June 19, 2006

Al Gore, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Scientific Consensus

Did anyone else see Al Gore on Larry King? It was re-aired last night on CNN. I missed it the first time around.

It is still bitter to think of the America that could have been if he had become president. I'm not saying that poverty would be abolished or famine conquered, but I believe several long-awaited steps forward would have been taken. Surely, twenty-five hundred Americans would not have died in Iraq.

Gore dealt with a Republican senate during his term, and could convince only one senator out of 100 to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Years later, the treaty is still not ratified, making the U.S. one of the only major world powers not participating (besides Australia).

Still, with the growth of China and India, many analysts see the protocol as insufficient. From the BBC:

"'By 2010, the net reduction in global emissions from Europe meeting the Kyoto Protocol will be only 0.1%,' said Margo Thorning, 'because all the growth is coming in places like India.

'We need to focus on things like the Asia-Pacific partnership which are driven by long-term strategies to reduce emissions and boost growth.'"


The Kyoto Protocol, however insufficient, is the first step towards a more realistic approach to the earth's natural resources. Conservation may be uncomfortable for many of us to consider, but will become a reality if we wish to keep our current ecosystems intact.

The main reason why environmentalists are labeled alarmists is because many reductionists (global warming is cyclic and therefore inevitable) and "disbelievers" of climate change are not educated from the scientific perspective, but from the media's perspective.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Just as with the theory of evolution, there is no debate within the scientific community about whether global warming is happening and whether or not we are causing it; it is and we are.

Don't believe me? Go here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here (I could go on and on...). Read some reputable reports, most from within our own government, and then make a decision. Form a real opinion, backed by evidence.

1 comment:

  1. I have often thought of what things would be like now if we had President Gore instead of what's his name. Every time I hear Gore in an interview, I'm struck by how intelligent and thoughtful he is. Those are such better qualities for a president that someone who goes with his "gut" feelings and doesn't like to read the newspaper. I'm somewhat pessimistic about stopping global warming before we reach the "point of no return." However, I guess to look at one positive side, the ozone problem was solved by international cooperation, even thought the first treaty on the issue wasn't what solved the problem... it was just the first step. Maybe Kyoto will just be the first step in cutting greenhouse emissions. But somehow I think that by the time the international community realizes this is a serious problem, it will be too late. I hope I'm wrong...