Gore's involvement in environmental issues has been criticized. For example, he has been labeled a "carbon billionaire" and accused of profiting from his advocacy;
[201] a charge which he has denied,
[202] by saying, among other things, that he has not been "working on this issue for 30 years... because of greed".
[201] A conservative Washington D.C. think tank, and a Republican member of Congress, among others, have claimed that Gore has a conflict-of-interest for advocating for taxpayer subsidies of green-energy technologies in which he has a personal investment.
[202][203] Additionally, he has been criticized for his above-average energy consumption in using private jets, and in owning multiple, very large homes,
[204] one of which was reported in 2007 as using high amounts of electricity.
[205][206] Gore's spokesperson responded by stating that the Gores use
renewable energy which is more expensive than regular energy and that the Tennessee house in question has been retrofitted to make it more energy efficient.
[207][208] Philosopher
A. C. Grayling defended Al Gore, arguing that Gore's personal lifestyle does nothing to impugn his message and that Gore's critics have committed the
ad hominem fallacy.
[209]
Data in
An Inconvenient Truth have been questioned. In a 2007
court case, a British judge said that while he had "no doubt ...the film was broadly accurate" and its "four main scientific hypotheses ...are supported by a vast quantity of research,"
[210] he upheld nine of a "long schedule" of alleged errors presented to the court. He ruled that the film could be shown to schoolchildren in the UK if guidance notes given to teachers were amended to balance out the film's one-sided political views. Gore's spokeswoman responded in 2007 that the court had upheld the film's fundamental thesis and its use as an educational tool.
[211] In 2009, an interviewer asked Gore about the British court challenge and the nine "errors", and Gore responded, "the ruling was in my favour."
[212]
Organizations including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (
PETA) criticized Gore for not advocating
vegetarianism as a way for individuals to reduce their carbon footprint.
[213] Gore agreed that meat production contributes to increased carbon emissions, but did not want to "go quite as far as ... saying everybody should become a vegetarian".
[214] He said that although he is not a vegetarian, he has "cut back sharply" on his consumption of meat.
[214]
When asked by
Bjørn Lomborg to debate whether spending on health and education should take priority over limiting carbon emissions, Gore responded that he would not debate because the “scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue . . . . It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture."
[215]