Posted by Charity on February 27th, 2007

Let’s dispense with the discussion about whether or not global warming is indeed caused by man and warranting of a political solution.

Let’s, for the purpose of this post, assume that (1) the earth is indeed warming to the point that it will be disastrous to life as we know it, if it isn’t stopped, and (2) said warming is being caused by man’s mass-consumption of fossil fuels and the resulting carbon emissions.

If these two things are true, it follows that we must do something drastic to cut back on our carbon emissions, like, yesterday. Tomorrow is too late. Heck, even today might be too late, right?

That type of drastic measure will undoubtedly require some sacrifice. It will require us to do without things that we would rather have. Although we will feel some minor discomfort, maybe even some moderate discomfort, it will surely be better than the cataclysmic climate catastrophe that awaits us if we do nothing.

Surely, the leader of the global warming movement is setting the example of this sacrifice, right? Surely, he is going without such frivolities as a heated pool, right?

Well, one would think. Unfortunately, here in America, we have come to expect little of substance from our leaders.

The news was out today, just after Al Gore’s global warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Oscar, that Gore is consuming energy in mass quantities, according to charges by a watchdog group in Tennessee.

Now, we conservatives already knew this, but today we were given the gift of Gore’s response.

Spokeswoman for Gore, Kalee Kreider, did not deny the allegations, but assured us that Gore purchases “green power” to neutralize his carbon emissions.

Let me paint a picture of the rationale used by such hypocrites carbon neutral folks as Gore and Rep. Peter Welch.

See, according to this model, energy use is a fixed amount. What I mean is, we use roughly the same amount of energy every year. An example of this is, when I look at my electricity bill, the comparison between the kilowatt-hours used this month is usually the same as those used the same month last year.

So, imagine the energy is a pool. Perhaps it is a heated pool in back of Gore’s mansion. Who knows? Just picture a pool.

This pool represents the amount of energy we will all use.

The logic behind carbon offsets is that it does not matter how much energy I draw out of this pool – even energy that is created by burning carbon-emitting fossil fuels – as long as I put back energy created by green sources via investing money in green energy development. Eventually, the theory goes, the pool will be completely filled with green energy.

It really makes sense, if you want it to.

But, see, I would rather take off my Gore-love blinders and think about this another way.

The energy I take out of the pool was generated by non-green sources. Let’s call them “dirty sources.” If I really want to stop global warming, my offsets will not do enough. I also need to stop drawing from the pool of dirty energy. At least until those green sources are up and running.

In this case, the case where I really care about stopping this global warming, I must make sacrifices – real sacrifices – to reduce my energy consumption, while continuing to give just as much of my money to the development of green sources. I need to take less out of the pool, while continuing to fill it with green energy.

What does the Gore spokeswoman have to say about all this?

Focusing on Gore’s personal electricity consumption misses the point of “An Inconvenient Truth,” Kreider said, which is that governments and the public can work together to reduce emissions.

It misses the point? Really!?! No. It hits the point just fine.

See, if Gore really believes his own documentary, if Gore really thinks that the end of the world is upon us if we do not make these changes now, he would cut his emissions, not just invest in green energy so he can pretend that those emissions that he caused don’t exist.

And if all of his power came from green sources, even solar panels to be installed on his estate, he would still cut his consumption, so that his extra energy could be sold back to the power company for use by someone else who is currently relying on dirty sources.

But, he doesn’t. He doesn’t. So, what does that mean?

You figure it out.

8 Responses to “The Inconvenient Truth about Gore”

  1. Gore Rules. That Tennessee group you’re citing is full of Exxon Hacks.

    Regardless of president Gore’s personal life, global warming is a problem. Putting attention on Gore himself only takes attention away from the larger issue at hand.

    That’s exactly what those lying scumbag Exxon Mobil hacks from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research want.

    Did I mention that Gore Rules?

  2. Haik, must I remind you of this? You know the whole carbon neutral thing is a load of garbage and I have the sticker to prove it.

    Gore needs to put up or shut up.

  3. Gore is a fucking joke. a pathetic Democrat. Democrats are idiots, worthless….

  4. That was really not necessary.

  5. Boy, our friend ‘anonymous’ is quite the troll, eh?

    Conservatives just fear Gore because he’s able to use multisyllabic words they just don’t understand…;)

    That group going after Gore is just another free-market fundamentalist think tank. I looked them up. Once again, you’re pointing to critics who have philosophies at odds with the steps that we’re going to have to take to reduce global warming.

    Of course they’re going to go after Gore. Maybe if you found a serious credible science or environmental group with some criticisms, you’d be onto something. That think tank is neither.

  6. I think Charity makes an excellent point. Consumption is theproblem.

    I wouldn’t be attacking Gore in particular because he’s done so much for the issue with this movie but then I’m not a conservative.

    I sometimes worry that Global Warming is sucking the air out of the real issue that is Peak Oil: the only world we’ve known (last 100 years) of exponential population/economic/technological growth has been entirely subsidized on fossil fuels. Even if we harnessed all the green energy in the world we’d be at a fraction of what we need to continue our current consumption.

    But according to the politicians it’s all going to be okay because we’ll have a “hydrogen economy” that’s Bullshit.

  7. Mr Gore can consume all he wants because he can afford to do so. He is a hypocrite because he (and John ‘Breck Girl’ Edwards) says all of us should be good world citizens and reduce our consumption. It’s the same old business of one standard for the influential and another standard for the rest of us. That’s the “inconvenient truth”.

    And so what if the group that released this information is related to Exxon? No one in the Gore camp is denying the amount of energy the places uses.

  8. I agree that cutting emissions matter. Just because the group that came out with this finding re: his heated pool has its own agenda, it should not take away from the fact that Al Gore should not be heating his pool. The energy required to heat the pool and keep it heated can be enormous, and is definitely wasteful and irresponsible.

    I am a democrat, and am disappointed in Al Gore’s’ hypocrisy. At least a statement from him ackowledging his fault, and announcing he would stop heating his pool would have been a step in the right direction.