More Thoughts on Gore/Inhofe
Posted by
tgirsch
Just a couple of things that continue to bug me on this:
- Some people (like commenter Fred, here) are accusing Gore of being a hypocrite. But I have to wonder, on what basis? If you can give an example of Gore advocating that we widely mandate a standard, but that he should be personally exempt from that standard, then sure. But to my knowledge, he has done no such thing. This is exactly the same kind of flawed logic that suggests that anyone who believes we should increase taxes should voluntarily be paying more taxes now, or that anyone who supports the Iraq war should personally volunteer to go fight in it (or, at the very least, voluntarily pay extra taxes to help pay for it). But if Gore were a hypocrite, then isn’t Inhofe at least as bad for putting forth a pledge that he himself would never even consider signing?
- 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.
[…] tgirsch on Al Gore’s supposed hypocrisy: If you can give an example of Gore advocating that we widely mandate a standard, but that he should be personally exempt from that standard, then sure. But to my knowledge, he has done no such thing. This is exactly the same kind of flawed logic that suggests that anyone who believes we should increase taxes should voluntarily be paying more taxes now, or that anyone who supports the Iraq war should personally volunteer to go fight in it (or, at the very least, voluntarily pay extra taxes to help pay for it). But if Gore were a hypocrite, then isn’t Inhofe at least as bad for putting forth a pledge that he himself would never even consider signing? […]
Pingback 3/26/2007
The logic in your second contention could be used to prove some pretty funny things.
Comment 3/26/2007
Tgirsch, re point #2, I believe you have crossed over to unadulterated silliness. Might be time to concede the point.
Comment 3/26/2007
Gore’s not a hypocrite. He’s an extremely smart businessman. Create a company that trades in carbon credits. Buy credits from your own company and increase fear of Global warming thereby creating demand for the service your company provides. Get paid for marketing (lectures), get paid for carbon offsets (your company) and get off looking like a hero to your many supporters.
As everyone says about petroleum: follow the money. Seems Al Gore stands to make a lot of money off this global warming issue.
THAT is very smart business.
Comment 3/26/2007
Is it really silliness, though? Sure, it would be showy for Gore to downsize his house, but it would be little more than grandstanding. In the grand scheme of things, it would likely be exactly counterproductive. That was all I was trying to say here. If you disagree with that characterization, I’m curious to know why.
Comment 3/26/2007
#2) Zero sum game.
You have got to be kidding. You are kidding aren’t you?
Comment 3/27/2007
Uh, what about my #2 assumes a zero sum game? I’m pretty sure I’m positing a negative sum there. In fact, I’m pretty sure assuming a zero-sum game would invalidate the entire exercise: what Gore does wouldn’t matter one way or the other. That’s clearly not what I’m arguing.
Comment 3/27/2007