Al Gore's Environmental Footprint is Irrelevant (from Grist magazine)

[NYCGirl]

A really good response to Sean Hannity's ridiculous charges:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/21/113953/985

Having finally gotten the memo that the debate on climate change science is over, conservatives now need a new attack on green advocates. It appears they're reverting to an old standby: hypocrisy. Watch (via Hugg) as FOX News' Sean Hannity lays out the charge against Al Gore:

http://www.hugg.com/story/Sean-Hannity-Tells-Al-Gore-How-To-Save-Polar-Bears/

The hypocrisy attack on environmentalists is extremely common, so it's worth discussing why it's almost entirely bogus. I've inveighed against it numerous times (see here, here, here, here, and here LINKS IN STORY), but once more for the cheap seats.

Hannity fails to mention that Al Gore works hard to mitigate his impact on the climate. Gore purchases offsets to account for the carbon emissions of all his air travel, just as he did for his movie and his book. He purchases green power for his home, drives a hybrid, and flies commercial when possible. But he's no doubt slipped up and there's no doubt more he could do. A snide, tabloidy cable-TV debate over Gore's personal rectitude is just what conservatives want. It's red meat and character assassination rather than substantive policy debate (i.e., it's FOX).

But it's utterly beside the point. Nobody -- least of all Al Gore -- would claim that it's possible in today's world to be a high-profile issue advocate without negatively affecting the environment. It's scarcely possible to be a functioning citizen of a developed country without having a substantial environmental footprint.

MUCH MORE AT FIRST LINK ABOVE

[moblsv]

1. F*ck Hannity

he and anybody stupid enough to buy his b.s. are not worth the effort

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. The first step is for rich bloggers to stop labeling non-car owners "non-functioning citizens". n/t

[Lisa]

5. they do that? Sheesh! They probably turn around and claim that ...

.... anybody who DOES happen to own a car, pulls down a 6-figure income, and dedicates themselves to environmental issues is a "hypocrite". (I've heard similar attitudes about poverty activism ... those involved who live very simply are "crazy freaks", while anybody else who is wealthier than average is a "limousine liberal" even if they give a lot to the cause.)

Can't win with those folks ... so might as well just ignore them.

[SlowDownFast]

3. Hannity makes me want to

break out my Louisville Slugger and go to town on my TV.

Better my TV, than driving to Faux News studio and waiting outside for ToeHead, slugger in-tow...

[Lisa]

4. that sort of thing is setting up a false dilemma, anyway

It's kind of like saying "even the people who were opposed to slavery ended up relying on the labor of those who were worse off than themselves -- and unless the person who's working for you is being paid the same or more than you are, it's exploitation. So if that's the case, why bother banning slavery or having labor legislation, since somebody is going to be exploited eventually?"

Using "grey areas" to avoid taking any ethical stance is sloppy logic. Luckily, it didn't prevent countries from outlawing slavery, and enacting laws to halt child labor, unsafe working conditions, forced overtime, etc. -- while none of these situations have been completely eradicated from the world today, at least the majority of people now see them as wrong.

[NYCGirl]

6. False dilemmas are the GOP's stock in trade, along with false outrage. NT