would not care or read about the issue, I did not vote for him in 2000. I actually voted for Nader. I am Green, but I am also a Republican. If McCain had won the nomination, he would have had my vote. I am strongly leaning towards Rudy this time.
Al will not publicly support building more nuclear power plants, I think he is wrong in this. I do not know how he actually feels about Nuke power however. He might still be a politician at heart and is avoiding pissing off the No-Nuke Greens that still greatly outnumber those like me.
Sorry for the side-step there …
Al Gore has an excellent record on the environment. For anyone who thinks he jumped on the Green Wagon recently, this little Wiki summary is a worthwhile read. Al Gore - Wikipedia *Please note this article has plenty of cites for followup. *
[QUOTE=a small part of the summary]
He held the first congressional hearings on the subject in the late 1970s."[61] During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978–79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s. On 14 May 1989 while still a Senator, Gore published an editorial in the Washington Post which argued that, “Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with the planet Earth. The world’s forests are being destroyed; an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer. Living species are dying at an unprecedented rate.”
…
Gore is a vocal proponent of carbon neutrality, buying a carbon offset each time he travels by aircraft. Gore and his family drive hybrid vehicles.
[/QUOTE]
I have no answer on the Light bulbs, perhaps, like me, he has been in process in the last 5 years. I bought my home around the same time he did. (Mine is a lot smaller). Over the 5 years, I slowly replaced most of my incandescents with CFLs and Tubes in my basement. I added Solar panels to my roof to provide about 75% of my power. I insulated all of the Hot Water pipes in my house. I added insulation to my water heater. I replaced my 1960 Boiler with a modern high efficiency boiler. As I buy new appliances, I always look for the EE rating. I am drive a Ford Focus wagon and when I run it into the ground (probably 2 more years, when it will have a 140,000 miles on it) I will buy a hybrid (Plug-in if possible).
I had neither the time nor the money to do all of this at once. It would be foolish to move up my purchase of a new car, just to make a point. How high of a standard does Al Gore need to be held to? You and Chief Pedant don’t feel he is doing enough. So, am I doing enough? Can I keep talking about AGW and other Green issues?
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I never suggested Al Gore worked from home, I believe another poster made a WAG of that. However, your link does not say that he does not work from home. More research would need to be done.
[/quote]
He apparently has an office in Nashville. It’s hard to imagine that he doesn’t go there regularly.
If so, then he was prominent in the environmental movement even when he bought his really large energy guzzling house in 2002. So much for the argument that he’s not a hypocrite because he’s merely retaining what he already has.
Perhaps, but it looks to me like he is making these changes as a direct result of all the flak he has caught over his lifestyle.
The most prominent leader of an international movement should be held to a very high standard. He doesn’t need to live in a hut, but it looks to me as though Al Gore is well beyond what is reasonable.
You are free to talk about whatever you want. To decide whether you are a hypocrite, I would want to look at your personal life as well as the policies you endorse and what you have urged other people to do.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
He apparently has an office in Nashville. It’s hard to imagine that he doesn’t go there regularly.
If so, then he was prominent in the environmental movement even when he bought his really large energy guzzling house in 2002. So much for the argument that he’s not a hypocrite because he’s merely retaining what he already has.
Perhaps, but it looks to me like he is making these changes as a direct result of all the flak he has caught over his lifestyle.
The most prominent leader of an international movement should be held to a very high standard. He doesn’t need to live in a hut, but it looks to me as though Al Gore is well beyond what is reasonable.
You are free to talk about whatever you want. To decide whether you are a hypocrite, I would want to look at your personal life as well as the policies you endorse and what you have urged other people to do.
[/QUOTE]
Well, in the end, we will never agree, you are entitled to your position but how about the Title of this Op? Is it really fair to compare Gore to a wife-beater?
I understand you don’t support AGw and you obviously feel Gore is a hypocrite, but the equivalent of a wife-beater?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I understand you don’t support AGw and you obviously feel Gore is a hypocrite, but the equivalent of a wife-beater?
[/QUOTE]
Chief Pedant is not saying that wife beating and overusing energy resources are morally equivialant. What he is saying is that he is the same kind of hypocrite as a wife beater who campaigns against domestic violence.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Chief Pedant is not saying that wife beating and overusing energy resources are morally equivialant. What he is saying is that he is the same kind of hypocrite as a wife beater who campaigns against domestic violence.
[/QUOTE]
That is rather extreme, I am sorry we disagree on this, but it is a shitty analogy at best. It is extremely derogatory in content.
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
How does the Academy of Motion Pictures define “documentary”? …
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, just to put another nail in this hijacks coffin,
Encarta doesn’t define what a documentary is for the purposes of the AoMPA&S.
By their definition Fahrenheit 9/11 and An Inconvenient Truth are both documentaries.
CMC fnord!
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
That is rather extreme, I am sorry we disagree on this, but it is a shitty analogy at best. It is extremely derogatory in content.
[/QUOTE]
I assume you mean that we disagree on the issue of whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite on environmental issues. As far as the analogy is concerned, I don’t think I’ve stated whether I think it’s a good one or a bad one, although I do understand the point CP was trying to make.
Which leads me to ask this…is the only reason you think it’s a shitty analogy because it is derogatory in content? Because as far as giving an example of the kind of hypocrite CP believes Al Gore to be, I think it’s pretty descriptive.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I assume you mean that we disagree on the issue of whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite on environmental issues. As far as the analogy is concerned, I don’t think I’ve stated whether I think it’s a good one or a bad one, although I do understand the point CP was trying to make.
Which leads me to ask this…is the only reason you think it’s a shitty analogy because it is derogatory in content? Because as far as giving an example of the kind of hypocrite CP believes Al Gore to be, I think it’s pretty descriptive.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I already showed where many of his claims about Gore were not actually true. Others along with me mentioned the carbon credits he purchases. So he is nowhere near as hypocritical as the Op suggested.
However, yes, my main objection was to how extremely derogatory the Op’s Title is and many of his follow up statements are.
I am sorry we disagree on the AGW issue. You are a very reasonable person, I hope some of the arguments made by posters like **jshore ** and even myself, might help change your opinion somewhat.
Jim (I got to run, talk to you later)
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
That is rather extreme, I am sorry we disagree on this, but it is a shitty analogy at best. It is extremely derogatory in content.
[/QUOTE]
Didn’t mean it to be more than a metaphorical equivalent. And it’s not mine; I stole it from a guy who was berating me for flying (coach; commercial).
I hold that the petard upon which Mr Gore is hoist by those who criticize his Nobel is his own.
The idea I am trying to get across is that we should not praise those whose personal behaviour is egregiously opposite what they are sounding the alarm on in public. It may be a moral failure to behave oppositely or it may simply be the failure to understand their own message. Either way it is not praiseworthy and either way it is counterproductive to their message.
Perhaps a less inflammatory title would be:
Mr Gore’s Nobel: Should we give the Nobel to someone who consumes 20 times what the per-person ration of carbon production should be (not even counting their private jet travel) if we are to bring the earth into balance when their whole message is that we are endangering the earth with AGW?
I was looking for something with a little more zip but I was certainly not attempting to smear Mr Gore’s personal character in any way. My private opinion is that he is sincere but has never actually figured out what it would really take if his position is correct. My observation is that despite his public stance he has lived his private life with minimal inconvenience and that if his Inconvenient Truth turns out to be true, an adoption by the world of Mr Gore’s level of CO2 impact would be, by his own reasoning, an unmitigated disaster.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Well, in the end, we will never agree, you are entitled to your position but how about the Title of this Op? Is it really fair to compare Gore to a wife-beater?
I understand you don’t support AGw and you obviously feel Gore is a hypocrite, but the equivalent of a wife-beater?
[/QUOTE]
I basically agree with Sarahfeenah.
There is a difference between “analogous” and “equivalent.” The depth of Gore’s moral culpability is a different issue.
I imagine that Pedant could come up with an analogy to non-violent behavior.
Personally, Gore reminds me of a fundamentalist “family values” type preacher who is running around with hookers behind his wife’s back. And if there were a Nobel Prize for promoting family values, I don’t think such a preacher would be a good choice as a recipient.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Well, I already showed where many of his claims about Gore were not actually true. Others along with me mentioned the carbon credits he purchases. So he is nowhere near as hypocritical as the Op suggested.
[/QUOTE]
I think that purchasing carbon credits is a bogus rationalization, so that doesn’t help to convince me that Gore is not a hypocrite
Some might find overly contributing to global warming is a bigger moral problem than wife beating. After all, a wife can get away, but the earth is stuck with us, as are the other 6 billion inhabitants.
I appreciate the complement. I wish you would read my posts a little closer, though…I do not believe we disagree on AGW. We do disagree as to whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I think that purchasing carbon credits is a bogus rationalization, so that doesn’t help to convince me that Gore is not a hypocrite
[/QUOTE]
Of course, he does more than simply purchase carbon credits. All of his energy is purchased from renewable, green sources. This is good not only for him but for everyone, since it does increase the demand for green energy.
But of course you already know all this because we’ve been through two other GD threads on the matter. You simply have it out for Gore. I agree with initech. Watching Gore rewarded for his efforts is satisfying. Watching you righties flip your lids over it is hilarious.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
All of his energy is purchased from renewable, green sources.
[/quote]
How does that work with the natural gas that’s used to heat his pool, guest house, and main house? ($1000 per month natural gas bill according to the source I cited earlier)
How does that work with the jet fuel he apparently uses to jet around in a private jet?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Of course, he does more than simply purchase carbon credits. All of his energy is purchased from renewable, green sources. This is good not only for him but for everyone, since it does increase the demand for green energy.
But of course you already know all this because we’ve been through two other GD threads on the matter. You simply have it out for Gore. I agree with initech. Watching Gore rewarded for his efforts is satisfying. Watching you righties flip your lids over it is hilarious.
[/QUOTE]
Glad to give you some entertainment, Hentor.
I’ll tell you the reason I have a problem with Al Gore. My husband and I have made a conscious effort to use as little energy as we can. We have a much smaller house than we could afford, we have no air conditioning, even though it would be relatively easy to install it. My husband has spent hours and hours putting insulation into this old house where previously it had none. We keep the thermostat low in the winter. The reason I mention all this is not to act superior. It’s to show that some of us “righties” care about the earth, too. To see people who say they believe that this is one of the greatest problems our world currently faces behave as if they are more important than the problem because of their high social status, that just pisses me off. brazil84 mentions that jet fuel Gore uses…is that green, too, Hentor?
And I’ll tell you one thing we DON’T do is walk around lecturing everybody else about how they could do more. We know they could…we probably could, too. We just do what we can…and so should Al Gore.
It’s frustrating to me to see the same arguments trotted out over and over again by the same people. I’ll not bother with taking up the same bullshit again - the other threads are out there to be reviewed. I’m pleased, however, that you all have resorted to employing the type of overblown rhetoric of the OP, endorsed by Sarahfeena, that will quickly advertise to anyone else how far from reality you’ve strayed. I hope the margins are comfy for you, because that’s where you’re headed, if you aren’t already there.
And Sarahfeena, Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize precisely because he’s done far more to combat global warming and the release of greenhouse gases than just about any other single person, including you and your husband.
Must be frustrating to be one of the few who sees the TRUTH!!! ALGORE is like a WIFE BEATER!!! He’s like OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!