At the Environment and Public Works hearing this afternoon, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) displayed an amazing lack of understanding about energy as he tried to get Gore to make a meaningless pledge. Now the EPW Minority web page repeats the inane charge:
But why should Gore take such a pledge? Gore is a champion of greenhouse gas reductions, not energy reductions. Gore explained he buys 100% renewable power and is planning to build a solar power system. Thus the electricity Gore consumes in his Tennessee home does not contribute to global warming.
It is conservatives who mistakenly argue that the only way to meet emission reduction targets is by sharply reducing energy use. Conservatives make this argument to try to scare the public into opposing action on climate change. But Gore’s whole point is that smart energy use, including renewables, can allow us to grow the economy while fighting global warming.
Inhofe then introduced another red herring:
“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do.”
But directly purchasing renewables is completely different from buying carbon offsets, and such purchases are not a gimmick for the wealthy–millions already do the same. Inhofe seems completely unaware of that fact. His entire attack on Gore was both inaccurate and shrill, a sharp contrast to Gore’s statesmanlike tour-de-force, truly a “triumphant return” for the former Representative and Senator.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
[...] The other side of why Gore could be considered to have a duty to run is how the wing nuts in the oth…When they start calling you names you know you’re sitting pretty. Gore prompts his opponents to lose their minds. Call up Technorati.com, type in Gore, and read the right wing response to his Congressional appearance. [...]
“It is conservatives…”
I think we should try to avoid the term “conservative,” because they’re not conservative. I like this sentiment from Crooked Timber: “there’s nothing conservative about these guys: they are radicals in policy, not to mention epistemology. A better term might be ‘movement conservatives’ or just ‘Republicans’.”
http://crookedtimber.org/ 2007/ 01/ 19/ connecting-the-dots-2/
As much as I agree with Al Gore on the many problems all the planet’s inhabitants are facing due to global warming I find the reluctance to reduce energy consumption bothersome. But maybe I’m misunderstanding things. I would think Mr. Gore is for reducing energy consumption as well, he just doesn’t want to be tarred as someone who advocates making people adopt a lower standard of living. And I would also think that this is the way that the likes of Sen Inhofe are trying to get anyone advocating energy conservation to seen by the general public.
Energy conversation and reduction of consumption should be the first line of action any responsible individual takes if they are truely interested in addressing this problem. Mindless consumption is what got us all in this predicament in the first place.
For the vast majority of us no further investment is required to reduce wasteful consumption. There are many things we can all do that will not have any significant impact on our creature comforts or life style. It just takes becoming more sensitive to how we each individually can be less wasteful.
Paco is correct. It is inconceivable that the reductions in fossil fuel usage that are required to arrest CO2 emmissions will not impact the lifestyle and standard of living, at is were, of those living in the energy intensive West. While developing renewable, sustainable sources of energy is laudable and appropriate, thoughts that we’re going to drive Hummers, fly 747s and continue to build McMansion ad infinitum based on such sources is ludicrous. The sooner Americans and the rest of the over-powered Western world demand a different life-style, one of energy minimization, the better off we’ll all be. Otherwise, we’re just making ourselves feel good rearranging the deck chairs a sinking ship.
While I agree that reducing usage is one of the most important things we could in theory do, I disagree with Steve. It is conceivable to dramatically cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without changing lifestyle. I would personally rather we changed our lifestyle, but I know that is not going to happen without a crisis (at which point it is too late), so I think it is very much in our interest to find solutions that don’t change lifestyle, or we are all losers (both the changers and the non-changers). For example, we could save 1.6 gigatons of CO2 emissions (26% of U.S. CO2 emissions) by adopting California’s energy efficiency standards at the Federal level (Californian’s use 44% less kWh of electricity per capita than the U.S. average) and selectively burning less coal as a result of the 1634 TWh thereby saved each year. Californians don’t have a worse standard of living; they are simply more efficient. They are not more efficient because they are more virtuous, but because of state policies, incentives, and regulations that affect the choices they make. Similarly, I would love the U.S. to end its addiction to the SUV, but in reality we don’t need to; we can convert our existing ugly vehicle fleet to plug-in hybrids that get most of their energy from the electric grid without changing the U.S. lifestyle one bit. Since the electric grid can be supplied with solar and wind power, and the backup fuel for these plug-in hybrids could be algae biodiesel, we could eliminate the 140.4 billion gallons of gasoline used in the U.S. each year without a change of lifestyle, and eliminate 1.2 gigatons of CO2 emissions. It takes only 3,000 sq. mi. of the Mojave desert to generate enough solar power to replace 140.4 billion gallons of gasoline (cost would be $14B per year over 30 years–much less than what we spend on Iraq).
If you ask people to change their lifestyle, you’re asking for Greenland’s ice to slide into the Atlantic ocean. If you offer them a way to eliminate GHG and keep their lifestyle, you have a chance of making a difference.
Joe, thanks for encouraging a full view of Gore’s House testimony. He makes some very provocative and compelling proposals. On the same day Gore spoke the EPA held their annual Energy Star awards ceremony in Washington. Over 4 hours about 100 companies and organizations were honored for their specific contributions to improving energy efficiency in 2006. The accomplishments were stunning in their breadth and depth, as was their continued comittment to further rachet up their efforts. Strikingly, these organizations represent only 1% of the participants of the Energy Star program. After sitting through these four hours of testimonials, my sense of faith and optimism was renewed based on solid and substantial evidence. Gore’s presentation to the House was well conceived, respectful, authoritative, and fundamentally brimming with optimism by calling on all of us to embark on a a set of can-do approaches that are novel and impactful.
I think we should try to avoid the term “conservative,” because they’re not conservative. I like this sentiment from Crooked Timber: “there’s nothing conservative about these guys: they are radicals in policy, not to mention epistemology
Paco is correct. It is inconceivable that the reductions in fossil fuel usage that are required to arrest CO2 emmissions will not impact the lifestyle and standard of living, at is were, of those living in the energy intensive West. While developing renewable, sustainable sources of energy is laudable and appropriate, thoughts that we’re going to drive Hummers, fly 747s and continue to build McMansion ad infinitum based on such sources is ludicrous. The sooner Americans and the rest of the over-powered Western world demand a different life-style, one of energy minimization, the better off we’ll all be. Otherwise, we’re just making ourselves feel good rearranging the deck chairs a sinking ship