The Shotgun Blog
« Random video | Main | Al & Mike Show Episode 30 - Orders of Canada, Global Warming and iPhones »
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Question Period: Drew Johnson on Al Gore and his hypocrisy
When the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) decided to investigate Al Gore's personal electricity use in February of last year, they discovered an inconvenient truth of their own: Gore uses an enormous amount of electricity. How much? According to their presser:
"Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES)."
"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
"Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359."
After lots of publicity, Gore dutifully went to work on limiting his electricity consumption by installing all kinds of energy-efficient things. A year later? Gore's use of electricity went up by ten per cent.
The TCPR was not amused. They issued the following terse press release:
"In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
"In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month."
Surprised, I sent Drew Johnson, President of the TCPR a couple of emails to inquire about all of this. Here are the important bits:
Peter Jaworski: Just how did Gore manage to increase his energy use, in spite of taking actions to
cut down on his energy use?
Drew Johnson: From looking at him, I'm guessing that the culprit isn't a treadmill or a tanning bed. Perhaps Gore believed that installing solar panels, more energy-efficient windows, and those silly spirally light bulbs gave him a license to keep all the lights on, the refrigerator door open, and the thermostat turned down.
He probably thought the "green" enhancements would offset his increased energy use. But he simply uses too much electricity for a few goofy light bulbs, or even solar panels, to make a dent in his energy consumption.
PJ: Has Gore responded to your work in any way?
DJ: Gore is largely relying on name-calling to address the facts we exposed. He's called me a "global warming denier." That term is beyond offensive, since it compares me to Holocaust deniers. I don't deny that the Earth warms. But it also cools. And humans have almost nothing to do with the natural cycles and trends of the Earth's climate. I'm a proud skeptic of Gore's brand of global warming alarmism.
PJ: Is this just an interesting anecdote (exposing Gore as a hypocrite), or is there something more important lurking behind this?
DJ: The most important thing I've taken from our research about Gore's personal energy consumption is the way he's exploited concern about the environment for his own benefit. To me, that's much more contemptible and appalling than his hypocrisy.
Gore is a modern-day snake oil salesman. Since leaving office in 2001, Gore increased his personal wealth from $2 million to well over $100 million, largely from environmental-related speaking fees and investments in global warming "cures" like carbon credit companies.
He scares the plaid off Don Cherry's blazers by telling us the world will end if we don't take immediate action, and then we buy carbon credits... from him. He's exploiting the environment for money, awards, and recognition. What does it say about the legitimacy of the movement when its leader is nothing more than a con man who's pimping the cause for cash?
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on July 3, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553a073798834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Question Period: Drew Johnson on Al Gore and his hypocrisy:
Comments
Jaws,
Can you explain this apparent contradiction?
"In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh"
"A year later? Gore's use of electricity went up by ten per cent."
"In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity"
It does not take a mathematical wizard to determine that 213,210 is LESS than 221,000. It takes only knowledge of basic math to know it is 3.5% less. So where does this claim of a 10% increase come from?
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-07-03 11:46:30 AM
"Gore is a modern-day snake oil salesman. Since leaving office in 2001, Gore increased his personal wealth from $2 million to well over $100 million, largely from environmental-related speaking fees and investments in global warming 'cures' like carbon credit companies."
And from the recent news: "Already host of the most lucrative hours since radio's inception, Limbaugh's total package is valued north of $400 million, according to media insiders."
So does that mean, by Drew's logic, that because Rush has gotten rich from what he has to say that it also must be "snake oil"? Is in general success financially an indication that someone is a liar and a fraud? Is he really so anti-capitalist that he takes success to be an indicator of vice? Or does this accusation only apply to succesful people whose view's Drew disagrees with?
Posted by: Logic Check | 2008-07-03 11:56:54 AM
Logic Check, Gore makes his fortune promoting an agenda that imposes higher costs to businesses and consumers. On the other hand, people can freely not listen to Rush, or not buy anything that puts a cent into his bank account. That is a huge difference.
Posted by: TM | 2008-07-03 12:27:11 PM
Fact Check-
Thank you for your question. It looks like you’re misunderstanding the baseline for the comparison. The electricity numbers in the original press release (February 26, 2007) reflect Gore’s home electricity consumption for the billing year 2006.
The recent release considers and compares the 12 months before and 12 months after the “green” renovations to Gore’s home. When we compared the kWH consumption from May 2006-2007 (before the renovations) to the kWH consumption from May 2007-2008 (after the renovations), we discovered a 10% increase in electricity use.
-Drew Johnson
Posted by: Drew Johnson | 2008-07-03 12:51:14 PM
So, any AGW supporters care to comment on the Goreacle? Why, oh WHY would he be such a hypocrite?
Personally, I have reduced my electrical use over the past ten years by ~ 15%. When you include the fact that I doubled the size of my house and built a medical clinic on my property that is pretty good. Perhaps I should just buy some carbon credits from the Goreacle to help him offset his piggish consumption and generation of GHG"s.
Posted by: Hoser | 2008-07-03 1:11:45 PM
Drew,
Thanks for the clarification, although it still remains true that his usage over the last year is lower than it has been in the past.
But this is all silliness anyways. The amount of power usage by Gore and how much it has changed is all an idiotic thing to make a big deal about. If the claim is that Gore is hypocritical, then it is a dishonest attack, since Gore does practice what he preaches even with his own power usage. You try to accuse him of hypocrisy based on his gross carbon footprint, not the net carbon footprint. If the net footprint is zero or negative, then it would not matter if he used 2 million kWa in his home. You conveniently omit this fact because it gets in the way of a good smear campaign.
Just how much do YOU make working for the TCPR for your work denouncing Gore? It probably is not as much as he makes, but then maybe you are just a cheap date. It's pretty clear who the real snake oil salesman is here.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-07-03 1:56:01 PM
200,000+ kWh is 200,000+ kWh is 200,000+ kWh... and a rose by any other name smells as sweet.
If Gore consumes it, he consumes it; if it generates C02, it generates C02. The only way to really "offset" this "footprint" is to somehow put the genie back in the bottle -- carbon sequestration. But that's not what Gore does; that's not what his investment businesses do.
The way Gore "offsets" his mamoth "carbon footprint" is by buying a notional "reduction" in carbon emissions from other people in the world. Even if the system works as Gore claims, which it doesn't, all he is really doing is paying some third-world wretches to cramp their lifestyles further so that he can live life grand. What he would do if he really believed his own rhetoric is live modestly, and encourage others to live modestly, too. Honestly, you don't see hypocisy here??
Now, stung by this obvious but inconvenient truth, Gore tries to reduce his "carbon footprint" in OTHER ways that he ostensibly wants others to mimic: solar panels, light bulbs, and the rest. But we discover it doesn't work any better for Gore than for the rest of the human population. Still, he continues to fly around the globe charging $100,000 a speech chastizing everyone else for their lack of action to reduce energy consumption by the very methods that have failed him! And you STILL don't see any hypocrisy here???
Now, so far, we have only tallied Gore's home electricity use. But he's hardly ever at home; he's always traveling to speaking engagements and award ceremonies and hob-nobbing with celebrities... So what about the energy he consumes staying in the most expensive hotels (which consume a lot more energy per night-visit than an average house to maintain)? I have also mentioned his high-carbon-footprint airmiles -- probably hundreds of times the average peron's consumption per year.... Etc., etc., etc.
What makes him a hypocrite isn't that he is profiting from a cause. What makes him a hypocrite is that he isn't practicing what he preaches. Conversely, making a good living by ranting on the air against Democrats and liberals and feminists doesn't make Limbaugh a hypocrit; what makes him a hypocrit is attacking drug abusers while being one himself.
So, who is being suckered? Who is the "idiot"?
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-03 2:36:23 PM
At his Citizen Lobbyist blog, Craig Nelsen recalls:
"During the 2000 primary season, I made it a point to ask each presidential candidate in person the following question at least once:
Current immigration policy is doubling US population within the lifetimes of today’s children. Since you support this policy, will you at least say when we should stop?
One billion people? Two billion? Three? ...
Vice President Al Gore’s campaign event in New Hampshire was tightly controlled. It required a bit of creativity even to get in. There was no question and answer period, so I had to shout out my question as Gore was striding off the stage. He froze. He turned. He strode back to the podium. A hush fell over the auditorium as the vice president leaned into the microphone. With his Tennessee accent booming out over the loudspeakers, Al Gore said, and he said it firmly, "Diversity is our strength." And the crowd went nuts. They cheered wildly as he marched triumphantly off stage and back to his waiting limousine. The Secret Service collared me, holding me at the auditorium exit while the Gore campaign decided whether to have me arrested. As the audience members filed out, a few shot me dirty looks, but not a single person commented on the fact that I was being detained by guys with guns for participating in my democracy without permission. Live Free or Die, my ass. ..."
The demographics of Belle Meade, Tennessee:
"As of the census[1] of 2000...The racial makeup of the city was 98.64% White, 0.34% African American, 0.03% Native American, 0.48% Asian, 0.20% from other races, and 0.31% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.71% of the population."
Posted by: DJ | 2008-07-03 3:54:06 PM
I can't agree with you Fact Check. Al Gore is busy telling me that I have to lower my electricity usage. But he uses about... oh... 100x as much electricity as I do.
It doesn't deductively follow that he's a bad guy, or a hypocrite, but it is extremely suggestive.
In a way, you might liken it to an R.C. priest preaching abstinence, having sex himself, but saying it's okay because he purchased an indulgence.
He should really lower his electricity usage to *below* that of an average American. Lead by example, and so on.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-03 3:57:18 PM
"Just what is the cost to buy off the Sierra Club—once the most respected environmental organization in America?
A low nine figure sum does the job according to the Los Angeles Times in its story last fall about David Gelbaum, one of the key funders of the 112-year-old environmental organization. ["The Man Behind the Land" by Kenneth R. Weiss, Oct. 17, 2004]
A nice round $100 million was enough for Executive Director Carl Pope to toss the principles of honesty, democracy and conservation out the window.
Many of us involved in the grassroots effort to restore population sanity to the Sierra Club were suspicious that the mysterious $100 million in donations might have immigration strings attached.
After all, the 1996 switch from common sense to political correctness was an abrupt change from the earlier position that the Club should work to "bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world."
Our suspicions were correct. The LA Times article revealed that shadowy funder Gelbaum donated generously on condition that the Sierra Club not address immigration as an environmental issue.
Said Gelbaum, "I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
The story continued:
“Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.
” ‘I asked, 'Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?' ‘Gelbaum said. ‘Abe didn't speak English that well. He said, 'I came here. How can I tell them not to come?'’
"I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents."
http://www.vdare.com/walker/050202_sierra.htm
Posted by: DJ | 2008-07-03 3:59:25 PM
Well, since Grant recently said he would like to see more women killed in combat because it would be a step forward for gender equality (nice, Grant), I'm not sure he is equipt to assess the decision making of, as he calls them "third-world wretches" (also nice, Grant).
But given Jaws' and Terrence Watson's recent comments in another thread on what would constitute hypocrisy for libertarians regarding free speech, perhaps some words need to be said about what would constitute hypocrisy on the issue of climate change. Gore endorses both reducing carbon outputs and offsetting one's carbon footprint. Gore has reduced his personal use of power since 2006 and offsets the carbon outputs he is responsible for. Thus he is not at all hypocritical.
One can question whether climate change is a real problem and one can question whether the form of offsetting Gore endorses is of any real value, but these are different questions from the one of whether Gore is a hypocrite. For someone who believes climate change is a real problem and purchasing offsets is an acceptable way to respond to one's carbon footprint, Gore does not fail to do what he preaches to others. Climate change deniers (and yes, Drew, the term is appropriate because it really is just like being a holocaust denier) make themselves look silly in a lot of ways. These pathetic attempts to characterize Gore as a hypocrite are par for the course.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-07-03 4:08:33 PM
Jaws,
"I can't agree with you Fact Check. Al Gore is busy telling me that I have to lower my electricity usage. But he uses about... oh... 100x as much electricity as I do."
Is this really what he says, or is this just what his foes say he says so they can prop up a charge of hypocrisy? Doesn't Gore actually say that reducing carbon output globally is important and offsetting carbon use is something we all should do if we can? If Gore has never advocated offsetting then you would have a point. If he has spoken out against offsetting then you would have a very strong point. But he hasn't. He's done the opposite. You might disagree with him, but there is no inconsistancy here.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-07-03 4:13:05 PM
I wonder how much energy Suzuki uses in his home.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-03 4:31:52 PM
I'm happy to be skewered on my own petard, but I'm not seeing it just yet.
Implicit in the indulgence analogy is the idea that indulgences are bullshit. They're a way to buy yourself out of a moral problem. I sort of, in a way, think the same of Gore and carbon offsets (especially since he gets money from them).
I may be wrong about this, but I believe that, if we look through Gore's videos, speeches, and so on, we will find him saying (and probably repeatedly) we should all of us, individually, lower our energy usage. One way to do that is to not live in a mansion.
We should also notice that Gore took steps to lower his energy uses *after* the good folks at TCPR made Gore's electricity-usage public. Not before. That doesn't mean that he wasn't going to get around to it (eventually), but come on, Fact Check, if you really think that, say, green carpet is morally bad, and we should do all we can to get rid of it, that you really ought to get rid of all that green carpet in your own house?
I agree that this is circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. I don't pretend as though this is devastating, deductive, clear proof of his hypocrisy. I see possible worlds and logical possibilities where Gore does exactly as he now does, preaches exactly as he now does, and is not hypocritical or in any way open to charges of doing something wrong. But I believe that the best educated guess is that Gore is not being entirely serious, and probably really is a bit of a hypocrite.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-03 4:39:19 PM
Oh snap, Zebulon... can't we do what the TCPR did and request Suzuki's numbers? Worth looking into...
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-03 4:40:09 PM
FC,
"It does not take a mathematical wizard to determine that 213,210 is LESS than 221,000. "
Fine. Concentrate on a measely 3.5% difference in Gore's year over year usage while the rest of us concentrate on his %2000 difference with the average American.
Missing the big picture!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 5:50:23 PM
Finally! Something to be proud of.
Canada ranked 2nd last on WWF G8 Climate Scorecard
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2008/07/03/6053426-ap.html
Second last behind the US. Next year, I expect an improvement, people!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-03 5:57:06 PM
I don't even have to refute Logic Chopper; he does it all by himself --
FC: "Well, since Grant recently said he would like to see more women killed in combat because it would be a step forward for gender equality (nice, Grant), I'm not sure he is equipt to assess the decision making of, as he calls them "third-world wretches" (also nice, Grant)."
FC: "Is this really what he says, or is this just what his foes say he says so they can prop up a charge of hypocrisy?"
Answer: No, it's just what silly commentators say to prop up a reputation for making (illogical!) ad hominem attacks. Check the facts, and get back to me on this one.
(I find it curious -- though I won't say hypocritical -- that FC says one day he's not going to read any more of my "drivel," and then already the next day continues to keep commenting on my posts, anyway, without skipping a beat. I must have some pretty compelling things to say, that he cannot seem to restrain himself.)
Meanwhile, let's make things real simple for Logic Chopper. Gore says he supports Kyoto. He says the U.S. is falling short by not signing on. Kyoto requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to the level of 1990. But how well is Gore himself doing by that standard? We find that he's just getting started, though unsuccessfully, in 2007. He can't even manage his own household the way he wants to manage the world.
Let's make it even simpler for poor Logic Chopper. Gore says that we will ruin the planet by 2100 if we keep up the way we are going; we need real reductions, fast. Yet he expects the poorest of the poor to cut back on what little carbon footprint they might leave so that fat cats like him can live grand. It seems to me that if total global carbon emissions are what we should all be concerned about, we should be going after the "big polluters" first and hardest -- you know, like Al Gore and the oil companies.
The position Chopper falsely but "charitably" attributes to Gore saves him from the charge of hypocrisy only to saddle him with being a complete and utter fool. Yes, he *could* consistently profess all the things that Chopper speculates he might profess; but nobody would take him seriously for a second if he did.
In short, FC, Gore's position isn't so comfortably consistent as you try to misrepresent it as being. It is deeply hypocritical. Gore's "truth" is "inconvenient" mostly for himself. If you knew more about what Gore spews in his speeches, you would know that. That is, if you checked some facts once in a blue moon, before beaking off.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-03 6:41:37 PM
Grant
I agree with you on FC
"For someone who believes climate change is a real problem and purchasing offsets is an acceptable way to respond to one's carbon footprint, Gore does not fail to do what he preaches to others. Climate change deniers (and yes, Drew, the term is appropriate because it really is just like being a holocaust denier) make themselves look silly in a lot of ways. These pathetic attempts to characterize Gore as a hypocrite are par for the course."
FC is a hypocrisy denier. He's no different than a holocaust denier.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 6:52:00 PM
FC, your argument was compelling until the climate change deniers comment.
Leaving the solution to climate change to the state, which couldn't make a cookie taste good, let alone end poverty, or solve real "problems" is naive.
Gore seems to be using the state as a lever to line his pockets. Maybe he is sincere and not at all hypocritical. The end result is no better, and maybe even worse.
Posted by: TM | 2008-07-03 8:01:44 PM
Screw Gore and Suzuki...they are both absolute liars with politcal agendas.
If you would like to read something very well rersearched and informative, in other words "truthful", try Ezra Levant's "Fight Kyoto".
There are of course many more sources but its a good place to start.
Posted by: JC | 2008-07-04 2:08:36 PM
holcaust deniers are the same as so called "climate change deniers"; ?
With idiotic statements like that its no wonder some people wonder about the left wing hidden agenda; Al Gore hypocrite deniers aren't the same as holocaust deniers but they're are just plain dumb.
Posted by: x2para | 2008-07-04 8:13:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.