The Gorehouse Effect
February 28, 2007 on 2:54 pm | In Global Warming, Main |
Update: This gets better and better. And now we learn 2% of George Soros’s portfolio is in Halliburton.
———-
A conservative group that doubts the severity of the climate change issue has accused Academy Award winner Al Gore of being a hypocrite.
“How could that possibly be?” ask the global warming guru’s admirers. Simple: Gore suggests you and I change the way we live in order to save the planet, but he maintains two large residences, is ferried around in a limo and travels on corporate jets. Typical of the sanctimonious, eh — everyone else has to make sacrifices except those who demand it of others.
But wait, it gets better. A Gore spokesman says that while her boss’s 10,000-square-foot Nashville house uses 15 times the electricity of the average home, we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads over it.
“To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption,” the spokeswoman told the AP. So investing in conservation and alternative fuels reduces Gore’s overall carbon footprint to an acceptable level, notwithstanding his conspicuous consumption of energy on so many fronts.
There’s nothing more delicious than exposing a big juicy rationalization. Maybe Gore subscribes to the thinking of Jeff Goldblum’s character in The Big Chill:
“Don’t knock rationalization. Where would we be without it? I don’t know anyone who’d get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex. Have you ever gone a week without a rationalization?”
Be that as it may, for me the whole notion of purchasing indulgences from the environmental hierarchy evokes images of the Church of England in the Middle Ages.
[Aside: Read Ken Follet’s Pillars of the Earth for some vivid and historically accurate (so I was told) descriptions of buying indulgences.]
It creates a caste system in which wealthy do-gooders can buy exemptions from making sacrifices to save the planet while the rest of us turn down the heat, buy pygmy-sized cars and beg for mercy from the gods of greenness.
Good heavens! I’m stoking class resentment. Next thing you know, I’ll be slapping a bumper sticker on my Subaru that says “You Can’t Hug A Child Wth Nuclear Arms.” Or better yet, one of these:
28 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Terry, I’m personally lukewarm on Gore, but I did want to point out that the sale of indulgences historically was more identified with the Church of Rome, particularly as a causative factor for Martin Luther’s split with that body, than with the Church of England.
Wikipedia has a good article on the subject of indulgences at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences
Comment by Geoff Brown — February 28, 2007 #
CNN has a good video on this very subject, complete with a shot of his Tennessee mansion and the propane-fueled lamps at the end of his driveway.
His spokesperson claims that Gore told people to figure out their own “carbon footprint” and then find ways to reduce it. Apparently he gets around this by buying “green” electricity which is later sold to the electric companies.
Oh yeah, and now (after this has come out) he’s apparently installing solar panels on his home and using flourescent lighting.
Too little, too late, Al. You’ve been exposed as a fraud.
Comment by Amy — February 28, 2007 #
Geoff, Looks like you’re right. If the Church of England didn’t sell indulgences much, then I guess Ken Follett fooled me.
P.S. You’re not the only one who’s lukewarm on Gore. But even after this post I still think he would make the Dems’ best candidate for prez. How about a Gore-Richardson ticket? A Rudy killer … but that will come in another post.
Comment by Terry — February 28, 2007 #
Terry:
According to the AP story, Gore’s monthly electric bill is $1,200. He “invests” in $432 worth of green energy a month. I was never a math whiz in high school, but even I can figure out that that still leaves $800 in “dirty” energy a month. How much is your average electric bill?
Two other questions: If Mark Alexander, living in a home without running water, is using up 2.5 earths, according to that footprint quiz from a few blogs ago, how many earths is Al Gore consuming living in a 10,000-square-foot mansion (not to mention his other three homes)? (Can the quiz even count that high?) And why is this guy such a hero to the greenies when his lifestyle doesn’t begin to match up to his rhetoric? (Oops, I mean, three more questions.)
The sad part is that by being such a hypocrite, Al Gore does great damage to environmental issues that are important.
Comment by Steve Barlow — February 28, 2007 #
Obama’s just as guilty of environmental hypocrisy as Gore…he preaches green and then gets into one of his fleet of Ford Expeditions. In a video clip I saw he was called on it by a reporter and replied, with a smile, “I like my cars.”
Just another day in politics.
BTW, I countPillars of the Earth as one of the best novels I’ve ever read…three times so far. Of course one of the two protagonists is a stonemason….
Comment by Doug Richardson — February 28, 2007 #
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/02/do_carbon_offse.html
Comment by Jake — February 28, 2007 #
Well, I spent a good deal of time on this bruhaha on right-of-center blogs yesterday and at my blog today. This is what I boiled it down to:
“Interests trump positions if the dealer doesn’t cheat. If he does, though, all bets are off.”
http://greensleeves.typepad.com/berkshires/2007/02/like_the_frog_s.html if you are interested.
Comment by Tim Abbott — February 28, 2007 #
i listen to clips of these people and count how many buzz words the run off during their interview..
solar, green, “off the grid”, hybrid, etcetera.
it seems that these buzzwords are just that to them.
Comment by fred — February 28, 2007 #
Steve, Thanks for doing the math. And I agree completely that Gore hurts the movement with his hypocrisy. He must be off the charts. How about a couple dozen planets?
Doug, I have only read “Pillars” once but found it totally engrossing (all 1,000 pages of it). The only thing about Obama (and Hillary, to b fair) is I don’t hear them traveling the country preaching to us about how we are all destroying the planet with our filthy habits (as AlGore does). So Barack’s Expeditions don’t really bother me.
Amy and Fred, Direct me to the clips. I am interested.
Comment by Terry — February 28, 2007 #
John Denver was the same in the 70’s as Al Gore is now…but they are still messengers that can get the word out. Wether you want to believe it or not, does not matter to me. To have debate, and differing ideas is not a bad thing. Al Gore, his movie, and his sppeched, get us thinking and talking, and investigating global warming….to me, its not a bad thing!!
Will someone please show me someone, Republican, Democrat, Independent…whatever, whoever, who is successful, both inincome, and influence, who is not hipicritical at times……
Marshall
Comment by Marshall Miles — March 1, 2007 #
Here is a link to Stern Show Clips where Howard Stern plays the fun game of “count the buzzwords”.
Comment by fred — March 1, 2007 #
The hypocrisy of Gore is bad enough (and pls do look online for info on Pres Bush’s much-smaller Texas home, which is heated and cooled with an underground geothermal system, has solar panels and uses a giant cistern to recycle water).
But the hypocrisy of the whole Academy Awards show this year was outrageous. Let’s ignore the fact that billions of televisions (as Ellen Degeneres said repeatedly) were tuned to the show for more than four hours. And the fact that dozens of people were flown (probably half of them in chartered jets) from NYC to Hollywood to serve as waitresses, caterers, hairdressers and stylists (like no one in Hollywood knows how to use a blowdryer?).
Let’s talk about the movie biz itself: in a conversation with two CL& P execs today I asked how it would impact American energy use if we all stopped watching movies (on tv, dvds, ipods, vcrs and our computers). Without hesitation, one of them said it would cut energy use in half. His colleague pointed to computers as one of the main reasons for the energy crisis. Al Gore, of course, is on the board of directors of Apple computer — the company that pushes electronics-use harder than McDonalds pushes hamburgers.
And then of course there is the famously excessive world of Hollywood movie making itself. Do Lucas and Spielberg use compact fluorescents to create any of their Industrial Light and Magic? Probably not. And as my CL&P contacts pointed out, flatscreen televisions use five times the energy of a regular television.
Comment by cynthia — March 1, 2007 #
Fred, The clip is really funny. Those celebs have to do something to compensate for all that jetting around and working on those energy-hogging TV and movie sets.
Cynthia,
That’s true about Bush’s house. Plus it’s only 4,000 SF compared to Gore’s 10,000 (and that’s not counting Gore’s Virginia abode). I’m certain when they are both retired, Bush’s carbon footprint will be less. Not bad for a right-wing dope who likes to clear brush, eh?
Here’s another amusing take on Gore from the WSJ:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009730
Marshall,
You are surely right that most politicians are hypocrites to one degree or another. Plus Gore and others have started a useful dialogue. But Gore’s double standard is so brazen and ludicrous that he makes an easy target. And the American people have shown over the years that they’re not fond of hypocrites.
Comment by Terry — March 1, 2007 #
Is that his only abode, Terry, or does he have a piece of Kennebunkport, too? I’m all for grand old cottages by the sea (my grandparents home is one such) but eco-friendly they ain’t.
Comment by Tim Abbott — March 1, 2007 #
Who’s the bigger hypocrite, Gore or those who roast him on this issue while defending the Bushies and families who think that it is OK to send our troups to die in Iraq when the Bushies, et al are not willing to put their own lives in jeopardy. To me its no contest.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — March 2, 2007 #
You’re right. There is plenty of hypocrisy on the right as well, including chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney who had “other priorities” during the Vietnam war but have no problem sending others off to die. And how about right-wing business types who want government off their backs but want that same government to protect them from competition? And those things have been reported over and over again. The Gore foolishness is new.
But it’s just so much more fun to poke fun at the hypocrisy of the left: 1) Because they react with such righteous indignation at the exposure of such hypocrisy and 2) Ostentatious double standards such as that of Gore’s and the Hollywood elites leave them dangling like a big fat pinata just waiting to be smacked.
Comment by Terry — March 2, 2007 #
So, it all comes down to GEORGE BUSH.
Tom, the problem with the socialists that you parrot and deify is that you have nothing to offer other than braying like some sort of bastard horse.
Russ Feingold, he of the Gut the First Amendment Law, has stated the the lefties are in danger of becoming responsible for the Iraq War, unless they can convince the American people they are unified in their opposition. Funny, didn’t a slew of them vote for the current situation? Yet, now that they see a problem, there is no exit strategy, heck, there’s no thought process at all. Where is Howie the Scream when you need him.
Tom, George Bush is not the cause of all the problems. When he leaves in 08, the problems will still exist. The main problem then is that you and your ilk will be in charge. Can anyone say WW III, or will the NEA mandate Arabic and the teaching of Islam in public schools?
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 3, 2007 #
Terry, “Gore has started a useful debate?” about what? He has declared the debate over. Obviously you, I, and untold millions don’t agree. Now all we need do is overcome the unbiased media that says we are wrong.
To listen to Gore and co. the debate is over. Everyone that does not begin to live as if they were in Darfur, minus the genocide, perhaps, is wrong and leading to direct destruction of the planet.
Is man a problem in global warming? You betcha! Are we and our various lifestyles the PRIMARY PROBLEM? No way in hell. Want to reduce greenhouse gases? Start by killing ALL the cows in the world. Move on to horses, dogs, cats, etc. By reducing those sources of methane gas production, we will move up the ladder of greenhouse gas emission, but methane gas will decrease. Of course, eliminating the major source, the insect world is a bit more problematic. Then again, there is that balance of nature thing…
Seems that the earth has been doing this sort of hot/cold thing for millenia. Major difference? A species evolved that has bred some who believe they have all the answers to any problem, even ones they don’t know exist. As history has shown, when mankind intervenes to “save” something, often times it creates a new problem.
Rachel Carson was the first member of the CLS. How many people have died in the world because of her screaming hysteria? Why did not rational people step forward and do something positive to fix the problem? BTW, DDT is again legal to use in various countries. Heavily regulated and controlled. Malaria is declining in Africa because of DDT. The main sponsor? Some nerd named Gates.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 3, 2007 #
Well, Paul, at least you did not call me a Communist. I’ll take that as progress. By the way, does a bastard horse bray differently from other horses.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — March 3, 2007 #
It’s a progression, Tom. You’re geting there.
Regardless of the horse, the facts stand: only braying, no solutions offered.
What will you do when “their” problem becomes yours? Or will you follow the party line and not acknowledge any responsibility? You voted for them, not me.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 4, 2007 #
Paul, what problem are you talking about?
Comment by Tom Cowgill — March 4, 2007 #
You know, Tom. the Iraq War. The socialists voted for it, against it, for it,… Fund it, don’t fund it, etc.
The childish response of the supposed elected representatives of not accepting responsiblity is pathetic. A non binding resolution in support of the enemy borders on treason. Stating in the same breath that “we support the troops,” but not the president is pure BS.
So, do you plan on converting to Islam, or will you become one of the new teachers of Arabic?
Now, since we began talking about Al Gore and “global warming,” let’s end this little sidebar that you began and get back to the main question:
Why are Al Gore and his CLS supporters so hypocritical?
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 5, 2007 #
Paul, I did not intend to start a discussion of the war or one on economics. My intent was to call you a bigger hypocrite than Al Gore.
I hope that some are learning Arabic, and Farsi, since it would be useful for intelligence gathering.
Since you asked, my strategy for Iraq is just to leave. Declare victory and begin a planned withdrawal immediately.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — March 5, 2007 #
Since you know zip about me, other than what you read here, how do you make such a judgement?
Oh, yeah. You are engaging in attack politics. Typical of the left.
Get a dog. Name it Life. Then you’ll have one.
You blame everything on Bush. It is in your DNA. Get over 2000. Gore lost. You lost again in 04. There is a message that has been sent to the leftists. Get your head out of the sand and listen. Your political views are summarized in your childish statement:
“Declare victory and begin a planned withdrawal immediately.”
Isn’t that a mature response! I say it is so, and that’s that. Thank you Al Gore.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 6, 2007 #
Paul, just a question (tounge in cheek here)…
So, what country are you going to move to if Hillary Clinton or Al Gore win???!!!!
You just don’t seem like a Canadian!!!
Comment by Marshall Miles — March 6, 2007 #
Unlike the famous quotes from the lefties, who still live here because it is still the best country in the world, I will remain in America. History has shown that over time, America always returns to the RIGHT course, despite the Commander at the helm and his crew.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 7, 2007 #
Actually, Marshall, I am beginning to believe that it would have better if Kerry had won. He would have continued the policies of Clinton, perhaps minus the extramarital affairs. American interests would have been attacked post 911 because he was too busy nuancing the situation. At some point, even the socialists and their allies in both houses of congress would have had to take some sort of military action. Maybe, instead of firing missles at tents in the desert or pharmaceutical plants, they would have hit or missed real military targets. We might be on the brink of WW III, but at least even the socialists would understand the need to follow the advice of Golda Meier, 1967.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 7, 2007 #
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2007/03/06/dont_knuckle_under_to_the_enviro-luddites?page=full&comments=true
David Limbaugh, yes, that David Limbaugh, nails the hypocrisy of Gore & Co quite nicely.
BTW, how does Gore aquare his “carbon offset” BS with the fact that his “offsets” are investments in a company that he owns? He never buys the offsets.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 8, 2007 #