Is Al Gore’s $300 million dollar ‘We Campaign’ global warming drive money well spent?

Al Gore and “The Alliance for Climate Protection” have announced that they will raise and spend $300 million in an effort to persuade the public and elected officials to support his climate change agenda¹. Gore introduced the intiative on 60 minutes, and the first ad was posted on wecansolveit.org. The campaign seeks to affect five major areas: A cleaner energy economy, personal choices, adoption of renewable fuels, increasing our energy efficiency, and influence on political leadership.

Reaction from the blogging community has been mixed.

Tech President critisises the campaign by stating, “I wonder how much of that $300 million has gone into this too-slick web site, ” and “In a truly disempowering sense, the We campaign already has it all figured out — and all we, the robotic consumer people who don’t look as attractive as the “presenters” have to do is click here, buy this, give them our name and email address and the names….”  

Beyond DC says, “You spend plenty of time talking about techno wizardry and new sources of energy, but we pored over your solutions page and find nary a mention of anything about changing our gluttonous driving-based lifestyle. You have a whole section titled Cutting fuel costs on the road, but in the entire piece the message “drive less” is nowhere to be found. Tucked way down deep below whole chapters about minor subjects like light bulbs, properly inflated tires, and residential air filters, there’s a single sentence about public transportation and a passing reference to walking to work, but that’s the extent – a single sentence and a passing reference. Nowhere on the entire We Can Solve It site is there any mention about living in a walkable, urban community. Nothing about the damage caused by sprawl.”  

Environmental Graffiti, however, said, “This move has the potential to galvanise both sides of the American electorate, and to force the presidential candidates to be far more open about the extent of, the danger from, and the proximity of the climate crisis. They will also have to be far more forward-thinking in their plans to combat the climate crisis. It will make Mr. Bush look like a liar and a fool for putting oil wars ahead of the security and prosperity of Americans. It will make Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper look like a dinosaur. If the ads include a focus on solutions, then dinosaur politicians of all stripes are going to look like crooks. There will also be a massive multiplier effect from the initial $300M. Many senior executives have called for action, as have most churches. Environmental groups will piggyback on the message – as should the Green Party, in a non-partisan way.”

Opinions should be expected to vary wildly on the campaign; especially because Global Warming itself is so hotly debated. Personally I think it is money well spent. The science is clear, but science itself rarely influence public opinion. This is both a comfort and a source of frustration amongst environmental scientists. I can remember several lively debates myself about the role of scientists in public policy. What we need now is to begin challenging public and private lifestyle choices.

What is the balance between living “green” (a term by the way that I hate) and being environmentally self-centered? I dont know, but it is a topic that we should debate/discuss more.

1. Washington Post  

Similarities between Atheists and Global Warming naysayers

Yes, I know that is a weird combination. This is just one of the oddities of who I am. Rarefied. Anyway, here is a list I have been thinking about lately. After reading lots of articles on atheism and global warming (generally not the same places) I have noticed several parallels. Of course, there are many exceptions, but this leads into my list….

10. Both positions provide a nutshell answer of the rest of their politics.

9. Neither admit they may be wrong.

8. Both caricaturize their opponents arguments.

7. Both ignore the repercussions of their choice.

6. Both form clubs and make t-shirts.

5. Both almost always come from specific segments of society.

4. Both allow themselves to stay uninformed.

3. Both pretend they have reached their conclusions based on logic when they base their stance on personal desires.

2. Both almost always use straw man arguments.

1. Both fear deeply they are wrong.

By global warming naysayer I don’t mean just someone who doubts global warming. Rather, I am referring to those who vigorously argue from a standpoint of fact.

One of the strangest things (by strange I mean what I would not have previously expected) is that blogs devoted to atheism usually don’t allow Christians to post comments on them. I have written comments on blogs to await moderation that eventually get rejected. If it were me I would delete a comment that was using a lot of expletives or threatening others, but I wouldn’t delete one just because it disagreed with me.