John Tierney, no friend of the global warming camp, discusses “carbon footprints” this morning in his “Times Select” column (sorry, no free access). Al Gore he says:<\/p>\n
He advises you to change your light bulbs, insulate your home, and cut back on driving and air travel. If you must make a trip, he notes helpfully, \u201cbuses provide the cheapest and most energy-efficient transportation for long distances.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And yet,<\/p>\n
Fine advice, and it would be even better if he journeyed to his lectures exclusively on Greyhound. But he seems to prefer cars and planes. When you tally up his international travel to inspect melting glaciers and the domestic trips between his homes \u2014 one in Washington and another in Nashville, not to mention the family farm in rural Tennessee featured in the movie \u2014 you\u2019re looking at a Godzilla-sized carbon footprint.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Tierney doesn’t draw the fallacious conclusion–that Al Gore’s position (we should reduce our carbon footprints) is false. Instead he seems to be suggesting the conclusion, which is not necessarily fallacious, that “Al Gore is a hypocrite.” <\/p>\n
We should note that although this is not necessarily fallacious, it isn’t obvious that the evidence above provides good reason to believe that Al Gore is in fact a hypocrite. In fact, Al Gore–much to the chagrin of many environmentalists–has always favored various market solutions to carbon emissions:<\/p>\n
Gore and David say they offset their energy usage by sponsoring reductions in greenhouse gases through alternative forms of power and energy conservation (like building wind farms and paying farmers to turn methane into electricity).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But, how does Tierney argue that this isn’t sufficient? By invoking the judgment of a more radical environmentalist position:<\/p>\n
Quoting Gandhi \u2014 \u201cBe the change you want to see in the world\u201d \u2014 Komanoff says his fellow environmentalists should stop offering \u201cget out of purgatory free\u201d cards [carbon offsets] to the rich and instead insist that everyone personally reduce energy use.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So apparently, Gore’s position is not internally hypocritical, though Komanoff disagrees with it. Nonetheless, Tierney thinks that if you want to work to reduce carbon emissions you must accept Komanoff’s positions:<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not such a purist myself \u2014 I\u2019d let the average person salve his conscience with a carbon indulgence. But I\u2019d hold environmentalist preachers like Gore to higher standards, especially when they\u2019re engaging in unnecessary energy use.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The tu quoque<\/em> fallacy is an interesting one. If one is too explicit with the fallacy, it isn’t very effective. But subtle forms of it–like Tierney’s here–which assert hypocrisy and therefore suggest that the messenger and the message are somehow compromised are very effective. Most readers of Tierney’s column will probably conclude that because Al Gore is a hypocrite his arguments and prescriptions do not need to be taken seriously. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
John Tierney, no friend of the global warming camp, discusses “carbon footprints” this morning in his “Times Select” column (sorry, no free access). Al Gore he says: He advises you to change your light bulbs, insulate your home, and cut back on driving and air travel. If you must make a trip, he notes helpfully, … Continue reading Et tu quoque Al Gore<\/span>