Et tu, Al?
A one-man, conservative "think tank" got his paws on Al Gore's 2005 and 2006 utility bills and called foul this week. Seems that Al and Tipper Gore racked up a $30,000 utility bill in their Tennessee home(stead) last year. Yow!
ABC News breaks down the figures. Nutjob uber-conservatives are using this information to call out the Gores for a hypocritical lifestyle. Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic global warming is a major problem.
But let's take a closer look at the data. Here's what I see, based on what I spent in Alexandria, VA in 2005.
I lived in a 750sq. ft. ground-floor flat down the road from the Pentagon. The Washington, DC area has four defined seasons including snowy, icy winters and stinky, hot summers. Having spent considerable time in Northern Alabama, I can attest that Tennessee is no less wintry (sometimes worse b/c Southern states get more ice than snow) and is even stinkier than DC in the summer.
I worked outside my home, and had a busy lifestyle that often kept me out of the house at night and on weekends. Most of my time at home was spent sleeping. I was very careful to turn off lights when I wasn't around, but I did have various electronics that probably sucked electricity in their standby state. I had an EnergyStar dishwasher, but my fridge was about 8 years old. I rarely cooked, and when I prepared food at home I usually made sandwiches. I only paid for electricity. Water and gas were including in my condo fees. I probably consumed less electricity in the summer than most people in the DC area because my condo was naturally cool. My average electricity bill was around $120/month. That is $120 per month for barely being in my one bedroom condo. Interestingly, when my condo was empty while I tried to sell it, the bill plummeted to about $30/month. Even just sitting around, we're expensive creatures.
No credible source is reporting on the square footage of the building in question (only nutjob right-wing bloggers who don't cite their sources), but the Gores' utility bills are based on a 20 room main house and a pool house (it's not clear how big the pool house is and whether or not it contains their pool). Just looking at the home, the Gores paid $544/month in 2006 for electricity and gas*. That's only $424 per month more than my electricity-only bill, and they own a structure that is many, many times bigger than my home. He and his wife also work from their home, so to be truly fair one should look at comparable figures for office space where computers and office equipment as well as lights and such are on all day. My conclusion is that foot-for-foot and figuring that they probably spend more time at home than I did, their bill is really comparable to mine.
But the heart of the matter is whether or not it's hypocritical for the Gores to live in a giant home while encouraging less energy consumption by Americans. I have to conclude: no. Here's my reasoning.
1) I do think a pool house is a bit excessive. Then again, my parents are pretty average and they have a pool that has a heater. An awful lot of Americans have backyard pools. I don't see a reason why the Gores can't have one too, and anyway he never said people shouldn't have pools.
2) A 20 room house also feels excessive. But, if it's energy efficient, the size of the house doesn't necessarily matter. The ABC News article reports that Gore is renovating the home to be more efficient, particularly since it's older. They already purchase green power and are installing solar panels. They have taken other measures to make the house more efficient. These technologies will allow us to keep our big American homes. In anything, they're going to show us how to do it.
3) If the Gores don't live in that house, someone else will. That someone else may or may not make energy efficient improvements to it. Should the Gores build a new one? No. From an environmental impact standpoint the cost of building a new house, even a really green one, can be higher than retrofitting an old one. New homes require new timber and other materials processed from raw materials (extraction and processing have big impact), transport costs for materials and workers, energy use during construction, the removal of trees and shrubs from the property itself, the reinstallation of landscaping (garden centers use energy and excessive amounts of water), etc. etc. The list goes on. We already know that it's better to reduce and reuse before recycling, meaning that even building a new home with some recycled materials is more impactful than updating an old one.
4) Al Gore's message is about presenting the facts of global warming and its impact on our planet. His home doesn't change that. He also does a great job pointing out that individuals can make small changes that have a big impact. I caught him on Oprah a few weeks ago going through a Home Depot shopping for energy-efficient home improvements. For something like $30, you can make your home 30% more efficient. My point is that he doesn't advocate wholesale changes (though I think he should). He doesn't tell people to move out of their McMansions. There's a lot you can still do without upsetting your lifestyle, and that's his message. Who wants to bet that many hypocrite finger-pointers haven't even seen "An Inconvenient Truth" or read the book? Who's the hypocrite?
5) I agree with those that say that this new "study" is the last breath of the global warming naysayers. These are not people that are holding Gore up to a higher standard. These are people who want to dig their head in the sand. Really what's the point of calling someone a hypocrite anyway? Do you feel that it gives you an excuse to ignore the advice? Does it really make his message less potent? If you want a reason to cop out and this is it, you're the one that's lame and, frankly, you suck. You are not contributing to solving the problem by calling Gore names. Al Gore is doing something, and you are not. You are actually the hypocrite.
6) Some people say that this affects Gore's credibility. Huh? That makes no sense. He didn't do the research and come up with the facts. He's just talking about them. I can't stress this enough: none of this business about his house changes the message. This is a classic case of shooting the messenger. Just because you don't want to hear it, doesn't mean that you shouldn't listen. Vilify Al Gore all you want, it's not going to make the problem go away. Period.
* I compared my 2005 bill to Gore's 2006 bill for a few reasons. I left the US at the end of 2005, so that's the only data I have. Also, the difference in costs between 2005 and 2006 could reflect cheaper gas prices in 2006. Because I don't know how much gas I used, I thought it would be better to give the Gores a bit of a handicap. However, even with their higher 2005 bill, I think my point remains the same; foot-for-foot they're not leading excessive lives.
Labels: climate change
