Quote:
Originally Posted by firebug
No one will call you a hypocrite for what you are doing.
The issue w/ Gore (and Suzuki) is that there lifestyle is not environmentally sustainable. Even with offsetting his carbon, wouldn't it be wiser, environmentally speaking, to reduce the consumption in the first place seeing as that energy he used (wasted) will never be replaced.
Many of us make sacrifices to reduce our impact on the environment, however i hope some day that I might be able to sacrifice enough to need to offset my 10,000 sq ft home's electricity... and then tell everyone else how they need to reduce their impact.
~bug
|
Let's not lose sight of who the REAL hypocrites are in this situation. A right-wing think tank whose STATED agenda is to contradict global warming science is criticizing Gore for.... wait for it..... not doing enough to prevent the global crisis that they don't believe in! Seriously, this is a weak ad hominem argument that represents everything that is wrong with politics, where people aren't held accountable for their attacks. That's why politics in the U.S. is so disgusting, by comparison to Canada. The only way to stop this strategy is if we stop being fooled by it.
Consider that this attack comes in spite of the fact that Gore IS doing something to minimize his own carbon usage--which is one of the reasons his energy bill is so high--he pays more per kilowatt hour than someone who is on the grid in a conventional sense.
You may believe that he should do more: fine. That doesn't contradict Gore's message--it enhances it. But I will say this: Gore is doing something that all of us, in theory, could do. If he were to go off-grid, he would be implementing a plan that isn't feasible for the average person. Setting an example?
I think so.