The story about Al Gore's humongous electric bills is delicious because of the rank hypocrisy of those defending "Mr. Green."
There's this change-the subject defense at Crooks and Liars.
(Nicole: Do you suppose that they are equally up in arms by the fact that taxpayers are paying Dick Cheney's electric bill at the Vice President's mansion? You know, the one that had an $186,000 electric bill in 2001? Nah, that probably doesn't bother them in the least.)
Well, yes, the Vice President's energy usage could be considered excessive, but then Dick Cheney's never held himself out as a model of environmentalism and energy conservation. See, SilentPatriot, that's what makes Gore's position untenable: he's lectured everyone else on cutting their energy consumption while using as much energy as my housing subdivision.
The excuse Gore has given is that he uses a "carbon neutral lifestyle." That is, he buys carbon credits to offset his excessive energy usage. But that doesn't really wash, either. All it means is that someone else is using as much energy as they want but selling a credit because they don't need to use as much. In short, it doesn't change energy consumption at all.
That is the real importance of the Gore story: not that he's a hypocrite (it's clear he doesn't practice what he preaches), but that his behavior isn't changing his energy consumption.
Bill Hobbs has a great post explaining this important point that may get lost in all the furor.
But do Gore’s “carbon offsets” payments really compensate for his big non-green power usage?
Wikipedia again:The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming. The appeal of becoming “carbon neutral” has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which often are a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one’s own fossil-fuel consumption. However, the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.
Did you get that? Carbon offsets are an "alternative to reducing one’s own fossil-fuel consumption" and yet "the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation."
Hobbs also points out another inconvenient truth:
According to The Tennessean newspaper’s report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management. a company he co-founded and serves as chairman:Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...
As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.
In other words, Gore is profiting from the policies he is promoting.
As Hobbs notes,
As the story evolves, it should move away from Gore’s “Gulfstream Liberal” hypocrisy and on to more important questions such as the efficacy of “carbon offsets,” and a variety of other economy-oriented policy issues that impact the environment, such as whether market-based solutions or government-planned approaches are more likely to foster the technology innovation and lifestyle choice changes that benefit the environment.
UPDATE: Amanda at Pandagon naturally defends Gore's hypocrisy as "not important." What's really important is bashing Ted Haggard and taxing carbon usage. Because, you see, individual responsibility is only important when it concerns evangelicals or conservatives.
|