Politics: LaRocco on Idaho
Right Wing Panicked Over Gore
By Larry LaRocco, 2-01-07
Pinch me.
Was I really in Boise, Idaho with 10,000 people aching to hear Al Gore’s presentation on global warming? It makes you wonder if the true appetite for this message in reddest Idaho was north of 15,000. The feeling in that arena was electric. It was the largest live audience ever to hear this message.
Rolling Stone has published an article on Gore’s prospects of converting from prophet to president. It mentions the Boise speech as evidence that the climate-change message is catching fire.
The instant, almost vitriolic negative reaction from the Idaho right was predictable, and the list of angry criticism spread like noxious weeds. Letters to the editor and blog comments complain Gore is “a politician not a scientist,” that he’s preening for a presidential run, that he must be a tool of California’s environmental cabal, that he’s scaring the children, or that we can blame it on China. You get the picture.
In Idaho we get the unabridged and unfiltered views from the right, so we see some nasty message points circulating around the fringes. We were even treated to debunking news releases from the religious right and a pre-emptive strike by Idaho’s senior senator, Larry Craig, before Gore hit town.
Some of the naysayers and anti-Gore folks had nothing better to say than the sold-out arena was merely a progressives’ night out on the town.
Gore surely provokes negative reactions after every speech. As the first wave of intemperate reaction from the right washes over us, we have the opportunity to re-examine our own views towards the message Gore dropped on our doorstep.
The immediate attacks on Gore say something else to me: panic.
It’s reminiscent of the mad dash to Terry Schiavo’s bedside by the far right, who tried to send a message to Americans that Congress should butt in and tell us how to handle our personal and private end-of-life decisions. Tom DeLay and his band of absolutists thought they had the moral high ground, only to discover Americans resented their interference and could figure out their own morality, thank you very much.
Our free society presents us with choices. We have on and off buttons. We can consume or save. We can join or sit on the sidelines. We can vote or not vote. We can recycle or not recycle. We can buy big or we can buy little. We can rebel or remain passive. We can reduce greenhouse gas - or we can ignore it.
The reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. doesn’t necessarily require a law, treaty or band of morality cops on the beat in our living rooms. Armed with the facts, Americans will make the right choice.
I have worked for the largest public relations agency in North America. You can bet consultants across America are advising clients to catch this wave and never look back. America is on the move to scrub its neighborhoods, and corporate America doesn’t want to get left behind. We’re at the intersection of cleaning up the planet while having a positive impact on the corporate bottom line. It’s okay – even advantageous - to be green.
Ten thousand people showed up in Boise to hear Al Gore because they believe America can do a better job protecting our precious earth. We all define that more precisely in our own lives. The race to accumulate “stuff” seems to be decelerating. Baby boomers are mature enough to know the difference between needs and wants, and they possess the good sense to act on their convictions. The explosion of communications has created a new ethic among people of all ages, sensitizing us that something is amiss in our environment. Most of us are looking for ways to dial it down a notch or two in our lives, families, communities and country.
Movements don’t necessarily follow political ideology. They emerge, catch fire, attract champions, gain critical mass and become part of our culture. They don’t always take shape in a statutory framework. Oftentimes, legislating a “fix” is a sure-fire way to blunt a movement.
Al Gore has started a movement. No matter how you view it, at this moment Americans are approaching the tipping point in their desire to find ways to reduce greenhouse gases.
The knee-jerk reaction from the right wing is comical. It reeks of desperation. Once again, they claim to be our shield from international organizations, multi-lateralists, one-world government, humanists and secularists – their tired old masks to put a monkey wrench in Al Gore’s message.
I sense this movement is a runaway train, and the right will be left standing bewildered at the station. The reaction from a majority of Americans will be the same as when the right wing interfered in the Terry Schiavo case. Butt out! We can handle it.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1623952.ece
Lynn: Thanks for your warm comments. I'll keep writing and I hope you do the same to let me know what you think. Best wishes.
Larry
Even though Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize I hope he doesn't run for president, he is too valuable in fighting the good fight for the environment. What is needed is a Democrat president who puts Gore into some climate change policy role in the White House.
There is a right wing blog called "Hot Air" that lambasts the Nobel Peace prize nomination of Al Gore and asks what is the connection between global warming and peace. Well to answer them - rising sea levels, droughts, famines, food shortages, 100s millions of environmental refugees, collapsing stock markets - all are the fuel for war. Obvious to anyone really, except right wing free market fundamentalists.
Deserts and dead seas are some of the most peaceful places on the planet.
You wrote, "Armed with the facts, Americans will make the right choice." Last I checked Gavin Newsom is an American. Perhaps he couldn't find the "on" and "off" buttons on his 'left-wing' clicker thing.
Major ski resorts such as Aspen and Park City have embraced the need to fight global warming and save our snow. We are now working to see that Sun Valley "catches the wave and never looks back."
Fortunately, Al Gore's visit to Boise inspired students from the Wood River High School and The Community School to take action and they have not hesitated. The other evening students at the Community School showed "An Inconvenient Truth" and held a town hall meeting to discuss what we as a community can do to immediately to start fighting global warming locally. Students at Wood River High School are forming an environmental club and are working with the City of Hailey to get them to sign on to the Climate Protection Agreement. This is all because they were inspired by Gore's presentation.
They understand the argument is over on global warming and are counting on us to help them make planet earth livable when they are our age.
Here are a couple of links to what other ski resorts are doing:
Aspen/Snowmass:
http://www.aspensnowmass.com/environment/
Park City Mountain Resort:
http://www.saveoursnow.org/index.html
Don't misunderstand, I'm all for saving the universe and I am personally very frugal, especially with water. I just do not understand the value of burning 10s of thousands of gallons of fuel to hear someone talk about the problem. There are lots of articles on tv and the net and newspapers everyday, but no one offers a solution. Shut down manufacturing? Live one day using nothing manufactured, then tell me if it is doable. If I never drove my little car again, I could never save the amount of fuel that was burned for that one talk, in fact, conversely, if I drove to Cody every day I could never use that amount.
I will admit I would welcome a little global warming today, with temps again hovering in the zero range.
Maybe Gore could have put it this way: "We are over-grazing this planet, Folks and this s**t's gotta stop..." End of speech.
This is no time to stand quietly. Idahoans who care must find their voices and raise them loud and strong. We must also be ready to walk the talk and set an example for others to follow. I want my grandkids to live in a nice place, too.
He stated: "Well, in a certain sense, when it comes to expenditures, and I'm speaking mostly as a citizen, except in one respect, almost everything proposed so far, if there's anything that there is a consensus on, will do very little to affect climate. So right now despite all of the claims to the contrary, we're talking about symbolism. And I think Julian's point is correct. Do you spend a lot? Do you distort a great deal in the economy for symbolism? And I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us. And I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating. Senator Inhofe was absolutely right. All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."
Yesterday, I heard Hillary Clinton say that we can stop global warming. How arrogant and fallacious. The earth has been having climate cycles for 100's of million years. The suggestion that we can stop such natural process change is just plain laughable. Is she a complete idiot or just repeating the popular tripe for political value? We have the ability to address our part of the cycle process but we have no ability to stop the supertanker momentum. In my opinion, such rhetoric as hers undermines serious commentary on targeted efforts to address environmental issues of clean air, clean water and abundant food sources while maintaining some green areas to recreate in. Let’s do what we can do for the right reasons and achievable goals.
See an AEI letter here: http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/aeiletter.pdf
To those who dispute whether tainted money produces tainted science, scholarship or punditry, I submit two quotes to consider:
"We've already established what you are, ma'am. Now we're just haggling over the price." -- George Bernard Shaw, and....
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009625
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f367413412565006/
Abstract Public attitudes about climate change reveal a contradiction. Surveys show most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations can be deferred until there is greater evidence that climate change is harmful. US policymakers likewise argue it is prudent to wait and see whether climate change will cause substantial economic harm before undertaking policies to reduce emissions. Such wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate’s response to anthropogenic forcing. We report experiments with highly educated adults – graduate students at MIT – showing widespread misunderstanding of the fundamental stock and flow relationships, including mass balance principles, that lead to long response delays. GHG emissions are now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs – analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow – support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter. Low public support for mitigation policies may arise from misconceptions of climate dynamics rather than high discount rates or uncertainty about the impact of climate change. Implications for education and communication between scientists and nonscientists (the public and policymakers) are discussed.
Marion, thanks for pointing out the WSJ edit. This side of the story must be heard, considered and digested. It's interesting that the opinion piece was not hysterical. That's the reason I read George Will and others. They challenge the reader. We shouldn't ignore the warning signs, however. The embassy bombings were a prelude to 9/11. I'm grateful for everyone's participation. Will we all be watching the Academy Awards with interest? The Idaho Statesman today has an interesting array of letters to the editor on the subject: http://www.idahostatesman.com/127/story/70037.html.
Larry
Actually I think there has been far more hysteria on the part of those who feel threatened by any one who doesn't "believe".
If he is wrong, where is he wrong and why?
There is also a recent comment from a gentleman in Great Britain. He captures some of the same questions and concerns that I have. See: http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1171273.0.0.php
He writes: "Is anyone asking if the measures we are being encouraged to take will actually have an effect? Will the cost of these measures be justified or is it better to put in place plans to protect us from the inevitable?"
The worldwide carbon tax seems to be the solution by Chirac's world environmental police body. How will adding $.25 to $.40 a gallon carbon tax improve the dire forecasted climate change? Where is the emperical evidence for this? Will this tax just be another "sin" tax like tobacco and alchohol that fills goverment coffers without changing behaviour? Is that why the tax idea is first out of the box as a touted solution?
Today the WSJ ran a story disputing this claim. See: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009649
It stated in part:
"Here are the facts as we've been able to collect them. AEI doesn't lobby, didn't offer money to scientists to question global warming, and the money it did pay for climate research didn't come from Exxon.
What AEI did was send a letter to several leading climate scientists asking them to participate in a symposium that would present a "range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension." Some of the scholars asked to participate, including Steve Schroeder of Texas A& M, are climatologists who believe that global warming is a major problem.
AEI President Chris DeMuth says, "What the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI -- and Brookings, Harvard and the University of Manchester -- to pay individuals" for commissioned work. He says that Exxon has contributed less than 1% of AEI's budget over the last decade.
As for Exxon, Lauren Kerr, director of its Washington office, says that "none of us here had ever heard of this AEI climate change project until we read about it in the London newspapers." By the way, commissioning such research is also standard practice at NASA and other government agencies and at liberal groups such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, which have among them spent billions of dollars attempting to link fossil fuels to global warming."
Now, how did less than 1% of AEI's budget get to be "heavily funded by ExxonMobile" as the journalist asserts? Can someone reconcile this discrepancy?