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.
I've contemplated buying carbon offsets before, but ultimately decided against because I can't be sure they have the effect advertised.
ReplyDeleteThe idea is reasonable: there are days when I can't avoid driving to work and still meet my other commitments, for example. It is possible to buy carbon offsets in the form of, say, tree planting, which should theoretically result in a certain amount of carbon being extracted from the atmosphere and sunk into biomass. So, if I'm in a situation where I have no reasonable options other than to drive, for example (and note: i drive a hybrid which gets more than 40MPG), then I can ameliorate that by spending money to suck out of the atmosphere an amount of carbon equal to my consumption.
Which isn't to say it works, that the offset is measurable, or that there's any way to guarantee the money is spent as advertised. Simply that the concept is reasonable on its face.
I don't mind the idea of carbon offsets for, say, business purposes where a business would either go bankrupt or significantly reduce its enterprise to fall within legal limits. I seem to remember that environmentalists didn't like this idea when Kyoto was first being debated because they felt like businesses were "cheating."
ReplyDeleteAs was pointed out, the purpose of all this is to change behaviors to reduce carbom emissions. It sounds to me like you've made changes to your personal behavior to "reduce your carbon footprint," as they say.
What Al Gore does (and most of the Hollywood types touting environmentalism at the Oscars) is different. I'm not talking about Gore's farm (a lot of lefties have said that's why his usage is so much greater). What is ridiculous is Gore's personal consumption of energy--notwithstanding his farm--is outrageous and using carbon offsets is simply a way to keep from inconveniencing himself with the same sorts of regulations he would like to impose on the rest of us.
Of course environmentalists didn't like it: there is a general presumption on the left that you shouldn't be able to buy your way out of things, and most environmental activists I have known have had only the shakiest understanding of economics.
ReplyDeleteI'm ashamed to admit that my carbon footprint is higher now than it was five years ago; i've moved from a lifestyle where I walked/bussed to work every day to one where driving is a neccessity, and I work in the tech industry, which means my electricity consumption is outrageous.
That said: I do a little bit -- drive a hybrid, walk/train as much as I can, don't use a heater (in the bay area, who needs one) (although Jared often forces the issue) or air conditioner, etc.
But I don't do nearly as much as I should.
I'm not convinced that it is entirely possible not to increase your carbon footprint as you move through life. I live in a part of the country where public transportation is negligible and it's not possible to live in an area where I can work, my kids can go to school, and we can buy groceries within walking distance. So, my carbon footprint must be enormous.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I do little things to try to reduce my energy consumption (I don't make as many trips, we turn down the heater or AC, we recycle). I would probably even buy carbon offsets if I knew how it worked.