An inconvenient truth
I saw Al Gore’s Documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, tonight. I thought it was an interesting presentation and it raised a lot of questions for me about the issue. This probably served Al Gore’s goal of sparking discussion on the debate. I think his argument is a very compelling one. You could go through and argue it point for point, but the way it is presented is very convincing and a well-thought-out argument on the issue. I don’t know all of the science behind the issue; I think it would be interested to talk to someone I trusted who did understand it all. It did raise several thoughts in my head, though, as to the parties surrounding this issue.
- First of all, I wonder why this is an issue that Al Gore has wrapped his heart around.
- Is he doing this out of the goodness of his heart, as a moral crusader defending the fate of the world?
- Or is he becoming the hero of a feel-good cause that can propel him back into political power and prominence?
- Why is there so much controversy surrounding this issue?
- According to Gore there isn’t much dispute in the scientific world, and so, if that’s true, why is there such dispute in public discourse? In the film, Gore highlights this point, but doesn’t answer why.
- What do people stand to gain (or lose) on either side of the issue?
- If global warming really is a problem why isn’t everyone willing to jump on board to solve it?
- If it’s not a problem, why are people contriving it to be such a problem? What do they stand to gain?
I would like to look further into it. He had a very compelling argument, well formulated and thought out, but I would like to keep the jury out while I figure out the answer to these questions.
(Somewhat) Similar Posts:
Lie: "People are our most important asset." Truth: "People are our most worrisome and unpredictable asset. Our most important assets are really our financial assets." B.S. Detector:...Here is a clip of John Stewart on Crossfire, with Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, accusing them of 'partisan hackery' and pleading with them to...Jeffery Sachs , in an article in the New York Times entitled "In Principle, A Case for More Sweatshops" (Allen R. Meyerson, The New York...The only person I would hate seeing in the White House more than Giuliani is Hillary Clinton. But the two are the front-runners in...
March 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I don’t know all of the science either, but this is a toipc chemical engineers talk and learn about.
Here’s my take: as well as the scientific community knows (which sometimes is not very much or very accurate) anthropogenic global warming is occuring. This just means that we’re pumping enough CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that there is a measureable warming effect on the earth’s climate. (Side note - modeling the entire atmosphere of the earth is very difficult and huge assumptions have to be made to do it, like neglecting the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is not a very good assumption).
So what does this mean? No one knows. The picture that Al Gore paints is a worst-case scenario and probably not what will actually happen. The actual results of global warming will probably be much less dramatic, and may bring both positive and negative environmental benefits (possible positive benefits include greater rainfall in arid climates and larger areas of arable land).
In terms of stemming global warming, the economic effects are fairly clear. Drastically reducing the output of greenhouse gases would dramatically stifle the economy. There are no easy fixes or alternatives for the essential chemical processes that our economy is built on. There is not much hope that in the near future polluting less will somehow become more economic.
One of the most unpleasant realities about pollution is that our affluent American lifestyle is as large a contributor to the problem as big bad chemical industries. We want electricity for our large homes, we want gas for our over-sized SUVs, and we want large quantities of goods to make our lives comfortable and enjoyable. We’d all rather blame industry than give up our SUVs. Dramatically changing the amount of pollution we create would dramatically change our lives. This is not very popular and could not practically happen very quickly.
So for now, the debate continues until solutions are generated which better match our motivation to change this issue or until we are certain that dramatic and wide-spread changes are truly justified. If anyone is worried about this issue, start driving fuel-efficient cars, using less electricity, and encouraging others to do the same.
A great book about pollution and the environment is “The Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg is a statistician who methodically examines the numbers to find out whether the environmental picture painted by special-interest groups is accurate. What he finds is surprising and will likely change how you listen to environmental debates and statistics.
March 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Insert “measurable” for every “measureable” above. I’ll learn to spell one of these days.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Do you have any suggestion of what Al Gore stands to gain by publishing the worst-case scenario and becoming its poster boy?
March 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
He may honestly believe it, or he may view it as a vehicle to win the support of the environmentally-conscious democratic base. As a public figure and politician, he gains from remaining in the public eye and appearing to be current with issues (particularly one like this which is so popular with young democrats). It’s precisely for this reason that even though he’s not running for president (yet) just as many Americans would vote for him as Edwards, who is working like a maniac to get some attention and support in this presidential race. Even if he didn’t get involved in the film to support presidential aspirations, his speaking fee is probably enjoying a boost from the popularity of the film.