An Oscar for Hypocrisy
Written by William Mulgrew on February 27th, 2007The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has a very interesting report about our friend algore:
“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).”
Another case of Do As I Say, Not As I Do? I don’t think he’s using that mansion to advance Social Justice.
28
AM
Gore has done much more to offset his family’s carbon footprint than any of these smearers are doing.
From Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/
Also, the blog “Seeing the Forest” is tracing the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, which, needless to say, has a right-wing bias and (it appears) links to Exxon.
28
AM
Al Gore is a hypocrite just like the other liberal/Hollywood elitists in this country. They can live however they want while the rest of us peasants are supposed to make the sacrifices. Do as I say, don’t do as I do. It’s amazing to me how many people are so easily herded and buy into his crap.
28
AM
What could someone possibly do with $2,500 worth of electricity in a month? Clearly he’s not hosting wild parties…
28
AM
Oh no links to Exxon. the Conspiracy looms. What about the link at ThinkProgress to the Center for American Progress, a
liberalexcuse me progressive think tank head up by none other than former President Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta. No bias there.28
PM
Michael: There’s bias, and then there’s billions of dollars in oil revenue. I get that the liberal sites are coming in already on board with the facts of climate change, but I find that categorically different from right wing groups linked to oil money.
And Sam… All I can say is, Al Gore is trying to spread a message of *political* as well as personal change. And the political trumps the personal, insofar as the biggest carbon polluters are *companies,* not individuals using more electricity than others because they have larger houses. Also, Gore has already responded with the ways in which he has switched to greener energy (in other words, his bills are going toward different types of energy than most other people’s, in an effort to compensate for the fact that they use more of it than your average 2 bedroom house).
The idea of calling Gore a hyopcrite because he’s also dependent on energy is ridiculous. This isn’t some new puritanical absention issue. This isn’t Ted Haggerd saying homosexuals go to hell, and then getting high with his gay sex partner. The entire point of An Inconvenient Truth (for those of you who apparently missed it) wasn’t that individuals need to sit around in their houses with the lights off. It was that we need to embrace both the small things we can do every day (ie, switching to greener energy forms, switching lightbulbs to energy saving varieties, etc), and also to grow the political will to do something as a nation to reduce our dependency on carbon based fuels.
28
PM
“The political trumps the personal.”
Are you serious? I guess you’ve been reading the Yenan talks a little too closely.
1
AM
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m just saying that personal changes can only go so far. Our dependency on carbon based fuel IS political, and it IS part of our infrastructure. Examples: The average consumer can’t even get access to an electric car. And the average consumer might not be able to purchase wind energy from the local electric companies. You can’t opt for green energy choices if you don’t have access to them. So in that way, yes, the political DOES trump the personal.
1
AM
Al Gore can do all of that himself, and yet chooses not to. Instead he wants to jack up the energy costs of the poor and middle classes. Alternatively, perhaps he can join the Kennedys in preventing wind energy from being made available in the Bay because turbines would “look ugly” and violate “Jack’s playground.” This is exactly why I reject effete liberalism.
The whole “politics is everything” canard is ridiculous, and I think that if you understood the ideological provenance of it then you would probably avoid making it yourself.
1
PM
Al Gore IS doing something himself. Did you not read his rebuttal about actually opting to pay more for greener energy sources himself? And this ad hominem attack is ridiculous. The think tank doesn’t take into consideration the fact that the Gores are also *working* from home, so you would need to account for the energy they aren’t using at a separate office, as well as the fact that they simply have a larger house and more visitors than your average energy consumer. Oh, and the fact that he’s a famous politician, and needs more security (ie, electrical equipment) than your average citizen. Gore’s entire film is based on the premise that individuals can act in small ways to conserve energy, but that our main need right now is political will in order to act at a national level.
And I doubt Gore is in the camp of preventing turbines in order to save the view. That seems awfully short sighted to me.
Also: you’re blatantly setting up a strawman with your “politics is everything.” I didn’t say that in my post. I said that the political actions of the U.S. in response to global warming are going to carry more weight than the individual deciding to sit in the dark rather than turn on a light.
1
PM
So in that way, yes, the political DOES trump the personal.
Don’t say you didn’t say it. And you can look up the turbine thing. I have no idea if Gore is involved or not, but his buddy Ted Kennedy is.
Listen, I practice a relatively strict water and electricity conservation regimen as a symptom of having lived in East Asia. It is absolute crap for Al Gore to go around with a “conservation for thee, but not for me” message. He’s no better than a televangelist preaching continence while he’s stealing from the collection plates.
2
PM
I don’t see how Gore is equivalent to your televangelist model.
And no, I didn’t say that the political is “everything” — the quote you pulled shows quite clearly that I mean in *certain* ways the political becomes more important than the personal. So please don’t take me out of context as if I said that in every situation politics is “everything” and the personal choices we make mean nothing toward energy conservation/change. I’m also very aware of my personal choices, but I’m not naive enough to think that those choices are going to somehow solve our energy crisis. Again, example: It doesn’t matter if everyone in the country wants an electric or hybrid car if there aren’t any on the market.
2
PM
In what way is the televangelist analogy incorrect? I think it’s perfect: Gore is the environmental equivaent of Benny Hinn, preaching poverty to the masses from luxury. The only difference is that Hinn doesn’t have CNN and internet footsoldiers to shill for him.
3
AM
Oh I don’t know, the small detail that Gore already had plenty of energy? If you’ve seen the DVD, you’ll see this film does walk the walk: it’s not in plastic casing but rather “100% post-consumer recycled material,” “powered by native energy,” is recyclable itself, and instead of suggesting that you buy tons of copies, instead suggests on the inner flap that you pass it along to a friend or donate the DVD when you’re done with it.
Just because a person has wealth, doesn’t mean he’s unfit to signal it’s time for change. The fact that he’s already electing to spend MORE on his energy bill in order to switch to greener energy sources says much about Gore’s mission. These ad hominem attacks seem of the same logic that would say it’s better not to produce the film An Invconenient Truth because it took energy to film/edit it (ie, a total red herring that detracts from the larger issues at stake).
3
AM
Oh I don’t know, the small detail that Gore already had plenty of energy?
Drinking a lot of Redbull these days, is he?
“powered by native energy,”
I have no idea what this means. I’m going to assume that it’s playing on distaste for using Saudi oil, which is good. It also screws over people in Nigeria and Latin America. It’s funny because for years people on the left have derided the “Made in America” movement has knuckle dragging nativism. Al Gore does it and it’s okay, check.
Just because a person has wealth, doesn’t mean he’s unfit to signal it’s time for change.
Maybe, but I don’t think they will be particularly successful. The best modern example of a social reformer would be John Wesley, and he died poor. Of course, he was also a Jesus Freak of sorts so I see how the example might be abhorrent.
These ad hominem attacks
If calling people to account for personal behavior is an ad hominem attack…. Also, the issue is not that Gore uses any energy, it is that he appears to have consistently used ridiculous and wasteful amounts of it, all while going around advocating policies that will end up making energy more expensive for poor people. If a little documentary like Gore’s had used the same amount of energy to produce as, say, Titanic, wouldn’t you agree that that would be a problem? Or does is political purity the trump card here also?
3
PM
If you’re interested, http://www.nativeenergy.com’s about page will be helpful:
Again, I don’t know the history of the debate around “American made” (except anecdotally after growing up in a farming community that was hard hit by South American imports), but I’m in favor of supporting companies that I know something about, and that share similar beliefs about our need not to be reliant on Middle Eastern oil (or oil in general at this point).
Also, the issue is not that Gore uses any energy, it is that he appears to have consistently used ridiculous and wasteful amounts of it, all while going around advocating policies that will end up making energy more expensive for poor people.
What I’ve been *trying* to get across is that Gore’s energy needs are obviously going to be higher than someone living in a one-bedroom apartment. Home offices to take into account. Security systems. Frequently hosting guests in a separate building. No where does Gore say we should live like ascetics in order to solve our oil addiction. Also, I don’t see how it follow that confronting global warming is going to make energy more expensive for the poor. I’m guessing that much of what’s expensive still is due in large part to its not being our main source of energy. Example: I’m guessing the cost of wind energy will go down if we continue to build a market for it. For heaven’s sake, Gore is a democrat, he’s in favor of social programs that will end up directly benefiting those in poverty (which, by the way, is at a 32 year high).
And finally: is it better to see short term increases in the cost of energy as we switch to more sustainable sources? Or is it better to go on as we are and leave these “poor people” you seem so concerned about to deal with the consequences of global warming? (ie, remember Katrina?). Seems like not being able to see the forest for the trees. If we accept the premise of global warming and the predictions of ocean levels rising and storms increasing in severity, then don’t you think poor people are better off under Gore’s leadership than Bush’s? In other words, do we go on our merry way to irrevocable climate change, and leave the poor to deal with the consequences Katrina-style?
And I actually wouldn’t find it problematic if the documentary took the same amount of energy to produce as the Titanic. The political impact of such a film in my opinion far outweighs the energy costs to produce it.