Darren at Right on the Left Coast has what I think is a sensible energy conservation policy:

Most of the light bulbs in my house are compact fluorescent bulbs. I own an electric weedeater and, at a cost approaching $200, just purchased an electric lawn mower. I'm looking into a solar system on my roof, although the cost may be prohibitive. In November, when I was looking at new cars, I gave serious consideration to a hybrid Ford Escape.

I'm all about reasonable conservation measures. I'm all about renewable energy, specifically solar and nuclear. I believe these things not because of any fear of so-called global warming, but because there's no reason to pollute the environment if we can reasonably avoid doing so.

What I would like to know, though, is why so many of the loudest scolds who call for government crackdowns on gluttony are gluttons themselves.

So would Darren, who links to this report about Al Gore's very anti-global gluttony.

Yeah, I know. Gore is buying "offsets."

And the church used to sell indulgences.

Perhaps that's an unfair comparison.

It's not as if Al's Gore's gluttony is a sin, is it? And it's not as if the man is some sort of corrupt medieval priest.

Tell you what. I'd be glad to spare Al the moral lecture. All he needs to do is spare me.

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that Gerard Van der Leun had (unbeknownst to me) raised the indulgence issue before I did. Which means that the comparison I failed to make was neither original nor plagiarized.

AND ANOTHER UPDATE: I tried to ignore the following quote from Glenn, but I can't restrain myself. I just can't.

If Gore were less moralistic in his approach -- as he gains weight, he's even starting to look a bit like a younger Jerry Falwell -- the charges of hypocrisy would have less bite.

But even if he lost weight, he might look, um, Haggard!

(Forgive me. I am sorry.)