You Can Call Me Al

Reading another article, this time in USA Today.

The gist of the article is this. Al Gore isn't nearly as green as he should be. Gore has been presenting his views on global warming throughout the US, but mostly through his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

While the author's point is well taken, this is a borderline "ad hominem" attack. Most people don't seem to mind such attacks because they don't understand debate ("of course Plato wanted philosophers to be kings--he was a philosopher!"). Ad hominem attacks (attacking the person rather than the arguments they make) happen a lot.

Let me put it this way. Al Gore could drive a gas guzzler. He could spray CFCs into the air all day long. He could burn coal for no apparent reason. While this would make Gore a complete hypocrite, this would not necessarily make him wrong.

To give an analogy, suppose our leadership claims that the war is important. Thus, volunteers to fight a war is important. Thus, joining the military is important. Yet, count the number of politician's children have entered the military. I've heard maybe two congressmen's kids are in the military. Why? Is it possible that they don't want their kids killed? Probably.

Even so, the argument may not be wrong. They may feel this war is necessary (not that I do). They don't send their kids to participate in this war. This may be the height of hypocrisy, but the arguments may still make sense (well, not to me). All I'm saying is that you have to debate the arguments on its merits rather than base it on the actions or history of people saying it.

The article claims that Al Gore wants us to change our lives drastically and yet he refuses to. First, is he asking us to change our lives drastically? Turn off the lights, don't drive as much, and so forth? Presumably, those people who find this drastic lifestyle change too harsh wouldn't have changed their habits regardless of how Gore behaved. If Gore was a green saint, they're likely to say he was a kook. Nader advocated (back in the 70s) people use more fuel efficient cars (he was one of the earliest consumer advocates). People were trying to dig up dirt on him, but it turns out that he did live the lifestyle that he advocated (though during his recent presidential bid, someone discovered he had made some prudent stock investments, so he was making some money).

Point is, Gore may still be right, even as he lacks discipline to follow through.

The article mentions going "green". This is one of those weird bits of accounting I don't entirely get. In principle, people can pay for "green". Now, that mostly (I imagine) directs cash to places that provide green power. The actual eletricity you get is on some grid, and there's no particular way to guarantee (short of trying to use local solar or windmills) that the electricity reaching your home really came from a green source. Indeed, even as you might be paying for green power, is there anyway to create more forms of green power with the money? That's the real key. How do we increase use of green power? And why does it have to be more expensive? What is the accounting behind all of this?

It's not that I don't want the country to be more "green", it's that I want it to be more obvious that we are going green. In the 70s, Carter tried to get Americans to be more green. But with coal and gas still a lot cheaper, and the technology not up to par, wind and solar still aren't nearly as viable as it could be. Believe me, it would make a lot of sense if we could cut this dependency (part of the way to do it is nuclear power, but Three Mile Island scared a lot of people off nuclear--Chernobyl didn't help matters either).

The reporter has a point though. Individuals have a hard time changing their habits. It's easier for corporations to change their habits, though, for economic reasons, they may choose not to. It's easier to change habits when not doing so is painful. Thus, people are getting hybrid cars not because they want to be kinder to the enviroment but because gas prices are so high. They simply want to save money. Why the car industry doesn't push more hybrids is beyond me. The reason cars are as fuel efficient as they are is twofold. First, the oil crisis of the seventies did push manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars, and that did help.

Second, because California has rules about how fuel efficient cars has to be, and because they are a big state (much like how Texas, the huge state that it is, influences what books are used in schools because they buy such a huge amount), their standards (mostly with emissions) affect standards of all cars (though some car manufacturers have found ways to cheat their numbers).

The lesson to be learned? The government can do some good, even as companies are sometimes too short-sighted to see it. Companies look to the short term, and don't think about how best they can wean us off our gas habit.