Well, this is a bit inconvenient isn’t it?
Al Gore’s mansion uses more than twice the electricity in one month than the average household does in an entire year.
To which Al Gore responds, “But I buy carbon-offset credits”. Which doesn’t diminish the amount of carbons that Mr. Gore and his family put into the atmosphere.
Go compare Gore’s fossile-fuel burning monstrosity of a house mega-mansion with President Bush’s Crawford Ranch.
_________
Glenn Reynolds thinks that carbon-offsets are iffy anyway:
But if things are as bad as he [Gore] says, is carbon-neutrality enough? Shouldn’t he be paying for all that tree-planting and cutting back on his energy usage? Why be carbon-neutral, if you can be carbon-negative? (And the whole carbon-offset business is kind of iffy anyway).
Captain Ed things Gore’s a hypocrit, too:
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.
(you might notice that I’m using the “Celebrity Moonbats” tag on this post…because that’s what Al Gore has become)
This is going to backfire on the ecoterrorists. They are mega consumers and wasters who try to justify it by the fact that they are rich. It’s truly a do as I say and not as I do. They want people with less money to pay more for everything.
Left by Anonymous on February 27th, 2007 at 10:14 am