Link:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy_2.htm
snip from page 2 of article:
Gore's retort
Through a spokesperson, Gore has responded to criticism of his bloated electric bill by arguing that his lifestyle is actually "carbon neutral" because 1) he purchases all of his power through a special program that supplies "green energy," and 2) he offsets 100% of any remaining environmental impact by investing in projects that promote renewable resources and reduce overall energy consumption. The latter strategy, known as "carbon offsetting," has won acceptance among the environmentally conscious as a way to effectively zero out their "carbon footprint" without living in a grass hut. Some argue that carbon offsets are a cop-out -- the ecological equivalent of expiating one's sins by purchasing indulgences from the church -- but others tout them as a crucial weapon in the longterm fight against global warming. Count Al Gore among the latter.
So, is Al Gore a hypocrite or not? We are urged to view Gore's lifestyle as hypocritical because on the one hand he advocates energy conservation by all, while on the other consuming an "extravagant" amount of energy in his own home. And put in just those terms, it may seem an open and shut case. But how far, really, do Al Gore's deeds differ from his own words? In the book version of An Inconvenient Truth where Gore discusses what ordinary citizens can do to help combat global warming, he stops well short of calling for deep sacrifice or lifestyle change. First, he lists a number of modest steps individuals can take to make their homes and activities more environmentally friendly -- like using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, and using less hot water when possible -- all of which are economically as well as ecologically beneficial, and none of which we have any reason to believe Gore is not taking himself. Second, he preaches activism -- voting for environmentally enlightened measures and candidates and spreading he gospel of global warming. And in these we know Al Gore has played an exemplary role. Third, he argues that everyone ought to try to achieve a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. How? By doing precisely what he does -- offsetting one's environmental impact through investments in projects and enterprises aimed at reducing energy consumption overall.
So, where is the disjunct between what he says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there isn't one. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if people like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out bucks for carbon offsets -- and you might even be right -- but that's a policy disagreement, not proof that he's a hypocrite. Folks who dislike his politics will no doubt call him hypocritical just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches, the case against him is a sham.
Update: A Tale of Two Houses - "Companion piece" to this forwarded email compares the eco-friendliness of Al Gore's Nashville mansion to President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch.
Link to A Tale of Two Houses:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_tale_two_houses.htm
= new reply since forum marked as read