Drudge and parts of the political blogosphere made a big deal out of Al Gore’s supposed hypocrisy in personally consuming more than average amounts of energy while advocating conservation of energy to reduce global warming. But my sense is that James H. Joyner, Jr. has the right perspective on Gore’s energy usage:

Regardless of what Al Gore preaches about these matters, the way he lives strikes me as reasonable. He was of the manor born, to be sure, but he has earned a lot of money on his own. He has every right to a ginormous house, a fleet of cars, and to be flown around the world in private planes to speak out against the dangers of global warming. While itís funny in microcosm, it strikes me as a perfectly defensible trade-off to use a thousand times more energy than the average guy in an effort to influence macro-level energy and environmental policy.
Where Gore and I differ is that my aim is for more people to get to live like Gore. While environmental degradation in general and global warming in particular are real problems, certainly a serious case can be made that they pale in comparison with the ravages of poverty. Further, if millions of people not starving to death isnít its own reward, UC-Berkeley professor emeritus of energy and resources Jack Hollander explains in The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environmentís Number One Enemy, that, contrary to conventional wisdom, as societies become more affluent, they produce less pollution. Thatís not particularly surprising, when you think about it, as those whose basic human needs are met have both the inclination and resources to worry about cleaning up their environment.

Read the entire piece.