Al Gore – Apocalyptic Hypocrite?

Peter Schweizer’s recent article on the apparent hypocrisy of Al Gore championing climate change in his Inconvenient Truth movie while living in three homes and flying in private jets raises some interesting questions.

As I noted in my review of the film, Gore’s travel schedule imposes a beefy carbon footprint, but given the urgency of his message may be justified.

Schweizer ad hominem critique highlights a number of areas where he claims Gore’s personal behavior is hypocritical:

  • His large stock holdings in Occidental Petroleum and earnings from zinc mining’s.
  • The lack of use of green energy in his properties.
  • The conspicuous consumption involved in owning multiple homes, one a 10,000 sq ft behemoth.
  • The pollution caused from private jet use.
  • Schweizer concludes:

    Maybe our very existence isn’t threatened.
    .
    .
    The issue here is not simply Gore’s hypocrisy; it’s a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth, and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn’t he made any radical change in his life? Giving up one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

    I think these are cheap shots. Asserting that someone’s argument is wrong because of something discreditable about the person rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself is a classic logical fallacy.

    Consider. Gore has an important message he is trying to deliver across the planet. He can’t do this effectively if he was to travel by bicycle to talk to audiences. Flying in a private jet is environmentally damaging, but the captains of industry do it daily. If he is to be effective he can’t have one hand tied behind his back.

    Secondly, the homes he owns are not a-typical of those owned by the elite in America. If he was to sell them and move into modest housing someone else would be burning energy to heat and cool them. What’s he to do, demolish them? Better he stays and tries to run them energy-efficiently.

    Finally, any of us with a diversified 401(k) have shares in mining and petroleum companies. Of course, we could sacrifice returns and stay with socially responsible funds, but these often underperform the market.

    The response that is needed to global warming is not necessarily to adopt a hair-shirt lifestyle. American public opinion is not receptive to those who’ve tried this. The reputation of Ralph Nader, President Carter and “Governor Moonbeam” Brown of California were not helped by their nods to personal sacrifice and low rent accouterments.

    It’s not Gore’s personal lifestyle that’s in question. Rather, it’s the potential impact of climate change on a global scale. He’s done an excellent job communicating the urgency of this in his book and movie. Tripping him up for not living up to the suggestions he made to reduce carbon emissions distracts from the scale of change that is really needed.

    Sure, we all need to try and reduce our carbon footprint. And those of us lucky enough to live in advanced economies will need to adjust our material consumption downward by a significant amount. The small percentage of the world’s population that live in the United States cannot continue to consume many times our fair share of energy resources.

    Personal choices made by Americans play a role in helping the planet. But serious policy changes (for instance in the CAFE standards for average gas consumption) have a much larger effect. These changes will occur due to legislation resulting from democratic debate as the scale of the crisis unfolds.

    Even larger changes will result in response to global forces unleashed by the rest of the world against those who foul the planet. A terrorist campaign with roots in the climatically dispossessed is not unthinkable. The way we deal with it is worth consideration.

    And the largest role of all will be played by the planet. Once the ice melts and sea levels rise there probably won’t be a home in America that only has one family living it in. Refugees from the coasts will be billeted in the all of the Gore’s fancy residences. The water lapping at the doors of the Hoover Institution will give Peter Schweizer more concern than Gore’s personal lifestyle.

    5 Comments so far
    Leave a comment

    Ian, you’re generally right that we should focus on the real issue regarding global warming rather than ad hominem attacks.

    However, I think that Gore’s critics have a point if they say that his behavior is a measure of his conviction. (Isn’t that true for all leaders?) For instance, he could probably reduce his carbon footprint substantially just by flying first class rather than private jet. If he wants me to give up an SUV while he flies on a Gulfstream, he lacks credibility. But suppose he says, “I’ve changed my own lifestyle to reduce my carbon footprint by 25%. It’s an inconvenience to me, but worth it for the sake of the environment. I challenge you to match my 25% reduction.” Then middle-of-the-roaders are more likely to stand up and listen.

    Ian. I think you are correct. These are cheap shots. Probably politically motivated.

    You are also correct in stating that the argument is not made invalid because of personal attributes of the arguer.

    However, Peter’s article never questioned the validity of global warming. He questioned the congruency of Mr. Gore. Any leader that does not practice what he preaches will be suspect.

    For example, you consult on executive presentations. If your website looked like a third-grader built it, would you be credible? I think not.

    Also, Mr. Gore’s social status should not allow him to do things he is asking everyone else not to do.

    The issue here is the congruency (brand totality) of Mr. Gore. He is trying to build his personal brand as environmetally friendly. But he is using a non-environmentally friendly process to build it.

    p.s. I love your blog.

    Dean:

    Good points! I think the ball is in Al Gore’s court if he wants to position himself as a climate change leader. (Will he run? Won’t he run?)

    I assumed the author of the article was trying to poke holes in the underlying climate change argument by his statement:

    “Maybe our very existence isn’t threatened.”

    But realize this just might be a rhetorical device.

    Ian

    Hi Ian,

    This is fair article you’ve put together in the face of some pretty lop sided argument, and credit to you for critquing the article on the basis of the argument itself, rather that the ad hominem tangents. As it turns out, those off topic critiques are also false, ane have been refuted by both a USA today correction, and Gore’s own people. fyi – Here is a link from my site addressing the misleading statements.

    Keep up the great work!

    If he needs to spread his knowledge, why doesn’t he take advantage of teleconferencing? That is more carbon friendly than a private jet. 🙂



    Leave a comment
    Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

    (required)

    (required)