Jim Manzi and Andrew Sullivan have been posting on the justification for the costs of fighting [the climate] anthropogenic global warming. I've been following it but really it can be way simplified: If Al Gore, the Paul Revere of anthropogenic Global Warming, the Oscar winning Nobel laureate, the driving force, big Mac Daddy of Climate Change, if that guy does all he can to cut down on his CO2 emissions and he still goes up 10% in a year, well, what chance do I have of making a meaningful change? In fact, Gore's usage went up by more that my entire electrical usage for the year. I could cut the electric lines and live in a tree and still not cancel out the Master's energy increases.
Now I know that Al buys energy that is green, in fact, butterflies probably fly out of his electrical outlets. His 213,210 kilowatt-hours is probably influenced by the fact that the electrons want to go to Al Gore's house, they rejoice at being harnessed to do Al's work, to power the lights that illuminate his saintly face. And I know it makes no difference to Al that he is getting rich by his investments in companies involved in this greenification. Why rainbows most likely come from the man's butt.
So don't get me wrong when I say that short of opening up an electroplating business, or smelting aluminum in my basement, I don't see how I could ever hope to match Al Gore's energy usage. [and this not counting the tons and tons of jet fuel the man burns off every month] I can't even match him. So if he is trying to save us, if this is his best, well, what chance do we have?