Ad to challenge Gore's planet-saving image

[stephanie]

By Jennifer Harper
March 8, 2008

Former Vice President Al Gore
He has a mighty big carbon footprint.

Al Gore's opulent lifestyle and his virtuous plea to save the planet from global warming don't mesh, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which announced plans yesterday for a new national advertising campaign to showcase the contrast before the American public.

It comes at an unsure time for the former vice president, whose climate efforts have netted both an Oscar and Nobel Prize in the last year. Mr. Gore's finances were questioned this week by Business Week, Bloomberg and others, citing his recent $35 million hedge fund investment and a public investment offering for his cable network Current TV — which could yield a potential $50 million profit.
Yet his name is also being bandied about in some Democratic and progressive circles for a presidential "dream team" ticket pairing him with Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

The CEI ad will highlight Mr. Gore's "hypocrisy," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the free-market public policy group.

"He is the high priest of global warming but he continues his high-flying ways," said Mr. Kazman.

"Restricting affordable energy can affect our jobs and the well-being of this nation. To restrict affordable energy in developing countries would be incredibly disturbing. That could constitute a life and death matter for them," Mr. Kazman said.

SNIP:

"If Gore truly believed the future of Earth is in peril, he would have started at home by doing his part to reduce his own 'carbon footprint.' Instead he wrote a book, made a movie and invested in companies that sell carbon offsets, all while flying on private plane and consuming 20 times more energy than the average American. That tells me that he's nothing more than a modern day snake oil salesman," Mr. Johnson said yesterday.

read the article..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...plate=nextpage

[CharlesAngelicus]

So, what's newsworthy about this? This is almost exactly the criticism leveled against Al Gore in 2000.

Let's face it: This is a classic ad hom attack against Gore. It does nothing to actually debate whether or not Global Warming is good or bad, nor does it debate the relative merits of the environmental movement. It's simply an attack on the messenger.

Mr. Gore's finances were questioned this week by Business Week, Bloomberg and others, citing his recent $35 million hedge fund investment and a public investment offering for his cable network Current TV — which could yield a potential $50 million profit.

Is this bad? I thought the American dream was to make money! Make up your minds, please. But again, what does his investment strategy have to do with the topic of environmentalism? Please, give us a call when Mr. Gore is dumping barrels of oil on top of helpless baby seals in the arctic.

"Restricting affordable energy can affect our jobs and the well-being of this nation."

Why is this necessarily true? Why is the former a particularly bad thing?

If anything, the mortgaging of the environment is potentially more damaging to the long-term health of our nation: economically, culturally, and physically. Why is the restriction of "affordable" (read: subsidized) energy a bad thing? Why do we currently not employ "true cost" accounting in our calculations of just how cheap our current energy requirements are?

This whole article is basically a troll.

OP: I'm new here, but this kind of post wouldn't fly on some of the other forums I frequent as you offer no commentary or discussion of your own. It's called "post and run". For a site labeled "debate policy", you offered no points of contention of your own to even consider this to be a conversation. If you were the original author of the paper, then I could see doing this, but as is, we're having a 3rd party conversation about a subject without involvement of the actual authors. I don't want to come across as confrontational, but as I browse through the forums I realize that this sort of posting is rather common and unfortunate.

[actsnoblemartin]

so youre a political junkie too eh

tell the board about yourself atleast

So, what's newsworthy about this? This is almost exactly the criticism leveled against Al Gore in 2000.

Let's face it: This is a classic ad hom attack against Gore. It does nothing to actually debate whether or not Global Warming is good or bad, nor does it debate the relative merits of the environmental movement. It's simply an attack on the messenger.



Is this bad? I thought the American dream was to make money! Make up your minds, please. But again, what does his investment strategy have to do with the topic of environmentalism? Please, give us a call when Mr. Gore is dumping barrels of oil on top of helpless baby seals in the arctic.



Why is this necessarily true? Why is the former a particularly bad thing?

If anything, the mortgaging of the environment is potentially more damaging to the long-term health of our nation: economically, culturally, and physically. Why is the restriction of "affordable" (read: subsidized) energy a bad thing? Why do we currently not employ "true cost" accounting in our calculations of just how cheap our current energy requirements are?

This whole article is basically a troll.

OP: I'm new here, but this kind of post wouldn't fly on some of the other forums I frequent as you offer no commentary or discussion of your own. It's called "post and run". For a site labeled "debate policy", you offered no points of contention of your own to even consider this to be a conversation. If you were the original author of the paper, then I could see doing this, but as is, we're having a 3rd party conversation about a subject without involvement of the actual authors. I don't want to come across as confrontational, but as I browse through the forums I realize that this sort of posting is rather common and unfortunate.