|
Alright, I did a little reading up on this story. Now, this is my opinion which I'm sure will seem like Gore bashing. But....
As the self-proclaimed leader of the Green movement, Al Gore should've understood that he would be scrutinized. The motives of the conserative group may be in question, but the Gore's didn't dispute the figures other than to say that they work at home and are basically "carbon neutral".
What they've done is calculate their "carbon footprint" which is some mathematical way of determining how much overall pollution you are responsible for. After the calculation, your supposed to take steps to reduce your cabon emissions by doing different things like the Gore's have in some instances. Solar panels, hybrid cars and fluorescent light bulbs.
The part of the story that really makes the Gore's seem hypocritical to me is that using 20 times more power(not the bill, the actual kilowatts used), than the average home is somehow "offset" by purchasing carbon credits. That's where you buy some sort of credit to encourage someone, somewhere, to reduce their carbon emissions.
So to me, if you're the leader of the Green movement, you should be reducing consumption, no matter how it's produced, to really show your convictions. Not just consume excessively and claim to be "carbon neutral" because you can afford to buy some sort of "carbon credit" to justify it.
To me, it'd be like Hugh Hefner proclaiming to be the leader of the morality movement. As long as he was bedding down girls with high morals and purchasing morality credits, he could be "moral neutral".
Mark
__________________
I don't need an engineer.
|
