An Inconvenient Disclosure of Al Gore's Utility Bill
Conservatives and ID theorists alike are having a riot with the report released yesterday from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that shows how Al Gore's Tennessee mansion uses more electricity in one month than the average American home consumes in a year.
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.
This is terribly funny, though for Mr. Gore it may turn out to be more inconvenient than his own film purports to be. (According to DaveScot at Uncommon Descent, Gore took a private jet from his Nashville estate to pick up his Sunday Oscar for his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, burning thousands of gallons of fossil fuel in the process.) All this gas guzzling certainly makes Al Gore look like a hypocrite. This is one of the world's biggest spokespersons for consuming less energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and look as his utility bill.
In an interview with National Geographic News just three months ago, Gore said he has "decided to become carbon neutral, which means we reduce CO2 to the maximum and then purchase offsets to offset the remainder with reductions in CO2 elsewhere." And around the house? Said Gore:
Well, we've changed the lightbulbs to the more efficient kind [compact fluorescent, or CFL, lightbulbs] and switched to a hybrid [vehicle], and we use clock thermostats, and we're installing solar panels.
Fluorescent bulbs? Solar panels? It sounds as if these ideas had been only recently implemented at the time of the November interview (in fact, the panels weren't up yet). So maybe the "energy savings" that should result from these steps weren't in effect when Gore paid November's $1,359 electric bill (average monthly figure for 2006) for his Nashville mansion. At least we hope not. CFL bulbs are supposed to use a quarter as much electricity as incandescents, a therefore cost a quarter as much to run.
Considering how much Mr. Gore spends on utilities--$30,000 last year--it's no wonder he's put some thought into cutting back the wattage and natural gas. Here are Gore's energy saving recommendations to the average joe:
Just to take a few quick examples of easy steps; buy the new [CFL] lightbulbs. They're much more efficient; you don't have to change them nearly as often. They use much less electricity, and they save you money on your utility bills.
Consider a clock thermostat, and set it so that you're not using energy when you don't need it, when you're out of your house.
Apparently Mr. Gore needs energy whether he's out of his house or not. Did Tennessee get a lot of snow last year?
Actually, it really doesn't bother me how much power Mr. Gore consumes. I'm not judgmental. Gore pays for his electricity, and he uses a lot because he's a productive man. That's capitalism in action, and I applaud it everywhere.
But . . . as long as Mr. Gore has a right to be productive--why not everyone else?
CFL bulb image from Wikipedia.
A Gore spokeswoman responds to critics of Mr. Gore's power-hungry mansion in this FOX report.
[Spokeswoman Kalee Kreider] said the [Gore's] 60- to 70-year-old house is undergoing renovations to add solar panels to reduce consumption off the power grid, and energy-efficient windows have been installed. The home also uses "compact" fluorescent light bulbs and other energy-saving technology, the Gores drive hybrids and participate in two programs that indirectly reduce carbon emissions.
One is through the local power company — the massive Tennessee Valley Authority — which runs the Green Power Switch program that uses some renewable energy like wind and solar power. The second is through a so-called carbon credit program, in which the Gores pay money to invest in a third party to reduce one ton of carbon emissions for every ton of carbon the Gores emit.
That's fine, but I doubt most Americans could afford to enroll in "carbon credit programs." All Americans, Mr. Gore not excepted, aspire to a certain quality of life, and right now it takes fossil fuel to get there.
Really, it probably wouldn't be a leap to say that the Gores enjoy a quality of life considerably above-average, even for America. When it comes to personal greenhouse gas emissions, who do you think are the biggest culprits, the very wealthy (like the Gores) or lower-class people? For the sake of argument, let's go ahead and presume that the wealthy are the biggest contributers. Then why not have the wealthy neutralize not only their own carbon, but some extra too? After all, they can afford it.
If Mr. Gore is really concerned about a global disaster, it seems as if he'd not only offset his own carbon output, but go the extra mile to help out those who are poorer. Set an example of compassionate leadership. Gore should not just be carbon neutral, he should be carbon negative.


Reader Comments (3)
Daniel,
Just a reminder. I want to know why your blog, which comments on all things NY Times, said nothing about the front-page article on the Creationist getting a PhD in Rhode Island. Tell me what you think and why he is not a headline on your blog.
Neil
This is off topic for this post, but the NYT article Neil is referring to above is about a young earth creationist, Marcus Ross, who received a Ph.D. in geosciences from the University of Rhode Island. The article can be read here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,643,n,n
I understand why Ross approached his dissertation the way he did, using an old earth paradigm to argue a point even though he disagreed with the paradigm. I don't know whether I would do the same thing if I were writing a dissertation myself, but at least to some extent I believe creationists have to use evolutionary terminology when working in a secular environment. For example, if I were writing science news for a secular newspaper, I would report the findings and views of evolutionists, but without implying I agreed with them. I'd have no other choice--except to get fired. Or, if I was taking a secular science exam that asked the question, "How old is the earth?" I would answer "4.5 billion years," not because I agree with that answer but because the purpose of the exam is to test my knowledge.
Which is what's troubling about some people's response to Marcus Ross and the University of Rhode Island: The suggestion that degrees should be withheld from students who disagree with status quo makes the assumption that a school functions to indoctrinate, not educate. A Ph.D. is not a certification of a person's belief, it is a certification of knowledge. Marcus Ross knows geoscience. People are mad at him because geoscience didn't lead him to embrace evolution.
(Neil--I didn't notice this article when it first appeared, otherwise I might have written a post about it.)
Daniel,
OK. I am most surprised that you aren't using Google alerts to let you know about every news mention of Creationism. So many of your posts are creationist intepretations of the NY Times that I would never have expected you to miss a front-page story. It also was the lead item in the Science Times podcast that week.
Neil