Pointless Grandstanding? You First . . .
by KTKMarch 21st, 2007
Senator Inhofe thinks he’s clever:
GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE
WASHINGTON, DC – Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.
Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”
Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.
It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.
“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.
“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.
Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:
As a believer:
· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”
Gore refused to take the pledge.
Because the entire property of a former Vice President, housing multiple residences, office space, and a Secret Service detail, is just like a two-bedroom apartment in Queens.
Well, as long as we’re making pointless and arbitrary demands . . .
Waiting . . .
Categories: Climate Change, Culture, Environment, General, News & Current Events, Politics |
I have to admit that as an advocate of change to reduce global warming, pollution in general, and our dependence on foreign oil, I do have a problem with Gore not downsizing his residences. By not only doing so, he opens himself up to this type of attack which in turn has the intended effect of diverting discussion away from the problem at hand. Also, I do believe that getting where we need to be will require some sacrifice by many people. Sacrifice in terms of lifestyle changes. Gore’s message would be stronger if he had already demonstrated the commitment to do this.
Bottom line, Gore has had several years to sell his properties and build or acquire smaller, more energy-efficient residences. That was one thing that was indisputable about Ralph Nader (why am I writing as if he is now deceased? no intent there) he talked the talk and he also walked the walk. I believe Gore would be a more effective spokesman if he lead by example. He could segment his private life from his business, and take/meet the pledge wrt his private life.
Ted
You fell for Inhofe’s trap. The problem is not and never has been “energy”. The problem is that some kinds of energy produce greenhouse gases. Gore pays a premimium to power his home through energy sources that do not create those gases, so the amount of energy his home uses is irrelevant to whether or not he is leading by example.
[...] var site=”s12raybould” « Pointless Grandstanding? You First . . . [...]
Kevin, No, I didn’t fall into any trap. If you read my post, you will see that it is about commitment to lifestyle change and perception. Gore’s approach of paying more for cleaner energy and not focusing on reduction of energy use is not a viable solution for the population at large. Lacking a technological breakthrough, the best way to reduce greenhouse gas generation in the short term is to become more energy efficient. The best way to reduce pollution in the near term is to become more energy efficient. The best way to become less dependent on imported oil in the near term is to become more energy efficient. Which is not to say research is not important, it is. But I’m talking about the poopulatoin at large.
If a leader is perceived to be unwilling to make changes to become more energy efficient, then said leader will, in my opinion, lose credibility with the public and thus become less able to change public opinion on issues related to global warming. Keep in mind that there are lots of folks who are actively attempting to discredit Gore. In my opinion, he inaction on his energy use has left him open to this attack, an attack which is diminishing his ability to lead. Or, perhaps more accurately, diminishing the willingness of large numbers of people to be lead by him.
Note: one should attempt to avoid the term “energy consumption.” Anyone familiar with the first law of thermodynamics understands that energy can not be consumed, only used and changed into different forms.
So I guess if we don’t live in recycled cardboard boxes and drink from gourds, we should just shut up about global warming, huh?
Could Gore be doing more? Probably. We all could be. Does Gore already do more than most? Absolutely. But apparently, that’s still not good enough.
C’mon, Ted, you’re better than that. If spending considerably more on energy to reduce or eliminate your carbon footprint fails to meet your “set an example” standard, I don’t know what would. If going out of one’s way to use such renewable sources in favor of cheaper (in the near term) alternatives constitutes “inaction,” then I wonder what “action” might look like to you.
If Gore is continuing to use incandescent bulbs where CF would suffice, then that may be a legitimate beef. But it’s never been about that. Inhofe and his ilk are trying to pit environmental responsibility directly against personal comfort, and you’re helping them do that dirty work.
Tgirsch, I disagree with you. The last frame of Gore’s movie asks the question: “Are you ready to change the way you live?” Living in a wealthy neighborhood that has the option of receiving energy from a more expensive, greener, utility than most have access to is hardly what I would call changing the way one lives, or setting an example that is available and affordable to most of us. …But sir, this isn’t real fur. As a member of PETA, I set an example by paying twice as much to buy faux fir that looks just like the real thing.. I know it’s a bit of a stretch, but I think you will understand my implication.
I don’t support Inhofe at all and I believe he will do whatever he can to try and derail restrictions on CO2. And maybe the fact that I point out the inconvenient truth about Al Gore not changing the way he lives as a demonstration of his commitment to the cause does help the bad guys. But I’m not going to put my head in the sand and ignore it or spin it for that reason.
Let me break it down to very simple terms. The only way there will be action on this in our country is if a significant percentage of the population supports it. Gore has dedicated his life to this cause. I think he should get a little skin in the game, as the venture capitalists used to tell us, to demonstrate his commitment.
(Seems one of your favorite condescending phrases is “you are better than that”. My advice, lose the phrase. You don’t need to rely on such cheap props. You are better than that.
)
Ted
Soooo, according to you I shouldn’t buy the more expensive, energy efficient washing machine because someone with lower income than me can’t afford it — I should just send my kids to school in dirty clothes.
Here’s the thing: you don’t know a thing about Gore’s energy consumption. You don’t know if he uses more or less energy than business of comparable size and requirements. You have no idea. You know one thing: he goes out of his way to get his energy from non-greenhouse gas producing sources and pays extra for doing so. But thats not enough for you, because you apparently agree with Inhofe that environmentalism must equal radical and drastic changes.
Gore, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart. What do these have in common? The attitude of “Do as I say do, not as I do.” All of you who bow down at the altar of Gore and refuse to admit his hypocrisy are as hypocritical as he is. What’s new with that?
The last frame of Gore’s movie asks the question: “Are you ready to change the way you live?” Living in a wealthy neighborhood that has the option of receiving energy from a more expensive, greener, utility than most have access to is hardly what I would call changing the way one lives, or setting an example that is available and affordable to most of us
I don’t get this at all.
Gore isn’t recommending to people that they should act like they’re saving energy. He said they should do what they can to actually save energy. He’s doing that. You’re criticizing him for “only” changing his own life by reducing his net energy usage and offsetting his carbon output to zero over the medium term, while not scrimping down to the point that he can run a large organization and conduct business as a world leader on the amount of energy a suburban family uses just for itself.
Why should he meet that arbitrary standard? Nothing about his program expects that everyone will use exactly the same amount of energy. It’s obvious that businesses and large organizations will use more. I would expect major world leaders, like the former VP of the United States and a leading international environmental leader, or the leaders of other activist groups, will use a lot of energy traveling and doing their business. At the very least, people with worldwide commitments and large organizations to run won’t use the same amount of energy as a family that rarely travels and has no non-family-related activities. (One obvious reason is that Gore has to expend some energy just on maintaining his family, like every family, and also meet his other commitments.) It’s perfectly reasonable that that would be true - just as it’s reasonable that businesses will use a lot of energy to do their work. What Gore has asked for is that everyone try to do their business in an energy-efficient manner - a reasonable standard, actually related to the activities in question, that Gore voluntarily imposed on himself before Inhofe knew the first thing about it.
Inhofe shows off his bogus chart, totalling the entire energy expenditure of Gore’s multi-facted operation, then claims he only wants Gore to reduce consumption in his personal living quarters. But if he cared about the issue at all, and wasn’t merely pushing a falsehood to get his name in the papers, he wouldn’t be implying that the energy expenditure of the entire operation is equivalent to the energy used for their personal living quarters. And he has never explained why his “average family” standard is appropriate in the first place. I would expect a former Vice President of the United States would have a larger house than the average family. Who cares? That’s not the environmental issue, and it’s not what Gore was talking about. Inhofe’s talking nonsense that bears no relation to the actual issue or to anything Gore said, and using obviously false numbers to back it up. Nobody needs to take him seriously.
(But, if he expects to be taken even the slightest bit seriously, he can respond to my request for his own pledge.)
“I would expect a former Vice President of the United States would have a larger house than the average family.”
No one really expects Gore to live what he preaches. He has shown his contempt for that idea.
Ted:
I’m not sure if it’s my favorite, but it’s certainly in the top five.
Otherwise, what the Kevins said. How do you know what changes Gore has and hasn’t made? And if what he’s been doing so far (which is a lot, frankly) isn’t enough, then at what point does it become enough? It’s a sliding scale. It could always be said that he could be doing more, and wherever that is, people who want to obfuscate will find that disparity and point it out to direct attention away from the real problem.
Your Broder-like dedication to finding fault with everything plays right into Inhofe’s hand here, even if there were a grain of legitimate fault there. Inhofe has successfully changed the subject from what we as a population should be doing to what Gore personally has done, and you’ve gone right along with it. I’d point out that you’re better than that, but apparently I’m better than that.
“Inhofe has successfully changed the subject from what we as a population should be doing to what Gore personally has done,”
When will these narrow-minded people realize that there are special rules for special people?
Tgirsch, I don’t know what changes Gore has or has not made because as I watched his testimony last night, he did not offer up any energy use reducions in his own defense. Had he stated hat he had invested significant dollars to decrease his energy use I would have been partially mollified. Had he stated that he realized moving into a 10,000 SF house was not an environmentally consientious thing to do and he was changing tht way he lives and moving to a 5000 SF house I would have been more satisfied. But he did neither. All he said was the energy he uses is green. Which is something, but that is like saying the gas you put in your car is domestic and not imported.
I understand that you believe that I should not find fault with someone who is working for the common good. If I were on a national forum I would not do do, becasue that would be playing into the hands of the bad guys. But with all due respect, this is not a national forum. I consider this a place wher we can have honest discussion and not worry about the ramifications of what we say. Based on the content of some of your posts, I have a very strong suspicioun you do as well. (I doubt you would discuss which woman is hotter than the other on a national forum.) So I dismiss your critisism as invalid. I feel I am under no obligation to hold back when expressing on this forum my opinion as to what would make Gore a more efective leader. I see it as an intellectual exercise and no more.
Finally given your, Kevin’s, and especially KTK’s penchant for deriding the rich and their conspicuous consumption, I find it a bit inconsistent (although not unexpected) that you would defend Gore’s lifestyle.
KTK, you need to go back and read what I have posted. You attributed to me things I did not state.
I doubt you would discuss which woman is hotter than the other on a national forum.
Maureen Dowd is.
I’m just sayin’ . . .
>Gore pays a premimium to power his home through energy sources that do not create those gases,
>so the amount of energy his home uses is irrelevant to whether or not he is leading by
>example.
I dispute this characterization. Gore and a few other friends set up a shell company, that they then claim to be buying credits from to offset their emissions. This company invests in various corporations (which Gore then runs around the country shilling for in the name of environmentalism without ever disclosing his personal financial interest in them) and distributes the returns from those investments as an income for being an ‘employee’ of the shell company.
Gore is basically combining an Enron-style scam with a more basic pump-and-dump. Meanwhile, he still gets most of his income from royalties on Zinc mines in Tennessee that are some of the largest polluters in the country.
Ted:
I understand that you believe that I should not find fault with someone who is working for the common good.
No, it’s not that at all. I believe that you should not obsess about the faults of those whose causes you otherwise agree with in the interests of appearing “fair” or “reasonable,” which is what you seem to consistently do on our blog. Look back through comment histories and compare how much attention you give to picking nits about people whose positions you generally agree with, as compared to how much you spend criticizing those whose positions you more strongly disagree with, and you’ll begin to understand why I get so frustrated.
But you know what? Maybe this is easier. You’re right, Gore’s a hypocrite, so let’s eat our own and essentially emasculate the movement’s most prominent in the name of consistency and “fairness.” Yeah, I can see how that would work better.
I doubt you would discuss which woman is hotter than the other on a national forum.
Depends on the women, and on the national forum. The News Hour? Probably not. The Today Show or The View? Absolutely.
I feel I am under no obligation to hold back when expressing on this forum my opinion as to what would make Gore a more efective leader.
Again, though, as mentioned above, it’s not just about what you choose to discuss, but about how much time you spend obsessing about it. In the grand scheme of things, Gore could reduce his energy use — from green sources or otherwise — to zero, and it still would do almost nothing to solve the problem. But setting aside what Gore ought to do, and looking merely at what he has done, if everybody made just the changes Gore has made, it would make a substantial difference.
To my mind, the appropriate response is not to argue, as you seem to, that Gore is a hypocrite. Nor is it to unconditionally defend Gore’s actions (or lack thereof). The correct response is to say, “Sure, Gore could probably do even more than he does, but by and large, he’s right, and he is practicing a fair bit of what he preaches, even if not all of what he preaches.” In my opinion, you’re far too willing to squint hard enough to see whatever shred of a legitimate point Inhofe may have had, instead of decrying the obviously disingenuous grandstanding and character attacks that define the entire affair.
[...] Commenter Ted suggests that Gore could set a better example by “downsizing his residence,” but this suggestion ignores what would happen to the existing residence after he left. If Gore moves out, and the new occupant reverts back to non-green power sources, what you wind up with is a net increase in carbon output, which would be exactly counter-productive. Sure, Gore could try to draw up some sort of contract that requires the new occupant to continue using green power, but how would that be any different from Gore just staying put? The other option would be to raze the house and replace it with smaller, more efficient ones; but I’m not sure what the net result would be given the energy required for (and pollution generated by) such an endeavor. [...]