February 27, 2007
GORE'S ENERGY USAGE: Al Gore responds to the item on his utility bill, by stressing his carbon-neutral approach.
But if things are as bad as he 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).
Capt. Ed is unimpressed with Gore's response: "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."
But look what's been overlooked in all the coverage. I blame the White House spin machine!