Inconvenient?

I’ve been reading, on this site and elsewhere, comments regarding Al Gore, calling him "Al Bore" and referring to his documentary as "Inconvenient Lies," make me wonder if those making them have actually seen the documentary, or are just trying to be clever.

I had the opportunity this past week to view An Inconvenient Truth. I have to say that I was very impressed with Mr Gore’s presentation of facts and data, and the manner in which he refutes critics. He is articulate and thoughtful, and obviously has kept himself well-informed on a vast range of topics.

Note: at this point we should pause and say a quick thank you to Mr Gore. It is largely through his efforts that public access to the Internet came into being, through legislation that he authored and which was passed in December 1991. He also coined the term "information superhighway."

As for "An Inconvenient Truth," the picture he paints provides a dire warning to us all. I will qualify my comments by saying this: I do not dispute the information that Gore presents, although the scale of certain graphs portrays the results in a very dramatic fashion. Still, Gore’s choice of scale merely reflects the degree of concern the scientific community is showing.

One scene in the documentary is an animation, in the style of a 1950s science-class film, depicting a frog which first jumps into a pot of boiling water then immediately jumps out again. This is followed by the same frog being placed in a pot of cool water to which heat is then applied and gradually brought to the boiling point. The theory is that, being cold-blooded, the frog placed in cool water would adapt to the ever-increasing temperature until it was too late.

This, Gore suggests, is how many people are reacting to the climate change warnings. They view them as relatively minor and refuse to recognize them as being serious — perhaps until it is too late to do anything about the problem.

Gore draws a comparison between the current climate change debate and that which took place regarding tobacco use in the latter part of the last century. The tobacco lobby went to great and expensive lengths to cast doubt on the science which showed the dangerous and carcinogenic properties of tobacco products.

Various lobbies — representing oil companies, manufacturers, and others with a vested interest in the large-scale production and use of fossil-derived energy — have been insidiously attempting to cast doubt on the almost unanimous results of scientific research of the past several decades. Rather like a defense attorney, they do not need to prove their client’s innocence, but merely raise sufficient doubt in the minds of the jury — us. So far, it seems to be working.

I will admit that even I have considered that the changes we have been experiencing have been simply a part of a normal, long-term climatic cycle. I’m ready to abandon that position, now.

Gore presents a graph showing the Earth’s population trend to date, with a projection for the next 50 years. The population increased at a fairly slow but steady rate until a point which coincides with the industrial revolution. After that point, the increase becomes noticeably greater.

At the time of Christ, the population was estimated at 300 million. By the time of Bach (1850) it was 1.2 billion. One hundred years later, in 1950, it was 2.5 billion As the 20th century drew to a close in 2000, the population was just over 6 billion, and 6 years later had hit 6.5 billion.

By the year 2050, the Earth’s population is projected to reach 9 billion, an unprecedented increase. Even disregarding industrial activity, just having an extra 2.5 billion people will have a tremendous effect on the environment.

One of the most telling graphics showed the fuel-efficiency levels of world automakers. While many US automakers have claimed that it is "too expensive" to build vehicles that are more efficient than we currently have (didn’t we hear that in the 70s, too?), it seems that automakers around the world all are building more efficient vehicles than the US.

Of course, there is the final straw that many grasp: it is industry which needs to change, not the average person. What difference could one person possibly make?

To my way of thinking, every little bit helps. As more and more people adapt their lifestyles to use less energy, they will begin demanding that manufacturers and industry do likewise, both to provide more efficient and responsible products, and to reduce or eliminate their own noxious emissions.

One person can make a difference.

If you haven’t seen the documentary, please do so.
You can also visit the website:
www.climatecrisis.net