A Test of Our Character By PAUL KRUGMAN

[Guest guest]

Op-Ed Columnist

A Test of Our Character

By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

Published: May 26, 2006

 

In his new movie, " An Inconvenient Truth, " Al Gore suggests that there are three

reasons it's hard to get action on global warming. The first is boiled-frog

syndrome: because the effects of greenhouse gases build up gradually, at any

given moment it's easier to do nothing. The second is the perception, nurtured

by a careful disinformation campaign, that there's still a lot of uncertainty

about whether man-made global warming is a serious problem. The third is the

belief, again fostered by disinformation, that trying to curb global warming

would have devastating economic effects.

 

I'd add a fourth reason, which I'll talk about in a minute. But first, let's

notice that Mr. Gore couldn't have asked for a better illustration of

disinformation campaigns than the reaction of energy-industry lobbyists and

right-wing media organizations to his film.

 

The cover story in the current issue of National Review is titled " Scare of the

Century. " As evidence that global warming isn't really happening, it offers the

fact that some Antarctic ice sheets are getting thicker - a point also

emphasized in a TV ad by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is partly

financed by large oil companies, whose interests it reliably represents.

 

Curt Davis, a scientist whose work is cited both by the institute and by

National Review, has already protested. " These television ads, " he declared in a

press release, " are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about

the global warming debate. " He points out that an initial increase in the

thickness of Antarctica's interior ice sheets is a predicted consequence of a

warming planet, so that his results actually support global warming rather than

refuting it.

 

Even as the usual suspects describe well-founded concerns about global warming

as hysteria, they issue hysterical warnings about the economic consequences of

environmentalism. " Al Gore's global warming movie: could it destroy the

economy? " Fox News asked.

 

Well, no, it couldn't. There's some dispute among economists over how forcefully

we should act to curb greenhouse gases, but there's broad consensus that even a

very strong program to reduce emissions would have only modest effects on

economic growth. At worst, G.D.P. growth might be, say, one-tenth or two-tenths

of a percentage point lower over the next 20 years. And while some industries

would lose jobs, others would gain.

 

Actually, the right's panicky response to Mr. Gore's film is probably a good

thing, because it reveals for all to see the dishonesty and fear-mongering on

which the opposition to doing something about climate change rests.

 

But " An Inconvenient Truth " isn't just about global warming, of course. It's

also about Mr. Gore. And it is, implicitly, a cautionary tale about what's been

wrong with our politics.

 

Why, after all, was Mr. Gore's popular-vote margin in the 2000 election narrow

enough that he could be denied the White House? Any account that neglects the

determination of some journalists to make him a figure of ridicule misses a key

part of the story. Why were those journalists so determined to jeer Mr. Gore?

Because of the very qualities that allowed him to realize the importance of

global warming, many years before any other major political figure: his

earnestness, and his genuine interest in facts, numbers and serious analysis.

 

And so the 2000 campaign ended up being about the candidates' clothing, their

mannerisms, anything but the issues, on which Mr. Gore had a clear advantage

(and about which his opponent was clearly both ill informed and dishonest).

 

I won't join the sudden surge of speculation about whether " An Inconvenient

Truth " will make Mr. Gore a presidential contender. But the film does make a

powerful case that Mr. Gore is the sort of person who ought to be running the

country.

 

Since 2000, we've seen what happens when people who aren't interested in the

facts, who believe what they want to believe, sit in the White House. Osama bin

Laden is still at large, Iraq is a mess, New Orleans is a wreck. And, of course,

we've done nothing about global warming.

 

But can the sort of person who would act on global warming get elected? Are we -

by which I mean both the public and the press - ready for political leaders who

don't pander, who are willing to talk about complicated issues and call for

responsible policies? That's a test of national character. I wonder whether

we'll pass.

 

URL

 

 

" Respect means listening until everyone has been heard and understood, only

then is there a possibility of " Balance and Harmony " the goal of Indian

Spirituality. " Dave Chief, Grandfather of Red Dog

 

 

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+

countries) for 2¢/min or less.

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 27 May 2006 at 17:17, Daphne Bradshaw wrote:

 

> I won't join the sudden surge of speculation about whether " An

> Inconvenient Truth " will make Mr. Gore a presidential contender. But

> the film does make a powerful case that Mr. Gore is the sort of person

> who ought to be running the country. Since 2000, we've seen what

> happens when people who aren't interested in the facts, who believe

> what they want to believe, sit in the White House. Osama bin Laden is

> still at large, Iraq is a mess, New Orleans is a wreck. And, of

> course, we've done nothing about global warming.

>

 

Is it " an inconvenient truth " that Mr. Gore walked away

from the White House rather than fighting for it by

conceding? Had he fought, he certainly would have had an

army of followers shoring him up! But no -- he handed it

over to the worst masterminded criminal this country has

ever seen!

 

And we still don't even really know how much of a threat

Osama bin Laden really is -- at least I don't, because I don't

believe a word that comes out of the White House OR the

masterminded press!

 

And yeah, Iraq is a mess, and getting worse (have you SEEN

the pictures of the babies affected by depleted uranium in

utero?). And yes, New Orleans is a wreck -- again, a planned

wreck by the man in the White House who " speaks for God "

but can't seem to follow the Ten Commandments.

 

But is Gore the person to take his place? The man who

walked away from the most important battle in history that

might have saved us all?

 

I think not. He doesn't want it bad enough.

 

 

....geminiwalker