On the subject of energy policy, it often seems that hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand. The message is often “Do as I say, and not as I do.” I have addressed the hypocrisy of certain politicians on several occasions; like here, here, and here. And when I do so, I try not to preferentially attack a particular party.
To be honest, I don’t think either major party has demonstrated that they have a good plan or the courage needed for dealing with energy issues. For the Republicans, the answer seems to be to drill in ANWR, or for more offshore drilling. For the Democrats, the solution seems to be to pander to the public by threatening to punish oil companies for high gas prices and high profits (as if making gas prices lower is going to help matters). Both parties seem to think that ethanol is going to enable us to continue with our wasteful level of energy usage.
So, it is with that disclaimer that I write this essay. I was skimming The Oil Drum yesterday, and someone had linked to this story:
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
I can’t tell you how disappointed I was to read this article. Here is a sampling:
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh — more than 20 times the national average.
I read An Inconvenient Truth, and watched the movie. I thought both presented compelling arguments, and I recommend them to everyone (even if you think Global Warming science is hogwash, you should understand the basis of the arguments). One of the stories that really stuck with me is how the Gore family had raised tobacco until Gore’s sister died from lung cancer. At that point they got out of the tobacco farming business because apparently only then did the full implications of what they were doing hit home.
I think there is a lesson in there, Mr. Gore. Your actions speak very loudly for you. If you are going to call on all Americans to conserve – which is a much-needed message – you must lead by example. You can’t consume 20 times the national average energy consumption. There is a word for people like that. Hypocrite.
I can understand Gore’s need to travel. Sure, he consumes a lot of fossil fuel trotting around the globe, but if people take his message to heart, then the net should be a fossil fuel and greenhouse gas reduction. So I don’t begrudge him that. What I can’t overlook is that such a high-profile spokesman on Global Warming would plead with Americans to conserve and yet demonstrate an inability to do this himself. I understand that Al Gore is an important guy, and that as former Vice-President his circumstances are more complex than the average Joe’s. But I simply don’t accept that he requires 20 times the energy usage of the average American (whose usage is already much higher than the rest of the world).
Now, some will rightly point out that Gore has taken steps to reduce his carbon footprint:
The article is under the heading “Radical Right-Wing Agenda.” Really? Must it be a radical right-wing agenda to challenge what appears to be rank hypocrisy? I am certainly not a radical right-winger, but this doesn’t smell right to me. (For the record, I took on the Republicans when I addressed John McCain’s ethanol flip-flop).
Here is what the link states that Gore has done:
1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. 2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand.
What this tells me is that his true energy usage is much higher than 20 times the national average, but the steps he has taken has brought it down to that. And while Gore is to be commended for the steps he has taken, this still doesn’t get to the heart of the matter, which is: Gore’s consumption is incredibly high, and he is asking the rest of the world to conserve. You can’t say “Yeah, but I am reducing my carbon footprint by buying carbon offsets.” That won’t sit well with most people. The average person can’t afford to buy carbon offsets. But the average person can certainly conserve. Yet Gore is asking us to do so when he hasn’t demonstrated the ability to do so himself.
And while I support the idea of purchasing carbon offsets, I do think it is somewhat offensive to excuse gross over-consumption with the reasoning that you have bought indulgences. What does this really mean? It means that Gore can afford to consume more, because he is paying others to offset his consumption. What if everyone decided to consume as much as Gore? Where would the carbon offsets come from?
Set an example, Mr. Gore. Walk the talk. You have been in politics long enough to know that this is exactly the sort of thing that will diminish the impact of your conservation message. I preach the conservation message as well. But I am doing my best to walk the talk. It isn’t easy. It isn’t convenient. Sometimes it is uncomfortable. But if I am going to call on others to conserve, I must demonstrate my own willingness to do so. Because if I can’t, why should I expect anyone else to sacrifice?
Skipping the hypocricy part the following part stood out for me:
“Gore can afford to consume more, because he is paying others to offset his consumption. What if everyone decided to consume as much as Gore? Where would the carbon offsets come from?”
This doesn’t really make economic sense. If there would be a huge demand for carbon offsets and a small supply, then the resulting price would be high which would lead to reducing emissions in other ways – such as conserving energy.
And anyways… what’s the harm (besides sending mixed messages) of using energy if producing that energy produces little or no pollution (solar/wind)?
Mr. Gore’s hypocrisy seems self evident. I was scanning your old posts and noticed you had an earlier rant about the Gov. of Pennsylvannia. Well he is at it again. In his recent state of the state address he wants his own “windfall profits” tax. He proposes to replace the 9.9% corporate income tax with a 6.7% “gross profits” tax on oil companies. See: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07038/759987-85.stm
Which would then fund mass transit that primarily benefits residents of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Rendell claims that oil companies aren’t paying any taxes and that the profits are “obscene”. The tax is intended at the upstream profits of integrated oil companies. Even if enacted, it will likely fail as companies will either divest or close assets in PA that make them subject to the tax.
And anyways… what’s the harm (besides sending mixed messages) of using energy if producing that energy produces little or no pollution (solar/wind)?
The harm is that there isn’t going to be enough energy to go around. There certainly isn’t enough for everyone to consume at Gore’s level (or even at the level of the average American). We must conserve. It is going to be forced upon us as China and India continue to grow, and as supplies deplete.
Al Gore has preached the conservation message. This incident indicates that he really doesn’t have the moral authority to preach that message. What would you say if I asked you to conserve, and yet I drove a Hummer everywhere? Would it compensate if I told you I had bought carbon credits to offset my consumption?
This story hacks me off. But someone at The Oil Drum is already suggesting that I have ulterior motives here. I don’t. I am very disappointed in Gore. Even though he has done a lot of good, this is going to be very damaging to him. His allies are painting this as a smear campaign by his enemies. Well, of course it is. But the smears are apparently true, and that is a problem in my opinion.
Rendell claims that oil companies aren’t paying any taxes and that the profits are “obscene”.
Yeah, Rendell was one of those who drove his vehicle a block to a news conference to complain about oil company profits. I guess he failed to see the irony of that situation.
Cheers, Robert
My first concern is are the various numbers listed comparable? Without sources, how do we know the data isn’t cherry-picked? They could be using total consumption, not considering the source of power generated. This is marked as an opinion piece, probably from the editorial page. The focus here is on getting a specific message across, not reporting a situation fairly.
Second, comparing a MANSION to the average american household energy usage may be fine from an absolute perspective, but doesn’t seem like a fair comparison. How many of those American households live in apartments? If we simply look at air conditioning/heating as a major use of energy, of course a giant house will use much more energy than the national average. How old is his mansion- if it is considered a historical structure there may be limits to improving insulation. How many people live and work at there? Do those numbers take into account climate differences? I would guess that the Gore household is rather different in all these numbers from the average household.
I would like to see a weighted average that takes these differences into account. Also, could do a quick comparison against his neighborhood. The mansions around there would roughly in the same range.
Yes, exposing hypocrisy can be a good thing. But was that what the article was intended for? Is it a character smear, to try to discredit the messages associated with Gore? I’ll hold off on judgements from the limited information available.
SC Conservative Gov. has Op-Ed in Washington Post about conservation.
It lacks substance but is a good start.
http://scbiofuel.blogspot.com/2007/02/sc-gov-speaks-out-about-conservation.html
Benjamin Cook
And while I support the idea of purchasing carbon offsets, I do think it is somewhat offensive to excuse gross over-consumption with the reasoning that you have bought indulgences.
Robert,
Allowing rich people to be able to purchase carbon offsets is no solution. As you pointed out, it smacks to much of the days when the rich and powerful could purchase indulgences from the Pope to make their consciences feel better about their sins, or during the Civil War when the rich could buy someone to take their place in the Grand Army of the Republic.
A rich celebrity buying a carbon offset may have peace of mind, but that extra carbon Al Gore and others have pumped into the atmosphere is still there — no matter how good their consciences may feel and how many “indulgences” they have bought. (If Al Gore was for real, he and Tipper would have arrived at the Kodak Theater last Sunday on a ten-speed.)
Sidebar: I once saw Robert F. Kennedy Jr. give a speech on C-Span lamenting the pollution he had observed over the Great Smoky Mountains while looking down from his private, chartered jet. I guessed he missed the irony of the carbon dioxide his chartered jet was pumping into the stratosphere while he was making his observation.
If Al Gore was for real, he and Tipper would have arrived at the Kodak Theater last Sunday on a ten-speed
That is patently absurd. A bicycle does pollute less, but has trade offs of speed, fuel, passenger space, carrying capacity, and safety. Not every situation, and not every person could switch to a bicycle, much less be willing to. Considering the relative skill of the drivers I see, I want to stay as far away as possible from them when I’m on a bike.
Plus, showing up on a bike could easily be seen as an insult. For one, fancy dress clothes, especially women’s dresses, could easily be ruined, to say nothing of safety. Biking takes energy, and would cause people to become hot and sweaty. That is hardly the way to show up to a public event.
The rich will always better be able to pay the costs for what they want to do. You can try to fight this, or work with it.
*sarcasm*Why darn it, how can I complain about carbon dioxide pollution while I’m breathing. I’m pumping CO2 into the atmosphere!!*/sarcasm*
Some pollution is unavoidible; the problem is normally that the costs of pollution fall on others than who produced it. Buying carbon offsets is only a meaningless symbol if the money is not used to clean up pollution, and that is hardly the fault of the person who bought them.
I do agree that the “windfall profits tax” looks to be a bad idea. And that current consumption is unsustainable. But forcing change on people is quite difficult; they tend to resist. If you can instead convince them that its in their own interest to conserve- guilt, stewardship, for their children’s sake, saves them money – then their effort adds to yours.
That is patently absurd. A bicycle does pollute less, but has trade offs of speed, fuel, passenger space, carrying capacity, and safety.
Of course it has tradeoffs. That’s exactly how we can see Al Gore is not serious. When it comes to his own personal convenience, he obviously has no reservations about burning fossil fuels.
If he was serious, he would have been willing to accept the tradeoffs of him and Tipper riding their bicycles to the Academy Awards.
Plus, showing up on a bike could easily be seen as an insult.
An insult to whom? It wouldn’t have been an insult, it would have sent a strong message that Al Gore is serious and willing to sacrifice to make his point.
For one, fancy dress clothes, especially women’s dresses, could easily be ruined, to say nothing of safety. Biking takes energy, and would cause people to become hot and sweaty.
I hope you had your tongue firmly planted in cheek when you wrote these two sentences. If fancy dress clothes are a higher priority than doing something about global warming we are all doomed.
Of course biking takes energy, that is exactly the point: A biker uses some of his or her energy instead of getting that energy from burning fossil fuels.
Didn’t the movie show Gore on his family (father’s?) farm?
I really, really, hope that pudits are not quoting farm energy use and comparing it to homes.
Forget for a minute what Gore is consuming. Consider instead the ratio of consumption to activity.
Seriously, he’s probably running the activities of a good-sized office out of his house. If you consider what that office would consume if it was stand-alone, his personal footprint might be far more reasonable than raw figures suggest.
Or maybe not. But without getting the facts and crunching the numbers, you’ll never know if the accusation is on-target or completely bogus.
Are these numbers for just one of Gore’s homes? I understand he has at least 3. I find this kind of hypocrisy sickening. Maybe he should demand a recount of the KWHs.
Let’s say that Gore doesn’t live totally carbon neutral lifestyle. I bet he’s a hell of a lot closer than “the average American household” and closer than the people jumping all over the story.
Let’s say that Gore doesn’t live totally carbon neutral lifestyle. I bet he’s a hell of a lot closer than “the average American household” and closer than the people jumping all over the story.
That’s just the thing. I don’t think that’s true. The average American household isn’t a mansion. Buying carbon credits, while perhaps easing the guilt of a high-consumption lifestyle, still doesn’t take Gore’s carbon out of the atmosphere.
Cheers, Robert
I’m a Pastor and spend my time lecturing people on the evils of homosexuality. I have a male lover, but I’m not a hypocrite because I give money to an abstinence advocacy organization. I work for PETA and wear fur, but I’m not a hypocrite because I rescue three animals from the pound for every fur coat I own.
Great logic, eh?
More like false logic. I’ m a pastor who preaches about the problems of unprotected sex in the gay community. I’m not a hypocrite because I use condoms with my male lover. E I Work for Peta and wear fur but I’M not a hypocrite because the fur is faux. the Dude is doing what he’s asked everyone else to do, but he’s a hypocrite because most people don’t understand the concept of scale.
We will not need to worry about global warming anymore ! There is a New product , Al’s ozone Repair Kit ! http://www.alsozonerepairkit.com , So leave your lights on all night ! L.O.L. Thanks ,Don (enjoy)