On Jun 23, 2006, at 5:39 AM, Hans G. Ehrbar wrote:
Al Gore's film "Inconvenient Truth" is good at telling
people that there is a problem. This is very important
because many simply don't know. But the solutions proposed
are simply ridiculous. The solutions are like the advice to
duck behind your desk if there is a nuclear attack. Well,
no wonder, it's difficult to do something about Global
Warming if you are aspiring to a job, president of the
United States, which depends on it that you don't do
anything about Global Warming.
Had Gore been serious about Global Warming he would have
told people that one of the first policy measures the
US government must take it to drastically raise the gasoline
taxes. Not only does the US government not do anything about
global warming, it even uses taxpayers money to subsidize
many practices which further global warming.
Had he been serious about Global Warming he would have told
people to organize. He would have used the movie as an
organizing tool, perhaps offering the DVD for house parties,
or selling T-shirts which say: talk to me about global
warming, or giving movie goers a chance to give their
feedback on his web site.
I am going to watch the movie again with some friends and
acquaintances, and afterwards we will have a discussion
about it. What should be said in this discussion?
Hans G. Ehrbar
The Gore movie (I haven't seen it but read about it) fits perfectly
into a familiar pattern, which I call "HORROR, THEN HOPE."
The speaker -- ranging from Sir David King, Tony Blairs chief science
advisor, who asserted that global warming is a bigger threat than
terrorism to Al Gore, with dozens, hundreds in between -- describes
the horrors that await the world from global warming. Then, the
Hope. The hope is almost universally technological, mediated by the
market.
The technology is solar, nuclear, clean coal, etc. The marke is
aided by higher taxes on energy or directly on carbon. A little
supply and demand, assisted by taxes. There you are.
If the expected horror is real, and I believe it is, then the things
tossed out in the hope part of the talk are fatuous. Not that some
or most of them should not be advocated and implemented. But the
prospect of success with them alone is nil.
What must be done is to, first, stop GROWTH in consumption. We need
to stop growth in consumption in the North. Yes, China is growing
wildly, but what is consumed in China is desired because we consume
it in the USA.
The battle for economic justice, not better technology, is the key to
global warming. It is affluence in the North that must be addressed.
The key is downward income redistribution in the USA, to limit what
those at the top of the income scale can spend. Income
redistribution immediatly brings to mind "tax reform." But tax
reform depends on the political winds. A better way is to cut
standard hours of work. Soon, sharply, and relentlessly.
Gene Coyle
