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. H

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.