Financial Sense Home l Broadcast l WrapUp l Storm Watch l About Us l Contact Us
|
YOU
CAN CALL ME AL(ARMIST) Picking up his Academy Award in February for An Inconvenient Truth, a smiling, joking Al Gore was in his element - giving climate-change testimony, as it were, before a cheering crowd of California partisans. A month later, testifying before the House and the Senate on climate change, his reception was a bit cooler. Oh, well … that's showbiz. One supposes any publicity is good publicity. So where is Gore going with this fame? One of the most popular presidents of our time was Ronald Reagan, a former actor. Arnold Schwarzenegger ran a successful, long-shot campaign for California governor resting mainly on his wide name recognition as an actor. The state of Minnesota elected a former wrestler, Jesse "The Body" Ventura, as governor based largely on his celebrity status. It is also no secret that celebrities today make money based on their popularity, including how many books, movies and public appearances they can squeeze in while their topic du jour is hot. In a day when the members of the band U2 can meet with the president of the United States on Air Force 1, the power a celebrity can wield is formidable. Could the motivation be economic? Let's look at a fairly recent scare that led to economic windfalls for those who sounded the alarms. Does anyone remember the money spent preparing for Y2K, whose flames were fanned by those who made fortunes from that "man-made" crisis? Covering Gore's March 21 appearance on Capitol Hill, the Weekly Standard reporter Duncan Currie called up the Hollywood theme when he wrote: "Gore likened the fight against 'the climate crisis' to the battle waged against overwhelming odds by a band of Spartan warriors at Thermopylae in 480 B.C., dramatized in the new movie 300." Certainly this lends a dramatic appearance to his campaign. As Gore testified before Congress, the former vice president laid out his plans for a cleaner earth. He "asked Congress to set an immediate freeze on emissions of carbon dioxide," noted NPR.com. "He said they should come up with a plan to slash those emissions 90 percent by 2050. He also called on Congress to ban incandescent light bulbs and require better gas mileage for cars as part of a comprehensive package." Gore also requested pollution taxes, principally on carbon dioxide emissions, which would come at the reduction of employment taxes. "Right now we are discouraging work and encouraging the destruction of the planet's habitability," he told Congress. He has proposed giving more money to the poor to offset higher energy prices. No new coal plants should be built without first developing carbon-sequestration technology, he said. In addition, he suggested the creation of the so-called electranet, or smart grid, to allow individuals to sell power into the grid, which should be generated by solar or wind power. He even requested a new mortgage institute he called Connie Mae - "a carbon-neutral mortgage association," as he told Congress. The services will "pay for themselves," he explained, "but just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, put them in an instrument that is separate from the purchase price, and when you go to closing on a house, you sign the mortgage and they'll say: 'Well, now, here's your Connie Mae home improvement package here; you don't have to worry about paying for that, because it'll pay for itself. The Congress of the United States has made sure of that.'" Further, he said, the Securities and Exchange Commission ought to require disclosure of carbon emissions by companies, taking the record-keeping of Sarbanes-Oxley to a new level. Internationally, Gore is trying to create another Kyoto Protocol, but with a better name, and to bring China and other developing nations into the treaty, called cap and trade. He called climate change the greatest danger ever faced and the greatest opportunity, citing its management as a moral imperative. At no time did Gore's testimony address the cost of the programs he outlined. At one point, arch-conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) showed a frame from Gore's own movie that asks viewers, "Are you ready to change the way you live?" Inhofe then challenged Gore to take a "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge" to "consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today," or March 21, 2008. That challenge, of course, was a play on the much-reported release of the energy usage and cost incurred at Gore's Nashville residence (see sidebar, "Two Houses in America"). Interestingly, however, Inhofe did not address the impact of the programs Gore suggested. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) chided Inhofe for his line of questioning. Commentator Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun-Times seconded her: "How does Gore's homelife affect the sea level in China? … There are ways to poke holes in the [global warming] argument, but trying to tar Gore as a hypocrite is not one of them." Interesting that Boxer knows that there are ways to poke holes in the global warming argument and yet is still willing to entertain Gore's suggestions while refraining from comment on their economic impact. Clearly, Gore has touched nerves on both sides of the climate-change issue. The Oscar nab for An Inconvenient Truth and the accompanying publicity have brought the film to a much wider audience than would otherwise have sat through what is essentially Hollywood's first blockbuster based on a PowerPoint slide show. Key to Gore's main points in the film is his reiteration that "the science" validates every claim. That was enough to prompt a close reading of the film by Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In March, Lewis gave a presentation based on his book Al Gore's Science Fiction: A Skeptic's Guide to "An Inconvenient Truth." Lewis' presentation was broadcast on C-SPAN, where he said, "The more I dug into [the movie], the more interesting the subject became." How sound is Gore's moral position? According to Lewis, An Inconvenient Truth "purports to be a nonpartisan, nonpolitical, non-ideological presentation of climate science and moral common sense. [But] it's actually a computer-enhanced lawyer's brief for alarm and energy rationing." The only facts Gore allows in his film, Lewis adds, "are convenient to his agenda, and he often shades or even twists the meaning of the evidence he cites - lawyerly tricks." A Catalog of Distortions Lewis goes on to categorize what he calls Gore's "distortions":
But beyond such fuzzy science is another issue. "Gore never considers the obvious moral objection to his agenda - its potentially catastrophic impacts on the world's poor," Lewis writes in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is not even remotely possible unless China, India and other developing countries restrict their use of carbon-based energy." Even in the prosperous United States, he adds, "energy taxes or their regulatory equivalent can inflict hardship on low-income households. A Kyoto-style system would make energy even more costly for consumers." It's the Science, Stupid With such a high-profile and important subject as climate change, it stands to reason that there will be strong opinions on both sides. One well-known name among the critics is Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. As far back as 2001, Lindzen published a Wall Street Journal article rebutting the science behind the Kyoto Protocol. More recently, Lindzen wrote in his paper "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus": Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming" would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming," any scientist's agreement will do. The answer almost certainly lies in politics. Scientists Speak Out Lindzen is not alone. The woods are full of researchers who would gladly debunk the global-warming story. Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, has made some of the most credible analyses against man-made CO2 global-warming theories. Other notable dissenters include the authors of these books:
Among the numerous papers published in the scientific community, the titles say it all:
Clearly, the scientific and academic communities, and even some politicians, do not share the opinion that An Inconvenient Truth is truth. However, none of this criticism seems to bother Gore or to stick with him as he roams the planet persuading governments to go down the path toward legislation. An Unstoppable Train? Has Gore finally found his gravy train? One thing is certain: He is making a lot of money popularizing the global-warming issue. Gore's media income is substantial, but the long-term ramifications of an entire industry created around the idea of carbon reduction is certainly more interesting. By creating Al Gore, the celebrity, he recreates himself in the current popular mode of politician. By achieving fame in Hollywood, Gore might reinvigorate an otherwise ended career in politics. The effect that Gore may have on our laws and economy during his rush for relevance will have long-standing effects on our economy and the economy of the world. One really should ask: Is he credible? Even while actors are given a pass on information blunders, and although many people feel that politicians lie anyway, Gore has a history of stretching the truth. There are actually two sides of his truth deficit: the highly publicized tendency to exaggerate and the more serious problem of evasion or omission of any information that runs counter to his theme. That's Incredible! The most famous example of exaggerating, of course, is that Gore "took the initiative in creating the Internet," but this is hardly an isolated example. When the LINUX and open-source computing movements reached their maximum trendiness, hidden text on Gore's Web page - visible to savvy computer users with the "View Source" command - proclaimed that it was an open source Web page and invited users to contribute to it. That is a ludicrous statement that combines bragging and ignorance in equal measure. Then there is Gore's claim to have uncovered the most famous toxic-waste site in the country. As a young congressman in the late 1970s, he said, "I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal." To his credit, Gore did support the Internet early on as a congressman - it is fair to say that he took the initiative among congressmen - and even Vincent Cerf, the computer scientist who is in fact considered "the father of the Internet," says: "It is entirely fitting that the vice president take some credit for helping create an environment in which [the] Internet could thrive." And Gore did hold the first federal hearings on Love Canal. But both the Internet and the Love Canal scandal were well established before Gore ever spoke of them. Both were convenient exaggerations of the truth that helped Gore move his message forward. You Cannot Legislate Common Sense Are we ready as a country to head down this path based on shaky science? Prior to passage of the energy bill, we heard from the industry how bad the science of ethanol was. And what did we get? A mandate to create and use ethanol. Now we are desperately pursuing it as a strategy with very little hope that the technology will actually create a viable version of the stuff. This year we may see a similar compromise that has even less value than the promise of ethanol. How many bills will include some climate-change language in order to assure passage? I hope someone is watching. Unlike his claims for the Internet, Gore may be able to take real credit for creating the engine that finally started "climate-change legislation." We should also be ready to give him credit for the tax burden created. "Climate change" is the mantra of the day, and we are seeing some very (economically) scary discussions surrounding carbon dioxide emissions, what they do and what is required to prevent them. The issue has become political football, a game that is devolving with only one side fielding a team. We are rapidly rushing toward the goal line with no defense to prevent "meaningful climate-change legislation" from being passed in short order. However, with evidence that global warming is more related to sun spots than CO2, why would politicians be so willing to go out on a limb? Could personal ambition and money be driving this debate?  © 2007 Richard R. Loomis & Susan Salter Editorial Archive
Contact Information |
|
Financial Sense Home l Broadcast l WrapUp l Storm Watch l About Us l Contact Us |
Copyright ©
James J. Puplava Financial Sense® is a Registered Trademark
P. O. Box 503147 San Diego, CA 92150-3147 USA 858.487.3939
Disclaimer