There is a big story running right now (well, on Drudge Report linking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research) about Al Gore’s household in TN using 20x the energy of the average national household. The accusation states that:
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Obviously there is some truth in what the article says. Gore does live in a mansion, and most likely does use quite a bit of energy. He did indeed call for individuals to reduce energy usage at home, and by living in a mansion and consuming plenty of energy himself, he is not following his own word in that regard. This saddens me, and reminds me of a guest article written by Jon H on gimme-five a while ago. Basically, Jon said that it is really difficult for him to adapt a lifestyle of conservation when the very people that preach for conservation are not “walking the walk.”
Yet dismissing Gore as a hypocrite isn’t entirely appropriate for a few reasons. First, for what it’s worth, Mr. Gore buys carbon offsets and runs his home off of entirely green power (link is from ThinkProgress, left bias). So, technically, he is probably entirely carbon neutral, because for every bit of CO2 he puts into the air, a forest is built with his money to sequester that CO2. Secondly, how are people getting his energy bill? Isn’t that private information? Thirdly, the Tennessee Center for Policy research, which states:
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.
seems to have a grudge against Gore in writing this article. Read the language in the article: “a gold statue for hypocrisy,” “Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh,” etcetera. It seems like this nonpartisan group has a bit of an agenda.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m disappointed that news like this is out there. I don’t think it’s appropriate that people criticize Gore simply for flying around on planes and spreading the message, because sometimes you have to create a bit of pollution now to get out a message in a more effective way. However, as the champion of the global warming cause, Mr. Gore should do his best to reduce his personal energy usage at home, and if that means downgrade from a mansion to a smaller home, so be it. No, we should pretend this news does not exist, and claim that everything is perfect about Mr. Gore. However, we should not pass him off as a total hypocrite not worthy of listening to. The message he spreads is well worth the additional emissions his home may create.
Articles For Your Own Research:
From the Right:
Roger L. Simon
Newsbusters (I’m not a fan of this site, particularly the author of this article, but I’ll list it anyways)
WizBang
From the Left:
Think Progress
The Huffington Post
Edit (02/27/2007): This article was quoted over at Blogma of CNET Networks. Woohoo!
16 Comments for Al Gore’s Energy Usage
Anonymous | February 27, 2007 at 12:55 am
Author comment by George | February 27, 2007 at 8:48 am
I agree that a lot of people have taken it that far, unfortunately. Just because someone doesn’t conserve as much as they should doesn’t mean I shouldn’t do my best to conserve and worry about global warming. Oh well.
booger | February 27, 2007 at 2:43 pm
the next thing you know, they’ll be saying this:
That the documentary was/is wasting energy by showing at movie theaters which use powerful heat generating bulbs to project the images. That the high ceilings in those theaters are very energy inefficient and waste energy every time the documentary is shown. Therefore, we should all stop energy saving activities because of this obvious waste by others.
Wow, are some people idiots.
BTW, a far better article/story would have been research into if Gore uses CFLs throughout his homes and why not if he doesn’t. Also, what heating system is he using, etc. But, from what else I’ve read, he’s walking the walk in the lifesytle he’s already living. A movement to efficiency isn’t going to work if it’s saying you must downgrade your lifestyle.
the factr | February 27, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Come on. Algore is getting RICH off his phony enviromentalist schtick. He has been seen in huge SUVs, private planes, etc. Now his mansion.
Thank God he was never president.
the factr | February 27, 2007 at 4:29 pm
And another thing. Those “energy usage credits” are bullshit. Regardless of this, he is still increasing our dependence on fossil fuels by using so much friggin energy.
jon h | February 27, 2007 at 7:46 pm
yeah…thanks for the shout out george.
I still contend that there is a free-rider issue here. Al Gore preaches that global warming is going to whelm us. I don’t even argue that he knows what he is talking about. Your last paragraph states that he is perhaps doing more good than harm by spreading his message. He can have a really huge and inefficient house because he has done his part.
Who “deserves” to be wasteful?
Who has done enough directly or indirectly to earn the ability to live beyond the means of a normal family?
Celebrities?
Heads of State (or VPs)?
or industrial efficiency workers that can prevent Bank of America from consuming a few megawatt hours extra every day?
(if the third is true then my coworkers and I would be allowed to consume as much energy as possible and still never come close to using the power we’ve saved)
Oh…right, enough rant. Back to the free-rider issue, if we can see that people can just go on consuming whatever they want whenever they want, why should any of us conserve? If you don’t get a buzz from paying more for a hybrid or putting solar cells on your roof, then it’s not currently really worth the effort. Right now conservation is a fashion trend, a fad. Cameron Diaz can drive a hybrid to the Oscars like wearing a dress, then go home and pay energy bill for 4 houses.
Author comment by George | February 27, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I didn’t mean for the last paragraph to mean that he can have a huge, inefficient house because he has done his part. Rather, I meant that it’s OK if he creates emissions traveling the world spreading his message because that’s the most effective way to get it out. I do think that he should reduce his emissions at home.
So basically, I agree with you that Gore does not “deserve” to be wasteful. And I agree that there are a lot of celebs out there that are outwardly green but really end up wasting a lot of energy. [but there are some others that are legitimately concerned and do try to reduce their emissions. Gore is not that bad at all, as far as celebrities go, especially when you take into account his carbon offsets and green power sources].
Yes, there is definitely a free rider problem here, which is why perhaps energy prices in the US should be increased so individuals pay for the full cost of their energy usage (i.e. increase in gas tax)
Author comment by George | February 27, 2007 at 8:25 pm
One more comment on that last point. Yes, increases in prices don’t affect celebrities as much as they affect the average American. But that’s the case for so many policies today, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t happen.
Basically, increasing energy prices at least creates an incentive to conserve, which partially eliminates a free-rider problem.
Bob | February 28, 2007 at 11:06 am
I personally think Al Gore has a problem here. He’s a hypocrite. I checked out my “carbon footprint” at Terrapass because so many people defend Al by saying he has a zero carbon footprint. I can get my own zero carbon footprint too. But I have to spend money to do it. That isn’t as easy for me to do as it is for Al. However, I might actually sacrifice to do so. He got his money from Tobacco (still does for some of it, actually – how’s that for personal pollution) and he is rich. He can afford to live the lifestyle of a glutton and absolve himself by donating to so-called energy conservation projects.
No, I can’t believe his sincerity until I see him actaully sacrifice something to show his sincerity. Florescent bulbs (which I have) and solar panels are good – but not an inconvenience. When he actually drives a hybrid and flys public transportation, then I’ll start to believe.
By the way, the IPPC report on global warming now is tainted. Turns out that the editors took out the damaging statements from their own “scientific community” that said that the evidence is that most of global warming is cyclical and caused by recent increases in solar activity. Sorry folks, we’re just getting back to the weather of the 1100′s when the Vikings sailed the seas before the little ice age set in. Sit back, take your shirts off, and enjoy the warmer weather.
Peter the Anteatere | February 28, 2007 at 2:56 pm
IPPC report on global warming now is tainted. Turns out that the editors took out the damaging statements from their own “scientific community” that said that the evidence is that most of global warming is cyclical and caused by recent increases in solar activity.
Source?
I haven’t read much aside from the newspaper reports of the IPPC report. It sounds to me like the IPPC report just went with everyone knew in the past. But I know that solar activity has been looked at and has been disregarded as a probable cause of warming in for recent decades.
Ralph J. Cicerone, Ph.D. – a member of the Crazy Insane Anteaters and
President, National Academy of Sciences The National Academies
“Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels.
In fact, recent analyses of measurements of the Sun’s total brightness argue against any detectable long-term trend in the energy Earth receives from the Sun, making it difficult to conclude that the Sun has been responsible for the warming observed over the past 25 years.”
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Global_Climate_Change_Policy_and_Budget_Review.asp
Author comment by George | February 28, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Bob, thanks for the comment. I agree that it’s disappointing that Gore does not conserve at a very high level. However, that doesn’t change anything about the current science of global warming. And giving money to achieve carbon neutrality really does work. In-tact ecosystems can sequester CO2 emissions, so for every bit of CO2 Gore emits, he has paid to clean up. That’s more than a lot of people in his position can say.
Secondly, I’m not sure where you’re getting your information on the IPCC report. You’ll have to provide a source. Those kind of accusations have been going back and forth from both sides of the global warming debate for a long time now…
David Watts | February 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Ok, I am disappointed. The only excuse Al can have for me is if he is doing A LOT of entertaining and people are staying in all of those rooms every night. Then $1K/mo is not so bad, but if it is just him and Tipper then he needs to disconnect the AC & heat and start wearing an AC suit or more sweaters and move into one wing of his mansion.
Knoxville Guy | February 28, 2007 at 4:10 pm
How did they get his records? Tennessee has what are called “sunshine laws”. Any Tennessee citizen can request any government record, and since utilities are still public entities in Tennessee, utility records are included. They submitted what is called an “open records” request, Gore got notified that so and so requested to see his energy bills, and then after he received the notification, the requestee could reveiw the records, no matter Gore’s opinion.
Author comment by George | February 28, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Just saw a report on the news tonight that a big reason for Gore’s high expense on energy is the fact that he buys from only green energy sources which are 5x more expensive. I don’t know how true that is, but the news report (click here to view a video) claims that this accounts for 1/2 of his dollars spent on energy.
No, it doesn’t clear up his watts used, but it does account for a lot of the big dollar amounts people are throwing around.
Author comment by George | February 28, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Thanks to everyone that has commented so far. This has been a good discussion.
Environment » Blog Archive » Relentlessly Searching for Hipocrisy | July 26, 2007 at 1:49 pm
[...] energy bill for his Tennessee mansion and it showed he had a high electricity bill in 2006. As I said before, there are some grains of truth in this report. However, Gore still has offices for himself, [...]
It was funny how the logic on talk radio goes out the window on this topic.
1. Assume story is correct — Gore uses a lot of energy.
2. If Gore uses a lot of energy I shouldn’t conserve energy either.
This would fall under a tradegy of commons problem
– forget about other facts about where the world gets a lot of its oil and that oil is limited in supply or that coal production has bad effects other than global warming.
But others make another leap and say:
3. Since Gore uses a lot of energy, he doesn’t believe what he says and global warming isn’t really likely due to human activity, which most scientists would disagree. But they will point out a scientists who agrees with them and think they are more informed.
or
4. Since Gore uses a lot of energy, he doesn’t believe what he says and global warming isn’t going to really be much of a problem if it really exists. This is usually someone who isn’t worth trying to have a discussion with on this topic.