President Bush, In the Closet? Al Gore, A Hypocrite?
Posted in Social Commentary on March 7th, 2007 by Erin DietrichI was angered last week when an article was forwarded to me about Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth.” The story goes, after losing the 2000 presidential election Al Gore decided to dedicate himself to the environmental movement – determined to halt the ever-impending threat human activity has caused on our planet. In February 2007 Al Gore won an Oscar for the movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Part portrait of Al Gore the man and part portrait of the current environmental situation, it is riveting and a call to action. It is also a perception-changing documentary about Al Gore the man – in it he is funny, articulate and passionate. He comes across as a man on a mission to save us from ourselves, able to take all of the scientific mumble-jumble on the environment and reformat it into an understandable message for the average person.
In March 2007 a nonprofit think tank found that in 2006 Al Gore’s 10,000 sq ft home used more than 20 times the national average kilowatt-hours, resulting in a two-year bill of $30,000. The Gore home sports a pool and pool house in addition to the main 20 room; eight-bathroom structure and its grounds are meticulously maintained. The energy calculation does not include consumption associated with his family’s private jets, SUVs or additional two residences. ABC news reports additional sacrifices Al Gore and his family have made such as using florescent light bulbs and signing up to have his electricity come from renewable resources. Further, he is in the process of installing solar panels. In the process?!?
For an individual who has spent the better part of the last six years teaching and preaching about “saving the planet” he seems to personally be doing little to limit his family’s personal impact on the environment. Thanks a lot buddy.
This story gets even crazier - the sitting President of the United States, George W. Bush, a man with a horrible environmental record as president an even shadier past in the oil business is quietly “outed.” What is he “outed” for you are probably wondering – oil leaking into the ocean, taking money from lobbyists who don’t believe climate change exists??? Nope – it turns out his “white house in Texas” is for all intents and purposes environmentally neutral and was intentionally designed this way! The Bush’s 4,000 square foot home in Texas is a passive solar house built of native limestone positioned to absorb winter sunlight with geothermal heat pumps for warming and cooling, water from rain runoff is stored and used as well as re-using so called gray water (water that escapes from the shower and sink) to water the exterior of their home. The grounds of the Bush home are planted in native flora and so they require little in the way of maintenance.
What is going on? Jenny and I spent an evening talking about the possibilities:
- Is President George W. Bush a closet environmentalist afraid to come out?
- Has Al Gore taken the stance of an environmentalist because he saw it simply as an opportunity to win public favor and notoriety?
- Have both Al Gore and President Bush chosen their public positions because they feel a higher duty to represesent the way their constituents and party desires? And if so should I be satisfied, as they are elected to do just this, represent their constituents? Then why do I feel so mislead and disenchanted? How important should a politician’s personal opinion be on any issue?
Even with all of these thoughts there is still one, even larger, looming question. Which of these men has the potential to actually change the hearts and minds of others in such a way as to begin to change our energy consumption patterns? Al Gore seemed to be on the right track with his movie, however, I argue that people who went to see this movie were likely already “environmental converts”. But, the most recent revelation about his energy bill and other “sacrifices” for the environment have made his position a joke. President Bush is doing something for the environment (gasp); not only is he buying the technology and putting his money into the field, but bringing dignitaries and world leaders to his ranch and showing them that this it is possible without losing the luxuries we are all so accustomed to (i.e. hot showers, a landscaped yard, heat when it is cold outside). So for policy he earns a zero, but all in all, I think President Bush is coming out ahead. And that doesn’t say a whole lot for Mr. Gore.
Related Posts:
I’ve Been Duped - And So Have You!
March 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
This article poses a thought provoking question of whether or not the appearance or the action is what is truly important. You say that Al Gore has made a film that appealed to many environmentalist converts who were already committed to his outlined goal and while initially I would have agreed with your point, I now believe that the widespread success of his film and the Oscar have generated a larger amount of buzz for a documentary and that now many people will see the film out of curiosity who would have otherwise been unaware of the film’s existence. Therefore perhaps providing a catalyst to further publicize the environmental movement.However, your counterpoint of the fact that Gore has been committed to this cause for six years and has done little to correct his own environmental damage does lessen his message and also lessens the impact that this film may have had.
As for George W. Bush I would be hesitant to jump on his environmental bandwagon too soon. I think what you really have to look at is why have these adaptations been added to his Texas home? Was it out of his secret and deep felt love for the environment or was it instead out of convenience and simplicity that these systems added to the house. I am not saying that perhaps as you state his position is purely one taken for the pacification of his constituents, but I would say that we should tread slowly and carefully towards what could be a new image of one of the least environmentally concerned presidencies in decades.
So back to the original question, is it better to walk the walk or talk the talk? I guess only time will tell.
March 13th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Jon,
You make some very good points. I too was hesitant to initially cry blasphemy on Al Gore and praise President Bush. However you posed the question which is better - to walk the walk and talk the talk. We have two individuals here; one chosing to talk, but not walk and another who walks, but does not talk. (Stay with me here).
Although Gore has made an impacting movie, it is difficult to believe in his battle cry when he refuses to take action in his own life. Thus, drastically weakening any argument he poses. By how much? I can’t say. I do stick by my argument that his movie is largely preaching to the choir. Come on, be honest, you’re standing in Blockbuster, not sympathetic the the environmental movement and you have to decide between some action-packed shoot-em up movie or a preachy environmental movie. How many people would really want to spend their Saturday evening watching an individual tell you we are destroying the world?
On the other hand, President Bush has chosen to implement environmental decisions in his personal life. I disagree that the adaptations to his home were simply for convenience. If his decisions were truly for convenience sake, wouldn’t everyone be doing it? So what is truly behind his decision?
Remember the old addage - “Actions speak louder than words.”? I think we have a perfect example here.
This does pose another interesting question though: Who is the hypocrite? Both, neither, only one? What does it mean to be a hypocrite and are we actually in a position to judge?