Elizabeth and John Edwards have built a home which is many thousands of square feet and therefore uses much more energy than the average home. They regularly travel by private jet.
And yet she believes that giving up tangerines, because they're not locally grown, will help combat global warming?!
You can't make this stuff up.
Not that I'm on the global warming bandwagon...but the Edwardses' hypocrisy is rather astounding. Rather like Al Gore using more electricity in a month than average families use in a year, then turning around and buying "carbon offsets" from himself.
The absurdity of the Edwardses making a small gesture like giving up a fruit grown in a distant state, while living in a palatial, energy-burning home and using private airplanes, points up the fact that the aspiring first couple either think the general public is stupid enough to fall for such symbolism (maybe that's true), that they're mental lightweights, or hypocrites. Or all of the above.
Ben Smith of Politico goes on to talk about the "carbon footprint" of transporting food long distance. Edwards was asked what "sacrifice" would be appropriate to offset the carbon footprint and he is quoted: "Would I add to the price of food? I'd have to think about that."
Reporter Smith then posted "UPDATE: Just to be clear, he's not talking about a food tax. The basic point is that any plan that imposes new costs on carbon emissions is going to make anything that's transported long distances with fossil fuels cost more. It is, in a way, a moment of clarity in this debate."
Excuse me, but how is a "plan that imposes new costs on carbon emissions" that would make food transported long distance cost more NOT a food tax, Mr. Smith? It may be indirect taxation, but it's taxation nonetheless, which would directly impact the price of food.
I think Smith is still in need of "clarity" on the issue.