Let’s face it: Al Gore has money. Wherever he invests, he will continue to have money.
So he can either (a) invest in green energy, the cause which has occupied much of his public life, and be accused of opportunistically advocating policies from which he profits; or (b) invest elsewhere, and be accused of hypocritically paying lip service to green energy while putting his own money out for better profit.
To which I have two comments:
- It’s not at all as clear to me as it seems to be to some of my conservative friends that (b) is the nobler option. In fact, I applaud Gore for taking course (a). Those who wittingly or unwittingly support pollution-based billionaires like the Koch brothers will attack with equal vigor either way, so Gore may as well invest in what’s best for the planet.
- Even if my conservative friends are correct and Gore is entirely self-serving, it still doesn’t follow that we can therefore disregard mountains of statistical data from around the world, a wide and steady stream of scholarly journal articles, and the consensus of 97% of the world’s climate scientists that the earth is warming in part due to human activity (National Academy of Sciences survey). In the absence of any data and any body of scholarly literature showing the opposite, your opinion of Mr. Gore, right or wrong, or your view that this or that scientist wrote a disingenuous e-mail, is irrelevant to the larger issue.