Last night, via a hitherto unknown think tank in Tennessee, we all learned that Al Gore’s evidently talking the talk, but not walking the walk:
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
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.
Bless their sweet, non-partisan hearts!
Okay — not really. This group seems to have a massive axe to grind, and given the volume of the shrieking, it looks like the Right has been bottling up a fair amount of anger at Al Gore that truly needed some airing out.
However, just because the chicken’s lost his head doesn’t mean the sky isn’t falling (so to speak). It’s hard to look at these numbers (evidently a matter of public record), and not wonder how Al Gore can possibly stand on a stage pedestal and advise any of us on our power consumption.
ABC’s coverage of the story has some numbers, and it looks to me like their power-hog is the pool house. Evidently, it’s sucking down roughly half of those embarrassing numbers, which probably (but not definitively) means they’re heating their pool year round.
Foul!!!! Polimom and DH have a big house and a pool, but we can’t swim in it year round because we’d be unable to afford food. We, of course, are not Al and Tipper, and there’s the real rub. It’s not just that Al Gore is seen as a hypocrite here, but that he’s living a lifestyle the vast majority of people cannot.
One cannot be rich — whether Democrat or Republican — and simultaneously hope to be unassailable on issues that affect people who are not. Ed Morrissey said it beautifully (though not to this purpose):
Second, as I mentioned above, purchasing offsets only means that Gore doesn’t want to make the same kind of sacrifices that he’s asking other families to make. He’s using a modern form of indulgences in order to avoid doing the penance that global-warming activism demands of others. It means that the very rich can continue to suck up energy and raise the price and the demand for electricity and natural gas, while families struggle with their energy costs and face increasing government regulation and taxation. It’s a regressive plan that Gore’s supporters would decry if the same kind of scheme were applied to a national sales tax, for instance.
In the end, I think Gore’s problems this morning boil down to the green-eyed monster.
Families like the Gores can afford to continue in the lifestyles to which they’ve become accustomed, and even if they purchase offsets or install solar panels (and fluorescent bulbs), it’s not enough. It wouldn’t ever be enough. The Gore family could fill in the pool and pitch tents on the new, flat (and dry) surface, and convert the poolhouse to a stable for their new transportation, and we’d be reading about how radical they are — how they’ve taken this too far, and that common people can’t live that way.
Of course, common people can’t live this way, either… and therein really lies the problem.
Update: Speaking of money and the lifestyle to which folks get accustomed… from Volunteer Voters:
Those on right are busy today comparing Al Gore’s energy consumption to the average American. Well, Al Gore is not the average American. He comes from power and money and he has achieved power and money in his own right.
Al Gore lives a life different from most folks. I’m not one to defend elitism, not as a matter of practice, but some elitism is inevitable. There must be a leadership class. There always has been and there always will be. Even societies organized around the principle of the equality and preeminence of the proletariat have had an elite class. It is the natural order of things. The key for a society is to create a responsible, responsive and fluid elite.
Yeah… but we don’t like people with money.
Found via Glen Reynolds, who’s apparently trying to convince himself that he’d be okay with Al’s consumption and money, if only he weren’t so dratted moralistic. Unh hunh.
Since I am not a think tank in Tennessee (does anyone else see an oxymoron here?), I can’t speak for them – but, when someone tells me that I have to make some serious sacrifices for the good of the planet, then I find out the guy burns through enough juice to power a small town (or Old Sparky), his cred takes a major hit. Sort of like Bill Clinton telling me I needed to remain chaste until marriage (and faithful afterwards), or George Bush XLIII telling me to “Give Peace a Chance.”
Yeah, right.
One of the ironic things about the anti-Big Oil protesters in California was that they would chant their slogans, then get in their SUVs or BMWs and drive off. I find it hard to believe that people would think this is the result of envy or jealousy.
Personally, I couldn’t care less if Algore drove a stretch Humvee to the corner grocery store, flew a 747 to church on Sunday, and bought the Battleship Iowa as his private yacht – if he can afford it, more power to him.
But, please don’t tell me to take the speck out of my own eye, then turn around and whack me upside the head with the 2×4 sticking out of yours. ‘K?
BTW, I must admit the man has a sense of humor. The orchestra cutting off his “official announcement” during the Oscars was excellent.
~EdT.
Not nice, Ed!! I’m surprised my computer didn’t short out from the coffee I just sprayed all over it!
Except that Al Gore isn’t telling everybody that have to make massive personal sacrifices, he’s saying we need to make structural changes in how we get energy in order to support our needs, which is a very different thing.
Gore is rich. This is a fact. His energy consumption should be compared to folks in his position. Also, he is paying a carbon tax for his energy consumption, one of probably only a handful of Americans actually doing so. The notion that a candidate for president, activist, farmer, and international policy maker should use about the same energy as you and me is ridiculous…and he is trying to pay for his usage.
I think some of us are living beyond “needs” and those “needs” are welcome to be cut first in an energy crisis.
Paying more for your energy use does not reduce it.
“Of course, common people can’t live this way, either… and therein really lies the problem”. Yea, well, we “commoners” may be getting closer than we think to having to live an entirely different life. See today’s Comical story about the TXU buyout and the fact that it won’t result in any savings for consumers. Note as well that on NPR this a.m. they featured a story to the effect that in those states where utilities have been deregulated, prices have risen significantly. It’s only going to get worse and all this against the backdrop of a home building boom of 3,000 square foot taky home in the far corners of the burbs. Alan Greenspan isn’t the only one seeing bust around the corner. Home forclosures are at astronomical highs and ever higher electric bills coupled with our usual spke in gas prices this summer and raising interest rates will push more folks over the brink.
“Except that Al Gore isn’t telling everybody that have to make massive personal sacrifices, he’s saying we need to make structural changes in how we get energy in order to support our needs, which is a very different thing.”
Except that those structural changes are likely gonna create massive economic upheaval, which is probably why Algore’s former boss wisely decided against submitting the Kyoto treaty to the Senate. And, the practical result of such an upheaval would be massive sacrifices for many of us (that is, if you call such things as starving to death “sacrifices”.)
And, as far as Algore’s energy consumption vis-a-vis yours and mine goes: for cryin’ out loud, if the guy is burning through almost a quarter MILLION KWH per year off the power grid, that means someone has to do something to generate all that power – and, in most cases these days, that means they burn coal and/or gas. Buying “credits” to offset this is great, so long as the total number of such “credits” is finite – otherwise, it is simply an exercise in “feel-good”.
~EdT.
I saw this run on Fox News (in the middle of their Anna Nicole live news) today at lunch.
The “x times more than average household” blurb made me laugh. Someone should look at the whole of Congress and their homes’ energy consumption. Odds are they’d find similar results. None of them are anywhere near the average household. But that wouldn’t help kill the messenger.
And Glide, 6-7 years ago (pre-dereg) an Econ professor at UH pointed out the fallacy of energy deregulation in such simple terms that when it did happen I was a little surprised. If a bunch of UH students could get this concept, why couldn’t a group of folks in Austin?
The “big upheavals” have been overstated by the real fear-mongerers in this discussion – those who insist that we can’t afford to do anything (possibly leading to the kind of “upheaval” in the future that rearranges the political map of the globe, but hey, that’s years off…)
Here’s my bet: as big a polluter as China is now, they’re going to invest heavily in alternative energy and wind up winning big.
No matter what you think of those upheavals, the characterization of what Gore asks of others that has been circulating with this story is simply untrue.
All the right web and radio can talk about recently is Al Gore and John Edwards.
“OMG, they are rich!”
I thought they wanted people to get rich.
That’s not quite true. They al;so mounted a “slime” campaign to pull selections from comments on blogs to show how nasty and unhinged liberals are. Generally if liberals talk about the unhinged right we don’t have to pull from comments before they get deleted – we document the big name poster.
Found via Glen Reynolds, who’s apparently trying to convince himself that he’d be okay with Al’s consumption and money, if only he weren’t so dratted moralistic. Unh hunh.
Why don’t you buy that? The problem here isn’t the consumption, it’s the hypocrisy. This is why Drudge isn’t running the power bills of the White House, or ExxonMobil executives. We expect rich folks to use lots of juice, and that’s just how it goes.
But when some of those same rich folks tell me to change my light bulbs, that’s where it gets problematic. I don’t happen to think using a lot of electricity is wrong, as long as you pay for it. But attacking others for doing it, while doing it yourself, is wrong.
Matt —
i hear what you’re saying — I really do. On the other hand, I’ve tried and tried to picture who (other than an ascetic) would be able to claim the moral high ground on any issue like this one… and I keep drawing a blank.
Had this not come in immediately behind the John Edwards Has a Really Big House story, I might not be snorting through my nose at everybody like this… but when taken together, it’s hard to miss the overall tone of the criticism.
All:
Here’s a related story: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jets28feb28,0,2448915.story
So — where are we going with this? Is the public going to say, “Nah, I don’t have to change anything, ‘cuz the leaders aren’t walking the walk”? And if we want them to walk the walk, then are we going to lower our own expectation of how they do their jobs (via flying around on non-commercial flights… which brings up security…)?
I don’t think everybody’s laboring under the jealousy problem, btw. I think it’s also an easy out for people who don’t see any reason to conserve, or make changes in their own consumption patterns. Those folks probably wouldn’t do so anyway, but this gives a great excuse.
I think the whole point is that ALGORE is a hypocrite. Nothing more, nothing less.