The Weekend Wonk: Al Gore on Inconvenient Truth, Ten Years Later

October 28, 2017

We’re gonna win this. But can we win it in time?

First 5 minutes are filmmaker inside baseball. More meat after that.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The Weekend Wonk: Al Gore on Inconvenient Truth, Ten Years Later”

  1. J4Zonian Says:

    22:00 by definition, the bipartisan committee buys into the extremely destructive lie of incrementalism.

    You may have heard “a lie can go halfway around the world while the truth is putting its pants on” or some variation. And ‘Life is what happens while we’re making plans” etc. Incrementalists are always doing the slow work they take credit for later when revolutionary change overtakes them. By insisting on equal representation from those who are radically wrong on a subject such groups rule out the actions the better half of the group is willing to take. The right has not only delayed action by all of us so long only radical actions are sufficient now, they and their world view have been completely discredited and should have no part in deciding anything from here on.

    Like outright denial has mostly given way to “I’m not a scientist” and “CO2 is good” and blah, blah… bipartisanism and market “solutions” are just different lines of defense in the denialism of reality that’s gotten us into this mess. The solutions are obvious when we free ourselves of the nonsensical bias of the right wing. It’s time to stop praising heel dragging and get on with the work that will stop utter catastrophe from destroying the biosphere.

  2. indy222 Says:

    It’s so frustrating that almost no one wants to name the elephant in the room, Gore as well… the elephant is the requirement for an end to growth; economic, population, far beyond just CO2. We’re not going to solve anything if we keep pandering to peoples desire for never ending growth by promising we can have a livable planet and pure renewables right around the corner and why how wonderful, a carbon tax makes 70% of the people net winners $$$! A mere 3% growth in civilization globally (China and India are growing much faster than this) means you can imagine everything we’ve done to the planet since the dawn of the caveman, and double it in the same 7 continents we’ve had (minus some coastline of course) in just 27 years, and still have any sort of planet that hasn’t collapsed of it’s own debt-driven weight.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Elephant joke:

      Q, Why do elephants paint their toenails red?
      A. So they can hide in cherry trees.

      Q. Have you ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?
      A. No.

      Then it must work!

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      People don’t have a “desire for never ending growth”. People just want to have a comfortable home, and financial and medical health.

      It’s the corporate capitalist system that wants never-ending growth. This is what needs to change. Government must work better for people and, now, for civilization. The public interest, the commons must have greater importance. (Yeah, that means more socialistic policies)

      We have an opportunity, with renewable energy, to really start that process, to change people’s conception of what government can and should be doing for the people.

      That is why I believe that public ownership of our RE is so important. And why private ownership (rooftop PV) and corporate (for-profit) ownership of RE is not the best way to proceed.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        E.O. Wilson in his newest book (Half Earth) makes the distinction between “extensive” growth and “intensive” growth.

        “Extensive” growth is the type favored by the corporate capitalists—-out-of-control-run-amok-plunder-and-destroy-the-planet so that the few may get rich.

        E.O. says that we need to focus on intensive growth if we want to save the planet, “intensive” meaning to develop and extend our technology to improve people’s lives while at the same time reducing our impact.

        E.O. is approaching 90 and perhaps getting a bit bright-sided in his old age. In Half Earth he advocates setting aside one half of Earth’s surface for the “wild things” that must survive if the biosphere is to be maintained in anything near its present state. The book is a good read, but it is full of evidence that this idea is not likely to work.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: