Do as I say, not as I do....

[Don Corleone]

Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary defines 'Hypocricy' as

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
- hypocrite adjective

.

Today, while testifying why Congress needs to enact strict legislation hamstringing the American economy and the average American's personal energy usage at home, former Vice-President Al Gore received a request from the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, Senator James Inhofe.

Senator Inhofe presented records indicating that the former Vice-president consumes electrical power at a rate twenty times that of the average American household. He then asked Gore if Gore, fully aware of the dire consequences of man's activities upon the planet and it's direct, causal affect to hurricanes, wouldn't take a pledge to reduce his consumption to no more than the national average household usage. A curt "no" was all Gore would answer with. Senator Inhofe pressed on, indicating that surely Gore would be a beacon for all and encourage responsible energy usage among millions of Americans by his voluntary reduction in his own energy usage.

The former Vice-president responded with a furioius "Go screw yourself, buddy. I am the law. The rules are for the rest of you slaves, erh, I mean citizens".

Actually, he made a vague reference to carbon offsets, claiming he had planted a tree. The affects of carbon offsets are dubious at best, and even when taken at face value can take up to a century. Vice-President Gore does not believe Congress should allow for carbon offsets by American industries or by American families in their own energy usage.

So, I'm just curious. Why would Gore, who's convinced and trying to convince Congress that energy consumption and mankind in general is killing the planet, consume over twenty times the national average? If that doesn't fit the bill of hypocricy, I don't know what does.

Poster's note: I agree the planet is warming. I suspect mankind's activity has had a tertiary affect on it, but has not been the primary contributor. Even so, for reasons of national security and for other environmental concerns, I personally would outlaw the use of fossil fuels the day after I secured the White House in my junta, but would switch over to full nuclear the very same day. I'd build each and every town it's very own reactor. Presto! Problem solved.

[Kralizec]

I agree he's a hypocrite.

Poster's note: I agree the planet is warming. I suspect mankind's activity has had a tertiary affect on it, but has not been the primary contributor. Even so, for reasons of national security and for other environmental concerns, I personally would outlaw the use of fossil fuels the day after I secured the White House in my junta, but would switch over to full nuclear the very same day. I'd build each and every town it's very own reactor. Presto! Problem solved.

Nuclear power for the win

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Didn't we have a thread on this and it turned out he donated enough money to green causes to outweigh the environmental effect of his house?

[Don Corleone]

Didn't we have a thread on this and it turned out he donated enough money to green causes to outweigh the environmental effect of his house?

You mean the carbon offsets I mentioned in the fine print. A few things about carbon offsets:

1) Their value is highly controversial, even among people that agree with the "Shut the Lights Off" crowd

2) Their affects take up to a century to be felt

3) Gore advocates legislation to be enacted that does not allow for the use of carbon offsets for average Americans or American businesses (just him).

4) Doesn't it bother you, Sasaki, that carbon offsets are really just a way for the rich to pay their way out of playing by the rules?

Not to mention, Gore has steadfastly refused to offer any evidence proving he actually has offset his energy usage. He says he paid to have some trees planted and such. He never showed any balance sheet proving he's actually carbon neutral.

[drone]

In Al Gore's defense, he has lately been offsetting his home energy usage by removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it like this.

[Devastatin Dave]

In Al Gore's defense, he has lately been offsetting his home energy usage by removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it like this.

I just tinkled myself!!!

[Papewaio]

You mean the carbon offsets I mentioned in the fine print. A few things about carbon offsets:

2) Their affects take up to a century to be felt

I'd like a link to that as it seems at face value to be entirely wrong.

If I withdraw a gram of carbon from the atmosphere now, it has an immediate effect.

So how would it be different if I used a carbon scrubber on a coal stack or a tree?

The controversy could be that trees don't offset as much as claimed, but that is different to it taking a hundred years for the carbon to be offset, a quantity vs time effect.

[TevashSzat]

Al Gore though is more than making up for his higher than average energy usage by bringing up the attention of Global Warming to many people.

[Adrian II]

If that doesn't fit the bill of hypocricy, I don't know what does.

When George Bush called for a reduction of America's gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years, did he cut back on his own?

When Dick Cheney called for war against Iraq, did he go in first in a helmet and a flack jacket? Or did he stay behind and work to grant huge contracts to a firm in which he had a vested interest in the form of unexercised stock options and deferred salary?

Does it ever occur to our brave little Republican foot soldiers to ask such questions? Nope. Instead they go for Al Gore, not on the basis of his views but on the basis of his private life.

Doesn't the Bible say something about splinters and wooden beams? American politics is turning into a character assassination race. Both sides are guilty. To complain about that and yet to engage in it with gusto, as you do, is hypocrisy of a truly Biblical nature.

[Spetulhu]

Doesn't the Bible say something about splinters and wooden beams? American politics is turning into a character assassination race. Both sides are guilty. To complain about that and yet to engage in it with gusto, as you do, is hypocrisy of a truly Biblical nature.

We are perfectly justified in using all means necessary to defeat the insert group name. It's only wrong when they do the same.

[Don Corleone]

When George Bush called for a reduction of America's gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years, did he cut back on his own?

When Dick Cheney called for war against Iraq, did he go in first in a helmet and a flack jacket? Or did he stay behind and work to grant huge contracts to a firm in which he had a vested interest in the form of unexercised stock options and deferred salary?

Does it ever occur to our brave little Republican foot soldiers to ask such questions? Nope. Instead they go for Al Gore, not on the basis of his views but on the basis of his private life.

Doesn't the Bible say something about splinters and wooden beams? American politics is turning into a character assassination race. Both sides are guilty. To complain about that and yet to engage in it with gusto, as you do, is hypocrisy of a truly Biblical nature.

Show me where I've been supporting Bush & Cheney and their Iraq war in the past couple of years and I'll plead guilty. As for Bush's energy consumption habits, I don't know the first thing about what his energy consumption habits are like. I suspect, based on the open ended nature of your attack, that you don't either.

I simply suggested that for Mr. Gore to go around telling Congress they have to pass a bunch of laws clamping down on American industries and American homeowners, yet recklessly continues to consume 20 times the national average at his own house makes him a hypocrite. Rather than answering that, you decide to change the nature of the debate and call me a hypocrite for Bush and Cheney's actions. Nice.

I guess I touched a nerve. Note to self "Al Gore is a sacred cow and is beyond criticism".

[Adrian II]

Rather than answering that, you decide to change the nature of the debate and call me a hypocrite for Bush and Cheney's actions.

Oh, read again. If Spetulhu can get my point in one go, I am sure you can.

[PanzerJaeger]

When George Bush called for a reduction of America's gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years, did he cut back on his own?

Oddly enough, he is very energy efficient.

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

Its funny how the article then goes on to bash Bush.

[Adrian II]

Oddly enough, he is very energy efficient.

So it seems, but I don't care.

Nor do I need to count Al Gore's airline tickets to figure out what to think of his views.

I know character assassination when I see it. And I'm seeing it. It is a serious problem in America, possibly more than anywhere else. Some public relations hitman starts yapping, within twelve hours half the U.S. blogosphere is up in arms over a total non-issue, and the next thing you hear is a giant sucking sound - the sound of substance going out the window.

[Proletariat]

Agree with ya here, Adrian. Was really annoying hearing people on one of my last trips out to San Fran saying they wouldn't vote for Arnold because he owns four hummers, despite whatever amount of green friendly laws he's helped push for the state.

[Adrian II]

Agree with ya here, Adrian. Was really annoying hearing people on one of my last trips out to San Fran saying they wouldn't vote for Arnold because he owns four hummers, despite whatever amount of green friendly laws he's helped push for the state.

Exactly the sentiment of this jaded old Pope, Madam. If I were a Californian I wouldn't care if Ah-nuld drove around in a renovated Sherman tank with a whirpool inside. Whatever floats his rubber duck.

[PanzerJaeger]

So it seems, but I don't care.

I love that response!

I agree with you. The politics of personal attacks has little to do with substance. It can be seen on this very board. When someone doesnt have a strong argument, hit the poster, not his post.

I do, however, think that if a politician is going to make energy consumption and the environment his central focus, using 20 times the national average is very hypocritical. That doesnt change the his argument though, for better or worse.

[Lemur]

The politics of personal attacks has little to do with substance.

Indeed. And the climate change debate has been way too politicized. I got to thinking — who is looking at this issue coldly, without a political agenda? Scientists get accused of everything in this country. They're generally suspected of being liberal weenies, so trotting out a scientist doesn't do much. Gore is a dull fellow who's being ridiculed and generally slimed. Our current administration is not exactly addicted to truth-telling.

Finally I hit on it: Insurance companies, especially re-insurers. They're very good at number crunching, and they live in the reality-based community (as in, if they get the reality wrong, they go broke). No fluffery, no BS.

I've just started looking into their reports and predictions, but it looks as though they're taking climate change very seriously, indeed.

Munich Re:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The concentration of climate gases is increasing, and with it the challenges facing the insurance industry. In short, stable reinsurance capacity will not be possible in the future without risk–adequate insurance prices. The solution to this problem may well be risk partnerships between primary insurers and reinsurers and the capital markets.

The subject of climate change is by no means new to scientific research. In fact, it is over 20 years since leading academic institutions started research into the processes that are triggered by an increase in the concentration of climatedamaging trace gases in the atmosphere. Many of these studies were, or rather should have been, of major significance for the insurance industry. However, the results were mostly of a qualitative nature only and involved projections far into the future — too far for some risk carriers to take seriously.

The 2005 watershed

This situation altered dramatically in 2005. Even before the record losses from Hurricane Katrina, studies had been published which analysed the changed hurricane exposure in the North Atlantic and investigated natural as well as man–made influences on the sea surface temperature. The conclusions arrived at in these studies were so specific and definitive that the insurance industry was left in no doubt about the need for quantitative adjustments to its hurricane risk models. Munich Re included elements of these scientific works, such as the changed hurricane frequency, in its risk evaluations for the renewals at 1 January 2006.

A look at the loss years 2004 and 2005 raises the following question: Were climate researchers in fact not forthright enough in the predictions they made? To find out, let us go back 16 years to an article on climate change in a Munich Re publication on windstorms, which offered a detailed summary of the state of knowledge on this subject at this time.

Munich Re's special publication "Windstorm" from 1990

"A warmer atmosphere and warmer seas result in greater exchange of energy and add momentum to the vertical exchange processes so crucial to the development of tropical cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms and hailstorms. Accordingly, such natural hazards will increase not only in frequency and intensity, but also in duration and the size of the areas at risk. This applies above all to tropical cyclones, which will penetrate moderate latitudes and thus also affect areas so far not exposed to this risk. Hence, risk conditions are not only growing worse in the population centres and industrial regions along the north–east coasts of the USA, Australia and New Zealand or in the whole of Japan already exposed to such hazards in the past, but possibly also along the coasts of Western Europe, which [...] might even be reached by a full–fledged hurricane. [...] Last but certainly not least, water temperatures in some parts of the South Atlantic will reach the critical threshold of 27°C already mentioned, opening up the door for the development of tropical cyclones so far not encountered in that part of the world. It goes without saying that such cyclones would then present a tremendous hazard along the coast of Brazil."

I doubt this will change anybody's opinion, but it makes me happy to find a neutral party that's doing serious thinking and planning on the subject. When I find more interesting stuff, I'll post it.

P.S.: Vladimir, in our nation our President is very busy, so he uses a another person to speak to the press. This position is called the White House Press Secretary. His statements are meant to reflect the current administration's positions.

[edit]

Swiss Re:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Today, global warming is a fact. Since the beginning of industrialisation and the rapid growth of world population, man’s activities – along with natural variability – have contributed to a change of climate manifesting itself as a considerable increase in global temperature. Climate change has the potential to develop into our planet’s greatest environmental challenge of the 21st century.

Current and expected changes in the natural environment are causing the business and political environments to react and change – even more so because climate change is intertwined with numerous other challenging issues such as water availability and energy security. As an enabler of change, the financial services industry can help guide society towards an effective response. However, the industry can only be effective in this role if the regulatory and legislative framework sets the right incentives for emissions reduction and adaptation on a global scale.

[doc_bean]

Sorry Don, but Sasaki puts your argument in a very different perspective.

His usage depends on what he's using energy for, if it includes his airplane rides it could be said that they serve a purpose, it's debatable, but certainly it's different from using energy for warming an empty house or something like that.

I'll agree that he seems like a bit of a hypocrite, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what he's saying doesn't have merit.

Poster's note: I agree the planet is warming. I suspect mankind's activity has had a tertiary affect on it, but has not been the primary contributor. Even so, for reasons of national security and for other environmental concerns, I personally would outlaw the use of fossil fuels the day after I secured the White House in my junta, but would switch over to full nuclear the very same day. I'd build each and every town it's very own reactor. Presto! Problem solved.

For about 50 years and for a *lot* of money. If you threw around that much cash you could simply support every company that implemented energy efficient measures and you'd probably end up with a better result...

[Devastatin Dave]

The Coming Ass Age...
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/...gi?article=175
Love that girl!!!

[drone]

Bush's Crawford home, taken from the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm

[Vladimir]

Bush's Crawford home, taken from the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm

Very funny. Much like his higher IQ scores being revealed when Kerry was assumed to be more intelligent. But like Johnny boy, Algore might just be sick too; a sick, sick man.

[doc_bean]

It just shows there's something bery strange about Bush, a man who's preaching someone else's principles, it would seem.

Or he just had some liberal design his house because he's a damn good architect.

[BDC]

"Cuba, unlike Sweden, does not persecute migrants or carry out ethnic cleansing that only allows those whose skin and hair color fit with the racial patterns of former Viking conquerors to remain in the country."

Brilliant.

I demand reparations from Sweden for the horror inflicted on my ancestors by your ancestors 1000 years ago. With interest.

[Husar]

It just shows there's something bery strange about Bush, a man who's preaching someone else's principles, it would seem.

Or he just had some liberal design his house because he's a damn good architect.

Well, the war on terror is quite expensive, he has to save money somewhere.

[Vladimir]

Very funny. Much like his higher IQ scores being revealed when Kerry was assumed to be more intelligent. But like Johnny boy, Algore might just be sick too; a sick, sick man.

*clears throat*

If I may: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6421303.stm

Global impact of Asia's pollution

Smog is having a global impact on weather and climate, scientists say
Industrial pollution coming from Asia is having a wider effect on global weather and climate than previously realised, research suggests