Liberal Hypocrisy?

[chewie83]

This is almost as ironic as it would be if the British started to lecture Americans about having healthy diets. Oh, wait

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/27/prince.charles.mcdonalds.ap/

[poorgradstudent]

Wow, this is what Conservative pundits are upset about? Matt Drudge must really have deep, deep feelings of male inadequacy.

Smoke and mirrors to attempt to distract the public from Iraq I suppose. You know FOX News was loving the Anna Nicole Smith thing.

[Anonymous]

PD, very nice logic/argument flow in your first post/retort (and second one, too).

[Anonymous]

Hey pgs, quit bad-mouthing Drudge; in case you don’t know, he IS a gay Jewish guy.

And, he does great work; I still remember the morning when he broke the Monica Lewinsky story that the gutless Washington Post refused to release.

[FutureSDguy]

pmretep: “I hope everyone has seen his move, “Inconvenient Truth.” I just recently experienced it and was disturbed by the presentation”

I was equally disturbed when I watched the movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” LOL

http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/

[drunkle]

Submitted by pmretep on February 28, 2007 – 3:11pm.
I hope everyone has seen his move, “Inconvenient Truth.”

that was my reaction too. as much as there is good information in the movie, the side trip along al gore lane was distracting and even self aggrandizing.

however, another way to look at it is that it covers his personal reasons for promoting the information, that questions of his personal interests would invariably come up. either way, it wasn’t necessary for me as i’ve long been educated on the matters at hand.

anyway, this “debate” is pointless. al gore is simply a messenger, a politician who believes in what he preaches. nitpicking the guy on his personal behaviour is stupid, particularly when there’s little to no actual information available. even if there was full disclosure and it turned out that he burns a mountain of coal just to make his coffee, it wouldn’t change the fact that it is wrong.

consider duke cunningham. busted for corruption and yet all you hear is how the democrats can’t pass strong anti corruption and lobbying legistlation. and yet, in the 10 years of republican control of congress, they didn’t do squat, didn’t raise a peep and in fact promoted wanton corruption. and now that the dems are “in power”, they simply whine and weep about how dems are hypocrits. yeah, that’s honesty for you, isn’t it.

back to al gore; what is the apples to apples comparison? how much energy he uses vs the energy use of an average rich politician? and the carbon credits he purchases vs the credits purchased by the average rich guy?

[Anonymous]

There’s nothing more saddening intellectually than seeing smart people being misled by the clever manipulation of factual information. This article shows facts completely out of context and then smart people fall for it prey of their own deductive power.

Here’s the way the thinking process goes:

Al Gore spends a lot of money on energy – fact. (This is the scope of the article).

Energy creation has an inherent side-effect that’s bad for the environment through CO2 pollution and its effects on increasing global warming – fact. (Ironically, this is exactly what Al Gore predicates)

Logically then, it follows that Al Gore is indirectly doing things that are bad for the environment, and hence he is a phoney (this is the goal of the article). The conclusion is straightforward, but it’s also wrong because the premise is being framed incorrectly!

Let’s add some more context…

Al Gore has never claimed that he uses energy at the level of the average person.

What Al Gore has claimed time and again is that he is carbon neutral. This means that whichever harm his lifestyle habits cause to the environment in form of CO2 pollution, he offsets by funding initiatives that reverse the damage, such as reforesting.

The idea is quite simple really. There are organizations that measure the carbon offsetting activities and how much they cost. Next, they sell certificates to any prospective buyer, such as Al Gore, for $5 to $30 per tonne of CO2 removed. The money is used to continue the reforestation efforts. Interestingly enough, this approach is more efficient and easier to implement than a straigthforward reduction in fossil fuels consumption.

So, now that we have a different frame for understanding the article, let’s see if Gore’s claims of being carbon neutral are realistic.

The average CO2 footprint for a resident of a developed nation is between 6 and 23 tonnes of CO2 per year. Taking the article at face value, Al Gore consumes in a month the same amount of energy that the average person consumes in a whole year. That would put Gore at 12 times the average CO2 footprint. Taking the upper limit of 23 tonnes, that yields 276 tonnes of CO2 per year. Let’s say that Gore likes to pay top-dollar for his certificates, and buys them at the $30 rate. He must then shell out $8,280 per year to be carbon neutral. Somehow I have the hunch that he can afford an extra $8K per year. In fact I bet he puts in a bit more than that since 100% of all proceeds from the Inconvenient Truth are used to fund a bipartisan educational campaign. If only 13 people out of all his listeners became carbon neutral then Al Gore could afford not to offset an atom of his CO2 footprint and the world would still be better off.

Sure, there are still controversies around carbon offsetting and there’s no set standard on how to measure these activities and perhaps Gore has many other things that people could pin on him but I bet he is smart enough to have covered his butt on this one – come on people, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that his opponents would try to attack his credibility the minute he opened his mouth.

[Anonymous]

The Right Wing Noise Machine is at it again.

From Gore’s office:

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.

Also Gore purchases “green energy” at a higher price per kWH. Gore has home offices for himself and wife, as well as staff.

Now, let’s see. Dick Cheney got the Republicans back in ’01 to remove HIS share of the electric bill of his official residence from his office’s budget, as had been typical practice, and got the Navy to pay it.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/32695_vp26.shtml

In any case, I have no problem with people using electricity re global warming if it comes from nuclear, hydroelectric and wind.

Of course if Gore went to live in an unpowered hut, the Right Wing Noise Machine would compare him to the Unabomber and sneer at him for being a dirty hippie or whatever.

The RWNM seems to believe that abject disgusting selfishness is more noble than being a reasonable person and doing something about problems without turning into a maniac.

[gold_dredger_phd]

This country could be saved if liberals just stopped having children.

[PerryChase]

This country could be saved if liberals just stopped having children.

———

hahaha, that's funny.  Most liberals I know come from conservative families.  They only return home for a few days on holidays cuz they can't take too much of the bull.  At least they have the sensibilities to spare their parents the "disappointment." 

For you conservatives out there, you'll know why when your kids don't come home and visit that often.  

 

[Anonymous]

Aw, Perry, that’s because you hang out with non-religious types. Lack of practice of religion correlates with all sorts of bad things, including, often, estrangement from one’s parents, higher rates of teenage sexual activity, etc.

You’d learn a few new things about human nature if you got married and had kids. Or, became a regular churchgoer. Try ’em; you might like ’em.

[drunkle]

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on February 28, 2007 – 5:10pm.
This country could be saved if liberals just stopped having children.

are you happy in your life as a cog in the machine?

congratulations on achieving your inhumanity.

[drunkle]

Submitted by jg on February 28, 2007 – 6:20pm.
Aw, Perry, that’s because you hang out with non-religious types. Lack of practice of religion correlates with all sorts of bad things, including, often, estrangement from one’s parents, higher rates of teenage sexual activity, etc.

You’d learn a few new things about human nature if you got married and had kids. Or, became a regular churchgoer. Try ’em; you might like ’em.

you don’t need children or religion to observe childish behaviour in people. case in point, the trite attack on gore.

[ucodegen]

Now you know why I don’t post much when comments get to this stage.. too much name calling (on both sides of the camp).

That Gore is using green power from a power company, that needs to be checked. Looking at his bill, I would say that he is not because the charges are too low per kilowatt ($1359/18414 = $0.0738/kWh). Check your SDG&E bill and see what you pay per kWh (sum it up w/ all the charges)..

That he is using solar power, considering the bill, I would find that highly unlikely. The link to solarwarrior I posted earlier, shows his net use and the solar array he is using. ‘Solarwarrior’ is a net generator (puts more into the grid than he takes out). That guy is also considered rich (Net worth in excess of $500Mil when I last looked).

I don’t see why Gore, who is holding himself up as an example to follow, is not really walking the walk. The ‘offset’ accounts is a lot of bull crap(where is the money going in the end?? financing Gore’s push on AGW?). (I am not pointing to the anti-AGW crowd because they don’t believe it.. so why should they be expected to act as if they do?) On the other hand, Gore is very strong proponent of AGW, so why can’t he conduct himself accordingly? There are others with fewer resources that have done considerably better than he (most power supplied directly by renewable means). Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

[drunkle]

Submitted by ucodegen on February 28, 2007 – 7:12pm.
Now you know why I don’t post much when comments get to this stage.. too much name calling (on both sides of the camp).

how magnanimous of you. oh wait. the name calling started from post 1 and yet you only now condemn it when people stand up to the lies and slander. did i say magnanimous? i meant self serving.

I would say…

I would find…

I don’t see…

where is the money going…

Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

as if people can only be sincere if they are extremists. and yet, i bet you think islamic extremists are terrorist nutjobs and not “freedom fighters”.

given your *opinion* of carbon offsets and your ignorance of the facts, your post seems pretty meaningless to me.

[Author]

Posts