Al Gore and hypocrisy


Conservatives are jumping all over Al Gore because he has a big house that uses lots of energy. Doesn’t that make Gore a hypocrite? After all, isn’t he telling everyone else to conserve while he lives the high life in a 20-room mansion that costs $1,000 a month just to heat?

I suppose you could call Gore a hypocrite, except

  • He pays for “green” electricity that doesn’t generate any greenhouse gases.
  • He pays for carbon offsets to compensate for his extensive air travel.
  • He invests in companies that make efforts to create sustainable growth.

In short, he’s footing the bill for his impact on the environment, and he’s going beyond that by trying to get others to do the same.

Now let’s take a look at what the other side is doing:

  • Publicizing lies and misinformation about global warming.
  • Paying off scientists who publish work critical of global warming studies.
  • Fighting government efforts to promote conservation and sustainable energy.
  • Fighting the Kyoto accords.
  • Doing all this because they believe it will make them personally richer.

So who’s the bigger hypocrite — the person who takes responsibility for his impact on the environment and encourages others to do the same, or the people and organizations who deny there’s a problem, who get richer through encouraging inaction, and who are happy to foist whatever problems their sloth and greed cause on helpless future generations?

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Al Gore and hypocrisy

  1. Tom says:

    It depends on the nature of the carbon offsets. Planting trees is of little use–they die in a few decades and return much of their carbon to the atmosphere.

    Clearly it is better to conserve than to consume. That’s why Gore is getting a hard time. And he deserves it.

  2. dave says:

    Planting trees is of little use–they die in a few decades and return much of their carbon to the atmosphere.

    But if you’re reforesting whole areas, then while some trees will die, new trees grow in to replace them. Yes, if you only build a temporary forest that you’re planning to kill off, that won’t work. But that’s not really the point of planting trees, is it?

    But your overall point is well taken. I’m skeptical of some of these carbon offsets too, and conservation seems to be a better option. Mainly I’m saying that Gore’s honest efforts are much better than the lies told by the opposition.

  3. John says:

    Sorry but when you consider the fact that the cost for Al Gore is of no consequence considering how much money he is making plus the fact that he makes a ton of money off the Global Warming Scare you have to question his motives. He can pay a few thousand for indulgences but what about a cashier at Walmart? He will have to make REAL sacrafices to his lifestyle because he is at poverty level already! For Al Gore to “Walk the walk” he needs to get down to a lifestyle he advocates for everyone else not just a few thousand in payoffs.

Comments are closed.