The Paradox of Al Gore

Politics aside, Al Gore is our world hero for hopefully helping us to save ourselves.

Interesting piece, Chris.

For a while, it looked like you were going to say all Gore needs to do is come up with a new frame.

But it appears you now think he is stuck in the role of preacher to the converted.

I disagree. The polarization that surrounds him may be intractable. If so, that would make a Gore presidency as divisive as the present Bush presidency. That makes me shiver, even though I think Gore would otherwise make a great president.

If Gore is willing to become EPA Administrator, a Democratic administration could give him a free hand and an extra-curricular role as climate-change ambassador to the world.

I think he could be very effective in getting this country to take the lead in new energy policies and technologies. He could then be equally effective in negotiating with China and India to follow that lead.

In other words, he could step out of the spotlight of the political squabbling and onto the less glamorous fields of policy negotiation and implementation.

Then his legacy could be more that raising awareness of the problem. It could be the launching of an effective response to that problem. That would validate his Nobel Peace Prize, and make Neuro-conservative pick up the tab when we meet for drinks in 2017. (See our banter at previous blog entry http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/10/al_gore_and_ipcc_win_the_n… )

I agree that there are people "turned off" by Gore. But do you really think that you can reach those people with scientific information from another source? I think it's a waste of time, a distraction from our real opportunity: creating an action framework for the majority of people who already agree with us and are waiting to do something worthwhile on the issue. The disbelievers don't want to learn, they don't want to evaluate, they don't want to act. Ignore them.

Chris, you said

[Millions of conservative Americans spent the 2000 election season bitching about Gore on a daily basis,]

I can borrow from that and say...[thousands of environmentalists and some environmental organization leaders spent the summer of 2000 bitching about Gore's downplaying his passion for solving global warming because he cared mor about dumping the nickname Bush gave him..."Ozone Man".]

So, those enviro leaders and followers threw their support to Nader and others threatened to do so. End of story.

Gore let himself get handled and, for this and other missteps, lost votes in Florida. The Everglades jetport issue was another missed opportunity to strengthen his FL support.

Would our troops be in Iraq today had he done the courageous and honest thing...like tell us who he really is? I voted for "Ozone Man". He should have worn the title with pride. Now, he has other titles but the world is in one sorry mess.

Many people assume that others think and act like they do. They assume that Al Gore is using his influence to spread propaganda like so many polititions do. Many people don't trust science because they feel that scientists also have an agenda and they don't have enough education (or exposure to science) to understand the philosophy of science and its purpose. The last couple of decades of devisiveness from our political leaders and only made the problem worse for scientists. Politicians are near the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to who people trust. People who are ignorant (and I mean that in the nicest way) of science and have a different political persuasion than Gore will never listen to him as long as fox news says something else. I didn't capitalize that for a reason.

I'm not sure if people are 'turned off' by Gore or by those trying to swift-boat him. I disliked him for years - he seemed so wooden and artificial I just couldn't trust him. Then I saw AIT and realized I'd only read what others said about him, and his public persona was a result of his handlers and strategists. Maybe at some point he fired them all.

Anyway it is possible for people to change their minds. For example I used to vote Republican and would again, if I could find one.

Chris

Excellent post and I couldn't agree more!

I'm working with a coalition to make sure Congress sends the president a strong energy bill with meaningful changes for our environment and planet. This legislation would be a monumental step toward stopping global warming. Please go to http://www.energybill2007.us and sign the petition. This is our chance for real progress, don't let Congress back down.

Congress finally has a chance to pass meaningful energy legislation. The bill they are about to pass includes the best fuel economy standards ever (35 mpg by 2020) and a renewable electricity standard (15% by 2020) that guarantees the growth of renewable, clean energy. But there is a chance these two key advances won't make it through to the final bill.

Please let your readers know!!

It is worth pointing out that US politics forces many (most?) people into an immediate false dichotomy. A parliamentary system with more political parties allows for nuance.
For many people, Gore is left, and therefore the anti-Christ - they will not hear him. And for many politicians on the right, the mantra has been "GW is not real, or not serious, or..." though that seems to be changing.
If we had a recognizable 'middle' the debate would be less childish.

Chris -- In your DeSmog piece you state: "In case you hadn't noticed, today it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that we are going to take serious action to curtail human-induced greenhouse gas emissions pretty soon."

I think you need to get out of your own bubble. Polls consistently show that global warming / environmental issues barely rate as a concern of the American public. War, health care, terrorism, jobs -- these are the issues that will drive our politics for the foreseeable future.

Corporate media, right wing media, and politicized churches have developed over the years such a comfortable and seductive cocoon of lies in which millions rest blissfully unaware, and which is so easy to slip back into if they ever get knocked out by a stray fact.

No alternative to Gore will penetrate that cocoon any better than he does, and no one wise enough to move out of it would refuse to give him a listen.

There needs to be a high-profile, "road to Damascus" level conversion of a major conservative pundit or political figure on this issue. Can't we get some Real Genius-types to implant a tiny microphone in Senator Inhofe's teeth? I'd be willing to act as the voice of God...

Jack writes, "There needs to be a high-profile, "road to Damascus" level conversion of a major conservative pundit or political figure on this issue."

Click my name for a disappointing (to me) performance by Newt Gingrich.

But it is possible that his view will persuade conservatives that there is a problem, even though he pussyfoots around Inhofe's blatant denialism. (Some here who call themselves "skeptics" will bristle at that word. But true skeptics should be the first to denounce those whose denialism hurts their arguments.)

Newt Gingrich is the guy who wanted to abolish the US Geological survey, one of America's oldest governmental scientific organizations, as part of his Contract With America.