The theory of Global Climate Change is the only thing that has kept Al Gore a public figure. After the 2000 election he was almost entirely forgotten, that is until An Inconvenient Truth (well, it’s convenient for him). Since that documentary, Gore is everywhere. He’s won several awards (some he deserved) but the most outrageous one given to him is the Nobel Peace Prize (shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

Wow, the Nobel Peace Prize, what’s that? Well, in Alfred Nobe’s own words it is “[awarded] to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Wait! which of those has Al Gore and the IPCC done? They haven’t done the most or best work for fraternity between nations, they haven’t done the most or best work for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and they done the most or best work for the establishment of peace congresses. So what exactly did they receive the award for?

According to the foundation, they received the award for “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” WAIT! isn’t man made climate change a theory? So, not only did he receive the award for none of the criteria given but for a theory that has received criticism for failing to accurate predict climate effects?

Good to hear that the Nobel Peace Prize no longer means anything.

I was skeptical at the beginning… about whether I would actually like the movie (of course it didn’t change my mind). The first thing that I noticed when starting the movie was that it was very professionally done. Al Gore and co did a very nice job of mixing the scenes together with video (from Gore’s presentations). That balance between video/pictures and music/speaking/silence is really what sets this movie aside from other documentaries.

While I still disagree with Gore on much of what he said, An Inconvenient Truth really did a good job of making him relevant in today’s society. Also, the movie served to put a person with the face (often times I think that we forget that politicians are just people). Although this movie was about Global Warming, they mixed with moments from Gore’s life. Gore talked about when he was a kid, when he was a senator, when his child almost died and when he lost his bid for President. I have to say it, but that part about him losing the bid for President made me really respect him. Although I would not ever want to see him actually as President; his attitude about his own fall and the fact that he picked himself back up is important.

Finally, I would point out that a few of the graphs that he uses are deceiving. While technically correct, the graphs use broken scales to make it seem as if the problem is worse than it really is. I did however back check the information on the graphs and as far as I can tell, the information is accurate.

Also, the last part of the movie, actually during the credit might even be the best part! The letters appear on a blank screen and re-arrange themselves to give you ideas on how you can help out. Basically; conserve, re-use, recycle and it even suggested writing to congress. I was surprised to see a movie made by a Democrat to include ways of fixing the problem (instead of just talking about it).

“The Supreme Court ruled today, in what amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions, and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so.” (New York Times)

Despite what many people in the rest of the world, this is a step in the wrong direction. Carbon controls are a truly dangerous thing to play around with. Carbon controls are just a synonym for market controls. Since most consumers wouldn’t willing chose a more expensive car just because it had less emissions (although if the car had some other redeeming feature, like being a hybrid and thus getting more miles to the gallon) the government must force car companies to make cars that have less emissions. In turn, this will getting passed on to the consumer (eliminating their choice in the matter) making us have to pay more for cars. This won’t stop here though; soon everything will have carbon caps and making us have to pay more for almost everything.

This is the primary reason the US opted not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (although we signed it, it has no force of law until ratified by Congress, which it hasn’t been). The economic weight of such a move would be very harmful of our still growing economies (although the effect probably wouldn’t be immediate). Just check out the countries that did ratify the Kyoto Protocol: almost all of them are struggling to meet the next deadline, most of the European countries have more carbon emissions that when they signed.

The way to lower carbon is to give some tax breaks to people who choose to buy carbon efficient technologies. In this manner, the activity of buying carbon efficient technologies is encouraged and the economy isn’t going to be broken over this. Heck as we reach Al Gore’s ten year mark (the world will cease to exist in ten years because of global warming) we can even add a carbon tax, something that Gore just argued for on Capital Hill (OK! I am just kidding).

Stout, David. “Justices Rule Against Bush Administration on Emissions.” New York Times. 2 Apr. 2007. New York Times. 2 Apr. 2007 .

“Kyoto Protocol.” Wikipedia. 31 Mar. 2007. Wikipedia. 2 Apr. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty>.

Global Warming is always portrayed in a negative manner; ocean level rising, stronger hurricanes, stronger storms in general however could moderate climate change actually be a good thing?

• Slightly warmer temperatures would increase crop yield. Crops could be harvested over a longer period of time perhaps increasing the yields. More crops can always be a good thing – perhaps we can feed the world or maybe we will waste some of our crop on ethanol?
• Slightly warmer temperatures would lower energy costs during the winter months. If the temperature is warmer during the winter months, then I won’t need to spend as much to heat my home (and workplace, and car).
• Slightly warmer temperatures would give small health benefits. I wouldn’t need worry getting frostbite or hypothermia if the temperatures were warmer.

Of course, we shouldn’t let this get out of hand. If temperatures were to increase substantially: then sea levels would rise, species would struggle to stay alive, storms would get more powerful, quality of life would decrease. All I am trying to point out is that we shouldn’t break our back to cut carbon emissions when many creditable scientists predict only moderate temperature increase.

Scientists, politicians, even common people think of solutions to the growing energy crisis that we have everyday here in America. I actually wonder why: the answer is so simple that it almost makes me laugh:

Conservation, Nuclear Power, and Increased Renewable Energy Use.

• Conservation – It seems harder than it actually is. Turn off lights and appliances when you leave the room. DON’T warm up your car for 10 minutes before you leave for work/school. Turn off A/C during the summer when it is not super hot out (below 80 or so). Turn the heat down in your house during the winter and use a propane fireplace (or wood fireplace) to heat instead.

It may not seem like such a big deal to do the things above, and it mean even seem like doing such little things won’t help the overall problem. However, if everyone in American did the above things when possible – then it would be a lot less of an emergency to find alternate fuel sources. It would also cost a lot less to use energy (supply/demand)

• Nuclear Power – We can all agree that Nuclear Power isn’t exactly the cleanest solution to our problems… after all we are wanting a clean source of energy to power ourselves in the future. However, Nuclear Energy isn’t as ‘dirty’ as people imagine. All the bi-products are formed into glass tubes and buried under Government owned law in Nevada (and other places). Nuclear waste should be the least of our worries when dealing with Nuclear Power.

Nuclear Power plants are also extremely safe. One might worry of a nuclear breakdown – however since incidents at the Three-Mile Island plant and Chernobyl, Nuclear Power Plant protocol has become much stricter. Of course security is always going to be a consideration, a Nuclear Power Plant might become a significant target for terrorists, however if security is high at these reactors, it shouldn’t be a problem.

It should be noted that no new Nuclear Plants have been constructed since 1979 (in America) and all [functional] reactors can still be used. However in China and other developing countries, Nuclear Power has become a great energy source.

• Increased Renewable Energy – The most difficult to achieve on the list; renewable energy can and will be obtainable as the demand (because of ever higher energy prices) increases (and of course the supply of renewable energy will need to increase). Of course, it is hoped by the time the masses come to Renewable energy, that the technologies will have evolved to be cheaper and more efficient than their present day counterparts.

It should be noted that if I were to install Solar Panels on my house, any electricity that I do not consume is pumped back into the grid and the Power companies will actually send me a check reimbursing me for helping out. Just a positive to the panels that many people don’t consider (they actually pay for themselves with cash left over for the user).