As CEI pointed out last week, Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint™ is huge. He’s flying all over the world in a carbon-fuel-burning jet to tell us all how bad it is to burn carbon fuels. Apparently CEI’s criticism hit a nerve; this week he’s assuring Brits at the Hay Festival that he’s still not part of the problem:
“[Al Gore] said he was ‘carbon neutral’ himself and he tried to offset any plane flight or car journey by ‘purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere.'” BBC News
Pardon me, Al, but if the trend in burning carbon fuels is running so much in the wrong direction, won’t those who are concerned about it have to go beyond carbon neutrality and maintain a negative carbon footprint? There are lots of things you could do; stop making movies, which expend huge amounts of mother nature’s resources, stop flying to Cannes to hobnob with other carbon neutral humvee-driving Hollywood do-gooders. You could also take a page from Bubba’s playbook, and not exhale as much.
But you haven’t done even that much, Al. Today you’re delivering the environmental equivilent to your hilariously infamous sound byte on social security: as far as your own carbon footprint goes, you would put carbon emissions in a lock box. Zero sum game.
It’s the rest of us peons, the ones with a comparitively miniscule carbon footprint who are supposed to go well beyond carbon neutral, and move mountains with a toothpick. We’ve got to cut our once-in-two-years trip to Disney Land so you can float to your next speech on a river of burning hydrocarbons. And this is populism.