This thing with Gore’s crusade against greenhouses gasses coupled with his own behavior ($1300 power bills) is really disturbing. Especially since he frames the whole thing as a moral issue with his critics cast as deniers. If it’s truly a moral issue then buying carbon offsets is equivalent to the way medieval nobles would pay that Catholic Church for sin forgiveness. Any measure of success he gains on this issue will simply make it more expensive for middle class people to use power while the rich and elite like himself can continue to live their posh lifestyles.
Very little is mentioned in this debate is that Bush’s only home, his Crawford ranch is one-third the size of Gore’s and much more eco-friendly. Who’s modeling Thoreau? Gore doesn’t have that kind of personal commitment. He wants the commitment to come from the flock and he wants it legislated.
For all of Bush’s missteps, his vision of a re-shaped world is done with the purpose of greater human freedom. Gore’s vision relies on a restriction on the lives of normal people while the rich and elite continue to live it up. Or maybe even more suspect is the way that Gore wants his countrymen limited and he has nary a word for the Chinese and the impact to the planet they pose.
There are real environmental issues that should be tackled but the movement has been taken over by collectivists that see every solution in government power and personal loss of freedom. That’s what makes global warming so appealing to these people. Polluted air and rivers can be addressed and measured for success or failure so no real power can be gained in the long run once you convince people to act. Human impact of the weather patterns cannot be measured and no matter how much effort we put forward there can always be a cry that we’re not doing enough.
Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
GORE: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America , unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
This is exactly what Gore accused Bush of a few years ago in leading us into Iraq . “He betrayed our country. He played on our fears.”
This world view says that bad people in the world that want to kill Americans either don’t mean it or they can’t kill enough Americans to make it worth our while to fight them. On the other hand, nebulous environmental data must be read in terms of the worst case scenario and American middle-class life as we know it should be altered accordingly.
Should a man who thinks it a moral issue continue to openly sin while pointing fingers at everyone else? It appears that he’s playing to the amen chorus in Hollywood or Academia. He’s basking in the adulation rather than patterning the prescribed life. Gore has become the mouthpiece of the latest socialist movement and you can tell by the company he keeps.