While not one to gane up on Gore and as someone who doesn't really care for the current campaign against his movie (it'll die it's own death), practicing in what one opposes is the very definition of "hypocrisy". And, much like Arianna Huffington, Gore often practices in what he opposes, as many people do be they left or right. In this case, donating money to overseas companies, much of which was gained from his very enviro-filled work, is akin to an exec from Texaco donating a portion of his dividends to research on ethanol....a nice piece of PR.

Should airline pilots "atone" for their misguided practices? Is airline travel going to be the next sin tax? What other types of capitalistic behavior should one feel the need to "atone" for (while continuing to do it and have people defend the accusation of hypocrisy)?

Posted by RW on May 29, 2006 10:47 PM Link to comment

I guess "atone" is a poor choice of words for buying carbon offsets. But, it isn't as though there are hybrid jets available for travel.

What other types of capitalistic behavior should one feel the need to "atone" for

What makes travel capitalistic? I suppose Gore is making some money in his travels - they could be considered business travels, but their ostensible function is advocacy, and advocacy really is no more capitalistic than writing for a blog that doesn't advertize.

But, what other types? I'd say probably most forms of non-sustainable consumption - i.e. use of fossil fuels, consumption of intensively farmed agricultural products, use of disposable containers... And, the only way to "atone", if you must consume in this form, is to either help reduce the impact (i.e. reuse and recycle, when you've done all the reducing you can reasonably do), or to help create alternative sources that can be used more sustainably.

Although Gore's travel isn't energy-neutral, it is, according to the article, carbon-neutral. Meaning that the amount he invests in alternative energy will reduce carbon emissions by the same amount that he has used so that he has no net effect on CO2 production. I doubt that is calculated as scrupulously as I may prefer, but the effort is worth noting. And, whether it is done to protect him from charges of hypocrisy, or done because he really is as concerned about greenhouse gases as he professes to be, it does still undermine the ad hominem case that CEI makes against him. Not all viewers of the CEI ad are aware that it is a logical fallacy, but it's relatively easy to understand that the ad is misleading about Gore's personal environmental practices, since it portrays him as behaving irresponsibly toward carbon emissions when he actually does not.

Posted by smijer on May 30, 2006 08:18 AM Link to comment

Interesting! I haven't followed the politics surrounding Gore's work, and I didn't even think about the possibility of personal carbon offets. Cool stuff.

For what it's worth, I think that hypocrisy accusations need a bit more substance than this. They could be equally well laid at the feet of Arnold Schwartzenegger and his Humvee fleet, or Bush and his use of Air Force One for what seem like frivolous purposes. To be clear, I don't accuse any of these people of hypocrisy. The most I'd say is that they sometimes set a bad example.

Posted by RSA on May 30, 2006 11:29 AM Link to comment

Come on, guys, be honest, this is simply a case of a mega-rich guy "buying back" his enviro street cred and you folks are willing to accept it simply because of his politics.

Anyone honestly think that if Cheney, instead of the millions that he contributed to charity, sent the cash to overseas industries that are the "correct" brand, you'd be half as forgiving? Or if he donated some of his Halliburton stock to Greenpeace, he'd be somehow forgiven for some of his "sins"?

At what point does that amount to "buying one's ethics"?

Is this a new precedent? "Hey, what you're doing is wrong and we need policies that will change the behavior! What? You're donating to who? Well, why didn't you say so......all is well!"

Posted by RW on May 30, 2006 01:12 PM Link to comment

I don't know about buying "back" the street cred... I mean, environmental issues are what Gore's always been vocal about and known for. Some green types say he's a sell-out policy wise, but this is the first that anyone has tried to call him a bad environmentalist because he *travels the world educating people on environmental issues*. And, it isn't really "back" - he was doing this before Easterbrook or the CEI tried to paint him as environmentally irresponsible.

As to Cheney, what does he hope to be forgiven *for*, by giving money to clean energy development? For the energy policy of the biggest industrial nation in the world? Not likely. For his personal/business/etc. travel, if his goal is to be personally carbon neutral? Yeah, why not?

The ridiculous thing is this:

The reason behind the smear; the reason they are trying to steer people away from his movie, away from the information, is simply that they do not want people to know the risks of climate change. There's a word for that: Assholes. Asshole trumps hypocrite any day.

But, any kind of large scale education and advocacy work is pretty energy intensive, whether you do it by distributing leaflets or flying state to state. Anybody doing the kind of work Gore is doing is going to burn a lot of fuel of some kind or another, and will produce greenhouse gases in the process. Even if Gore doesn't purchase offsets, his work has the potential to have a greater long-term positive impact on greenhouse gases than the extra co2 he contributes. Certainly, his CO2, even without offsets is more environmentally "forgiveable" than my CEO's CO2 from hopping around in the company jet selling trucking services. The offsets are good ideas for people like Gore who are concerned with climate change (or at least need to be able to legitimately give that appearance, if you are cynical about his motivations).. and they aren't new, and they aren't just for the mega-rich. TVA offers "Green Power Switch" offsets right here in Chattanooga. You can buy offsets for carbon-neutral driving on the internet.

The fact that Gore has to spend more than others in offsets is really not such a big deal. But let's review:
1. The CEI ad is an ad hominem attack (Gore can't be right about climate change because he adds to atmospheric carbon while he travels to tell his story) - a logical fallacy.
2. It's wrong, because Gore uses clean power offsets so that his net contribution to atmospheric carbons is neutral.
3. It's wrong, because it vastly overstates the amount of carbon Gore's travel adds to the atmosphere.

So, what is your point? On what basis do you defend them or attack Gore where it concerns climate change advocacy?

Posted by smijer on May 30, 2006 02:09 PM Link to comment

At what point does that amount to "buying one's ethics"?

I don't know. You make it sound as if there's no way for a well-off American (Gore isn't mega-rich; back when he was VP, his IRS forms showed he and Tipper pulled in only about 25% over his federal salary) to say something about the environment without being a hypocrite.

And on the general issue of making up for past mistakes, and to put on my extreme partisan hat, people don't ask Dick Cheney (who received how many draft deferrals?) or George W. Bush (who spent the Viet Nam years where exactly?) what gives them the right to make military decisions.

Posted by RSA on May 30, 2006 02:35 PM Link to comment

I don't defend anything...I didn't read either source & don't plan to. My point is that it's folly, in my opinion, to assume that one can "buy back" offsets so that the amount of emissions are "neutral".

Either emissions are bad (Gore's premise) or they're not so bad. If they're so bad that we're 10 years from the point of no return, it boggles the mind that you could throw a few bucks at some foreign companies and it suddenly negate the effects of the jet travel (which, one supposes, is no quasi-evil).

I don't care if Gore travels. However, if Gore states that gov't must enact policies (IOW, using the power of the police to make me do what someone else wants) to keep me from traveling or make me pay a "sin tax" of some form in order to do what he's doing, then that's hypocrisy.

BTW, I don't read Easterbrook and know few who do.
I know Duncan Black & co. are enamored with him, but I'm not the person to act as a defender of someone that I don't even read.

Certainly, his CO2, even without offsets is more environmentally "forgiveable" than my CEO's CO2 from hopping around in the company jet selling trucking services.

That's fine as far as personal opinion goes, but it's certainly not the role of the gov't to dictate whose use of fuel is "forgivable", which is what Gore & co. often preach (but don't practice). Right now the folks that have policies that you don't like are the ones in power.....do you want them deciding what is "forgivable"? Sorry, doesn't work. If something is bad, it's bad. It's not "it's bad, except when someone I like is doing something I like & then it's more forgivable", for then you have a system of bias within the law & we already have enough of that.

I've long said that Gore, Begley, Streisand, Danson & the rest should put forth the capital and manufacture/distribute the vehicles that they think are the next wave. Instead, they continually want the gov't to mandate that we all use such means....if it's so good, let's have the Gore 2010 Automobile on the market in a few years & let the public clear the lots and have the investors reap the profits (with which they can pocket or put to other enviro-friendly ventures). Instead, they jet across the globe and bitch about all the little people who jet across the globe for functions that aren't as important as the one's they're partaking....you know, the kind that isn't as "forgivable".

That's a very slippery slope.

Posted by RW on May 30, 2006 03:05 PM Link to comment

RSA, Gore is rich. Very rich. Rich as in "many millions". Rich as in "his family was rich back when he was still a congressman". Rich as in "it was foolish for him to only donate $352 to charity one year while as veep".

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with his being wealthy. From what I can tell, he's earned it. A former veep can and should command big bucks.

people don't ask Dick Cheney (who received how many draft deferrals?) or George W. Bush (who spent the Viet Nam years where exactly?) what gives them the right to make military decisions.

They shouldn't, since the constitution does exactly that.

Posted by RW on May 30, 2006 03:12 PM Link to comment

My point is that it's folly, in my opinion, to assume that one can "buy back" offsets so that the amount of emissions are "neutral".

Either emissions are bad (Gore's premise) or they're not so bad. If they're so bad that we're 10 years from the point of no return, it boggles the mind that you could throw a few bucks at some foreign companies and it suddenly negate the effects of the jet travel (which, one supposes, is no quasi-evil).

Jet travel as an industry? No, a few bucks at some foreign company (what's this hang-up on "foreign"? In some contexts, it matters - in terms of greenhouse gases, well, they don't really stop at boundaries... I only ask because you've repeated it several times - seems to be a sticking point) - a few bucks toward a hydroelectric dam won't offset all the jet travel that is done. But, the carbon emissions just attributable to a single individual's travel, however prodigious it may be? Yes... By contributing toward, for instance, a hydro-electric dam, one can produce a source of energy that doesn't produce carbon emissions in a place where people rely on coal-fueled power. By building that hydroelectric dam, you reduce the future use of carbon by however much coal-power is displaced. So, on paper anyway, you calculate how much coal is displaced and how much CO2 your family produces through jet travel and day to day living, and figure out how much of the cost of the hydroelectric plant you will have to pay so that you have funded an equal share of its carbon offsets as you have emitted yourself... that's carbon neutral. So, that's how it works.

I don't care if Gore travels. However, if Gore states that gov't must enact policies (IOW, using the power of the police to make me do what someone else wants) to keep me from traveling or make me pay a "sin tax" of some form in order to do what he's doing, then that's hypocrisy.

Well, that's a pretty big "if". I don't see a travel ban in the future unless we reach a real crisis with fuel. A sin tax? I don't know if that's a Gore policy or not... but assuming it is, how is it hypocrisy if he is already voluntarily paying the sin tax on his own travel?

As to whether a "sin" tax on carbon emissions is ok or not... If it isn't ok - if those who mine, drill, or *burn* the fuels that contribute to climate change which causes future economic and property damage - if those of us who are helping create that damage are not responsible for paying the costs of reducing greenhouse emissions, then who should be responsible for paying the costs of the eventual damage itself? Why must we not be held responsible for avoiding or repairing the damage we do to our own and others lives and economies?

Posted by smijer on May 30, 2006 05:18 PM Link to comment

Gore is rich. Very rich.

I think of Bush as being rich, and Cheney very rich (Cheney's 2005 income was about $9M). Gore I think of as well-off. If you have a pointer to information, that might change my mind. From what I've read, he's not even in the same ball park as "very rich".

Posted by RSA on May 30, 2006 05:37 PM Link to comment

If this is right, as of 2000, Gore's net worth was $1.95 million. Judging on that, I would call him rich, but not "mega-rich". I also read somewhere that he took a job on Apple's board of directors since 2000 - if so, he may be inching toward "mega-rich" status. Not that it matters.

Posted by smijer on May 30, 2006 06:05 PM Link to comment

His income has skyrocketed (I've heard five figures per speech, as should be expected)...enough so that he can start up his own network. I wasn't bashing the fellow, but his is indeed rich.

I only ask because you've repeated it several times

Outsourcing.
Again, seems like a perfect opportunity for "Gore energy". Lord knows that he & his buddies in Hollywood have the capital (to spare). To hear their predictions of the future, they could easily corner the market and not only save the countries resources but also come away being Bill Gates-like revolutionaries, as well as being multi-billionaires.

That is, if they thought their predictions were valid enough to bet their own cash - instead of the government teat - on it.

Posted by RW on May 30, 2006 08:06 PM Link to comment

To hear their predictions of the future, they could easily corner the market and not only save the countries resources but also come away being Bill Gates-like revolutionaries, as well as being multi-billionaires.

But he isn't predicting market demand for green energy - it's low now, and will likely be low right up to the time when chunks of coastline start disappearing... He (or rather the scientific community, not to mention the pentagon, the new Republican Secrectary of the Treasury, and the world bank) are predicting *climate change* - over the next century or two. And, since climate change will bring world-wide consequences, there's really no way to make a killing off of betting on it. Maybe, he could put his money in evacuation service enterprises if the goal was to get rich.

That is, if they thought their predictions were valid enough to bet their own cash - instead of the government teat - on it.

Supply and demand... And we've seen some baby steps in that direction. Hybrid cars are easing on to the market, with the help of government teat incentives. But demand is very soft. The average Joe can't conceive of the possibility that his 4 liter engine is going to drown people in New York CIty. Because it isn't - by itself. It's one of those world-wide energy production/consumption things. What's one more 4 liter engine to you or me? Or one more jet trip to do a lecture to Al Gore, if you think about it that way?

The Government Teat? I've got teats Faulker, can you milk me? (Sorry - couldn't resist)... Well, you know you didn't quite answer whether the cost of avoiding disaster should be paid now by those courting it, or later by those suffering it. We're not talking about an endangered tree frog, here - the damage from what we do now will come with a price tag in dollars and cents (not to mention lives). We're doing the damage. Why should it be strictly voluntary whether we pay for it (or to avoid it)?

But, you know... it's weird. I haven't seen the movie or read the book, so I don't know what, if any, policy proposals Gore makes concerning reducing emissions. But, that's not what the movie is about - it's about the cause and effect. And people deserve to be educated, even if you believe that the free market is capable of anticpating climate change and reacting to it appropriately, before it is too late, without any government action. Gore's movie is primarily educational - even if you believe the free market can do the correction, at least you beliee that the people in the marketplace need to have some information about climate change before it will do so, right? So why get angry about efforts to inform? And even more so, why do ad hominem smears against those who are doing the informing?

Posted by smijer on May 30, 2006 08:51 PM Link to comment

So why get angry about efforts to inform?

Go reread the first part of the first sentence of my first comment on this thread. I have a lot of respect for Al Gore the person. And I know nothing about the movie so I'm not going to play the role of Andrew Sullivan and critique what I'm ignorant of. All I know is that it's a film by an overtly partisan former-politician who is setting forth his view of potential effects with the backdrop of selected 'experts' who agree with him. And it's billed as a documentary.

For some reason, partisan films from partisan sources is now supposedly accepted as "unarguable fact" and simply an attempt to inform.

Okay, if you say so. After all, it says "truth" in the title and we're not to question the political motives of a political movie made by someone who just ran for president 6 years ago.
I can imagine the reaction to a Tom Delay "documentary" on the effects of the economy if we don't sharply curtail spending.

Then again, maybe VP Gore can borrow Michael Moore's acceptance speech for when he receives his academy award (like he's not going to win it).

And even more so, why do ad hominem smears against those who are doing the informing?

I don't recall smearing anyone, to be honest. But if I did, I retroactively apologize. Keep in mind, though, that not everyone accepts every political word put forth by Al Gore (or those who agree) as being the unabridged gospel. I have no idea if my driving my car is going to bring NYC to its knees.

Heck, I recall the ice-age predictions of the early 70s (back when we were REALLY careful with our emissions, eh?).

Posted by RW on May 30, 2006 09:22 PM Link to comment

Sorry about the bold. It was supposed to be a "br" in the brackets for a line-return, but I apparently left out the 'r'.

Posted by RW on May 30, 2006 09:30 PM Link to comment

I don't recall smearing anyone, to be honest. But if I did, I retroactively apologize.

You didn't, but I perceived your comments as supportive of the CEI, who has.

Yes, Al Gore is a politician. As weird as it may seem, that doesn't mean that every issue he talks about is from a partisan perspective. Maybe it is partisan, but if so, it's in the same way evolution is partisan. The scientific consensus is strong - not like the "coming ice age" hype that was mostly from the media anyway. Having "truth" in the title isn't a guarantee of it, and in fact there were some errors documented from the film, but those who are in a position to know, scientifically, and who have reviewed the film, vouch for its scientific accuracy overall.

I believe that we ignore this message at our own peril. Even the detractors have nothing to say about it. Look at the CEI ads - they contain the following facts:

1.) We breathe CO2 out, plants breathe it in (duh)
2.) Some Greenland glaciers are thickening in the interior (which happens to be true, does not change the fact that the same glaciers are melting on the exterior, or that melting glaciers are contributing to a rise in sea level, and which is actually predicted by the same models that predict all of the bad stuff)

That's it. The rest is threats about how lowering our greenhouse emissions will destroy the economy and peaceful pictures of children blowing CO2 on dandelions to get a wish... and ad hominem attacks on Al Gore.

If there was a case against anthropogenic climate change, or even against the message that something relatively drastic needs to be done relatively quickly to prevent future harm from it, then these ads would be full of facts to support that case. The ads themselves, by virtue of their vacuous arguments, are testimony in favor of the message that Gore's movie brings.

Posted by smijer on May 30, 2006 10:04 PM Link to comment

Oh, okay, gotcha. Sorry, haven't seen anything from the CEI on this matter except for the stuff you've mentioned.

Personally, I'm neither of the sort that there's no global warming going on (er, the sun's getting hotter, so it would stand to reason that the earth would be warming up & we should take heed) nor am I of the mind that unless we do the bidding of Al Gore and his selected experts we're all going to drown very soon in a horrific mixture of water and ice like they portrayed in "The day after tomorrow".

I'd be more inclined to further the cause of AL Gore's brand of environmentalism if the primary proponents of it weren't always a mixture of the same folks affiliated with the ANSWER marches, the Mumia protests-of-the-month and the Gorbachev-worshipping retreads of the "we predict Reagan will cause the end of the world" then "we predict that the welfare reform bill will result in starving kids in the streets" past. I can assure you that industry is spending billions, with a b, on environmental measures. I'm often shocked at the lengths my company goes to just to ensure against the worst (not that they aren't afraid of gov't clampdowns, mind you), but it is quite a wonder to see so many sympathizers of 3rd world quasi-Marxist governments so adamant that we adopt policies that would hurt us, severely, in the global economy.

But, that's my partisan spin on the deal...but I can tell you that many people who are to the right of Max Cleland are as wary of the hardline enviro-movement as the pro-choice folks were of the Terry Schiavo crowd. And by "hardline" I mean the Laurie David crowd, who thinks that they are somehow superior because they drive their hybrid across Los Angeles to buy recycled toilet paper while the 3rd shift factory working idiot drives an SUV 5 miles round-trip to their jobs.

Heck, if we REALLY wanted to keep an eye on global warming, the enviro crowd would be pushing the UN to clamp down on China and North Korea....especially China. Two countries, btw, who wouldn't be privy to the Kyoto protocol (iirc).

And what's with people blaming hurricane Katrina on global warming? That stuff REALLY hurts credibility.

Oh, crap, reading across this comment I have a bunch of questions and we've really run the gamut on this issue, haven't we? How's about I sign off on this and I'll check back in on your next comment (you don't have to answer any of my abysmal questions) and leave it at that? I recycle and I traded in my SUV that I loved for my car that I love because of gas mileage and I purchase stuff that is enviro friendly when it is reasonable (meaning hybrid prices, A/C units with higher SIR ratings, recycled trash bags that cost much more than the normal Glad liner, etc. are not reasonable to someone who is worth less than either Bush, Gore or Cheney) because I want to leave a clean planet to my kids & grandkids, but I also don't think that if I ignore Katrina Vanden Hueffel's dire warnings about the weather --- the weather, for goodness sakes, as if we could control that if we wanted (irrigating Death Valley would be a start) ---- and institute massive regulations, taxes and the change in our way of life to one that suits her (and, coincidentally, that of the aforementioned quasi-marxist regimes) that we're headed to the end of days.

My final say.....until the next debate. :)

(yep, that was an ad hominem attack, as in "I don't trust Al Gore's predictions of the future of the weather on the planet.....especially since no weatherman on the face of the globe will bet $100 on what the weather will be in my hometown next month)

Posted by RW on May 30, 2006 10:55 PM Link to comment

Interesting material on Gore. Thanks, smijer. Okay, he's rich.

Posted by RSA on May 31, 2006 11:16 AM Link to comment