Brokaw to Gore: Shouldn't you be using less energy?

Deceiver wonders why the rhetoric of “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself” slips so easily from the lips of celebrity eco-hypocrites. The Goracle’s defense here is that he’s doing his fair share, but if the problem’s as screamingly urgent as he claims, why not do everything he can? This is the old argument about taxes in another guise: If the left thinks tax rates are irresponsibly low, they can always voluntarily pay more than they owe to help solve the problem. If Gore thinks we’re on the precipice of global catastrophe, you’d think he’d be willing to sell the big house, buy something more modest, and plow the difference into credits to offset as much carbon use by other people as possible. If this is a genuine climate emergency, in other words, why is the goal of environmentalists to be carbon neutral instead of carbon negative? This is no idle gotcha, either. Greens (or rather fringe greens, but only for the moment) who want to float ideas like taxing reproduction to reduce the carbon load are going to have to explain why Joe Public should forego having another kid before Al Gore foregoes having his mansion.

Update: A follow-up point from Mike Warren — what’s the average middle-class family supposed to do with Gore’s?

I am more bothered by the fact that we are supposed to absolve Al Gore of his environmental sins because he has all this expensive technology that offsets all of the crap he’s putting into the air.

Where does that leave us normal Americans who can’t afford to “retrofit” our homes to be environmentally holy with “geothermal systems” and solar panels on our roofs? The point is that given the option between being environmentally conscious and having modern conveniences, we all have a tipping point toward the latter.