http://www.generationim.com/news/memberships.html

In the UK there are periodic hypocrisy scandals on the left related to private schools – Labour party ministers generally advocate state schooling for all, and policies that give government education administrators exclusive right to allocate children between schools; but these same labour members of parliament sometimes themselves exercise the very ‘parental choice’ they try to prevent by their policies, and send their own children to private schools.

Universal compulsory state education is a policy which demands that politicians ‘set a good example’ by operating in defiance of incentives which apply not just to these politicians but to all parents. And the parental incentives to educate their kids well are so strong that leftish politicans will risk careers and political damage to pursue these interests.

The hypocrisy debate about Al Gore is an irrelevant distraction, the point is what the inconsistency tells us about the incentive structure of his policies.

Any policy which demands that politicians or nations ‘set a good example’ is a policy with serious problems of perverse incentives. The same applies to Gore’s policies in relation to global climate. The incentive – both for individuals and nations – is simply to break the rules, and not get caught.

And if you do get caught, to avoid or minimize the punishment.

There is no incentive genuinely to comply.

I, on yet another hand, think it is important. Not to bash Gore but to ask a question.

Let’s compare at two possible scenarios:

1) You have $100 and decide to give it away (ie. buy carbon credits). You start with $100 of influence in the world, decide who to give it to and now have no influence. You hope who you gave it to does something good with it. Next week, you start all over again.

This is what Gore wants you to do.

2) You have $100 and decide to invest it. You start with $100 of influence in the world, decide who to invest it in and now still have $100 of influence in the world. Next week, you add $100 to it and now you have $200 of influence in the world (excluding market fluctuations of course). Later, if you decide the people you’ve invested in don’t live up to your high standards you can take it away from them and invest it in someone else.

This is what Gore does.

Now the question is, why doesn’t Gore preach what he practices?

Hanson and Balan aren’t the only sharp tacks at Overcoming Bias: Politicians want voters to have a positively-biased view of…

Gore is probably at least ten times richer than Begley, and I’m sure his house is ten times bigger. I can’t imagine Al clambering up on the roof of stately Gore Manor to scrub off the solar panels the way Begley does.