But all Al Gore has ever asked of people is to calculate their carbon footprint, taken reasonable steps to reduce it, and then purchase carbon credits to get to carbon neutral. Which is exactly what he's doing. How does that make him a hypocrite?
Al Gore uses Green Power to power his home/office and drives a hybrid. You could definitely argue that his house is needlessly large, but it does also serve as an office, and he's not doing anything that he tells other people not to do. Which, once again, doesn't make him a hypocrite.
Also, Al Gore will never be able to have a carbon footprint that is average or below average without offsets. It isn't possible, because of how much he has to travel. Now, he does fly commercially when he can, which is an important distinction. But given how much he travels, he will always have to purchase carbon offsets.
Anyway, I don't really care so much about people live their personal lives. You drive an SUV and travel a lot, that's cool, I won't begrudge you. Some people need SUVs and trucks, and certainly there are times when I call a friend or family member because I need to use their truck. I understand that it isn't economically feasible for someone who has a car to sell it and buy a Prius or a Civic or whatever. That's cool. My footprint is smaller than average if only because I'm a college student in an apartment with my gf that lives near campus and I don't have to commute. I've got flourescent lighting and all, but only because it saves me money in the long run.
So, you know, I like to think I'm kinda neutral on this, I think the cries of hypocrisy come from a misunderstanding of what Al Gore asks of people, and that there are far more egregious example out there. I don't get too worked up about those guys either, because it's not really my business if a preacher does meth and has sex with guys or whatever.
I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that Al Gore has a far more reasonable and simple message than a lot of people give him credit for, and living in a big house that consumes a lot of energy isn't really a violation of his message since he takes reasonable steps to reduce his carbon footprint.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Al Gore Single Handedly Causes Global Warming
1. Al Gore clearly is adding to the same global warming of which he warns. His "carbon footprint" is huge. He has a 20 room mansion when he could live in a smaller house. He has multiple vehicles when 1 would do. He travels by private jet when he could travel commercial. Personally, I don't begrudge him his lifestyle one bit. I live in a house larger than I "need," I drive a Lincoln Navigator that gets 12 mpg and I have another SUV, I fly all over the place for business, etc. So, I am not against his wealth or life of luxury. But, it is inescapable that Al Gore's carbon footprint dwarfs that of the average American, let alone the average person in the world.
2. Now, you argue that he is buying carbon credits, and that makes it OK. The idea of carbon credits is that for those who exceed their "green" carbon footprint, they can purchase in the open market carbon credits - that is some type of credit from someone who either is under their carbon footprint and therefore has a surplus that they can sell, or someone who promises to plant some trees for you that in essence counteracts your excess carbon footprint. Once again, as far as I care, if Al Gore, Bill Gates and other rich people want to assuage some type of personal guilt that they have because their excess consumption, power to them. I don't care. I've already proven that I have a too large carbon footprint ... I just don't have the personal guilt about it that would make me waste money trying to feel better or impress people.
3. The problem with this, and why I am guessing most people see this as hypocritical, is that Gore would have the rest of the world start to cut back on all sorts of activities to "save the world," all the while failing to do so himself. And, for most people, buying one's way to being green isn't the type of leadership you would want to see from the point man on this issue. I liken it to the abuse of Catholic Indulgences. If you are not aware of what this is, this was a way in which one could basically buy your salvation. Pay the church enough back in the 1500s and they would absolve you of your sins and grant salvation ... on behalf of God ... maybe for giving enough money to help build St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Like carbon credits, people said, hey, that's BS ... just because he is some rich merchant, why the hell does he get a free pass on his sins.
So, it is absolutely indisputable that Gore has a too large carbon footprint. The fact that he has to purchase carbon credits proves this point ... if he wasn't exceeding his footprint, there would be no need to purchase the credits. The difference is you give him a free pass because he can afford to buy off his excess consumption. I, on the other hand, really don't care, but expect more than that from the person posturing as a leading figure in the area. When they do otherwise I see it as being hypocritical and ignore them (although I couldn't really ignore the buffoon more than I already do all politicians of all stripes).
NCAces
2. Now, you argue that he is buying carbon credits, and that makes it OK. The idea of carbon credits is that for those who exceed their "green" carbon footprint, they can purchase in the open market carbon credits - that is some type of credit from someone who either is under their carbon footprint and therefore has a surplus that they can sell, or someone who promises to plant some trees for you that in essence counteracts your excess carbon footprint. Once again, as far as I care, if Al Gore, Bill Gates and other rich people want to assuage some type of personal guilt that they have because their excess consumption, power to them. I don't care. I've already proven that I have a too large carbon footprint ... I just don't have the personal guilt about it that would make me waste money trying to feel better or impress people.
3. The problem with this, and why I am guessing most people see this as hypocritical, is that Gore would have the rest of the world start to cut back on all sorts of activities to "save the world," all the while failing to do so himself. And, for most people, buying one's way to being green isn't the type of leadership you would want to see from the point man on this issue. I liken it to the abuse of Catholic Indulgences. If you are not aware of what this is, this was a way in which one could basically buy your salvation. Pay the church enough back in the 1500s and they would absolve you of your sins and grant salvation ... on behalf of God ... maybe for giving enough money to help build St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Like carbon credits, people said, hey, that's BS ... just because he is some rich merchant, why the hell does he get a free pass on his sins.
So, it is absolutely indisputable that Gore has a too large carbon footprint. The fact that he has to purchase carbon credits proves this point ... if he wasn't exceeding his footprint, there would be no need to purchase the credits. The difference is you give him a free pass because he can afford to buy off his excess consumption. I, on the other hand, really don't care, but expect more than that from the person posturing as a leading figure in the area. When they do otherwise I see it as being hypocritical and ignore them (although I couldn't really ignore the buffoon more than I already do all politicians of all stripes).
NCAces
Government and rights
Rome and Greece are terrible examples of of government protecting the rights of people, for as you said they only did this for their citizens. The poor, serf type classes, slaves, subsistence farmers, and others were not afforded the protection of the great City-States and were left at the mercy of roving bandits, invading barbarians and neighboring city-states. The history of Athens during the Peloponesian wars shows how the citizens would often hole up in the city during the campaign season while invaders would lay waste to the surrounding country side. The same for Rome during wars with Carthage. When Hannibal crossed the alps into northern Italy those who had paid tribute to Rome for her "protection" were abandoned and Rome kept much of its army in Spain fighting over the spoils and leaving their closest neighbors, many of whom were considered "allies" with two choices. Side with Hannibal and suffer Rome's wrath when Hannibal was finally ejected or voluntarily left, or remain on Rome's side and be destroyed by Hannibal now. Proverbial rock and a hard place. This is how the poor were treated under the "enlightened" Romans and Greeks. This has been the case for countless countries throughout history. Weather its local police refusing to protect factory workers from strike breakers in the US, or decades of oppression of the Irish (or the Scots) by the English, or any one of a couple of hundred other examples of the poor not being protected by the state, despite promises to do so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)