Go, Gore, go

Posted by jamie — 17 August 2007 at 4:49pm - Comments

It's a shame the New York Times only allows subscribers to see their stories online (don't get any ideas, UK press moguls) because there was an absolute corker in yesterday's edition that's been sent round on email. Al Gore, when talking to columnist Nicholas Kristof, advocated a programme of direct action to tackle climate change:

"We are now treating the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer," [Mr Gore] said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources. "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."

Is this the first sign of a change for the man who used to be the Next President of the United States? Will he shake off the mild-mannered lecturer schtick, going underground to lead troops of young activists into confrontation with police, power companies and politicians? Will there be a resurgence of grass-roots politics where our elected officials through off the trappings of state to take their lead from the people?

Nah, maybe not. Besides, I don't think a beret and beard would suit Al. Still, Kristof ended his column with a rather salient point:

Critics [of climate change] scoff that the scientific debate is continuing, that the consequences are uncertain - and they're right. There is natural variability and lots of uncertainty, especially about the magnitude and timing of climate change.

In the same way, terror experts aren't sure about the magnitude and timing of Al Qaeda's next strike. But it would be myopic to shrug that because there's uncertainty about the risks, we shouldn't act vigorously to confront them — yet that's our national policy toward climate change, and it's a disgrace.


Whichever way you look at them, oil spills are bad - both the big newsworthy ones and the accumulation of smaller, less prominent ones. But whether they're reducing the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 I'm afraid I couldn't say - I just don't know the science.

Either way, our priority still has to be reducing emissions - regardless of oil spills, the capacity of the ocean as a carbon sink is limited. Fortunately, reducing emissions means moving away from fossil fuels including oil - which should mean less oil spills.

web editor
gpuk

Whichever way you look at them, oil spills are bad - both the big newsworthy ones and the accumulation of smaller, less prominent ones. But whether they're reducing the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 I'm afraid I couldn't say - I just don't know the science. Either way, our priority still has to be reducing emissions - regardless of oil spills, the capacity of the ocean as a carbon sink is limited. Fortunately, reducing emissions means moving away from fossil fuels including oil - which should mean less oil spills. web editor gpuk

About Jamie

I'm a forests campaigner working mainly on Indonesia. My personal mumblings can be found @shrinkydinky.

Follow Greenpeace UK