The Los Angeles Times reports:
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa challenged residents this summer to "change course" and slash their water use by 10% in the face of a historic drought.
But records show that the mayor and several other top city officials have long been heavy water users themselves.
In Villaraigosa's case, even if he had made a 10% reduction at the two homes where he has lived since winning election in 2005, he still would have used nearly twice as much water as comparable properties in the vicinity.
City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo and Councilman Tony Cardenas surpassed the mayor, using more than twice the number of gallons over the last two years as typical property owners in their parts of town.
In fact, a review of Department of Water and Power documents shows that at least nine of the city's 18 elected leaders used higher than average amounts of water -- sometimes a little, other times a lot -- over the last two years.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Conservation for Thee, But Not for Me:
- Wind Energy for Thee, But Not for Me:
The point is: If ya' got it, flaunt it. If you don't got it, reduce, cut, pay more, get less, but for heaven's sake, don't whine.
Well, that's pretty close to half in the first place (yes, it's the median, but close)
...but they're whining about everyone else in this case...
Even if the mayor reduces his watering somewhat, he's still going to need more water than the owner of the single lot. If he stops watering part of his lawn or greatly reduces watering all of it, the neighbors are probably going to be pissed off at the brown eyesore that results. Moreover, by maintaining an extra-large amount of grass, he is arguably doing something beneficial for air quality.
Now, maybe, in the longer term, the mayor should move to a single lot, or install a more efficient root-based irrigation system, or replace part of his lawn with succulents, but these are things he can't necessarily do right away.
But I'm also disturbed that one's water and sewer bills are a matter of public record, available for all and sundry to see, just because the government has chosen to exercise a monopoly in providing water to its citizens. It's nobody else's business how much water I choose to buy, and it shouldn't be a matter of public record.
Rationing should never be based on a percentage of past usage since that invariably disproportionately punishes people who normally use water sparingly. Public policy must be that water will be apportioned based on the number of people in a household. Rich people with big households don't need to drink more water or shower more often than poor people.
Except for politicians and anyone else who tells others how to act.
I do not believe the post claims that the advice in question is wrong, or that it's somehow made wrong by the politicians' hypocrisy. This post, as I understand it, is an indictment of hypocrites, not environmentalism.
Second, the post refers to the Mayor's use relative to "comparable properties in the vicinity." Thus, there is no need for hypothetical discussion of whether his house stands on a double lot, in the Gobi desert, or at the bottom of the sea.
It says that 9 out of 18 politicians use more than an average amount of water. Now, unless any of the other 9 use exactly an average amount of water, 9 out of 18 politicians use less than average.
Shocking. Half use more than average, half use less. There are better examples of hypocrisy out there.
My point wass that this is not necessarily hypocrisy. The mayor may be perfectly sincere in advising people to reduce their water consumption even if his is above average. Maybe he has just come to this realization and needs time to abide by his own advice. If water consumption is a problem, it would be foolish of him to wait until he could reduce his own water usage before advising other people to.
The specific example I gave above may or may not be valid, depending upon what "comparable property" means. Most of the time, "comparable property" means something like "having the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms" or something like that. We don't really know whether the reporters were smart enough to compare the mayor's property with others truly comparable in terms of water usage. We'd expect a scientist to get this right, but I wouldn't give most reporters that much credit.
Every once in a while I wonder if Jonathan has forgotten that he's posting under his own name now. When I first started reading here, the posts from Juan Non-Volokh struck me as, frankly, stupid. It just seemed to me like cheap right-wing Newsmax stuff. Ever since Jonathan went public, I've found his posts far more interesting, far more focused on information, analysis, and opinion that I've enjoyed and learned from, even when I disagreed. Most of the time. Then a post like this one comes along.
It's not just Jonathan - I think most hypocrisy posts are stupid. Pots and kettles exist on all sides of the political divide. All of us hold beliefs and opinions and standards that we can't live up to all of the time. Does that mean that we shouldn't try, or that in some circumstances we shouldn't encourage others to try to meet those standards, even as we may try and fail to do so? I used to be a pastor. The fact that my life was not without sin didn't mean I shouldn't have encouraged others to try to do better than me.
Also, check these stats in a year. Whaddaya bet Villalobos's water consumption doesn't decline 10%?
"I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who are telling me it's a crisis start ACTING like it's a crisis".
FWIW.
Glenn Reynolds quote is right on: If it's a crisis then those who tout the solution should be the first to take conservation measures.
Let's examine the obverse - will those who follow the Adler hairshirt rule be better advocates of the needed institutional change? Or will they simply marginalize themselves by making it easier for others to dismiss them as loonies? Look at Gore, who is subject to the "Planet Gore" page over at your own NRO and to charges of hypocrisy that are belied by his volunary higher costs for "green energy" and offsets.
Some of your hyposcrisy posts rights point to a NIMBY problem, which I would think a libertarian would recognize may be another very real issue that may require a real solution - such as compensation in certain cases to those who bear the greatest local burden for projects that benefit others who bear no adverse affect.
I largely agree with your posts. I am not advocating a "hairshirt rule" (though I agree with Glenn Reynolds that it is hard to believe there is a "crisis" when those who make such claims do not act that way). You write that "jawboning"may be the only way to encourage desired behaviors absent institutional change. Precisely! And look at who the targets of my posts are: Those who are in a good position to advocate (if not enact) institutional change! We're not talking about some random, wealthy, Laurie-David busybody-type here, but the mayor of Los Angeles and some other government officials. Rather than advocate policy changes that could make a difference, they are calling upon others to do things that they themselves will not do. I think that is worth pointing out, particularly when such figures act as if personal, voluntary behavioral changes are the way to address a given concern.
JHA
Just pointing to apparent hypocrisy doesn't really help us to see what the real problem is. Even as apparent hypocrisy may resonate strongly with our instinctive BS detectors, these detectors can themselves steer us wrong, especially in cases where it is clear that there are externalities that cannot be captured in the market.
You sometimes come across as simply being anti-environmental, rather than being in favor of effective solutions.