It's not enough to bash in heads, you have to bash in minds
            

Gore’s immense power usage does not disprove climate change

Lets get one thing straight Gore IS an environmental hypocrite, his energy footprint is huge, and he consumes far more than any environmental consciouses person should. This does not however weaken any of his climate change arguments.

Environmental crusader and prominent Democrat Al Gore uses 20 times more electricity in his home than the average American, says a conservative U.S. think-tank.

7 Responses to Gore’s immense power usage does not disprove climate change

  1. I’m not speaking for everyone here, but I don’t think that’s the point. My point would be this:

    What does Al Gore expect ordinary Canadians to do about climate change? Very specifically. HOW do we hit the targets. Buying “credits” that might lead to reduced emissions 10 years later isn’t the answer.

    Clearly, people need to consume less energy. and THAT’S the problem. Many of those screaming the loudest on this issue are not willing to make the very same personal sacrificies that they are asking others to make. It’s time for them to set an example.

  2. I’m not speaking for everyone here, but I don’t think that’s the point

    While rational people (on both sides of the political spectrum) would agree that the fact that Gore may not be leading by example does not in anyway weakening his climate change arguments, many (irrational) people, and media outlets (Fox News) do see this as a way to disprove climate change.

    I agree that those “screaming the loudest on this issue” should make the changes to their lifestyle that they recommend everyone else make (and driving a hybrid is not enough), but that is no excuse for governments to cloud the issue and remain inactive on ways to combat climate change. I believe that government must take the first step, likely through legislation, and only then will the public at large begin to follow, though it may take awhile.

  3. Actually, it does weaken his arguments, in part because it makes it very clear that Gore himself doesn’t actually care. It’s more important for him to APPEAR to care about the environment to help his political and personal ambitions. The whole talk about the environment is just that: talk. Like Suzuki, the lies Gore tells about climate change are simply calculated ploys to increase his own footprint, and inconvenient truths about his own footprint are mere stumbling blocks.

  4. Dan, the problem IS that Al Gore discredits what he’s trying to say. If all super-rich Al Gore is willing to do to reduce his carbon footprint is to buy offsets from subsidized companies that he personally owns… then what does that say about what the average person is suppose to do?

    The same goes for David Suzuki who does a cross-province tour with 8 people in a 32 person bus. The same goes for that NDP MP who went from screaming for penalties on the oil sands to demanding for price controls on gasoline. The same goes for someone who takes a pleasure trip to Alaska, barely gets there, then turns around and comes back.

    The hypocrisy is damaging because it tells politicians that even the most devoted are not willing to change their ways.. and if those with the most devout faith in global warming aren’t willing to do anything.. then god help the politician who tries to impose something on the general 15-second attention span population.

  5. Perhaps I should have been more clear, this post was referring to Al Gore’s scientific arguments, and those certainly are NOT weakened by Al Gore’s energy use.

    The average person will not reduce their emissions on their own, I admit that. Even the super rich won’t make the necessary reductions on their own. The solution to reducing greenhouse gases will not be a consumer solution, consumers will tend to gravitate to what is cheapest/convenient. We need governments to act, to implement regulations that encourage both consumers and business to reduce greenhouse gases.

    Governments have no excuse to cloud the issue, and remain inactive on ways to combat climate change.

  6. First of all, Gore himself has acknowledged that several of his arguments might be slightly exaggerated, but that the underlining message remains correct. I think a more accurate statement would be Gore’s general theme rather than his specifics. In a word, his conclusion might be right but some of his premises are off.

    Governments do have an excuse to cloud the issue. In fact, it’s exactly what they should do given the context they are in. They can’t deny that global warming exists, because then the public which believes in it will punish them. On the other hand, they can’t act on it because then the public will vote them out for restricting their freedom and raising taxes. The only real option is to cloud and be vague unless something overwhelming shifts their ability to act without upsetting the public or the human contribution to global warming is proven to be completely false. Until one of those two things happens, all they can do is cloud.

  7. Governments never have an excuse to could scientific issues, which is what both the Conservatives here in Canada, and the Republicans in the US have done in first denying climate change, and now claiming that there is serious scientific on whether or not climate change is caused by humans, when all peer-reviewed journals and the IPCC were saying both that climate change was real, and that humans were its cause.

    It is quite shocking to hear you support the clouding and intentional misrepresentation of scientific data. Having governments shift facts to support policy, can only result in poor policy. There can (and probably should) be debate on the best policy to tackle climate change, but that discussion has to be done with the correct facts.

Leave a Reply