Wasteful Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, A challenge to Al Gore

March 17, 2008 | Filed Under Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Global Warming, News, Publius Contributor, Science, Society/Culture, Taxes |

-By Dan Scott

Last year’s revelations of Al Gore’s energy lifestyle surprised many people considering his stance on Global Warming. We are faced with rising energy prices even though our demand has not significantly increased. Of the three houses owned by Mr. Gore, just one of them, the largest of the three reputedly uses 200,000 kwhrs a year, close to 20 times the annual consumption of the average American household. For a person who believes mankind is at fault for rising global temperatures and blames mankind for generating CO2 to cause this outcome, his rhetoric is completely at odds with his lifestyle. I will not address the reason why Al Gore behaves in such a disconnected manner, but focus instead on what he should be doing if he truly believes his own rhetoric.

First off, Al Gore being an American citizen is entitled to use his vast multi-million dollar fortune in any manner he so desires. He is entitled to any lifestyle his money can buy as long as it’s legal, i.e. not violating the rights of the rest of us. He is entitled via free speech protections of the US Constitution to say what he pleases within reasonable limits. He is not allowed to yell fire where there is none in a crowded movie theater. Al Gore is legally entitled to use any amount of energy he can buy and use it in any manner he so chooses. The same goes for Brad Pitt, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Streisand, etc. But what is legal is not necessarily moral or ethical and we shall get back to that point.

Al Gore excuses his lavish lifestyle by claiming he buys or receives carbon credits to offset his consumption, thus he leads a carbon neutral lifestyle. However, upon closer examination, such claims are woefully over rated since planting trees each year (taking 30 years to take up what he consumes in one year) does not begin to match his actual consumption. It seems to me Al Gore and his rich friends and supporters are lacking a sense of proportion by blaming the average American instead of addressing their wanton energy lifestyles.
Let us examine in a rational manner the consumption of energy in the US where it comes to residential use. I believe it is unnecessary to consider commercial activities since a Capitalist enterprise by it’s very nature seeks to be as fuel efficient as practical to maximize the bottom line, thus there is sufficient incentive to save energy. So who is using all this energy in the residential sector? Let us first observe that in any society, those with the means have the potential to spend in proportion to their means. Poor people by their economic status can not live at Al Gore’s lifestyle. The same can be said for the middle class as well. Therefore, both the poor and middle class are using energy in the most efficient and limited means possible due to their limited ability to spend. The people of Al Gore’s class, the wealthy, have and do spend their wealth on themselves based on their economic ability. As an American, I have no problem with that, he is legally entitled to do so. However, there is such a thing as social concern and personal restraint regarding the impact of one’s actions upon others. Sometimes generosity is not taking everything so other people can have something.

Al Gore belongs to the wealthy class of this country and as such, he belongs to an exclusive club that some have estimated to be about 5% of the population (15 million people). This means that the middle class and poor account for the remainder 95% (285 million people). The wealthy 5% of the population are said to have approximately 70% of the personal wealth of the country, which leaves the 95% of us with 30% of the personal wealth. I for one am not troubled by this since Capitalism rewards those who achieve and I of the 95% benefit from their success by having a job. I do not believe in class warfare espoused by the liberal Democrats. However, we must all recognize that the 5% of the population have over twice the spending power of the 95% combined and as revealed by Al Gore’s lifestyle, they spend accordingly.

If Al Gore and the rest of the wealthy 5% would reduce their consumption, residential electrical use in the US (1,140 billion kwhr) would drop at least 50%, and that’s a big number! Their share, 570 billion kwhrs is a lot of energy in anyone’s book, in fact equal to India’s entire output. Do any of you really doubt that Al Gore is not typical of the wealthy? If you doubt that the wealthy represented by Al Gore, John Edwards or Nancy Pelosi consume at least half of all residential electricity, do the math: 15 million people X 20 times average US household = 300 million people. This is a very conservative rough estimate since we know that Al Gore and the rest of the wealthy have more than one house each and most if not all of those houses are significantly larger than the average American household of 2,500 sq ft.

For conservatives such as myself, I see the energy consumption of this country in terms of national security. Receiving over half of our energy from foreign sources leaves us vulnerable to intimidation tactics as was demonstrated back in 1973 during the oil embargo where the Arab OPEC nations attempted to force the US not to support Israel. So from this perspective we should primarily address the energy consumption of the US as a national security issue. From a Social Conservative point of view, just because I have the means to buy everything and leave little for anyone else doesn’t mean I should be flippant to the effects of my actions upon others. All Conservatives recognize the Law of Supply and Demand and that where a product is in short supply, the price must go up in order to limit the shortage. The necessity of rising prices should be obvious, in order to invest in greater production one must have profits to make that investment. Profits come for those who use the product and it is only reasonable that investments to increase the supply for the user’s benefit come from the user. Back to Al Gore and his rich supporters. It becomes clear from the basic facts above that the wealthy consume at least two times the energy of the US in relation to the vast majority of Americans and their consumption is directly responsible for rising energy prices in the face of restricted demand. Thus if wealthy were to live at our (95% of Americans) level of energy consumption, then energy consumption would drop dramatically, on the order of over 50% of residential use with a significant decrease in cost to everyone. Do I expect Al Gore to use as little as you or me? No, since he has the legal right to spend his money anyway he chooses. But does he have the moral right to consume in excess or does he have the ethical responsibility to restrain his demand when it negatively impacts others?

So, does Al Gore have a moral and ethical responsibility? Can he do something concrete to benefit the planet and reduce the cost of energy to his fellow citizens by voluntarily modifying his own behavior? Al Gore and his wealthy supporters can get off the electric grid by installing solar panels and small wind turbines to produce all the electricity they want to use and he has the means to do so. After all, aren’t they the ones demanding the country should do this and the taxpayers be made to pay for this, so why not them first? Al Gore and his wealthy supporters have the legal right to fly in private jets, but doesn’t he have a moral obligation not to excessively use fuel to the point of costing other people more money? Would it not be more ethical of him and his supporters instead to fly first class on commercial airlines if they don’t want to rub elbows with the rest of us? Prince Charles does this. Would it not be more ethical of Al Gore and his wealthy supporters to exclusively purchase electric vehicles like the Tesla or hybrids, again as they have the means to do so? The benefits of this approach are multiple.

A 50% reduction in retail fuel and electrical demand throughout the entire US would lower the cost of energy to the middle class and poor thus giving them more net income.
Their change in lifestyle would effectively bring about near energy independence for the US.
Our trade balance is greatly affected by the amount of energy we import to support the lifestyles of the rich and famous, thus a significant reduction here benefits the entire country with more dollars to invest and create jobs and wealth.
Since the US consumes 25% of the world’s oil, a significant reduction by the US will lower world oil prices benefiting the poor of the world.
Furthermore, any reduction in world oil prices reduces the income to Petro-dollar sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.
If Al Gore and his supporters were to order solar panels and wind turbines, this would create thousands of new high tech jobs (high paying) for Americans without any need of subsidies financed by the taxpayer.
Since the purchasing power of the wealthy is over twice that of the remaining population of the US, their purchases would lower the economic cost of all energy saving and alternative energy means for the rest of the population as the research and development costs are born by the first cost of development.

So Al Gore, Brad Pitt and the rest of wealthy America are you up to the challenge of turning your rhetoric into concrete action? Are you willing to benefit all of America and the world? The moral proposition is straight forward, when my actions cause negative effects upon others, I have an ethical responsibility to act in a manner to offset that negative impact, this is called Social Responsibility. As I have shown here, it is your actions that have negative impacts upon the poor and middle class by your conspicuous consumption. It is false charity to demand other people (taxpayer) to pay for the consequences of your own actions or advocacy. Why, Al Gore, is President Bush’s house more environmentally friendly than yours? It seems to me if you want America to look to you for leadership, then you must lead by example as President Bush does.
———-
Dan Scott calls himself a “Member of the Global Capitalist Cabal preaching Capitalism and personal responsibility as the economic solution to world poverty.” He is also a member of the 14th Amendment Society — victimhood is a liberal code word for denying the civil rights of others. He is also a proud member of the Global Warming Denier Cabal, insisting that facts not agendas determine the truth.

Dan can be seen on the web at http://www.geocities.com/fightbigotry2002/ as well as http://www.geocities.com/dscott8186/saidwebpage.htm, And can be reached for comments at dscott8186@yahoo.com.

Bookmark this story to your favorite service: