When Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” won best documentary feature in February 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research brought up an inconvenient truth of its own; the fact that Al Gore used 20 times more energy in his home than the average American household. Not wanting to be embarrassed, Mr. Gore went ahead and installed myriad energy saving devices, such as solar panels, in order to abolish his hypocrite status and save face. Fast forward to June 2008, and T.C.P.R. has again snooped into Gore’s electricity bills to find he has actually increased his energy use by 10% since installing said energy saving devices. According to T.C.P.R., the amount of energy Gore uses is enough to power 232 homes for a month! So does that mean Gore really doesn’t care about Global Warming, or that these so called “energy saving devices” don’t do much? Either way, between global warming investments and speaking fees related to the subject, he has managed to bring in an estimated $100 million since becoming the poster child for Global Warming hysteria. And it’s not just his energy consumption that has caused this charlatan criticism; according to Samuel Thernstrom from the American Enterprise Institute, the Kyotol protocol (which was negotiated for the U.S. by Gore himself) has done tremendous harm to efforts of fighting climate change since it has “stopped us from pursuing more realistic alternatives“. Thernstrom believes that if Kyoto didn’t come to pass there would still be people hard at work to discover realistic goals for curbing climate change. Not only that, but he mentions the fact that no country has yet to come close to reaching their Kyoto targets, including Canada who says it has no chance of meeting it’s specified goals. The reason Kyoto is so unrealistic is that it will do tremendous amounts of damage economically, in order to accomplish very little. Thernstrom recommends going back to the drawing board to come up with new clean energy and transportation technologies-including the creation of affordable cars run by hydrogen fuel cells. He also suggests following France’s lead in utilizing nuclear energy.
Lastly, Marlo Lewis who is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains that while there is still an estimated 1.6 billion people who do not have access to electricity, and another 2.4 billion who lack efficient means of cooking and heating their homes, an “energy diet” is not conducive to improving their health and/or life span. And can we really expect a growing China and India to stop their economic growth and move backwards from where they have come? Lewis also brings up the fact that if we were to implement the Kyoto targets here in the U.S., already increasing energy prices would rise even higher, affecting millions of families.
If Al Gore really and truly cared about saving the world, wouldn’t he have thought of these things?
