3 thoughts on “Have they gone mad?

  1. I’m not going to extensively comment on this as it’s just drawing me out 🙂

    However, I do have one thing to say: whether or not Al Gore speaks the complete truth is completely irrelevant. Environmental action is completely paralysed by most governments of any importance neglect to do anything until solid proof is given. However, environmental consequences are often unpredictable due to unforeseen (and unforeseeable) threshold after which effects are irreversible, sudden and large. In my opinion, not taking drastic action is playing a poker game with a shaky hand and a very large amount of welfare and well-being at stake, with the best possible outcome being a single pair. Or, in other words: high risk, low reward. I’d rather take the low risk, low reward option.

    Of course, there’s no way either of us can prove their point to the other, as this concerns a matter of principle. Principles are not up for discussion, as they’re not correct or wrong.

  2. Oh, I forgot to make my point why it’s irrelevant whether Al Gore is lying or not. See, in our status quo, governments are paralysed, as I said. Nothing is being done because it’s in direct conflict to most of the factors influencing them. I’m not saying this is a conspiracy or that those groups are purposefully harming the environment or anything; it’s simple economics that investing money in new energy solutions will cost money now and put whomever is doing it at a serious disadvantage compared to others who aren’t investing.

    This need not be a problem if public appreciation of durable investment offsets extra costs, i.e. if people are willing to pay for saving the environment. If they are, this creates movement in companies and governments, as those are generally motivated on a financial or popular basis.

    I don’t care if Gore’s correct or not because I feel we’re playing a poker game with too bad a risk-reward ratio. Lose, and we could well be screwed – see the threshold argument. Win, and we don’t really gain much except maintaining the status quo for a little longer. Gore influences public opinion to move away from this high risk game. That’s a good thing. So whether or not he’s correct is irrelevant to me: the effect is there. His arguments, meh, I don’t take them too seriously. Neither will anyone with some semblence of critical thinking. It’s too obvious.

  3. So true, and yet it bothers and even baffles me he is awarded with this prestigious prize.

    The way I feel it, it is the wrong prize for the (perhaps) right guy.
    I’m trying to question the reasons for him to get the Peace Prize, but I’m really deviating by going into his movie and the issues around it. I have this strange gut feeling it is wrong, I can however not pinpoint why; which would explain my meandering text above.

    I agree with you drastic actions need to be taken to “control” the environment and weather, and thus I cannot see why a Kyoto Protocol would work as research shows it could, going by the most optimistic scheme, only delay any warming by a very short timespan.
    Yes, action should be taken to preserve our planet (and here my environmentalist -or green- side pops up) but I doubt either of the proposed actions result in the desired effect.

    The real question should be: why did he get it? And that question unfortunately can not be answered by looking at the reason given by the Nobel Prize Committee…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.