Is Al Gore A Hypocrite?

[PowerSource]

People gotta eat.

This should probably be split into a couple of categories. By specifically mentioning "factory farming", you are bringing an animal welfare concern and mixing it in with an environmental protection concern.

I'm going to leave the animal welfare issue aside and just address farming in general.

There are legitimate concerns over farming impact on carbon emissions and other environmental issues. People want to eat what they want to eat, and I'm not a big fan of taking enjoyment away from people. We need to move to sustainability, but I think we want to do it in a way that minimizes any negative impact. So the questions I think are as such:

1) How much can we improve existing farming processes to minimize environmental impact? For example, switching all farm machinery to be powered by renewable energy. Sustainable planting practices. That kind of stuff.

2) Once you have reached the best case scenario from question 1, Is that enough to achieve environmental balance? If not, are there other non-farming sectors of society where the difference can be somehow offset?

3) If answers to questions (1) and (2) still aren't enough, then we can look at implementing dietary restrictions on people.

Farming/food is probably the last sector of society I would want to tackle, because we just don't have good substitutes yet for good eats. We already have good sustainable solutions for energy, transport, and other areas that we can implement without any significant impact on quality of life. It's going to be a lot harder to do that with food. Maybe someday there will be lab created proteins that are as good as steaks, for example, but we are still a long way from that right now. This is why I like to focus on energy, transport, and other low hanging fruit. Lets nail that stuff down first, and see how far it gets us. That is my approach anyway.

We should really have sustainability scientists that advise government to figure out what exactly we need to do over time to achieve stability and sustainability. It's not really a simple subject, but it's vital in the long run.

There are a lot of good vegan substitutes for your favorite foods. There was a study (have to google it) that came to the conclusion that half of greenhouse gasses are produced by factory farmed animals. That is pretty significant.

Study: vegan diets healthier for planet, people than meat diets

 

[Skotty]

In my opinion, there is hypocrisy with Al Gore: the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
And with DiCaprio (those yachts we see him on with his supermodels don't burn fairy dust), and with Bono, and the list goes on and on. We should not be blind to that hypocrisy, or try to defend it by saying Gore has made his house more green since the above article was published. He's a human like the rest of us who likes nice things like mansions. And who could refuse supermodels on a yacht? Not me! I'd probably let the earth warm a little for that pleasure.

When people make comments about that hypocrisy we should admit it rather than dodge and deflect. The best way to admit it is to show the flaw in the argument -- by saying: "Someone can be smoking a cigarette and tell you smoking is bad. The message is still true, regardless of who says it.". Then they will likely say the message is not true, that global warming is a hoax started by the Chinese or something like that, and you can get down to the real issue which is why they called out the hypocrisy in the first place.

Al Gore isn't arguing that people should live in small homes. Nor should he. He is arguing for things like clean energy. If energy was 100% clean and sustainable, it wouldn't matter how large his home is or how much electricity it uses. And that's the way it should be. I don't see any hypocrisy. Arguing that Al Gore should live in a small home prior to that hypothetical 100% clean energy future is really a separate argument, and it's a fair argument, but I think it's wrong to call it hypocrisy. Collective policy/strategy vs loosely related personal choice given current reality. Separate issues. That was the point I was trying to make.

What people say: Al Gore is a hypocrite because he lives in a big house that uses a lot of energy.

Subject: living in a big house that uses a lot of energy

What's required to be hypocritical: claiming people should not live in big houses that use a lot of energy.

I don't think Al Gore has ever made such a comment.

 

[Skotty]

What people are doing is wrongly stretching the definition of hypocrisy to use it as an attack against someone else's argument. And as Canuck pointed out, even if true, that doesn't even necessarily negate the argument.

To use the smoking analogy, lets say Al Gore is a smoker.

I don't think Al Gore is trying to say people shouldn't smoke because it's bad for your health. (hypocritical)

I think Al Gore is trying to say cigarettes should be made clean because currently they are bad for your health. (not hypocritical)

Not the same thing.

Should Al Gore maybe try to stop smoking because it's bad for his health? Sure. Fair argument. But I don't see how that makes him a hypocrite. I don't think it does.

 

[Canuck]

Fair points. I just think until there's sufficient clean power Gore is hypocritical in telling about the effects of burning too much CO2 while personally using the equivalent of the power of 20 homes. To me, that's hypocritical regardless of the fact that he is arguing for clean power. Change starts at home. He can't power his home with sufficient amounts of clean power at the moment so until he can he needs to cut back on his glutinous consumption if he doesn't want to at least give the appearance of hypocrisy. But my point was really how to deal with the argument of hypocrisy being made against him. I think we look silly saying there's no hypocrisy for him to be constantly lecturing about climate change while at the same time consuming more power than 20 homes. Give them that argument, for the sake of argument, so you can down to the real issue, was my point.

 

[Skotty]

Fair points. I just think until there's sufficient clean power Gore is hypocritical in telling about the effects of burning too much CO2 while personally using the equivalent of the power of 20 homes. To me, that's hypocritical regardless of the fact that he is arguing for clean power. Change starts at home. He can't power his home with sufficient amounts of clean power at the moment so until he can he needs to cut back on his glutinous consumption if he doesn't want to at least give the appearance of hypocrisy. But my point was really how to deal with the argument of hypocrisy being made against him. I think we look silly saying there's no hypocrisy for him to be constantly lecturing about climate change while at the same time consuming more power than 20 homes. Give them that argument, for the sake of argument, so you can down to the real issue, was my point.

I get what you are saying, and it's a nice addition to the discussion.

There are a couple of camps. Those who put personal responsibility first and those who put collective responsibility first.

From personal responsibility implemented by a large majority, a collective responsibility emerges.

From collective responsibility implemented, personal responsibility implemented by a large majority is ensured.

I find the former to be idealistic and unlikely to succeed, and I therefore favor the latter. I suppose that's the pessimistic viewpoint. That's why, though I love people taking personal responsibility, what I care more about is what we do collectively in terms of public policy. That impacts me by making me care less about Al Gore's personal practices, and more about his public message. I can see how someone who cares at least as much about personal habits to find it far more troubling than I.

...but he's not a hypocrite.

 

[McRat]

...
Too many people just won't do the right thing without forces on them encouraging or forcing them to. That's why we have ex post facto laws, secret police teams, gov't surveillance, death penalties, et al.

Fixed that for you. You're welcome!

 

[Chopr147]

Of course he's a hypocrite, among other things. He invented the internet, he was a politician, made a ton of "green" money etc...... Certainly not the kind of person I would trust. Part of the hypocrite argument comes back to the basic "do as I say,not as I do" attitude. This can be applied to people like Leo Dicap and his friends as well. Don't tell me to cut back and then drive off in your Lambo to the yacht. Being environmentally conscious comes down to each individual, and yes that includes the "elite"

 

[SageBrush]

I disagree with these statements. The ONLY way to solve the pollution/global warming issue is at the individual level. We can do this by being adopters of new technology, being advocates for the earth in an outspoken manner, challenging the deniers, purchasing goods that may not save you money but because it is the right thing to do, and making a commitment to change habits and preconceptions at a personal level. As an individual, we are either part of the solution or we are part of the problem. Elon can build all the electric vehicles and solar panel he wants, but unless people purchase them for the right reason, nothing will change. @electroman, you are obviously on the right path. Do not give up hope, we can do it!

I find most disturbing the common opinion that a more sustainable product has to "make sense" -- meaning be cheaper than the dirtier alternative -- to be bought. I understand the rationale: the dirtier product is perceived as lower risk because it has a track record, but so many people do not grasp that they are choosing to pay for extra pollution.

 

[SageBrush]

Of course he's a hypocrite, among other things. He invented the internet, he was a politician, made a ton of "green" money etc...... Certainly not the kind of person I would trust. Part of the hypocrite argument comes back to the basic "do as I say,not as I do" attitude. This can be applied to people like Leo Dicap and his friends as well. Don't tell me to cut back and then drive off in your Lambo to the yacht. Being environmentally conscious comes down to each individual, and yes that includes the "elite"

I suggest a thought experiment:

If everybody was Al Gore (within their means) would the environment be better off ?
Would it be helpful, for a start, if climate change denialism did not exist ?

 

[Owner]

Are humans innately materialistic? If so, we need to create sustainable materialism. If not.... nah, never mind, they are.

No, I don't think we are. Or definitely not to the degree of Al Gore.

There is a level of comfort, beauty and convenience to have a set of things (which I admittedly do have), but after that to me anything more becomes such a hassle to keep, maintain, etc... I couldn't imagine wanting to live in a 10,000 square foot house or have acres and acres of land. maybe somewhere else, but here many acres just mean more weed management than anything else.

I don't want a jet or a plane, or really any more toys. Typically when I get something new, something old gets donated or thrown away.

I also wouldn't want to be so rich and have so much stuff I'd have to have all the "handlers" around to take care of them.

It took me a while to understand how some millennials don't even want to drive or own a car, but it could be quite freeing if you live in the right place.

 

[SageBrush]

Fair points. I just think until there's sufficient clean power Gore is hypocritical in telling about the effects of burning too much CO2 while personally using the equivalent of the power of 20 homes.

Skotty's point is that attacking the messenger is a rhetorical debating strategy and a logical fallacy.

The Repub saying "Gore uses more energy than me, so I can ignore AGW" is the fallacy.

By the way, Gore runs his businesses out of his home and has his roof coated with PV. The latter is only true once his reactionary neighbors agreed to a covenant change (or was it an exception ?). If Gore lived in a modest home and had offices in NYC coated with PV on the roof, the Repubs would have to find some other inane criticism.

 

[PowerSource]

The hypocrisy (may be unpopular) is that Elon is a connoisseur of eating hamburgers and other meats which their consumption adds equal if not more to global warming than driving a dino powered car. For example, 50% of water in the US goes towards factory farmed animals + water pollution/treatment etc...

From just the peta website (I know biased but probably close to accurate)

If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and ate vegan food instead, it would be like taking 500,000 cars off the road. Part of the equation with CO2 emissions. Can't blame it all on transportation or power generation etc.

 

[SageBrush]

The hypocrisy (may be unpopular) is that Elon is a connoisseur of eating hamburgers and other meats which their consumption adds equal if not more to global warming than driving a dino powered car

I am a vegan, have read widely regarding the carbon emissions of US agribusiness, and I very much doubt what you say is anywhere near true.

Reference ?

 

[PowerSource]

I am a vegan, have read widely regarding the carbon emissions of US agribusiness, and I very much doubt what you say is anywhere near true.

Reference ?

35 Mind-Shattering Facts Linking Factory Farming to Climate Change

 

[kort677]

Of course he's a hypocrite, among other things. He invented the internet, he was a politician, made a ton of "green" money etc...... Certainly not the kind of person I would trust. Part of the hypocrite argument comes back to the basic "do as I say,not as I do" attitude. This can be applied to people like Leo Dicap and his friends as well. Don't tell me to cut back and then drive off in your Lambo to the yacht. Being environmentally conscious comes down to each individual, and yes that includes the "elite"

AKA limousine liberal, the elitists will demand that you do one thing while they do whatever they please.

 

[SageBrush]

35 Mind-Shattering Facts Linking Factory Farming to Climate Change

Here is the source for the PETA
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf

My education is mostly in biology, and that article is crap. Mind you, I don't dispute at all the environmental impact of animal agribusiness, I'm just saying that the PETA statements are exaggerations.

I suggest you start reading here, the latest IPCC section on forestry
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter9.pdf
Since the main effect you are referring to is related to deforestation

 

[SageBrush]

I suggest you start reading here, the latest IPCC section on forestry
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter9.pdf
Since the main effect you are referring to is related to deforestation

Sorry, I missed the TMC editing cut-off to add a methane link:
The important point here is that a large fraction of the GHGe emissions related to cow agribusiness is based on methane accounting, but the methane accounting is one-sided and incomplete.

For a good science overview, read the
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/srl-en.pdf

Here is one tidbit for you to chew on:

7. From 1850 to 1998, approximately 270 (+ 30) Gt C has been emitted as carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning and cement production. About 136 (+ 55) Gt C has been emitted as a result of land-use change, predominantly from forest ecosystems. This has led to an increase in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide of 176 (+ 10) Gt C. Atmospheric concentrations increased from about 285 to 366 ppm (i.e., by ~28%), and about 43% of the total emissions over this time have been retained in the atmosphere. The remainder, about 230 (+ 60) Gt C, is estimated to have been taken up in approximately equal amounts in the oceans and the terrestrial ecosystems. Thus, on balance, the terrestrial ecosystems appear to have been a comparatively small net source of carbon dioxide during this period. [1.2.1]

8. The average annual global carbon budgets for 1980–1989 and 1989–1998 are shown in Table 2. This table shows that the rates and trends of carbon uptake in terrestrial ecosystems are quite uncertain. However, during these two decades, terrestrial ecosystems may have served as a small net sink for carbon dioxide. This terrestrial sink seems to have occurred in spite of net emissions into the atmosphere from land-use change, primarily in the tropics, having been 1.7 ± 0.8 Gt C yr–1 and 1.6 ± 0.8 Gt C yr–1 during these two decades, respectively. The net terrestrial carbon uptake, that approximately balances the emissions from land-use change in the tropics, results from land-use practices and natural regrowth in middle and high latitudes, the indirect effects of human activities (e.g., atmospheric CO2 fertilization and nutrient deposition), and changing climate (both natural and anthropogenic). It is presently not possible to determine the relative importance of these different processes, which also vary from region to region. [1.2.1 and Figure 1-1]

 

[Skotty]

Fixed that for you. You're welcome!

Much better. Thanks.

 

[Skotty]

Of course he's a hypocrite, among other things. He invented the internet, he was a politician, made a ton of "green" money etc...... Certainly not the kind of person I would trust. Part of the hypocrite argument comes back to the basic "do as I say,not as I do" attitude. This can be applied to people like Leo Dicap and his friends as well. Don't tell me to cut back and then drive off in your Lambo to the yacht. Being environmentally conscious comes down to each individual, and yes that includes the "elite"

For proper context -- FALSE: Al Gore Said 'I Invented the Internet'

 

[alseTrick]

Al Gore has made a almost quarter billion dollars personally since leaving office off of 'energy'. Sometimes more than $200,000 per hour.

He has not had any measurable effect on the environment.

He has made a measurable effect on his personal wealth.

He assumes 'green' advocates are stupid, and that pays handsomely whether or not it's true.

HAHA.

What a silly claim.

Pray tell, how is one going to measure what effect he has or has not had on the environment?