The Anchoress has a wonderful post, Watching Couric, Gore, and Clintons, up on the Gore energy use, Couric's op-ed piece, and what the whole thing means. It's quite detailed, and well researched. Read the whole thing.
I wish someone would ask the people around Gore a few more questions more along the line of the following.
So many on Gore’s side point out these energy offsets as though buying them is a noble act in itself, but surely they are being purchased so that the user can go on using a large amount of energy without guilt? In effect, this is the same as it would be if the rich user of energy were paying more for a unit of energy than other people are, but he or she is still using the same exorbitant amount of energy. People buying the offsets might actually increase their use of energy thinking that they will simply buy more offsets, or even that buying the offsets is so noble, they can use some more energy feeling smug and satisfied.
He is wealthy, and purchasing offsets is not a hardship or a sacrifice for him. But he is asking people who cannot afford to buy offsets to sacrifice for the cause. Thinking about this solely as a matter of behavior, and not whether or not Global Warming is what Gore says it is, Gore is not behaving as though it truly was imperative that people cut down on energy usage. But think of how much Gore (and others) could do if along with obtaining the offsets, he also cut down on the energy he’s using? What if he were seen as sacrificing? What if those who live in his houses were seen as joining his quest to do better in using energy? Shouldn’t they sacrificing too? What if he bought offsets and didn’t use them, or gave them to charitable uses? If it’s an inconvenient truth, shouldn’t it be a little inconvenient for Gore to continue to live using the same energy, regardless of offsets?
Just wondering.
Leave a comment