Squaring the Culture

Rightward bloggards are hooting at the announcement from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that despite $16,000 worth of alleged energy-saving technological add-ons, Al Gore’s house’s energy footprint went up about 10% last year. Worth a chuckle.

The part of the story that interests me is the expense of the modifications, and their effect. The economic payback of home energy-related modifications is usually pretty long, often in the 20 year range, and that doesn’t take maintenance costs into account. What’s not often considered is that the price of the modification is a marker for how much energy got burned in production, delivery, and installation; not a perfect proxy, naturally, because the price reflects some mix of labor, capital, and materials, and the energy efficiency of the components varies, but a rough proxy nonetheless. Consequently, even successful modifications usually burn more energy in the short run than they save in the next 20 years or so. If the problem we’re trying to solve is global impact, such a solution is not a solution at all.

And, of course, that’s presupposing a successful modification. Gore’s modifications apparently increased his energy usage, which means they’ll never pay back, although Allahpundit over at Hot Air raises some questions about this.

It all goes to say: if we’re going to change our patterns, let’s change things that actually might make a difference. If we can’t make a difference, there’s no point in changing. Make the modifications if they save you money soon; if not, don’t bother, the technology’s not ready for prime time.

Al Gore’s home energy usage says nothing about the scientific assessment of climate change, which is a serious enough matter (my readers here know I think the science does not support the claim that humans are causing a disaster by increasing atmospheric CO2). It does point out, though, the cynical opportunism of one of the major proponents of the claim that humans need to drastically alter their usage patterns in order to save the planet. Yes, it makes sense that a powerful organizer would have to fly all over the place to perform his globe-saving function, if that’s what it is. However, what we’re talking about here is what he does at home — and at home, it becomes evident that Mr. Gore cares a bit more about his creature comforts than he does about actually saving the planet. If he was serious about the changes he’s advocating, wouldn’t he be doing them himself? Couple that with how much Gore himself appeared on the screen in his own film, and with an assessment of how nicely he’s positioned to profit if people believe him, and we have a profile of a man who’s got his own interests in mind.

Jammie Wearing Fool has a pretty tasty snark on the former Vice President. Photoshop image from fark.com.