We can (and should) have a debate about the criteria for selecting recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. But that’s for another day. Today Mr. Gore has received tremendous recognition for his efforts. He gets a (brief…very brief, please) moment in the spotlight…Congratulations, sir.
But let me illustrate the challenge this award represents – the challenge to anyone who wants sensible, conservative-conservation policy on climate change.
The New York Times today points out that “Democrats in Congress, since regaining majority control this year, have been torn between making compromises needed to pass legislation and satisfying the unrelenting demands of the party’s liberal base.”
I couldn’t help but see a parallel to Gore’s climate crusade…you know, the one characterized by gloom-mongering?
So, while I’m sure the sponsors of this blog have a different view of Mr. Gore and the award, in the interest of bringing the debate toward the center and actually achieving a policy solution to climate change (and let’s hope the former vice president would consider this the highest award for his efforts), I’d like to issue 5 challenges to Mr. Gore:
First, respond to the nine significant errors that a British High Court Judge recently ruled are found in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Just the facts, please.
Second, remind everyone that your climate stance has Republican roots. Yep. You’ve at times supported cap and trade for reducing carbon emissions…great. It was originally George Schultz’s idea. The first Bush administration put cap and trade to work against acid rain and won. Say so and your credibility might go up with conservatives.
Third (in the interest of fair play), denounce your other Republican roots. You’ve at times supported a carbon tax to address climate change. Sadly, a few Republicans are supporting the same idea. It’s a bad one. Say so.
Fourth, loudly (for you know no other way) announce that the environment isn’t the only beneficiary of cleaner, low-carbon energy sources – we’ll improve our national security and strengthen our economy, too.
Finally, after you’ve done all these things, please step back. You’ve received an Emmy, an Oscar and now a Nobel for your efforts. Enjoy your awards…and let Congress hammer out smart bipartisan policy.
And finally, before you ever slam an imagined opponent on this issue – say, a conservative who wants market-based reforms for climate or pushes to hold China accountable for its pollution or fights to limit bureaucracy — take a deep breath and remember the man you called a “let’s drag our feet” candidate to lead the worlds climate research. I’m talking about Bush appointee and Indian scientist Rajendra Pachauri, the man who today quietly and humbly shares the Nobel Peace Prize.
This entry was posted on Friday, October 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pm and is filed under Cap and Trade, Climate Change, National Security, Politics/Government, Pop Culture . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
It’s not from Gore personally, but on your first challenge you can see Tim Lambert’s reply.
On your third challenge, you’re going to have convince Gore that a carbon tax is a bad idea before you can expect him to denounce it. As you know, he pushed for it as Vice President under Clinton. I believe he still supports a carbon tax as a way to promote conservation and incentivize the market to develop more efficient technologies to save energy and reduce pollution. Many Republican economists agree, e.g. Greg Mankiw who was a senior economist in the Bush Administration. Depending on the details of how it is implemented, a cap and trade system isn’t necessarily economically that different from a carbon tax anyway.
I heartily second your fourth challenge: We need to hear more about the national security and economic benefits. (I think Gore does mention those, but they need more emphasis.) It was a huge missed opportunity right after 9/11 not to tighten CAFE standards, etc. Instead, we were told as patriotic Americans we should buy SUV’s.
As for your final challenge: I would in a sense reverse it and direct it elsewhere. You can hardly tell someone — Gore — to be quiet on a topic they passionately believe in. Instead what we need is more contributions from others to a robust debate.