Inconvenient but True

If you are going to become a televangelist, you probably shouldn't have a girlfriend.  If you are a close-the-border advocate, you had better not have an undocumented nanny.  If you win an Academy Award for a documentary about global warming, you probably shouldn't live in a mansion and use more electricity in a month than the average family uses in a year. 

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”

Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

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.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Comments

[Travis]

If one adds up all the electrical usage of all the mansions represented in the audience on Oscar night, an entire third world country could be lit for a year.

Interesting that Leonardo D. declared the whole event "Green".

The finger of hypocrisy in the Hollywood set only points in one direction - away from themselves.

[The Klute]

Except, of course, this:

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. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

More here: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

Or better yet, y'all should go the Jerry Falwell route:

"The Reverend Jerry Falwell says global warming is 'Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus' from evangelism to environmentalism."

Awesome.

[Matt]

How does one verify that Gore is truly only using green power? How does Gore verify that truly the electicity coming into his house is green?

"Carbon" offsets are a shell game. It implies that you can "buy" your way into lower emissions, without actually having to lower your own. It probably makes sense if you have lots of money and an addiction to high carbon polluters like SUV caravans and private jets.

If Gore was truly committed to a "Green" lifestyle, he'd take public transportation, walk, bike, run everywhere, etc. Does he provide "Green" transportation to all the employees that have to get to work to keep his mansion going?

[Gilbert_Sundevil]

Dear TheKlute,

I've got no problem with Gore's large house and his electricity usage. Hey, he earned (er… maybe "earned" isn't the right word)… He has all that money. Let him do with it what he will.

BUT...

Gore's purchasing of carbon offsets is akin to paying the church for forgiveness of your sins. Sure, he's now officially been forgiven by the Church of Environmentalism for his sins of such a large carbon footprint. But as a sanctimonious preacher looking down his nose at us unwashed carbon sinners, wouldn't it be better that he hadn't sinned so flamboyantly in the first place?

[The Klute]

Except of course, carbon offsets are an old idea (and an effective one), pushed by Libertarians, Greens, Republicans, and Democrats alike, a free-market solution to a problem that can't be corrected overnight, but one that can be corrected, provided that people know about it so they can be part of it.

Like Gore is doing.

However, I will agree that it *is* much easier (and fun!) to make uninformed partisan attacks than offering a solution of your own.

However, you can use your internets to find the information about carbon offsets yourself.

Example:

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2OTUwMjAwJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5NA

And I don't consider carbon usage a "sin", GSD, it's a fact of modern life (until we can come up with a safe form of nuclear or a truly effective form of solar). So, Gore championing a plan allows us to burn carbon while at the same time balancing it out, I'm not sure what the problem is.

[The Klute]

And actually, carbon offsets work for everyone, Matt.

I drive a Kia compact with pretty good gas mileage, and I buy the offset ($49.95 this year), to balance out the fact that I live in a city openly hostile to mass transportation and hybrid cars.

I'm curious as to why this free market solution is considered an anathema.

It's communism/socialism if we're forced to do something, and it's hypocritical if we use the system we're living in to do something about the problem.

If carbon offsets aren't part of the solution, and conservation is a good idea but not part of the national strategy (per Dick Cheney, circa 2004), what is? Is doing nothing peachy-dandy?

Unless of course, you side with good reverend, and believe it's all just a Satanic plot, like evolution and Asian foods.

[Gilbert_Sundevil]

By ALL means, buy carbon offsets to your heart's content. Live in a big giant house or a grass hut. Install solar panels on your thatched roof. Head SE on I-10 and take up residence in the biosphere. I don't care. I think it would be great if a whole bunch of other people walked to work - cheaper gas and shorter commute time for me. Just don't put your hand in my wallet (through government subsidies or onerous regulation) and quit preaching about how I should live my life. [Klute, I'm speaking generally here to the followers and preachers in the Church of Environmentalism - not specifically to you.]

And yes, I think Falwell is a nutjob of a spectacular order.

[The Klute]

And that's the thing, last I heard, Gore wasn't suggesting us ignornat peons go back to candlemaking and whittling while he enjoys chateaubriand and electric light. Gore's a realist - we live in a modern world, and barring natural disaster, we're not going back.

All reputable scientists agree the planet is warming. There's debate if it's natural or man-made. If it's natural, then humanity's in for some rough times ala the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages. If it's manmade, and we do nothing to try to reverse it, that's wrong on so many levels.

Drudge's hit piece (and really, Greg... Drudge? Was Homeless Earl too sourced?) is trying to paint him as a hypocrite, when nothing Gore is doing is inconsistent or hypocritical. He's doing what he's asking everyone do - try to limit your carbon footprint, neutralizing it when possible.

Would I have an electric bill like Gore's? Probably not, but then I don't live on a farm, but that's for the same reason I don't drive an SUV - I wouldn't want to.

[Joe]

Carbon offsets.

Kinda like me eating like a pig but paying someone else to eat vegetables.

[The Klute]

Joe,

Yes, actually, except you also get the benefits of eating vegetables. In modern parlance, "having your cake and eating it too".

[Bill]

It is suprising to me that everyone on this site is so anti-Carbon offsets. For a concept that sprung mostly from Libertarian property rights scholars, it is interesting to see people reject it just because Gore has embraced it. If only people would be more willing to create markets in more areas that are "non-traditional" our country would probably be clearner, safer, healthier and wealthier.

To Gilbert: Carbon offsetting actually does the opposite of what you are speaking about. You can use as much carbon as your heart desires, you just have to pay more for it. This is the same thing as everything else in life. The system we have right now is what you don't want- Government subsidies and taxes. Let there be a private market and let the government get out of it completely. The same thing could be done on an international scale (and was attempted but failed) where countries could buy and sell their emissions. Of course, that puts countries that are already rich and developed in a superior position...

[Rex]

It is eminently fair to bash Gore on this point, just as it was fair to question Edwards about the mega-mansion he just built while inveighing against "two Americas" consisting of the ultra-rich and the very poor.

Similarly, our president and vice-president talk tough and send young people to fight and die in Iraq. When their call to duty came in Vietnam, they used family connections and deferments to ensure they did not serve in combat. To be fair, our last Democratic president was even more brazen in his efforts to avoid military service.

As always, there is plenty of hypocrisy to spread around when we look at the personal lives and choices of politicians. Rather than demand paragons of morality as leaders, however, we should scrutinize instead the policies and legislation they advocate. Only then will we truly know whose interests they are advocating and protecting. On that score, most Republicans fail the test.

[The Klute]

It's absolutely fair to criticize Gore - but with data and information from a conservative think tank dubbed “not a legitimate group"* by the Tennessee Department of Revenue and not sourced by anyone** is intellectually dishonest.

If you read the press release from TCPR, wow, it sounds terrible. If you factor in the carbon offsets Gore purchases... not so much.

* - Source: http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section_id=9&screen=news&news_id=54656

** - The reason why newspapers will never die. It's called "editors".

[logical1]

Here is the deal.... If Gore actually cared about going green or conserving energy and "saving the environment." He would sell off his mansion, or tear it down and put windmills up. He could then build a comfortable and efficient home that is properly sized for HIS FAMILY.

If Edwards wants to preach about closing the gap between his "two Americas" he should sell his homes, build or buy an appropriate sized house for his family and take the left over money to build homes and give them to people who can not afford a home, are homeless or are living in a squaller because that is all they can afford.

My problem with the uber rich, especially in the democratic party, is that they want to preach about the ills of society and tax me to fix them. I haven't looked into Gore's claims about what he has done to offset his carbon footprint, but I will give him credit for at least making an attempt to sacrifice something.

By the way, what is he doing to offset the carbon footprint created by the internet he invented? Before you start crying about me bring this up, I am being sarcastic.

[Framer]

So now that I am clear that Al Gore isn't actually calling for sacrifice, but just doing the bare minimum to help our planet, I am less confused on the issue.

I thought he was trying to tell us that carbon emissions were a zero sum game. I thought that the status quo was unacceptable. I was under the mistaken perception that EVERYONE must reduce their carbon footprint. I am certainly glad that was cleared up by Gore's defenders.

So if Al Gore uses up all the "green power" in Tennessee by himself, he is covered. Everybody else that is then forced to use power on the normal grid has to worry about the welfare of their souls. Al's covered.

Conversely, Al paying some Aborigine in Australia to not become industrialized, so he can heat his mall-sized mansion seems like good environmental policy to me. After all, if you give an Aborigine a factory, he may want a large mansion as well. Good thing Al nipped that in the bud.

Honestly, Al paying for carbon credits is no different than papal indulgences. It amazes me that some people are actually trying to defend him on this. How fully invested do you have to be to excuse this tripe?

"There is no God but Gaia and Al Gore is her Prophet!"

[The Klute]

Framer,

"Conversely, Al paying some Aborigine in Australia to not become industrialized, so he can heat his mall-sized mansion seems like good environmental policy to me. After all, if you give an Aborigine a factory, he may want a large mansion as well. Good thing Al nipped that in the bud."

Not how carbon offsets work. At all. Go to http://www.terrapass.com for one solution offered.

"There is no God but Gaia and Al Gore is her Prophet!"

Jerry Falwell for you on line 2.

[Joe]

When calling on others to sacrifice, it helps if the speaker is also sacrificing something. Calling for people to reduce their emissions, while simply paying a few bucks more, is cheap. And when that person is a member of a party filled with inconsistencies when it comes to energy, the measure seems shrill and holier than thou.

And let's be honest, Al is posing himself as the high priest of global warming. What did he call it? The most important moral issue of our time?

If so, you'd expect to ACTUALLY MAKE REDUCTIONS, rather than paying someone else to do so. Carbon offsets? Please. Next he'll offer us a ten-cent nickel.

Ed Begley's legit. The rest fly private jets, live in (multiple) mansions, and own fleets of automobiles. I'd sooner listen to Britney Spears give a temperance lecture.

One entrepreneur is worth more than all the well-meaning actors in Hollywood. The folks who are working on wind turbines, for instance...hats off to 'em.

And someday, over the Kennedy family's objections, we may even see them off Cape Cod.

[Mark]

Klute - that is great that Gore has embraced libertarian thinking with carbon offsets. But that doesn't, in any shape or form, clear him of being a hypocrite.

The truth is that Gore believes human pollution is causing global warming and this will devastate our environment. And knowing this Gore still chooses to pollute (yes at a higher price) at 20 times that of the average American.

If Gore was sincere and truly believed the dogma of his newfound faith he would sell that mansion and alter his lifestyle so that he was polluting less than the average American. He would stop flying and employ new teleconferencing technologies that are green-friendly.

And why is he just making these green changes now? Bush’s western Whitehouse has been fully green for many years now.

Gore made a choice to live in a home of that size and Gore has chosen to consume energy at 20 times the average level. Gore chooses to fly on private jets. Gore has chosen to be a hypocrite and, oddly enough, people like you continue to defend him.

[Gilbert_Sundevil]

Ouch. Devastating.

http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350

Gore’s carbon offsets are investments in his own company.

[Framer]

Yes, I am very aware of how offsets work. But take it out to its logical conclusion. Is pollution going to be reduced or more "credit" sources created and found? Follow the money. Eventually that aborigine will be sitting pretty on subsidies, if he actually owns land (which he will not, so insert rich land-owning tree hugger).

It also sounds like people are not being able to differentiate between the messenger and the message. Gore is wrong on this, it is OK to say so, it may not even diminish his message. But to defend him as blameless smacks of starry-eyed cult icon worship.

[BobH]

> But to defend him as blameless smacks of starry-eyed cult icon worship.

Which is exactly what global-warming has become -- a religion, with St. Al as the prophet; and anyone who raises any questions -- either about the orthodoxy or about the prophet -- must be burned at the stake.

[The Klute]

Let me re-iterate from a previous post:

"It's absolutely fair to criticize Gore - but with data and information from a conservative think tank dubbed “not a legitimate group" by the Tennessee Department of Revenue and not sourced by anyone is intellectually dishonest."

Gore is not saying with the purchase of carbon offsets: Do not ever use hyrodcarbons. He is saying, if you use hydrocarbons, buy offsets. If you go carbon neutral, you can use whatever you please, because the net result is zero.

The attack here, from TCPR, and Drudge, and Malkin, and Frei Republik is that Gore is asking us to do something he's not willing to do, when the opposite is true: He is doing what he is asking us to do.

Again, if you burn a year's worth of carbon in a day, but you offset it, the result is 0 carbon released.

And for the matter, other than a conservative hit-job on Gore, no one has confirmed if the carbon usage as stated by the TCPR. Maybe we can all chip in for a reporter to investigate.

[The Klute]

BobH,

Since we're getting into the name-calling, at least the left doesn't have people on it's side who see evolution as a Pharisee-based plot or believe the universe is geocentric.

[Framer]

Klute,

Except for simply offsetting CO2 is not enough (allegedly). We must REDUCE what we are outputting. Our current levels have doomed the planet for hundreds of years, it may not even be fixable even if CO2 was banned outright.

If Gore was truly practicing what he preached he would not come out "carbon neutral" he would be covering for the sins of others with his tree planting and such and leading by example.

How can this not be seen as a "Let them eat cake!" statement? I guess there are two Americas. One where people can live as large as they wish and simply buy "credits" and another where the government must take away freedoms from those who cannot "buy credits".

Again, Al is wrong here. He needs to fix this. Defending him (and John Edwards for that matter) in this is silly.

[The Klute]

Framer,

Of course it's not enough. We eventually have to eliminate use of fossil fuels altogether - that's going to come eventually through efficient electric vehicles, powered by efficient nuclear power plants (i.e. hooking the car into the outlet at home with power from a fusion plant). Nuclear is the big obstacle Greens and NIMBYs have to overcome (seldom does point A go to C without first stopping at B), but that's another argument.

Should Gore lead by example... We can debate whether or not he is, I think he is, you don't, we're just going to have to agreee to disagree. I'd make the point that you're not going to make an effective point by sending off missives on the dangers of the modern world from your energy efficient shack in the woods (see: Kacsynski, Ted), but whatever.

The point of arguments like "Gore's a hypocrite" is not to say "Gore's a hypocrite" it's to diminish the argument that "Global warming's happening, and it's bad" in general. The next is "global warming advocacy will destroy our economy" or some such (never mind the fact that things like carbon offsets are by their very nature free market capitalism which every right-winger puts just beneath Jesus but just above the American flag).

Fortunately, the anti-Global Warming side has so much depth. We've got virtually one part of every segment on our side. Evangelicals, check. Free marketeers, check. Raving tree huggers, check. People LIKE the planet. The most vocal opponents of global warming are quickly exposed as blatant shills or requiring of mental health attention (today's Ann Coulter on Global Warming Advocacy: "Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation".)

Stopping the damage of global warming will eventually require government action. The Cuyahoga River stopped bursting into flame because of government intervention, not because the president of Hooker Chemcial was visited by 3 ghosts who taught him the true meaning of Christmas. The American Alligator and Bald Eagle were saved by government bureaucrats, not Milton Freidman. Eventually something really dramatic is going to happen someplace in America that's going to force the government's hand. The safest place to be is ahead of the curve, not behind it.

Me? I grew up in Florida along the ocean. Most of my family still lives there. I'm into stopping global warming for selfish reasons - the last thing I want is an apartment full of refugees.

That's a joke by the way. Mostly.

[Framer]

Klute,

"efficient nuclear power plants"

Now I am on board.

The problem with Gore is that he is exactly an evangelical. I'm pretty sure that he is not on board with the nuclear thing. You start developing nuclear energy, you can cut him out of the equation and get a majority on board without the hair shirts, which is the way it is supposed to happen.

I frankly question Gore and the Hollywood Greens' motives. If they were willing to talk nuclear power, then I may see more than just religious fervor. If the movement is to be successful, somewhere it must uncouple itself from this, and move toward rational answers like nuclear power.

[BobH]

It seems that the last time we followed the lead of the left and the greens on nuclear power was when we stopped building plants.

I'm glad they've finally seen the light (non-religiously speaking, of course, since that might be construed as name-calling).

[The Klute]

Caution is indicated with nuclear because we've seen what can happen with military controlled power plants (see: naval submarine disasters), government bureaucrats (see: Chernobyl), and private corporations (see: 3 Mile Island).

And of course, FISSION reactors aren't the answer, and *are* bad for the environment... But we need to explore fission in limited way to develop effective FUSION reactors. But again, I'm just looking for solutions. I'm not on a quest for scalps.

And BobH, sorry if I misconstrued your comparison of the murder and imprisonment of thousands of heretics and Jews during the Inquisition to my desire to try and help the planet.

[BobH]

Sorry I hurt your feelings, Klute. Perhaps you ought to get out of the kitchen.