When asked if he was planning on seeing former Vice President Al Gore’s new film — “An Inconvenient Truth” — President Bush remarked, “Doubt it.”
Well, when it comes to movie selection, we side with the president. We don’t want to waste two hours of our precious Memorial Day weekend watching Gore try to convince us that — EGADS!!! — the world is coming to an end! What’s next: Tom Cruise starring as a yoga instructor?
Whatever one makes of Gore’s flick, we shouldn’t be distracted from a more important discussion: What do we make of our planet’s health? Despite the heated rhetoric from both sides, we can find common ground on this issue. For example:
» Should the U.S. sign the Kyoto treaty? Absolutely not. First, it’s a weak treaty (perfect implementation would still only reduce greenhouse gases by 1 percent by 2050). Second, the U.S. should never ratify a treaty that empowers the United Nations to overrule the sovereignty of the United States. Third, even some Kyoto signatories — Canada, for example — flaunt and ignore the emission mandates without rebuke.
» Is global warming occurring? The verdict isn’t in yet. Credible spokesmen cite peer-reviewed studies on both sides of this debate, but much of the most intense discussion revolves around the proper interpretation of data and the suitability, or lack thereof, of prominent data sources.
» Is this warming being accelerated by human activity? Could be. The White House’s Climate Change Science Program report released earlier this month found “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.” That’s not the same thing as clear evidence that human activity is accelerating a phenomenon the cause of which remains controversial.
» Do we know what this means? Nope. There is no consensus on the precise effects of global warming and when they might metastasize, if ever. But the possible side-effects include a rise in sea-levels, the melting of polar ice caps and changing of the sea’s biology.
But we’d be poor stewards of God’s green earth if we did nothing solely due to uncertainty. After all, if it makes sense to clean up our act, what are we waiting for? Especially since, for perhaps the first time, market-driven approaches exist to curb global warming without stifling economic growth. We’ve recognized that companies can only be expected to reduce greenhouse gases if there are appropriate incentives.
Accordingly, a market-based system that allows companies to auction or trade greenhouse gas permits and that progressively reduces emission reductions is a smart way forward. DuPont, General Electric and 3M — just to name a few companies — have already set in motion programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming their bottom line.
The debate would be enhanced if those on the left stopped the doomsday environmental rhetoric and thought realistically about sensible solutions. Those on the right should drop their instinctive rejection of the notion — as if it were the product of a brainstorming session between Al Franken and Barbra Streisand themselves — that we can simultaneously improve the environment and our lives.
That’s the real inconvenient truth.
