Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Just to baseline some of what we already know before the Gore apologist comment:

Al Gore's home is roughly 10 times larger than the average house.

His utility usage is 20 times larger than the normal residence, which includes smaller residences such as apartments.

This information comes from publically available sources, and there is nothing illegal in obtaining the material.

This information is not in dispute by Al Gore, his family, or his paid associates.

Posted by Leland at February 28, 2007 08:45 AM

The report I heard is that this house contains offices for Gore and his wife, which would by nature add to the energy output. It also has a guest house. The other nugget of information is that the energy bill is higher because Gore participates in a program in which he buys power from renewable sources. This apparently adds a lot of costs to the overall bill.

You don't read about that here. Why is that?
Maybe because this is an effort by the right wing (and its sympathizers in to blogosphere) to shoot the messenger. And why not? The evidence is piling up. It's increasingly harder to dispute. So, attack the bringer of bad news and when his defenders respond, accuse them of trying to stifle debate.

You might want to consider changing tactics. This isn't working. It's probably not going to work. Try dealing with the underlying reality of what we're facing instead of scoring cheap political points.

Posted by D. Messier at February 28, 2007 09:07 AM

You don't read about that here. Why is that?

Maybe because I haven't discussed the issue at all?

Just a thought.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 28, 2007 09:19 AM

Maybe because I haven't discussed the issue at all?

No, you just linked to a rather one-sided report on Gore's home energy use. And posted an excerpt that accused his defenders of intellectual oppression, invoking (of all things) Holocaust deniers. That's all.

Just a thought.

Not much of one.

Posted by D. Messier at February 28, 2007 09:34 AM

Princes should be able to buy indulgences without any criticism by the rabble.

Posted by Andy Freeman at February 28, 2007 09:38 AM

...intellectual oppression, invoking (of all things) Holocaust deniers.

Do you deny that some of them have done exactly that? Lileks didn't just make it up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 28, 2007 09:43 AM

Messier is disengenuous citing high rates for the utilities while ignoring the massive KWH in the report. KWH are independent of cost.

My wife runs a business from home and we both have computerized 'home offices', but we really do conserve energy unlike phoney Gore. The guy is an empty nester. And most of us host visitors. Big wiff.

Like the conscienceless self-serving elites in the US Civil War who paid for others to serve in their stead, Gore uses vast wealth to employ 'carbon slaves' to mitigate his profligate waste of energy keeping his massive swimming pool, jacuzzi, etc. hot. Contrast his abode and its relationship to the environment to the conservation oriented evil Bush's Texas estate.

Posted by philw at February 28, 2007 09:52 AM

I would be more impressed if Gore came out and said something like: "Look, I could make symbolic efforts to reduce my CO2 output. These efforts would be a complete waste of time. Voluntary cutbacks might make some people feel better, but they're fighting against economic forces that drive rational economic actors to high levels of energy consumption. The only policy that makes sense is one that applies globally, assigning the true costs of emissions to those responsible."

He could then go on to explain how this would cost him $X/year, more than many other people, but that he'd be gladly willing to pay that cost as his share of the burden. (Anyway, wouldn't such a policy be criticized as regressive if the rich *didn't* have proportionally higher energy usage?)

Don't criticize Gore for hypocrisy, criticize him for economic blindness to the lack of efficacy of 'think locally' feel-good actions. Of course, Kyoto is in that category as well, on a global scale.

Posted by Paul Dietz at February 28, 2007 10:02 AM

Paul, I think you make good points, but I don't think they add up to the principal charge against Gore being hypocrisy: it's more like lying and deceptive political opportunism, which are darker sins.

That is, I think it's Gore and his supporters who have set up the presumption that each of us is personally responsible for saving the planet from climate change -- that we should each, every one of us, change to fluorescents, drive hybrids in carpools, and use recycled toilet paper, and that if we don't the planet is doomed. Furthermore, he seems to have accused people who don't want to take those actions of personal failings: of a lack of courage, or empathy, or intelligence.

But if he really believed all those things, how could he live the way he does? It doesn't seem likely. People who really believe the environment is going to be saved by a million personal sacrifices don't act as if someone else should start sacrificing first. You find them riding bicycles to work and saving their Christmas wrapping paper for re-use next year. Hence the charge of lying. Gore's actions seem to say he personally doesn't believe a word he's saying.

The charge of sneaky political opportunism follows, inasmuch as a good reason for him to say things that he doesn't believe is to ride a wave of genuine concern amongst others to a renewal of political power. Not nice. Especially not nice when you have made a recent career of accusing your political opponents of cynical opportunism.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 28, 2007 10:32 AM

Gore also has a farm in Carthage, Tenn. and has been reported to own a 4,000 sq. ft. home in Arlington, Va. and a condo in Frisco.

Posted by D Anghelone at February 28, 2007 11:29 AM

But does he own any LPs with naughty lyrics?

(This is an age test: all those below a certain age will say 'huh?')

Posted by Carl Pham at February 28, 2007 11:41 AM

Ask Dee Snyder if Gore has any Twisted Siter records of his.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 28, 2007 12:25 PM

For Gore to go around lecturing everyone on the need to conserve energy, and then to consume 20 times the energy at just one of his houses does spack strongly of hypocricy, carbon indulgences notwithstanding. Furthermore, for him to do the above while flying around in private jets just adds to the charge. A single one-way coast to coast flight in a Gulfstream V business jet uses several thousand gallons of fuel. That's more fuel than most families consume in a year even if they drive the much hated SUVs.

If there is a need to conserve energy as Gore states (and I agree there is), then he should set the example. "Do as I say, not as I do" is the mark of a hypocrit. Simply buying carbon indulgences is a fraud.

Posted by Larry J at February 28, 2007 12:26 PM

This apparently adds a lot of costs to the overall bill.

I don't care if he spends 10 times the price per kilowatt hour that I do. The issue is that he uses 10 times more kilowatt hours than my family and others like mine. If you are to slow to pick up on the difference, then no wonder you believe Al Gore.

Posted by Leland at February 28, 2007 12:44 PM

The issue is that he uses 10 times more kilowatt hours than my family and others like mine.

Bear in mind that Gore's supporters (if they had any brains) could use the very effective counter-argument that what actually matters is what the two of you do with your kilowatt-hours. The argument might run that you merely use 'em to watch pr0n on your 42" plasma screen, while Saint Gore uses 'em to hammer out via video conference with assorted heads of state and UN VIPs far-reaching environmental accords that will ultimately save the planet. Hence (the argument goes) he's investing those kilowatt-hours, while you're merely burning them.

This is the usual (and quite effective) counter-argument to the Luddite claim that the US should be first to reduce CO2 emissions, cut back on per capita energy and gasoline use, et cetera, because we "squander" so much more per person than, say, Bangladesh.

That doofus argument fatally ignores the use to which American and Bangladeshi people put energy, CO2 emissions, gasoline, et cetera, and treats all consumption as equal, gallon for gallon, pound for pound. Which is nuts. A gallon of gasoline efficiently and wisely used in delivering a weather satellite to its launch site can do far more for the world (and the environment) than a gallon squandered lighting a fire with wood someone foolishly forgot to bring in out of the rain, to boil contaminated water drawn from a community well brainlessly located too close to the village latrine. So it matters very much the use to which resources are put, and unless you can show that Americans put the resources they consume to poorer use than Bangladeshis (an unlikely proposition, I'd say), then you don't have any kind of case that Americans are being "wasteful."

Indeed, since in a free market resources typically flow to the most efficient user (because he can afford the highest price for them), the mere fact that the world's resources tend to flow to the United States suggests that the US is making the most efficient use of them, and that, contra Kyoto and other such vacuous garbage, reducing or reversing the flow -- sending these resources to China, India, or Nigeria -- would be much worse for the planet in the long run.

I better stop there, before Mr. Anonymous's head explodes. And by the way Leland, I sure ain't saying Gore actually makes better use of his kWh than you (indeed I doubt he does). I'm just saying your logical defense could use shoring up.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 28, 2007 02:39 PM

Brevity, Carl.

Posted by Leland at February 28, 2007 05:08 PM

So by that argument, driving a car that takes twice the resources of all kinds to make (because twice as big), has two thirds the fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon and lasts two thirds as long as (for example) a typical vehicle has nothing to do with waste?

Not to mention that in many American cities it's being driven twice as far, at least, as in a typical European one.

And the biggest waste of all is the waste of fuel, materials, money, time, ingenuity, know-how and above all lives made necessary by the wars that follow from America's addiction to oil.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at February 28, 2007 05:28 PM

I've read Gore's rebuttals to the charges. He sounds like he's taken reasonable efforts relating to energy use. But, the guy is rich and lives in a very big house. Conservatives usually celebrate such success. Now, not so much.

The debate here is desultory. As I predicted, you guys are attacking the messenger and anyone who defends him. Same as most of you have the media for pointing out how badly the war is going in Iraq. The more the bodies pile up, the more shrill the attacks become. Similar deal here.

I can't say I've very impressed with this "think tank" and its research. Seems very one sided and not very thorough. But, if I've heard this right (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the guy who heads it up is late of the Heritage Foundation. Which would make sense. Their people have had a major hand in pushing the Iraq war. Did that guy O'Bierne who did the staffing of the CPA use Heritage Foundation resumes? Is he married to Kate, who works there? Riduculous. Why are these people taken seriously.

Posted by D. Messier at February 28, 2007 07:20 PM

OK, so you're right on the Holocaust denier aspect. And that is bad.

If only you were so outraged when the Bush admin tries to quash dissent and accuses war critics of being unpatriotic and in league with al Qaeda. Where is your outrage there, Rand?

Posted by D. Messier at February 28, 2007 07:24 PM

Global warming skeptics? I see the global warming fear-mongers have a reaction to skeptics right out from the movie Planet of the Apes. Remember how Dr Zaius made the accusation of '"scientific heresy" against his enemies?

Crichton was right, the global warming panic is the eugenics craze all over again. And those who stand in the way shall be silenced and shouted down because they are 'guilty' of "scientific heresy".

Posted by Brad at March 1, 2007 03:54 AM

So, Gore like Cheney is a Chickenhawk! Cheney has no problem promoting, waging and sending other to fight though he had, what was it, five deferments while Gore was at least there in Nam albeit not in a fighting role. And now Gore promotes curbing global warming but hasn't done his personal bit well enough.

The chicken hawk argument from the right this time!

Posted by Offside at March 1, 2007 06:59 AM

Balderdash, D. Messier.

Suppose you have this Fundamentalist preacher going around telling everybody that homosexuals are going to Hell and tolerating them means everybody else will too. Then you discover he's cruising gay bars every night offering $5 "reach-arounds". What's your reaction going to be?

Such a demagogue is always going to have devoted followers who screech that weaknesses of the flesh are irrelevant and people should concentrate on the Good Works. Are you going to tell those folks that yes, they're right? Damned unlikely.

The situation is exactly parallel, and you know it. You just happen to fall in the "devoted follower" category, offering the same lame excuses. And we're not going to give you, or Al, any more slack than you'd offer Bro. Feelgood.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at March 1, 2007 07:48 AM

Cheney has no problem promoting, waging and sending other to fight though he had, what was it, five deferments while Gore was at least there in Nam albeit not in a fighting role. And now Gore promotes curbing global warming but hasn't done his personal bit well enough.

Apples and oranges, get your apples and oranges!

Offside, your point fails because Gore's rhetoric and actions are contadictory about the exact same issue.

Like it or not, Vietnam and Iraq are not the exact same issue.

Posted by McGehee at March 1, 2007 07:52 AM

McGehee, that's not correct. Some of Gore's actions are perceived as contradictory to what he preaches. There is a big difference between Some and All of his actions. I don't have all the facts, but it does appear that there is Some element of hypocrisy in what Gore preached and Some of what he does but the blanket extension to a "contradiction between his rhetoric and actions" is a big stretch of spin. It may win the right some points but it doesn't convince me that he is a hypocrite. I watched his Inconvenient Truth movie last week; the man is a believer. This is not a man faking a position for recognition.

I repeat again that this is the Chickenhawk argument coming from the right. I can hold the view that Global warming is real, that human activity is probably a big causative factor and yet I still drive my SUV to work in the winter. Why? Well I'd rather not be killed in an accident. So, there can be circumstances where my core beliefs collide with actions I take for a different set of reasons. So am I a hypocrite?

Well, at least the argument has changed from whether GW is real to is GW being sponsored by hypocrites. That's progress I guess.

Posted by Offside at March 1, 2007 08:22 AM

McGehee is correct, more so after the clarification.

Offside - I can hold the view that Global warming is real, that human activity is probably a big causative factor and yet I still drive my SUV to work in the winter. Why? Well I'd rather not be killed in an accident. So, there can be circumstances where my core beliefs collide with actions I take for a different set of reasons. So am I a hypocrite?

You gave a sound rationale for using an SUV. Using energy practically is intelligent. If you said you were afraid of a road accident while driving 500 yards from your hotel to the Cannes theather thus you used 5 SUVs, then you might be a hypocrit. If you were afraid of driving across country in your SUV during winter months, and thus choose to fly, you are being safe and rational; but become a hypocrit when you decide the safest means is renting a private jet rather than using commercial airlines.

Posted by Leland at March 1, 2007 12:04 PM

Ric and Brad. Your ranting. Not paricularly well, either.

If I see any hypocricy, it's in this discussion on this blog. Gore has an answer to these charges. Rand isn't the least bit interested in them. Neither are most of you. All the links and most of the comments give one side of the story only.

The irony is that Rand is constantly complaining about bias in the media, especially about a war that he's never covered firsthand in a country he's never visited. Yet given a chance to actually practice what he preaches to others (fairness, balance, even-handedness), he doesn't even try. Gore seems to have tried to practice what he preaches, perhaps not perfectly, but he does try to walk the walk.

This will all die down in a few days. You guys will all move on to some other problem, probably media coverage of the war. Sean Hannity will vent his egomania at someone else. Meanwhile, Gore will continue to baske in the glow of the Oscar wins and international respect. And there will continue to be a pile of reports indicating that global warming is very real and a veru serious threat.

Posted by D. Messier at March 1, 2007 01:52 PM

...the Bush admin tries to quash dissent and accuses war critics of being unpatriotic and in league with al Qaeda.

I've never seen that happen. What I've seen happen is the pointing out (correctly) of the fact that what the Dems propose is what Al Qaeda would love to see. No one used the words unpatriotic, or "in league with Al Qaeda." They simply point out that the Dems position is often foolish, and not in the best interests of the security of the US. Why should I be outraged, when I agree with that?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 1, 2007 01:59 PM

No, D. Messier, no rants here -- except for yours. Yes, you're ranting. We can tell by your sudden inability to find the [SHIFT] and punctuation keys.

If Bro. Al of the First Pentecostal Church of Intolerance goes all over the country preaching that gays are an affront to morality, and is found in a bathhouse performing fellatio for all and sundry, he will be properly ridiculed. If the Prophet Al of the First Fellowship of Gaian Protection goes all over the world preaching that energy use is a sin that will bring the wrath of Warming down on us all, and is found with energy bills rivaling those of the dictator of a small country (or of the country itself), he should expect to be ridiculed. And in either case, the excusing whine of the lockstep followers can properly be ignored as the devotion to dogma in the absence of rationality that it is.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at March 1, 2007 02:35 PM

Brevity, Carl.

Not my strong point, Leland. But this is why God invented the scrollbar...

Depends what you do with the car, Fletcher. Suppose your first car is a heavy truck and it's hauling, um, let's see, computer parts to the $100 Laptop For Every Starving Child In Africa distribution center and let's suppose your second car is fuel-efficiently conveying one (1) healthy young man (who competes in 100-mile bicycle races recreationally) 15 miles back to work (along a route paralleling a pleasantly-wooded bike path) so that the young man can retrieve the MP3 player with his favorite song that he left on his desk at 5 PM. In that case, yeah, let's hear it for the gashog.

The problem with this whole line of argument is it comes from some kind of weird narcissist dreamworld where only you can see the truly rational choices for people to make. Some guy somewhere decides to drive an SUV instead of a Prius and you just assume he's an idiot and has no good reason for the decision, while you, standing far away and knowing exactly zip about his situation can see the better choice. What's up with that? How come you assume most people are stupider than you?

Posted by Carl Pham at March 1, 2007 02:47 PM

Not my strong point, Leland.

Not mine either, but usually after I write a 4/5 paragraph rebuttal: I get interrupted mid stream, go back and reread my remarks, find flaws, and excise large chunks. More often, I simply close the browser and go on.

Bottom line, your point was valid, but I intentionally kept my remarks short and not fully inclusive. Still, your remarks are very good and something from which I learn.

Posted by Leland at March 2, 2007 07:43 AM

Carl:

Sure; if you actually need a fuel-guzzling car then none of that applies.

However, it is not particularly difficult to see that an awful lot of such vehicles are being driven by people who don't need them, and that this calculation is not in the minds of an awful lot of people who drive SUVs - rather, the vehicle is a status symbol, and they don't give a damn how wasteful it is.

There is almost as bad a problem in the UK. The weather in just about the whole country never justifies a 4WD vehicle, certainly in towns; in the town where I live it has snowed twice, for a total of about 7 days, in the last 15 years. However, there are still a lot of 4WD vehicles on the roads in towns, apparently mostly being driven by trophy wives and obviously never having been driven in the sort of conditions for which they are designed. This is especially bad because, as you may know, just about all our roads are crowded - which means that driving an unnecessary SUV/4WD is antisocial as well as irresponsible. An imported American habit we could have done without.

Actually, SUVs are a bad example, as are pickup trucks. Both are necessary in some cases.

However, maybe you can enlighten me as to the reason why a typical American-made sedan car weighs double that of a typical European one, uses twice as much fuel and takes twice as much fuel and resources to make - and doesn't last as long?

Apparently a five-foot hood and a three-foot trunk (to use your terms) are essential for some Americans, for some reason. Even if the vehicle actually has not much more usable space than, for example, a mid-range Ford over here.

Bush could do irrepairable damage to Saudi by simply tripling fuel tax.

I don't assume that people are stupider than me. What I do assume is that far too many people, particularly Americans, simply don't give a damn.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 5, 2007 04:03 PM

However, it is not particularly difficult to see that an awful lot of such vehicles are being driven by people who don't need them,

Not to be impolite, or obstreperous, or anything, but...

Who the hell are you to decide what someone else "needs"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 5, 2007 04:08 PM

Rand:

Of course, I am nobody to decide what someone else needs. If your self-image is so brittle that you need two tons of metal to protect it, who am I to argue?

I would appreciate it, however, if the mindset of Americans changed somewhat - to include fuel efficiency as more of a factor in deciding which car to buy.

Also to include less wars caused just about entirely by the President's need to get his party re-elected and your country's need to feed its addiction to oil.

Bush and his construction and oil industry buddies have killed several thousand American soldiers for those purposes. Well, OK. You and your compatriots elected him, and the President has the right to send his soldiers anywhere he wishes (as long as he could get Congress to agree of course - not difficult as his party controlled that body as well).

However, I do object to the fact that, in collaboration with the worst Prime Minister that Britain has had in at least a century, he has killed a couple of hundred British ones as well.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 6, 2007 02:21 AM

If your self-image is so brittle that you need two tons of metal to protect it, who am I to argue?

a) I prefer smaller cars.
b) What kind of car I drive has little or nothing to do with my "self image," which is in fact quite robust, thank you.

This kind of idiotic attempt at psychoanalyis is why Americans laugh at Europeans, who think they know best for everyone.

And sorry, but the war is not over oil (except insofar as it provides income to the enemy, something that hairshirting ourselves isn't going to prevent, as long as China and India continue to grow, and buy).

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 6, 2007 05:09 AM

Ric wrote:

No, D. Messier, no rants here -- except for yours. Yes, you're ranting. We can tell by your sudden inability to find the [SHIFT] and punctuation keys.

Yeah, it's one of the problems I experience in going from my normal split keyboard to a standard one. Why that's important, I don't know. As for the rest of your post....not really much there.

Rand, you forget how Max Cleland (who lost three limbs fighting in Vietnam) appeared in a TV ad with an image of Osama bin Laden during the 2002 midterms. Apparently Cleland was not in favor of Bush's homeland security plan (which turned out brilliantly, BTW - the very epitome of the type of big dysfunctional government bureaucracy that conservatives and libertarians love to hate).

I saw the ad the other night watching "Bush's Brain." Good documentary. You should view it. It makes very clear the tactics they used against Cleland and the links to Rove and the Bush White House. Well, whatever works. They won control of the Senate. Got their homeland security bill passed. And got to invade Iraq.

Case closed. See you later, Rand.

Posted by D. Messier at March 6, 2007 07:55 PM

Post a comment