Read your book, Mr. Gore!

[I'm Cleo!]

Fifty,

Your quote:

I've never read any of Gore's stuff on climate change.

Honestly, any time Al Gore does something that negatively impacts the environment, his opponents start frothing at the mouth to call him a hypocrite, as if he suggested we return to a Stone Age existence (without the cooking fires, of course!). He wants to increase awareness of the problem and notes that there are concrete things we can do to solve it that won't materially change our standard of living. His whole point is that if we confront the problem, we can live responsibly and overcome it. He's not the "doom and gloomer" everybody paints him to be (i.e., wishes he was, because it's easier to argue against the caricature than the actual person). I mean, the overall theme of An Inconvenient Truth was "hopeful"!

I'm sure he would (does?) support reforming our agricultural system to reduce its effects on our environment. Like he does everything else. But it's ridiculous to justify calling him a "hypocrite" by noting that he supports environmentalism but eats steak (or, God forbid, is fat).

Cleo

 

[Dragonlord]

As I stated earlier, eating less meat is certainly a good idea for various reasons... but using that to bash Gore is over the top IMO.

Ridiculing someone for not being perfect has to be the oldest smear tactic in the book. I guess since Gore doesn't wear a hair shirt, eats meat and doesn't walk everywhere he goes, he isn't entitled to warn about global warming????

Edit: Cleo beat me too it, and stated it better as well...

I'm with Cleo!

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Isn't "hypocrisy" based on the statements of the hypocrite? Isn't that, like, the definition of the word? The observer can't re-define a term (here: PETA, "environmentalism") and then say that because Al Gore's environmentalist activism doesn't conform to PETA's definition that he's a "hypocrite." PETA might not think he's an "environmentalist," but he doesn't magically turn into a "hypocrite" just because PETA disagrees with him.

Cleo

 

[Ecofarm]

And he doesn't magically turn into an environmentalist just because he says he is. But if he says he is an environmentalist and isn't... then he is a hypocrite.

His home, travel, and diet are not remotely eco-friendly. Just because he made a film as a political tool does not make him an environmentalist.

He is a hypocrite. He needs to read his book. He needs to stop the private plane flights. He needs to take some personal responsibility and quit criticising everyone else and pretending he is an environmentalist until then.

 

[holy king]

Isn't "hypocrisy" based on the statements of the hypocrite? Isn't that, like, the definition of the word? The observer can't re-define a term (here: PETA, "environmentalism") and then say that because Al Gore's environmentalist activism doesn't conform to PETA's definition that he's a "hypocrite." PETA might not think he's an "environmentalist," but he doesn't magically turn into a "hypocrite" just because they disagree with him.

Cleo

that's right.
but most of the discussion brennan started was about fox calling him a hypocrite while peta originally didnt use this word specifically while effectively calling him one anyway...

And he doesn't magically turn into an environmentalist just because he says he is. But if he says he is an environmentalist and isn't... then he is a hypocrite.

if peta sets a certain definition for "environmentalist" that makes gore a hypocrite when he calls himself an "environmentalist" that's allright for them. we cant put someone into a madhouse as long as he isnt a threat to anybody.
but sane people would call someone who calls himself an "environmentalist" a hypocrite or not according to his own definition of "environmentalist".
if he lives up to that, he is not one. period.

 

[brennan]

Later in that link, a poster uses the word specifically, if that REALLY matters to you.

So, PETA didn't say it? Great, thanks for clearing that up; now:

If a source called someone an "unmarried young adult male" and then Fox called him a "bachelor" would you be similarly upset?

Who's upset? I'm just pointing out that PETA haven't actually called him a hypocrite. Probably because they know it would be ludicrous hyperbole.

The OMGAlGoreisahypocrit lobby (as you might put it) will not be satisfied with his Carbon Footprint until the esteemed gent is living in a cave subsisting on mushrooms with a cork up his ass. It is up to Mr Gore, as it is up to everybody, how he reduces his emission footprint. At least he is trying.

 

[Dragonlord]

Reading the later posts, how does it follow that you can't be a meat-eating environmentalist?????

Honestly, the polarisation some people try to foment makes me sick sometimes!
Environmentalism is about responsible use of resources, not about self-flagellation!
Sure you can eat meat and be an environmentalist - it's just that there is a difference between eating the occasional steak and using some meat in your spaghetti sauce or whatever (as I do), and eating meat just about every day and with almost every meal as some people do. Reducing meat consumption is absolutely a good idea, that doesn't mean one has to become a vegetarian or Vegan and eat none at all...

Why does it always have to be extremes? Either you're a tree-hugging vegetarian, or you're not allowed to be concerned about the environment?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

holy king,

Well, I think it started when I accused the editors at Fox of calling him a hypocrite, when really it was PETA. Ecofarm pointed out my error and I just shifted my annoyance onto PETA (where it commonly resides, anyway).

Ecofarm,

No. Al Gore's a hypocrite if he preaches environmentalism but doesn't actually believe it or live like it. If he actually believes it but happens not to think that eating meat disqualifies one from being an environmentalist and PETA disagrees that what he believes qualifies as valid "environmentalism," that doesn't mean he's a hypocrite, that means that PETA doesn't think he's an "environmentalist."

For example, I think being "American" means always questioning and challenging the American government. Others disagree, and claim that being "American" means something else. I don't think they're "hypocrites," only that they're "un-American."

Although the actual meaning of the word "hypocrite" doesn't matter, since I defined it on the "What does the word 'hypocrite' mean?" thread as "one who disagrees with you."

Cleo

 

[Ecofarm]

Well, if you're a fat-arsed, private plane riding politician - you're not in.

Before you worry about holding Gore to EXTREMES, why don't you name one thing besides his book and movie that he has "done" for the environment? Nothing as VP, I can tell you that.

His house? Disgusting

His cars? Disgusting

His travel? Disgusting

His diet? Disgusting

His fat-arse? Disgusting

Holding him to too high a standard? Try holding him to any standard at all. If he is un-environmental, but claims to be an environmentalist... he's a hypocrite. He cannot simply self-define an "environmentalist" as "one who occasionally talks about the environment when paid" and thereby not be a hypocrite.

Him being an environmentalist is like somoene saying that they are a vegetarian and believe in vegetarianism, but eat meat because they define it differently. Pah-lease.

Al Gore does not contest that vegetarianism reduces global warming , he just refuses to walk the walk.

 

[Fifty]

Honestly, any time Al Gore does something that negatively impacts the environment, his opponents start frothing at the mouth to call him a hypocrite, as if he suggested we return to a Stone Age existence (without the cooking fires, of course!). He wants to increase awareness of the problem and notes that there are concrete things we can do to solve it that won't materially change our standard of living. His whole point is that if we confront the problem, we can live responsibly and overcome it. He's not the "doom and gloomer" everybody paints him to be (i.e., wishes he was, because it's easier to argue against the caricature than the actual person). I mean, the overall theme of An Inconvenient Truth was "hopeful"!

I'm sure he would (does?) support reforming our agricultural system to reduce its effects on our environment. Like he does everything else. But it's ridiculous to justify calling him a "hypocrite" by noting that he supports environmentalism but eats steak (or, God forbid, is fat).

Okay, that's a substantive explanation and not just harping on a word. I still think PETA's point is valid, though. If you are advocating environmentalism, then maybe you don't need to do every single thing possible to halt climate change, but if meat eating is indeed the biggest source by far of harmful emissions, then it seems like you would be arguably hypocritical for not doing it. It's like, if there are 5 unjust wars going on, one of which is the biggest by far, and you run around lobbying against unjust war while being perfectly fine with the biggest and most important one.

Now, I don't think that Gore's mere hypocrisy means anything about whether or not he is correct in his other claims, and it is certainly no reason to dismiss him, but if the point is just "you should start caring about diet change (or buying carbon credits for your cheeseburgers!), otherwise you are being a hypocrite", then I don't really see the problem.

And, still, I think a more meaningful discussion could be had about whether people who claim to be environmentalists ought to stop eating meat, then whether something someone said falls under a technical definition.

 

[scy12]

Ι am an environmentalists that doesn't give . .. .. .. . about pollution by meat consumption.
It's similar to i am not a racist except for blacks
I am not a killer except for White people.
I like sex except with Peta freaks.
And i do not like sex except with only Peta freaks.

You can support something partially because you feel like it without you being a hypocrite for it.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Fifty,

I'm sorry. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people misuse the word "hypocrisy."

Regarding eating meat, what if the problem isn't so big that we all have to become vegetarians? What if we can adjust some of our farming practices to reduce the impact our farming has on the environment? PETA's argument only makes sense if they present evidence that we can reduce greenhouse emissions by reducing our meat intake. Maybe we'd have to farm more to equal the protein and calorie consumption that humans require; maybe we'd have to do something else. I surely don't know, and the article doesn't say. People have to eat -- to what extent is our greenhouse gas production due to food reducible in the first place? If it's not, or not easily done, there's no reason to spend resources doing so and it's stupid to attack people for not advocating such measures.

Moreover, Gore's never said that we have to swear off the internal combustion engine, only that we have to live more responsibly, and that, given our increasing technological capability, we can do so with minimal inconvenience (but for confronting the truth). I'm sure he supports environmentally responsible farming practices. But I've never heard him -- or anyone -- say that climate change cannot be solved unless we all become vegetarians.

Cleo

 

[brennan]

I wonder how much travel the founders of PETA do...?

 

[Ecofarm]

Maybe we'd have to farm more to equal the protein and calorie consumption that humans require;

It requires 10 lbs of plant protein to produce 1 lb of animal protein. Obviously, we would not need to farm more. We would need to farm 10x less than all of the current meat production farms (and their supporting feed farms) combined.

I wonder how much travel the founders of PETA do...?

Perhaps they purchase carbon credits, unlike Gore? Besides, PETA does not claim to be an environmentalist organization. You can't simply turn this around, unless you want to accuse PETA of not caring about animals... their claim.

 

[holy king]

It requires 10 lbs of plant protein to produce 1 lb of animal protein. Obviously, we would not need to farm more. We would need to farm 10x less than all of the current meat production farms combined.

people want meat. the free market has spoken. now let's try to reduce co2 emission in meat production.

 

[Dr Tiny]

So, according to the original article the raising of livestock accounts for 40%more greenhouse emissions than all the transport in the world.

So to offset this we all need to go vegetarian for 30 days?

So, I assume PETA would like those animals that would have been burgerfied to be kept alive? Won't that mean they still contribute to greenhouse gas emissions? Or do we need to kill them anyway so they don't, but as everyone has gone vegetarian that would seem an awful waste.

 

[Ecofarm]

people want meat. the free market has spoken. now let's try to reduce co2 emission in meat production.

Go organic.

1 problem though: the free market requires an informed consumer. That failure is why we have industrial meat and even meat in general. How many people even know that meat production/consumption (industrial in particular - with its excessive use of fossil-fuel-based synthetics (fertilizer, antibiotics, hormones, etc) is the number one source of global warming?

 

[brennan]

...if meat eating is indeed the biggest source by far of harmful emissions, then it seems like you would be arguably hypocritical for not doing it.

I'm fairly sure it's not. Power generation is the #1 culprit AFAIK, and I believe energy efficiency is one of the things Al Gore tends to talk about.

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm fairly sure it's not. Power generation is the #1 culprit AFAIK, and I believe energy efficiency is one of the things Al Gore tends to talk about.

You're ignoring the millions of acres of feed production made possible by synthetic fertilizers created from fossil fuels.

 

[scy12]

Other than Gore being allowed to be partially environmentalist the issue here is arguable as to whether it being true.