With the release of Al Gore's new documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, has come a blizzard of commentary, both in print and over the airwaves. Speculation that Gore may be ramping up to campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination is flying fast and furious. But regardless of whether Gore decides to run again, I sense that something akin to the perfect storm is developing on the issue of energy policy. With $3-a-gallon (and rising) gasoline, an emerging consensus that global warming is real, and a growing sense that Big Oil's hand-in-glove relationship with the Bush administration harms the average American citizen, Al Gore's return to the public stage may be the critical spark that finally lights a fire under the American electorate.
There's no mistaking the man's passion. He genuinely cares about what happens to planet Earth and has for more than three decades. You may remember his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, which prompted George Bush senior to make fun of Gore, calling him "Ozone Man" and suggesting that a Clinton-Gore administration would have us "up to our neck in owls" and put Americans out of work. (The reality was quite different, of course -- a booming economy, record budget surpluses, 22 million new jobs, and a 30-year-low unemployment rate. But I digress.) Having stuck to his guns and continued to preach and fight for what he believes, Mr. Gore is looking like the prophet who can lead us out of the energy wilderness. And none too soon.
The current President Bush barely pays lip service to climate issues, preferring to placate his checkbook-toting friends in the oil industry by totally trashing the Kyoto initiative, plucking Phil Cooney from the American Petroleum Institute to undermine the debate on climate change from his perch at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and suggesting that any threat is best met by voluntary emissions controls. If voluntarism worked, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
Meanwhile, if Gore is right (and many in the scientific community say he is), we are approaching a tipping point, after which we will begin a descent to destruction that will be hard to stop.
Gore's very persistence in the face of a disinformation campaign begun by the energy industry about 15 years ago, a campaign designed to position global warning as a "debate," makes him one of the only leaders on the political scene who, in my opinion, cannot be bought off by the oil industry, its allies, and its dupes: For example, Oklahoma's Republican Senator James Inofe, who unfortunately chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Inofe may also be in the market for a bridge spanning New York's East River between the isle of Manhattan and the borough of Brooklyn.
Gore sees global warming as a moral issue, and I agree with him. It is one of the two or three most important problems this country is facing right now. I don't see eye-to-eye with the former vice president on everything (more about that in a future article), but I believe that Gore may have started something that even the oiligopoly won't be able to squelch. For all our sakes, let's hope so.
Raymond J. Learsy is author of Over A Barrel: Breaking the Middle East Oil Cartel and a veteran commodities trader.
To join the discussion on leadership, click the button below! 
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
For a couple of recent articles on this subject please read No Concensus for Global Warming and Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Something tells me they'll be saying that with their dying breath in the face of all facts because they apparently are not worried about gambling on the odds that it isn't us.
Could you please share your documentation? I'm curious about your methodology, your area of focus, and also your expertise in the fields of climatology, biology, and geology. It's interesting that you were able to dismiss any human involvement in global climate change after only a 6 month study, while hundreds of learned scientists have not concluded the same, even after 30 years of research and study.
I've also found it very interesting that the only scientists and politicians who continue to denounce the evidence of global warming seem to be those who're on the payroll of big oil. Are you receiving some compensation from oil companies for your study as well, by chance?
"Our climate is far too complex for us to yet understand it much less predict it."
Then I wonder why computer models have pretty much consistantly shown exactly what's unfolding before our eyes?
"Now it seems the argument is "well, there is global warming but it's not us.""
I knew full well that this would become the new mantra of the rightwing, just as soon as the evidence became overwhelming that they could no longer deny global warming in general. What can you do when you blindly cling to failed ideology, except to continually morph your position?
just a guess.
~~
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!
YOUR ATTENTION - DO NOT MISS THE CAGE MATCH OF THE NEW CENTURY!!
THE HONORABLE RAYMOND LEARSY DEFENDS THE HONOR OF ALL INTELLIGENT AMERICANS EVERYWHERE WHEN HE TAKES ON THE NEWCOMER TO PROPAGENDA AND B.S.!!!
ONE MATCH, NO HOLDS BARRED, WINNER TAKES ALL -
LEARSY - SIMONTON - ARMAGEDDON 2006!!!
that would be a hoot!
First, I find it a bit offensive that you choose to begin your comment by denigrating me with a personal attack, rather than focusing on content, but I have actually come to expect that from those who aren't equipped to carry on actual debate, so I'll let it pass this one time.
Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that you find this particular statement in EVERY debate on global warming. Can you back up this claim with some documentation, perhaps, or were you just exaggerating in order to make your post seem more important than it really is?
Finally, if the opponents of global warming theories are paid by big oil, why is that not a fact worth mentioning in a debate on global warming? Surely, if there were some group paying off the scientists on the other side of the issue, you and your bretheran would make that fact known, would you not?
Boy, you got that right. I remember when I first started reading about it, back in the early to mid-80's, and I thought the exact same thing. I couldn't (and still can't) figure out why the right was trying to brush it aside as a phony issue, as important as it seemed to me.
At the very least, as I saw it, we should be pushing for cleaner, renewable fuels. What's the harm in that? Yet, the right has been smearing, mocking, and demonizing any and all who've pointed out global warming all along.
The odd thing is, when you ask a rightie why they're so opposed to technological advances and the inevitable onslaught of economic boom that would ensue from shifting from fossil fuels to other, greener fuel sources, they cannot answer.
They're only opposing it because that's been the talking points from the rightwingnut headquarters for so long. Nobody knows why, but they willingly go along with their marching orders without questioning.
Now that we know that the opponents of global warming theories are being paid by big oil companies to say what they're saying, it's even more bizarre that these people continue to cling to their master's talking points. But, what can you do? I guess they haven't earned the name "knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers" for nothing.
Another important point that Raymond has made in previous articles and should be added here: Eliminating or dramatically reducing our dependence on foreign oil is critical to our national security as well. The money we spend on gasoline is going to fund the terrorists who attack us and to fuel the violence in the Middle East.
Yet, the "pro-oil" GOP is viewed as being "strong on national security." Go figure, huh?
Very good read, thank you
I for one think that whatever a person believes is causing this warming we, as compassionate people, must do all we can to eliminate the human factor in this equation. After all it is the only planet, that we know of, that can sustain human life. If we error shouldn't we do so on the side of life and not on the side of denial?
You wrote - "I've also found it very interesting that the only scientists and politicians who continue to denounce the evidence of global warming seem to be those who're on the payroll of big oil. Are you receiving some compensation from oil companies for your study as well, by chance?"
I receive no compensation from oil companies. If you check out the two men who effectively challenged Mann's findings and were supported by all who checked their work, McIntyre and McKitrick (I posted a link to their article), you will find that they are not on the payroll of any oil company.
Are you willing to retract your statement? Somehow, I doubt it.
You also quoted -"Eliminating or dramatically reducing our dependence on foreign oil is critical to our national security as well. The money we spend on gasoline is going to fund the terrorists who attack us and to fuel the violence in the Middle East. "
Then you inferred that this is caused by the GOP. You must be unaware that the Democrats have prevented development of about 80% of our oil and gas resources for many, many years in order to prevent us from becoming independent or at least much less dependent on foreign sources. In addition, environmentalists (heavy Democrat backers) prevented us from further development of nuclear power which has been used by quite a few other countries to reduce their own dependence on foreign oil. It is not the GOP which has made us dependent, it is the Dems.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
and cheney gets nothing from halliburton.
you guys are something.
I am unfamiliar with the synthetic fuel issue back in the Carter Reagan time frame. Please explain what Carter exactly started and how it was cancelled. I would like to learn.
Thanks, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
"There may be some global warming, but my 6 months of investigation" (as opposed to the thirty year investigation of the person whose opinion he is attempting to discredit)
I am unfamiliar with the synthetic fuel issue back in the Carter Reagan time frame. followed by a "please explain, I would like to learn" - which, he would have done before the discussion, on his own, were he truly interested in learning.
I agree let's keep our planet clean, I don't agree with making ignorant, and yes somebody who is going to use thirty years of a 5 billlion year old planet's climate history as a basis for impending doom is ignorant, claims about warming or cooling trends.
Al Gore is more about being President AL Gore, thank God it will never happen.
Says you.
"If you check out the two men who effectively challenged Mann's findings and were supported by all who checked their work, McIntyre and McKitrick (I posted a link to their article), you will find that they are not on the payroll of any oil company. "
Their work was entirely flawed and has since been rightfully discredited. Sorry. Their methodology was completely bogus. Perhaps that's why hundreds, if not thousands, of credible scientists agree on this, while only a tiny few disagree?
http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up
"Are you willing to retract your statement? Somehow, I doubt it. "
You may, indeed, have found a pair of oddballs who aren't yet or at the moment, on the payroll of big oil. I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we'd find a conservative with principles, too. However, I think you'll agree that the vast majority of anti-global warming scientists ARE on the payroll of big oil, which is why I said that it seemed that all of them were.
"Then you inferred that this is caused by the GOP. "
GOP policies on energy have always been anti-progress and pro oil. There is no arguing this. Rancie Ronnie not only stopped all of Carter's programs to research and develop alternative energies, but even went so far as to remove the solar panels from the roof of the white house.
To be fair, Clinton did absolutely NOTHING to pursue alternative energy sources, which is why we're no further now in those technologies than we were in the late 70's, which is a damn shame of criminal proportions.
"You must be unaware that the Democrats have prevented development of about 80% of our oil and gas resources for many, many years in order to prevent us from becoming independent or at least much less dependent on foreign "
You must be aware that oil is not the ONLY answer, regardless of how much your talking heads try to convince you that it is, and to open precious federal land reserves up just to draw out a few months' supply of the muck hardly seems a worthy, lasting answer at all. My, you righties are short-sighted, aren't you?
"In addition, environmentalists (heavy Democrat backers) "
The republican party USED to be the party of the environment. What the hell happened?
"...prevented us from further development of nuclear power which has been used by quite a few other countries to reduce their own dependence on foreign oil."
Nukulur energy is not the long-term answer either. Figure out a way to safely get rid of the waste, and you may have something. Until then, move on to other technologies that don't threaten to poison mankind for the next 4.5 billion years.
"It is not the GOP which has made us dependent, it is the Dems."
Yet another flat lie, based solely on ignorance.
"I try to stick with facts which are relevant to the issue. "
I just blew water through my nose from that one. Nice joke, funny guy.
"Please explain what Carter exactly started and how it was cancelled. I would like to learn."
Look it up yourself. It's highly unlikely you'll believe anything anybody else says anyway, right?
Surely, you "free market" wingnuts are aware that an aggressive push towards alternative energy sources would result in a literal explosion of economic growth, right? So, do you hate America then? Is that why you're so strongly opposed to economic growth here? Explain.
What exactly is your vehement opposition to progress, and what do we, as a nation, have to gain by continuing on a path that will undoubtedly end in our own destruction, either from wars, global warming, or the inevitable crash from finally exhausting oil altogether?
I am all for alternative sources and have even participated in some development of same. Since you are so knowledgeable about alternative energy sources, please tell me what we could use to replace our reliance on coal for electricity generation, say in the next ten years or so.
How about a replacement for gasoline in cars?
I assume that you aren't trying to replace our use of oil for electric power generation.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Incorrect.
"Since you are so knowledgeable about alternative energy sources, please tell me what we could use to replace our reliance on coal for electricity generation, say in the next ten years or so."
There isn't any single source that will replace fossil fuels, and in fact, we'll have to rely upon fossil fuels for decades before we're completely free of them. However, a reduction in our need for them will not only lessen demand, but will also lessen our need for military interventions in parts of the world that we really should not be making ourselves so deeply engaged.
I would offer that the following short list off the top of my head would be a great start, and would make a serious dent in our need for fossil fuels from foreign lands:
Thermo-depolymerization
Solar energy
Wind energy
Ocean current and tidal energy
E-85
Biodiesel
Geothermal
Methanol
The only nuclear energy that I would encourage research and development on is fusion energy. Fission holds far too much risk in disposal and storage of waste, and, imo, simply isn't worth the risk.
The other point of "my" energy policy would be aggressively focused on conservation. While republicans find this to be a "quaint," they simply don't view it as a viable energy policy leg. Be that as it may, the fact is that only a modest increase in CAFE requirements would have a dramatic impact on fuel consumed, as would mandating alternative-fueled vehicles for most government agency useage.
It has been said that the upper midwest plain states could produce enough wind electricity to power the entire nation. The same has been said of the SW region's potential for solar energy. Obviously, it's terribly impractical and inefficient to try to transport electricity that far, but it's quite clear that there is great potential there that is currently going untapped.
The point is that it will take several options, tailored to specific regions, to truly build a viable, renewable energy production system. It could most definitely be done, however, and much could be accomplished within 10 years, if the focus were there. Of course, that would require somebody with vision, strength, and courage in a leadership position, and unfortunately, we've been absent that person for quite some time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/
The comments in quotes are mine and those without quotes are yours, Clark. The CAPS delineate where I consider you were mocking and/or ridiculing.
"I receive no compensation from oil companies."
Says you.
MOCKING AND RIDICULING!
"Then you inferred that this is caused by the GOP. "
GOP policies on energy have always been anti-progress and pro oil. There is no arguing this. Rancie Ronnie not only stopped all of Carter's programs to research and develop alternative energies, but even went so far as to remove the solar panels from the roof of the white house.
MOCKING AND RIDICULING!
"You must be unaware that the Democrats have prevented development of about 80% of our oil and gas resources for many, many years in order to prevent us from becoming independent or at least much less dependent on foreign "
You must be aware that oil is not the ONLY answer, regardless of how much your talking heads try to convince you that it is, and to open precious federal land reserves up just to draw out a few months' supply of the muck hardly seems a worthy, lasting answer at all. My, you righties are short-sighted, aren't you?
MOCKING AND RIDICULING!
"...prevented us from further development of nuclear power which has been used by quite a few other countries to reduce their own dependence on foreign oil."
Nukulur energy is not the long-term answer either.
MOCKING AND RIDICULING!
"It is not the GOP which has made us dependent, it is the Dems."
Yet another flat lie, based solely on ignorance.
MOCKING AND RIDICULING!
"I try to stick with facts which are relevant to the issue. "
I just blew water through my nose from that one. Nice joke, funny guy.
MOCKING AND RIDICULING!
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
No, I did not. I contend that mine weren't the ONLY remarks that were mocking and ridiculing. If you'll re-read some of the above posts, you'll clearly see that there were numerous mocking comments made with regard to Mr. Gore and the theory of global warming. You were the one that said that the only mocking comments were coming from me. I merely corrected you.
Yes, global warming is real and it has been going on since the Ice Age, but it's not caused by anything man does.
Check into the truth. It's fascinating.
Now the question is will the truth win out.
Best regards, Ben
When I encounter these folks I realize it is silly to engage them in debate because they are often times not thinking rationally and critically but are defending an ideology to which they attach themselves so closely that it is a part of their identity.
The folks who make me listen are the conservatives who acknowledge global warming and the liberals who are anti-abortion. At least I know that they are standing based on their opinions and not following a script.
Just a thought.
If you mean that I must accept that there is anthropogenic global warming before you will listen to me, I can't do that. That connection has not been proven and those who have attempted to do so have used methodologies that have been proven wrong.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Sorry, Ben, but we're way past that point. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees that climate change is real and that human activities are contributing to it. Reputable scientists believe that we have a 10 year window to do something about it or we could face a tipping point that will endanger the long-term viability of the planet as we know it.
So if you want to spend that 10 years debating whether or not the problem is real, have at it. It's still a relatively free country. But for many of us, the debate is not about causes, but solutions.
Has anyone seen any discussion of a market-based cap and trade system that would operate on a metropolitan regional scale and would cover both stationary and mobile sources of CO2?
There's been lots of discussion of a cap and trade system for stationary sources and increases in CAFE for mobile sources. But in my opinion, that approach relies too much on technology for mobile sources, without getting into more fundamental questions of land use that have a huge effect on transportation infrastructure and behavior.
I think it would be very interesting if each US metro region were given a target for reducing CO2. The most energy efficient regions would have credits to sell to those who lag behind, with the result being major net reductions nationwide. And in the end, those who are more energy efficient will also be more economically competitive.
Any thoughts?
We are at the top of the food chain, folks. That means that we are responsible for what happens in our environment.
My neighbors down the street, a couple with two very young children, drive two SUV's and 3 trucks. They don't need them for work. They just have them to keep up with the Jones. Who by the way have the same types of vehicles.
Also, they have no regard for conserving any fuel at all. I live one block away. They drive here, instead of walking. From looking around me, I am seeing this as the norm.
Dont you guys think that this contributes to global warming? I dont see the animals in the forest, driving SUV's and running air conditioning units.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Sorry for the delay in my response. I was camping in the woods away from computers.
Sandy pretty much hit the nail on the head as to my intention when she said "he is talking about an open mind, not necessarily the specific issues he used as examples."
But unless some new data appear or a new way of evaluting it, anthropogenic global warming remains unproven as my link above indicates.
Camping in the woods sounds like a lot more fun than computers. I miss the woods and camping out.
Best regards, Ben
You will agree with me that a lot of folks seem to exclusively follow one ideology to the point where it seems difficult and almost futile to communicate with them because they seem to leave little room open to the validity of the other side. I have seen it among conservatives and liberals alike and it can make for frustrating conversations indeed.
Politically I may lean closer to Hillary Clinton then to John McCain however I far prefer to hear John McCain talk then Hillary (at least the old John McCain) because at least when he talked I knew I was hearing not the party line but his opinions (as much as I may some times disagree with them).
One thing that always amazed me was that many listeners of Rush Limbaugh call themselves "ditto heads". I occasionally listen to his show and on occasion I agree with something he may say. BUT - to call oneself a "ditto head" implies to me that you have given up free will and an open mind and surrendered all your opinions to one man and his specific ideology. At that point Mr Limbaugh might as well be Chairman Mao or something similar.
Just a few random thoughts at 5:30 AM.
P.S..
We had a great time camping. Summers are so short here in New England that we take every opportunity to get away when the weather is warm. Perhaps (bringing the discussion back on topic) if there is a silver lining to the whole global warming thing it is that in the future our New England winters wont be so long and we will be able to enjoy longer summer holidays.
In recent years, the Dems have gone from a wide tent to a very narrow one. Email has made people who represent the Dem view all seem to use exactly the same words on every subject.
Republicans rarely use the same words and reflect many variations on most everything.
I am not saying that either of these is good.
I don't listen to Rush regularly, maybe a few times a year when in a car. But I seem to always hear one or more ditto heads expressing views which are somewhat different than Rush's.
Here on Gather, most liberals seem to have the same views and approach to conservatives while the conservatives are not at all on the same page.
Anyway, enjoy your summer. I was in CT mountains in June and it was much warmer than the previous summer. I did not need my longjohns. I return this week for a visit and won't even bring my longjohns.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
During the presidential elections (2000 and 2004) I remember a complaint among Democrats was that the Dems were too divided and needed to be on the same page more like the GOP if they had a chance at winning. It is interesting how both sides seem to view such things.
I have decided to try and view my experience on Gather as that of a student. I think I can gain more from being a student and active open participant then if I try to be an evangelist for the liberal view point. If I just spout my mostly liberal view points I fear folks wont take me seriously and will just see me as a partisan mouth piece for the left who can't think for himself.
I certainly hope that if I fall into that trap somebody (yourself perhaps) will remind me to be more open minded.
Cheers
Gene
I certainly hope that Al Gore is wrong.
I am not a scientist so I have to base my opinion on that of scientists who are expert in their field.
There seem to be two opinions.
I will, as a layman, go with the majority opinion. It is how we decide supreme court cases and elect presidents (usually).
The majority opinion is an overwhelming majority of scientists.
On the off chance that those scientists are wrong the worst that will have happened is that we will have spent a bunch of money (and created jobs) and cleaned up the air.
On the chance that they are right and we do nothing - the results could be devastating.
For years some people argued that there was no absolute and definitive proof smoking caused cancer. Many of the folks who decided to continue to smoke until there was 100% proven evidence that smoking will give them cancer are dead.
The end of the world is generally regarded as bad for business.
The global scientific community has a consensus framework. Who is a lay person supposed to find more believable? Thousands of bright minds, young and old, university trained in a huge spectrum of fields, (oceanography, geology, paleobotany, climatology, to name a few), devoting their professional lives in research endeavors out of their clear-eyed regard for science as a truth seeking enterprise? Or, you, with all that you present us here in this thread, and your history of commentary at Gather? The choice to the Gather community is, A) a community of scientists, and secondarily, America's largest insurance companies, versus B) a free market ideological axe-grinder. Please democratic electorate, use your heads.
And, I will throw out a link of substance. Please read this Gather-published dialogue with Elizabeth Kolbert, an individual whose serious research has led her from pole to pole in search of a demythologized understanding of climate change. If for some reason the link doesn't work, tag search Elizabeth Kolbert.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976745122