3 ms·

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#010820 http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#01... Klein observes that Chait’s ri

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#010820 http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#01... Klein observes that Chait’s riff here is the equivalent of those people who attack Al Gore for being a global-warming crusader even though he rides in cars and uses light bulbs. Of course it is; the point of such attacks is, first, to deride anyone who says anything that makes us feel uncomfortable, and second, to establish that we need listen to radical truths only if they’re spoken by people who live lives of saintly renunciation. Since such people are very rare, this guarantees we won’t be frequently disturbed.

gaius 18y ago
That is a ridiculous counterargument. No-one is asking Al Gore to wear a hair shirt for our sins. All he has to do is walk the walk, just as he advocates that we do. How often do you think the other 11 bedrooms of his mansion are slept in? How often is his pool swum in? These things are pure ostentation. It's not even like his pool is solar heated!
- tptacek 18y ago
  Why does he need to walk the walk? What does his walk have to do with his argument? Who's going to wake up in the morning and say, "you know, I was on the fence on this whole climate change thing, but if Al Gore is going to drive a Honda civic, I'd better sell my Hummer?"
  - laut 18y ago
    If Al Gore thinks it is so dangerous to live the way he does, why does he continue to do so? Why does he not himself do, what he wants to coerce everyone else to do? For crying out loud. It screams hypocrisy!
    - tptacek 18y ago
      If I eat a Big Mac today, am I wrong if I say McDonalds is unhealthy?
      - kajecounterhack 18y ago
        No, but if you say McDonalds is unhealthy and you eat big macs all the time then you're just being stupid... So why would you do something you think is stupid...? unless you're stupid?
        jamiequint 18y ago
        Possibly because McDonalds affects you directly and global warming is more of a Tragedy of the Commons situation.
      - laut 18y ago
        Here's another version of the analogy: you say that eating Big Macs will cause other people to die and cities to sink into the ocean, and that I should limit my intake of Big Macs because of this. It's OK if I continue to eat some Big Macs, though as long as I pay you a tax or buy Big Mac credits from your company and I let you regulate what I eat. If I don't pay the tax you have imposed on Big Macs, I will be thrown into jail. If I then resist going to jail, you will have the police kill me. In light of those claims, I find it strange that you (the fictional Ron-Al McGore) are not really changing your eating habit of at least 4 Big Macs at every meal.
        emmett 18y ago
        Your analogy is close, but flawed. Instead, I suggest the following as an analogy for your argument: Al Gore is arguing for an across the board tax increase. He thinks that everyone should pay more taxes. On the other hand, he's not donating his money to the government. If Al Gore really thought it was a good idea to raise taxes, wouldn't he pay them whether the government mandates it or not? That illustrates more clearly the fact that action on global warming is collective, the same way that taxes are. In fact, you could probably implement action on global warming as a tax increase, by requiring people to purchase carbon credits. I hope you see why it's not required for you to donate extra money to the government in order to argue for a tax increase. Given that, I hope you see why it's not required for you to preemptively stop consuming carbon to argue for government action on global warming.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Citizen consumption is almost irrelevant when it comes to CO2 emissions. Criticizing people for having big houses or driving SUVs misses the point. We need a change in our energy sources away from coal. We have cost-effective technologies already, yet still 40% of our emissions come from burning it to create power.
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    And at this point in the troll thread it's probably too late to point out that Al Gore has apparently gone out of his way to power his house with renewable energy. [1] Because, you know, of what use are facts in a character assassination? But the point is that Al Gore is not advocating that you live like a hermit. He's advocating that hermits live like hermits on renewable power, that lawyers live like lawyers on renewable power, and that millionaires live like millionaires on renewable power. Which he does, to the extent that the infrastructure makes it easy. And then, because he's neither a back-to-nature homesteader nor a backyard engineer, he wisely invests his time and energy in what he is good at: lobbying for better infrastructure so that we can all create less CO2. The irony is that if Al Gore did live like Saint Francis he would be less effective. He would be accused of being some kind of scary hippie socialist. That script is just sitting on the shelf waiting to be used. "What does Al Gore have against the average middle-class millionaire?" would be the cry. "He wants to force you to live like a hermit even after you make ten million dollars!" Or maybe they'd just make fun of his hair. That never gets old. [1] Wikipedia entry on "Al Gore". I'm not about to descend farther into the research chain, dodging propaganda all the way. Talk about a waste of CO2. It's not like facts are going to do any good in this thread anyway.

gaius 18y ago

That is a ridiculous counterargument. No-one is asking Al Gore to wear a hair shirt for our sins. All he has to do is walk the walk, just as he advocates that we do. How often do you think the other 11 bedrooms of his mansion are slept in? How often is his pool swum in? These things are pure ostentation. It's not even like his pool is solar heated!

tptacek 18y ago
Why does he need to walk the walk? What does his walk have to do with his argument? Who's going to wake up in the morning and say, "you know, I was on the fence on this whole climate change thing, but if Al Gore is going to drive a Honda civic, I'd better sell my Hummer?"
- laut 18y ago
  If Al Gore thinks it is so dangerous to live the way he does, why does he continue to do so? Why does he not himself do, what he wants to coerce everyone else to do? For crying out loud. It screams hypocrisy!
  - tptacek 18y ago
    If I eat a Big Mac today, am I wrong if I say McDonalds is unhealthy?
    - kajecounterhack 18y ago
      No, but if you say McDonalds is unhealthy and you eat big macs all the time then you're just being stupid... So why would you do something you think is stupid...? unless you're stupid?
      - jamiequint 18y ago
        Possibly because McDonalds affects you directly and global warming is more of a Tragedy of the Commons situation.
    - laut 18y ago
      Here's another version of the analogy: you say that eating Big Macs will cause other people to die and cities to sink into the ocean, and that I should limit my intake of Big Macs because of this. It's OK if I continue to eat some Big Macs, though as long as I pay you a tax or buy Big Mac credits from your company and I let you regulate what I eat. If I don't pay the tax you have imposed on Big Macs, I will be thrown into jail. If I then resist going to jail, you will have the police kill me. In light of those claims, I find it strange that you (the fictional Ron-Al McGore) are not really changing your eating habit of at least 4 Big Macs at every meal.
      - emmett 18y ago
        Your analogy is close, but flawed. Instead, I suggest the following as an analogy for your argument: Al Gore is arguing for an across the board tax increase. He thinks that everyone should pay more taxes. On the other hand, he's not donating his money to the government. If Al Gore really thought it was a good idea to raise taxes, wouldn't he pay them whether the government mandates it or not? That illustrates more clearly the fact that action on global warming is collective, the same way that taxes are. In fact, you could probably implement action on global warming as a tax increase, by requiring people to purchase carbon credits. I hope you see why it's not required for you to donate extra money to the government in order to argue for a tax increase. Given that, I hope you see why it's not required for you to preemptively stop consuming carbon to argue for government action on global warming.
mattmaroon 18y ago
Citizen consumption is almost irrelevant when it comes to CO2 emissions. Criticizing people for having big houses or driving SUVs misses the point. We need a change in our energy sources away from coal. We have cost-effective technologies already, yet still 40% of our emissions come from burning it to create power.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  And at this point in the troll thread it's probably too late to point out that Al Gore has apparently gone out of his way to power his house with renewable energy. [1] Because, you know, of what use are facts in a character assassination? But the point is that Al Gore is not advocating that you live like a hermit. He's advocating that hermits live like hermits on renewable power, that lawyers live like lawyers on renewable power, and that millionaires live like millionaires on renewable power. Which he does, to the extent that the infrastructure makes it easy. And then, because he's neither a back-to-nature homesteader nor a backyard engineer, he wisely invests his time and energy in what he is good at: lobbying for better infrastructure so that we can all create less CO2. The irony is that if Al Gore did live like Saint Francis he would be less effective. He would be accused of being some kind of scary hippie socialist. That script is just sitting on the shelf waiting to be used. "What does Al Gore have against the average middle-class millionaire?" would be the cry. "He wants to force you to live like a hermit even after you make ten million dollars!" Or maybe they'd just make fun of his hair. That never gets old. [1] Wikipedia entry on "Al Gore". I'm not about to descend farther into the research chain, dodging propaganda all the way. Talk about a waste of CO2. It's not like facts are going to do any good in this thread anyway.