As a global warming obsessed media have been fawning over Nobel Laureate Al Gore in a fashion that is almost sick-making, it was rather surprising to see a column by the Harvard Crimson's editorial page editor mocking the former Vice President's hypocrisy concerning climate change.
After all, though the Global Warmingist-in-Chief certainly talks the talk, he far from walks it.
Such was remarkably pointed out by Peter W. Tilton Monday evening in an article wonderfully titled "Gore and ‘Green' Goonies" (emphasis added throughout):
Hypocrisy is rampant in today's environmental movement, and Hollywood has provided us with enough stars who are talking the talk-now we need one who will walk the walk.
[...]
Many Americans would naturally assume Gore follows the green lifestyle he widely promotes, and they would be wrong. Gore and his wife Tipper, whose children all live elsewhere, reside in a behemoth 20-room mansion outside of Nashville that used nearly 23,000 kilowatt-hours last August, more than twice the annual-yes, annual-energy usage of a typical American home. Gore's preferred mode of transportation between stops on his international publicity tour is his private jet, which spews out CO2 emissions at the rate of a small army of SUVs.
Though 100 percent correct, this is certainly not something you'd expect to read in a college newspaper. Maybe even better was the following surprisingly accurate description of the carbon credit canard:
These celebrities and politicians justify their unnecessary consumption by purchasing carbon credits, which many of the nouveau-conscious acquire in order to offset their excessive energy usage. Carbon credits were established by the Kyoto Protocol, which established limits on carbon emissions for most countries (incidentally the United States has still not signed this agreement even though it is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases). Countries and companies who fall below their established limits are free to trade their credits in the global emissions market to other parties-including individuals-who have exceeded their emissions limits. When celebrities today buy these credits, they are allowing themselves to continue their disproportionate consumption while somewhere else in the world carbon emissions are reduced by other societies to make up for American excess.
While these superficial efforts by stars to offset their consumption are admirable, they are not a lasting solution. The average American household would have to buy $276,000 a year in carbon credits to counteract their carbon emissions, a price tag few Americans would be able to afford. Moreover, even if every American household could afford carbon credits, the result would be that Third World countries would bear the burden of our excessive lifestyles. While carbon credits are a viable short-term option for industry and an important step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the corporate sector, they are not practical for American families.
Extraordinarily refreshing from someone not scheduled to graduate college until 2010, wouldn't you agree? Yet, what makes this article most uplifting is that the author clearly is green, and believes that global warming is a serious problem:
Our planet is disintegrating, and unless we begin to change our ways-and not just talk about changing them-those $10 million dollar Malibu homes will no longer exist for Hollywood's celebrities to frolic in.
Frankly, regardless of whether one believes this hysteria, the fact that someone who does is also willing to logically analyze and expose the fallacy not only behind some of the current advocates, but also the trendy solutions being offered is nothing short of spectacular.
Think about it: if there are green college students at our finest universities that are willing to discuss this controversial issue so candidly and honestly, the debate that folks like Gore disingenuously claim is over will most definitely be reopened.
Bravo, Mr. Tilton. Though I don't agree with your calamitous concerns, I enthusiastically welcome your much-needed input.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Gore looks like he's is
November 6, 2007 - 12:21 ET by MightyMouthGore looks like he's is straining hard to contribute to global warming, if you catch my drift. What a hypocrite!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
We know about AL, but
November 6, 2007 - 12:28 ET by mattmHarvard is no arbiter of hypocrisy. This is phony self-righteousness. They see Al Gore's obvious hypocrisy, and they fear that it will harm their message of globalarmism. Yet they hold themselves up as an institution of academic excellence, even though the cause(s) they advocate for are based in academic fraud and ignorance.
These days a Harvard degree is about as valuable as a Nobel Peace Prize.
Havard Rejects Big(carbon)foot
November 6, 2007 - 13:57 ET by acumenStill Matt this is a shocking move by Harvard. One would think the intellectual elites at Harvard would overlook the conflicting lifestyle of a fellow liberal while lending support to the "predictions" of someone who received a solid D in Natural Sciences. Much like Harvard has done in overlooking Johnny Edwards lavish lifestyle mirrored against his spoken "battle against poverty."
I guess it's now safe to assume the Goracle will not be getting a but-he-deserves-it honorary doctorate from Havard.
Documented Hypocrisy
November 6, 2007 - 12:30 ET by PopularTechHypocrite:
Hannity's America - Al Gore and Global Warming (Video) (10min)
Hannity's America - Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump (NewsMax)
Al Gore, polluter? (WorldNetDaily)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's (CNSNews)
- George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion = True (Snopes)
Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter's party (Daily Mail, UK)
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average (WorldNetDaily)
- Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe (USA Today)
Meet the real Al Gore (WorldNetDaily)
Whose Ox Is Gored? (The Wall Street Journal)
Carbon Taxes:
Al Gore Pushes 'Pollution Tax' (NewsMax)
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns (WorldNetDaily)
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade (Human Events)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Oops
November 6, 2007 - 12:35 ET by BuzzguyIn the article, Dennis Hastert is listed as a Democrat.
When celebrities today buy
November 6, 2007 - 12:39 ET by dscottWhen celebrities today buy these credits, they are allowing themselves to continue their disproportionate consumption while somewhere else in the world carbon emissions are reduced by other societies to make up for American excess.
I do have a bone to pick here with Mr. Tilton, he should not be using such a broad brush when talking about American Excess. That Excess is practiced by a minority in this country, namely the rich and celebrities whose voracious consumption while conspicuous is not at all typical of an average American household. Please note Mr. Tilton that based on Al Gore's consumption, that this is typical of the rich/celebs. You do the math, 15 million people (5% of the population) use as much electricity as does the rest of the population, i.e. 285 million combined!!!!!! How is that possible? 5% of the population owns 70% of the personal wealth of the country and thus has twice the spending power of the rest of us combined.
If you are going to chide anyone about energy use and CO2, your finger should be pointed at those whose lifestyles are literally consuming the resources of the country. No, Mr. Tilton, you should be admonishing the rich and celebs to live at our standard of living.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Now that I think of it, Mr.
November 6, 2007 - 13:14 ET by dscottNow that I think of it, Mr. Tilton, you have missed even your own point on the effects of excessive consumption hurting the poor. It is precisely because of this voracious consumption by the few, that limited resources such as natural gas, electricity, oil, water, etc. are rising in price. What do the rich care of the price of electricity? We see Al Gore's own response to a $1,000 month electric bill, it was a snore fest. Any average American household having to pay such a bill would quickly reduce demand or switch to solar since they simply don't have the means to sustain such an outlay. Al Gore on the other hand had to be prodded just to consider solar then came up with excuses to justify why he had not even though he had been promoting AGW for almost 20 years. A man of his influence certainly could have prevailed upon the local officials to either give him a variance or change the codes to allow for solar panels. Simply buying more expensive green electricity was a cop out on Gore's part since he clearly could afford solar panels while the average family can not.
So Mr. Tilton, exercising your critical thinking skills a little further you would have discovered that it is specifically Al Gore and his friends who hurt the poor by pushing up the price of natural resources, where is the social equality in that? Why should the poor be forced to pay such high prices just to satisfy the cravings of Al Gore's lifestyle?????? How is that fair? How is that socially justified? It is you, the true believers in AGW that should be demanding of your side, the rich and celebs to get off the electric grid with solar and buying electric cars such as the Tesla since they are the ones with the "means" to do so. Isn't that the social responsibility you have been demanding of the entire country? Why are idiots like Nancy Pelosi demanding the poor and middle class pay for the voracious consumption of Al Gore via a carbon tax or gasoline tax when in fact only a minority of the country waste energy frivolously?
I find it ironic that we conservatives and those on the left who have become conscious of their lifestyle's effects actually do have common ground. Were it not for Al Gore and the idiocy of Nancy Pelosi's legislative agenda both left and right would be united in their work to reduce energy consumption despite our completely different reasons for doing so.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Dscott, "any average
November 6, 2007 - 13:46 ET by MikeBDscott, "any average American household having to pay such a bill would quickly reduce demand or switch to solar..." Nope. There is no "or" to that. They'd reduce their consumption, as the bill to purchase and install the necessary photovoltiac system to run an average size house would run about $30,000, which is well out of the reach of the "average" household (which you pointed out in the last sentence of your first paragraph).
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I'm trying to have it both
November 6, 2007 - 14:00 ET by dscottI'm trying to have it both ways, now stop the over analysing, it's annoying like those people who continually pick out inconsistencies in a movie. <sarcasm>
But seriously, an average family under such circumstances would be forced to either get a loan for the $30k not unlike a car loan or home equity loan with monthly payments. It would be that or give up air conditioning and heating. To Al Gore that's pocket change or one trip with a private jet to Europe.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
it is not...
November 6, 2007 - 14:12 ET by wizardjr"It is precisely because of this voracious consumption by the few, that limited resources such as natural gas, electricity, oil, water, etc. are rising in price."
It is the artificial restrictions on production of energy and artificial restrictions on production of energy fuels that has created this self fulfilling prophesy. There is a 500 year supply of hydrocarbons that we know of. We just aren't allowed to get much of it anymore due to Malthusians and Luddites who worship dirt (can you say Gaia?). There is an unlimited (virtually) supply of fissionable materials for nuclear power. People like you just won't let us get it or use it.
Water is another issue entirely. It is generally government interference in what should be a market place that causes water usage/distribution problems. Western Water Rights is the most classic example of why the government will enevitably lead to disaster when they try to make it "fair".
Well, yes, the Dems and
November 6, 2007 - 14:51 ET by dscottWell, yes, the Dems and their econut allies restricted oil and natural gas drilling and building nuclear power plants, so yes in that sense you are absolutely correct. However, the end results are limited natural resource "availability" due to idiotic government policy thanks to the Dems and the econuts. So when Al Gore and his friends are stuffing themselves full at the bounty of America, their careless elbowing of the poor away from the table to the scraps on the floor still is directly attributed to them.
The Laws of Supply and Demand can't be hindered for long, high consumption in the face of limited supply (even artificially induced) always results in high prices. Of course, the idiot Dems will cap the price and the in end a shortage develops, thus only the few who have the means via the black market get what they want.
Self governance means, when you vote for incompetent idiots or fast talking con artists, you get what you deserve...crap. Hence the requirement of an informed electorate given all the facts to determine what consequences they are willing to live with.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
The anwser is China?
November 6, 2007 - 12:56 ET by namron(incidentally the United States has still not signed this agreement even though it is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases).
That would be China as of June 2007. A little research would have proven this out!
China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US.
Yes, answer is China!
November 6, 2007 - 13:55 ET by Gary HallYes, the answer is China! Send Al Gore and all of his exceptionally large cabon footprint friends to China.
-- progressive ideas for an idiot plagued planet --
(;~>
Won't work Gary
November 6, 2007 - 14:10 ET by acumenEven though the Chinese Politburo and the Goraclites are on the same page ideologically, China doesn't tolerate religious proselytizing.
faulty numbers (again)...
November 6, 2007 - 14:03 ET by wizardjrThe canard that the US is the worlds largest emitter is (oh surprise and shock) based on faulty numbers. They do a simple ratio of the amount of hydrocarbons mined or pumped or bought from country to country. One major item left off the credit side of the ledger is the use of hydrocarbons for feed stock for polymers - read 'plastic'. There are all sorts of products that are made from raw hydrocarbon inputs that actually sequester the carbon in hard materials and/or hard waste products that will take forever to decompose (can you say Pampers?). If you worked out the actual burned weight/volume of hydrocarbons, we aren't number one and haven't been for a long time.
Gangreen Study
November 6, 2007 - 12:56 ET by Lame CherryIf one bothers to study the gangreen which is sucking off the financial windfall of the global warming scam, you would soon notice certain things:
First none of them are driving tin can cars but are all running the same cars all America does.
In research they are doing, all their boats, planes, computers are still the same old oil guzzling power consuming devices.
Visiting classrooms and homes none of them have 70 degree settings, setting around in sweaters and you will not find one pair of long johns under their pants.
Suffering is for the other people while they consume away as always.
As a text study which I will not advocate as it would invade a person's privacy, I would bet that a gangreen member like Professor Galen McKinley of Wisconsin who attacks people exposing the scam of global warming........that her garbage is filled with fast food containers, she does not ride a bicycle to work, her thermostat is never turned down at home or at work and in her study notes you will never find one instance of her trying to conserve one drop of fuel in her "work".
It is not just Al Gore, but the entire gangreen which consumes resources like a horse let loose in a grain bin.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Nothing in this hand, nothing in that hand
November 6, 2007 - 13:28 ET by kbworkmanand nothing up my sleeve.
What are we being distracted from with all this AGW stuff?
I'll hold my breath until...
November 6, 2007 - 13:57 ET by wizardjrI got a realy coffee spilling laugh at the accompanying picture to this article. I swear he looks like he's holding his breath and turning red... take a look!
Apparently we aren't buying the 'concensus' spin so he's going to hold his breath until we all believe. I'm waiting for the the "thud" when he hits the floor. (I can hope, can't I?) ;-))
I don't know, Mr. Wizard,
November 6, 2007 - 21:26 ET by MikeBI don't know, Mr. Wizard, to me he looks like a chipmunk with carbon credits stored in his cheeks. Unless manbearpig are also equiped with cheek pouches. Hmmm...
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I guess I should be pleased
November 6, 2007 - 15:17 ET by ckc1227I guess I should be pleased that he pointed out the hypocrisy of the "warmers", and the flaws of carbon offsets, but I just can't take seriously anyone who believes the earth is disintegrating, and Malibu will be gone unless we take drastic measures. All because of one degree.
My thoughts exactly!
November 6, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Cape ConservativeIt is time for those of us with some common sense to tell those "warmers" - THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER! In fact, it has not even begun! Just because this holier-than-thou master pontificator says something is so, doesn't make it so, no matter how loud he speaks or how much he wishes it would!
I wouldn't go even close to
November 6, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Chris NormanI wouldn't go even close to saying the GW movement is beginning to come unraveled, but I would say some loose threads are beginning to poke out. It's the proponents of this hysteria who will prove to be their own undoing: hypocricy, hyperbolic claims and predictions, silly stunts like on NBC, the sheer exhaustion from over exposure, etc.
I wonder if...
November 7, 2007 - 03:55 ET by Sua Sponte 75Algore will be in attendance....I'm cereal....
Checking Out the Bali Beachheads of UN Climate Change
http://pajamasmedia....
The would-be regulators of the world’s climate (and your wallet) will be jetting to Bali this December for Ban Ki-Moon’s next UN weather fest: “UN Climate Change Conference 2007.” UN policy allows even the lowlier UN staffers to travel business class on long-haul flights (your tax dollars at work), the better to arrive wined, dined and ready to hit the ground …and the beaches … and the golf courses … and the tennis courts — running. Apparently there is so much to discuss that the conference will run for a full fortnight, from Dec. 3-14, at Bali’s seaside luxury resort of Nusa Dua.
There, undistracted by the winter winds whipping past the UN’s NY headquarters (now prepping for a $2 billion renovation), they will discuss the many ways in which the UN can collect fees and fund more conferences via taxes and productivity caps administered by the same UN system which refuses to open its own books to the public (where is that full and transparent accounting we were promised for the tsunami donations?).
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"