Editor,
I was dismayed Friday by columnist Scott Darnell's factually incorrect and logically incoherent piece on energy conservation. Darnell rightfully objected to former Vice President Al Gore's massive personal energy bill and lack of frugality. However, his claim that Gore does not participate in a voluntary program that uses renewable rather than carbon-based energy is an outright lie. Gore indeed pays extra for renewable energy credits, which the power company uses to buy power from nonpolluting sources.
Darnell's point was that Gore's supposed hypocrisy somehow undermines the message that we should conserve energy and reduce carbon emissions. I'm sorry, but an argument is not invalidated when one of its proponents does not follow Darnell's interpretation of it to the letter. If I persuasively argue that beating one's pet is wrong, but it's discovered I kick my dog when I'm mad, that doesn't mean people should beat their pets. The logic of the argument and my personal actions are independent events.
The thrust of Darnell's piece is this: Gore isn't drastically changing his energy consuming habits, so we shouldn't be expected to, either. Yet, try as I might, I could not think of a single connection between the size of Gore's electric bill and me line-drying clothing or installing fluorescent light bulbs.
For that matter, I saw no connection between Gore and shutting down my computer when I'm not using it, turning the heat down when I'm not in the house, running my dishwasher only when it's full, turning lights off when I'm not in a room, riding my bike to school rather than driving, sweeping instead of using a leaf blower, taking shorter showers, carpooling or using a push-mower instead of an electric one.
Perhaps in his next column, Darnell could do something constructive, like offer Lobo readers suggestions on how to reduce energy consumption in an economically friendly manner.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Josh Tybur
UNM graduate student
