Politicizing 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Change font size:  A |  A

Are we too blasée? Do Republicans not care for the environment? Are we placing partisan ideology before the healthy future of our children?

These and a flurry of related questions that have been bugging me over the last few days since Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" hit the silver screen, giving his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming a decisive push.

Let me be upfront and tell you outright, that I have not been able to reach any halfway satisfactory let alone conclusive answers to these fundamental questions. How could I.

Calling us "a renegade band of rightwing extremists", didn't help shoring up sympathies for his cause. But neither did Bill Gray's sensationalist and holy unrelated comparison, "Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews", add any credibility to his claim that Global warming is a hoax.

So what is a blogger to do? Take up the study of climatology and question the research and data hurled back and forth between scientists of both camps, with the media pitching for a position of their own? I don't think so...

Acknowledging that most of us have to make a choice which camp to believe is an important start; and I stress, the emphasis is on 'believe' not on choice! Most of us can't claim certain knowledge, although judging from what is published by the MSM you could have fooled me.

Frankly, I don't worry too much about Gore's end-of-world statements. Politically, these scare-tactics are almost immediately discounted and rarely influence the polls; most big picture messages don't (that's why 'Bush lied, People died' has been so effective; it's up close and personal).

But I do worry about blind faith, especially when I read comments like these: "He [Gore] insults God and all of us by thinking we can change climate. Look to the heavens, Mr. Gore, and you'll see the One who will determine when this world comes to an end. I'm comfortable with that."

I'm not. Think of Gore and his message what you will, the issue is far bigger than that. The global environment is being affected. 2.5 Billion Chinese and Indians are going to make first time purchases of cars in the next 50+ years. Reducing current and future economic and social changes like these and their inevitable impact on the global environment as mere political scare tactics is neither prudent nor convincing. Nor is it helpful to be associated with arguments which take the meaning of spin to a new level:

"Climate change is actually good. Growing seasons will be longer. Plants like carbon dioxide. Trees devour it. This demonized molecule, CO2, isn't some kind of toxin or contaminant or pollutant -- it's fertilizer." [...]

It won't do to sidetrack legitimate concerns about sharply rising pollution of our air, soil and water especially in developing countries as merely a healthy sign of economic growth which will self regulate itself when things get a bit too sticky. That's not the political message the President intended when he said:

"Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is the solution, not the problem – because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment."

Instead the President is telling us, that he is addressing the charge and that political action to address the problem is severely delayed by concerns about the supposed costs by highlighting the most powerful incentive of all: Profitability. Government won't stop climate change and pollution through regulation. Profitability will; as soon as money can be saved by operating an environmentally friendly economy (Hybrid cars are no longer a fantasy but in an age of crude oil priced around the US$ 100.00 mark have become a necessity).

Meanwhile we are left to fight the messy and unrewarding 'war in the trenches':

Let us be honest about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything. [...]

In a media-saturated world, it's hard to get anyone's attention without cranking the volume. Time magazine recently declared that Earth looks like a planet that is sick (cover headline: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried". [...]

The skeptics feed on alarmism. They love any sign that global warming is a case of mass hysteria. [...] Everyone, on both sides, is arguing like a lawyer these days, he [Myron Ebell, an analyst at CEI] says. "What is going on right now is a desperate last-ditch Battle of the Bulge type effort by the forces of darkness, which is relying heavily on the lockstep/groupthink scientific community." [...]

The president's science adviser, John Marburger, thinks the politicized debate has made it almost impossible to talk sensibly about the issue. "There seems to be the general feeling that somehow the administration doesn't feel that climate change is happening," he says. "That's completely wrong." The administration just doesn't think the problem can be solved with the "magic wand" of regulation.

My choice in what to believe? What the best course of action for our children's future should be? I like Amory B. Lovins' approach and I am impressed by his track record. The difference between Lovins and Gore is that Lovins calmly provides the answers at the grass roots level. Gore is busy standing on a soap box preaching to the masses and politicizing, which will do more harm than good, as it consequently polarizes the issue and brings a harsh spotlight on his motives and choice of timing, rather than the important facts underpinning this sensitive subject.