But I do think that Grist's love-fest with Gore brings to light an interesting issue, at least in my twisted mind.

Why is it that the people that speak out against global warming alarmism or try to highlight the uncertainty associated with science referred to as "being in the pockets of Big Oil" - especially Exxon?

Truth be told, the reason those think tanks make those points isn't because their money comes from Exxon, and I bet my bottom dollar that they would make those arguements without Exxon's funding.  In fact they do.  CEI is no longer funded by Exxon, but has the attack on global warming science and activism stopped?  Nope.

So David Roberts isn't funded by Gore, as far as we know.  So why the love fest?  Maybe because it's just what you believe - just like the people at CEI?  You don't have any underhanded motives or underlying agendas do you, Dave?  

Not much of a point really, just an observation.  But don't you think it's time to drop the obsession with the former should-be president?  I mean, what good is it doing except fueling the "us vs. them" attitude that's causing so many problems in the first place?

It's clear from reading your posts that constructive comments for a way forward aren't your thing, but the reactionary thing is getting old, fast.

randino

Randy Cunningham

So I'm not sure why you're so troubled about why Grist would supporting him. It's pretty straightforward.

"Maybe because it's just what you believe - just like the people at CEI?"

Maybe what he believes and what Gore believes is right, and CEI--the institute behind "to us it's life" ad campaign--is wrong. This is based on evidence, not really belief (check out Coby's Skeptics Guide, if you haven't).

The thing that was keeping the debate alive was money, PR, and politics. A la the old big tobacco PR campaign.

It's not that puzzling or hard to understand. It's not nefarious. Take it at face value.

Unfortunately, I remember the impetus behind saving the rain forests, and how much we cared about the "earth's lungs" and ... we haven't done too well. The really sad thing is that, until we can all make real, society-wide changes (and that means that Al Gore will be swept up in them, too), we cannot stop any of this. Not the loss of the rainforests, nor the destruction of the boreal, the loss of marine life, any of it. Global warming will be a bigger test, and it will have more dire consequences, but we will not win it with half-assed measures. That means change at a level above Al Gore. Changing how we think about consumption and necessities and success.  

But the love-fest still bugs me.  There's no need to  come to Gore's defense all the time.  He's a big boy.  There's also no need to have multiple posts about him over the course of a day.

Look, most people would have rather had Gore than Bush (me included), as evident from the election.  

I saw the movie, thought it was pretty self-glorifying and all-in-all, not that convincing.  I didn't need to be convinced by then - I already accepted climate change was happening and was in part due to man's influence.  I just thought that for anyone who had actually read-up about global warming science, Gore's moving shed no new light, and actually had some incorrect information.

I understand that scary images of sea level rises and polar bears are necessary to get people to pay attention.  But that's exactly my problem with it - Gore made this a political thing.  He used fear as his tool, rather than a detached view of the situation.  

Maybe he should be applauded for reaching so many people with the issue so that they start to think about things like climate change.  But do we need to keep kissing his ass all the time?  Isn't once enough?  If we keep focusing on the good he has done in the past, aren't we neglecting the progress that needs to be made in the future?

Gore's message is valid.  And fear is justified -- especially if we don't decide as a species to change our ways.  If we don't do something differently, things will indeed become pretty frightening for most of us. He's brought the message out into full day light.  Now he might consider being a personal example of how to respond to the message.

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

This is one of the roles that the blogosphere has begun to play. The mainstream media does a terrible job at fact checking, and it's almost always the progressive candidates who are smeared.

Media Matters has set up a whole website to deal with the issue of media smear campaigns. Other parts of the blogophere has taken up the role as well. Check out the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson-and-james-boyc ...

The point is to get the truth out there...

Also, they didn't pay any staff. So who is paying the people who work for them?

From Deltoid, there is this interesting bit:
http://tinyurl.com/yv9hzs

Douglas Kurdzeil, who is listed as one of their "research fellows", appears to be a sophomore at Vanderbilt. http://tinyurl.com/2kcg3j

Troy Senik, another research fellow, is a graduate student at Pepperdine in Malibu, California. http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/newsevents/news/

So it appears that what most organizations call an "intern" gets a semantic upgrade at TCPR and morphs into a "research fellow."

Benny Big Eye

A good guess on the Drudge headline:  Enviro-wackos defend Gore's hypocricy with more hypocricy!  

My new strategy is to keep the wing nuts talking and let the public decide.  The more they rant against us,with idiotic personal attacks like this one on Gore, the better our case for action on climate chasnge and energy policy  looks.

Swiftboating?  Bring it on.  I have a new word for wing nut attacks on celebrities.  "Dixichickin'".  The chicks are on top now!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

However, I would suggest that on its own this is not enough.  You also have to listen (not in the way our government here does, which is without hearing, so as to keep on doing what they would anyway), engage and communicate. Or at least make the effort. Which means getting inside various heads you may not wish to (which now makes me realise why my government doesn't hear: there's nothing to stop anything that goes in one ear go straight through and out the other!).

And that means dealing in facts. Not just the facts of the matter, but also the facts of how matters get reported these days.

Even in the old days, which I still hanker after, this held true. I recall a Rolling Stone ad campaign... Perception: Reality. There's what is. There is what should be. There is how what is should be reported and is. And there is appreciating that fact.

We are in a hype-driven, celebrity-obsessed culture. There is a vast industry feeding off it, with a serious interest in keeping a lot of folk employed and paid very well on the incoming, ongoing and departing antics of those selected or who volunteer to be the icons. Hence you can carve some serious column inches, readership, broadcast minutes and ratings with the `problem'. Then you can keep it bubbling in the same way for a while with `awareness', usually surrounding the icon, and then when it gets a bit tired you can feed off the decaying bits by turning the icon info a fallen idol.

Which is why I get a bit concerned by the various icons the common man, woman and child often get presented with. Here in the UK our very own PM is shaping up as a `Green Ambassador', but only once a few things that are a `bit impractical' to his personal social life and professional career have been established as `not applicable'. Mr. Gore is different. When it comes to the environment he has form, and it is long-standing and mostly good.

However, we are living in the today of the media spotlight, with all those (purely personally opinionated) factors ranged at a public figure, ready to boost and then burst at will.

Look at this very blog and posts. What has happened? What are the %ages `pro' & `con'? And this is a specialist eco-publication! I don't know about rearranging deckchairs, but it reads more like shuffleboard to the death before the thing sinks. What on earth is a semi-informed, give-a-hoot populist press and TV news industry going to make of it all (from my reading the `tabloids' here they could have cared less, and the `qualities' such as the Times. Telegraph and even greener, more  liberal, papers like the Indy and Guardian went pretty much with the `bubble prick' side, I'm afraid. As did the BBC)?

That is an inconvenient fact of life. No point railing against it. It's here to stay. And will get worse. So to manage it you have to play the system with skill. Which means everything from the selection of your candidate to working with the media by their rules... and be purer than the driven snow. Circling the wagons and retreating inside a comfort zone of like-minded huggers may offer respite, but won't deal with the real, harsh world. You need to get out and deal. But you need to be consistent. `Hypocrisy' is a very sticky brush to get tarred with, and difficult to remove. Worse even than doing wrong, so long as you do not commit the heinous crime of changing your mind, as our Leader of the Opposition will find should he come down hard on drug use having been given free pass for indulging while young, silly and very rich.

Speaking of which, while no fault of the individual, and no valid reason to not have an opinion or wish to express it, rolling in it does carry certain problems when telling, or even suggesting how other folk should, or need to behave. As does celebrity, which these days does tend to equate to rich, no matter how gobsmackingly unworthy it may be.

Because there is a slight tendency for a bit of a `them' and `us' thing getting set up from the get-go; more than happily exploited by those who can feed off the tensions created.

To save the future, we are realistically looking at some `doing without', which does not quite gel with global population expansion, economic growth, greater (ie: powered) efficiencies, etc, but there you go.

And to paraphrase another intense farm book wildly, `Some can do without more easily than others'. It's all relative. For every downshifting Pious Prius Person living a posh urban lifestyle, there is a Fairly-concerned Fiesta (it's a small Brit Ford) Family who may not mind a bit of upward mobility and find it a bit rich that, while flying private jets is OK to spread the word about not flying is necessary for some, it's not any more for their two week bit of sun a year.

You lead... by example. And hence you need to ask whether the EnviROI (Environmental Return On Investment) is worth the `awareness' of the `problem' vs. the sense of discord sown.

We are starting to get more and more celeb `green' stories and events, and it is striking how the media who get invited into the inner circle (I almost fell off my chair laughing at one gushing report from the backstage VIP `Green room', which had to be cordoned off from the hoi polloi who wanted to see their idols scoff eco-canapés and bubbly) are quite happy to be part of this elite new `club'. While a few, either without an invite or with a few remnants of journalistic integrity, do wonder how a PR from a non P-on going from a Hummer to a Lexus Hybrid 4x4 a) warrants a story, b) is in any way making a sacrifice or c) helps the planet, lugging a big battery down the motorway.

So it is perhaps reasonable to expect our `green' `leadership', self-appointed, thrust upon us or, fingers crossed, worthy, to at least try to do what they say we should do.

I don't really think Gandhi would have quite got where he did with his cause if he decked a few folk who got in his way and then justified it because he was carrying an important message on non-violence, so you just gosh-darn well cut him some slack... or else. Equally any of his entourage. And I do believe if he, they or indeed any supportive entity had tried to argue otherwise they would have got short shrift. Too much flailing about and saying `look who's talking' just comes across as a tad holier than thou, and not a little defensive and indoctrinated.

So, in such a case, are questions on the validity of the messenger's effectiveness in bearing this message `an attack'?

Looking at the originators  (speaking of tarring with broad brushes what is a right wing vs. a left wing think tank anyway?) of the piece, it is probably meant to be so. And I am grateful for a level of back story insight from this and other blogs to have a better idea of the facts. Plus a very reasonable, and unexploited (even here, beyond the original poster, though some have posed questions I hope will see answers to clarify doubt) explanation of high usage to supply a home office (as is mine, hence running the house utilities 24/7) and a staff, though I might need security at some stage for having doubts others would seem to wish to deny me on some issues.

Because some remain, and it really doesn't matter to me who started what or said what once the debate is engaged if certain facts are established. And beyond the energy usage one that will never change is the media. Was this managed well? About as well as the UK government handled road pricing, I'd say.  A sensible notion for future transportation now an electoral albatross to any who dare mention it, even in more considered terms.

I too favour personal responsibility for actions, and by my lifestyle would estimate my family will do quite well from most initiatives.

However I still have a lot of doubts as to who gets to decide (there are also a few Kalahari bushmen may wonder why they don't get to trade a holiday to Aspen with a broker from Brooklyn flying overhead to sort out some carbon credits between those who have them to trade), as an ex-engineer who dealt in numbers and efficiencies, and a current ad man and green-lite writer who understands short-term politics, corporate activist priorities and corporate PR/CSR greenwashing only to well.

I know it won't... can't be 100%, but I don't want to see any efforts in the name of green on behalf of my future generations carved up between government, NGO and financial trading empire builders' departments, staff, pensions, comms budgets, fact-finding tours, climate change conferences in nice sunny places. Or subsidising celebs and their massive support systems and sycophantic media camp followers, to have nice parties to boost `awareness' of how much they need to do this so we can't .

Live as worthy a life as you can. Do before you talk. Then share it. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.


Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

In the end, the shift to eco energy will be dictated by price as well as ecology.  What is cheaper, a cubic meter of locally collected bio-wastes or raw crude oil drilled in Iraq, Iran or Nigeria, shipped to NAFTA or Europe, for processing.

The new Max PLanck system developed by Prof. Antoinetti at the M.P.Institute for Colloid Research at Potsdam is really promising as a source of alternative energy.

Aqueous fuel systems have also experienced some "new patents" which beat the problem of scale formation and allow their, cost effective widespread application.  What is cheaper, a barrel of crude or a barrel of water.

Those are cost arguments the "right" cannot argue against.

So in presenting the problem of global warming as presented by Al Gore, present all the cost effective solutions people are coming up with.

Were a Max Planck system installed on every farm in the U.S., U.S. farmers could become major producers of cost effective bio-fuels.  And beyond that, we can cut fuel subsidies to farmers
by forward financing aqueous fuel systems on their equipment which let them burn plant oil like rape seed oil emulsified with water.... and running at an 80% water - 20% rape seed oil ratio.  Makes the average farmer independent of equipment fuel and heating oil costs.

Keep our eyes on all technologies.
Kent the ex-pat.  

Kent, happy U.S. vet ex-patriate on a permanent, European holiday.RED-Green

These are some facts that I think are self evident. First, Al Gore has spent decades tilling this ground on global warming, and it is finally starting to produce some crops. Second, without his contribution do any of us think we would be where we are today on this issue? Hint, I would much rather be on our side right now, than on the side of the global warming deniers.

That is what is important. Quit looking for saints. Leaders will disappoint you, but ye who are without contradictions, throw the first stone. We are all human. Leaders make contributions, and should be supported, and of course, when they get a little too full of themselves and screw up they need to be corrected.

Lets get over this nit picking. It is unworthy of us.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

What a sad comment:

Quote:

It's nice to see the conservative media taking the message of conservation and energy efficiency seriously. Hopefully they will hold their own leaders and readers to the same high standards.

Ha!

If someone like Al Gore is going to step on the high platform (platitude) of high Green virtues then he has to walk the talk!

Gore's loss and is now President Bush's GAIN!

According to a story in the April 29, 2001, Chicago Tribune, "Bush loves ecology -- at home," the president's house is a model of ecological purity.

"The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude, wrote freelance reporter Rob Sullivan. "Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this `eco-friendly' dwelling use about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

"A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem."

Gore talks the talk, the president walks the walk.

Second, the right seems to do a much more effective job of manipulating memes on progressive blogs than vice versa, e.g., by the creation of an ensemble of "characters" who spin the meme of the day from multiple directions.  They exploit our admirable desire to take fellow commenters at face value and respond in a civil and thoughtful way to their arguments.  What to do?  Frankly, I don't know.  Might be worth discussing, though.

Third, I suspect that the Democrats will only win the White House in 2008 if their nominee can effectively respond to swiftboating attempts that go well beyond anything we've yet seen.  That's why I'm not just assessing the candidates' policy positions; I'm also watching closely to see how well they react to attacks.

Maybe he should be applauded for reaching so many people with the issue so that they start to think about things like climate change.  But do we need to keep kissing his ass all the time?  Isn't once enough?  
>>

"Kissing his ass," even once, is simply too crazy and paranoid a way to characterize the appreciation that David Roberts and many Gristmill reader/contributers, including myself, feel for Al Gore and his accomplishments.  And I am disappointed that the usually fair-minded Green Granny chose to support Naturescene's criticism.

I regret, with a sense of indignation and vicarious wounding, that DR has come under attack lately, regarding the quality of his journalism.  Just to be clear, I have criticized his often unnecessarily abrasive style; and perhaps I have suspected him of losing his editorial balance, with far too much preference for posts, by himself and others, for global-warming-related and energy-related subjects, at the expense of other important environmental matters, especially the biodiversity crisis.  Nevertheless, what he does well, he does very very well; he is remarkably learned, and a terrific writer; and I want him to know that I support him strongly both here and against John Fleck's criticism in the Stewart Brand thread.

John Fleck is himself a good and intelligent writer, but I do not need him to tell me what I should be getting out of Grist and Gristmill, and why I should be disappointed with DR.

As for the "talking points," the accusation of hypocrisy is absurd, even if it takes off in environmentalist circles, such as we see evidence of in the "walk the talk" talk, and, even odder, Richbee's "Gore talks the talk, the president [sic!] walks the walk" nonsense, and Junkk Male2's disturbing note on what the British press have been reporting.

There is one basic fact, which ought to suffice to refute all this hypocrisy nonsense: Al Gore's house is not at all a typical house, and does not deserve to be considered one.  DR explains very nicely the multiple functions of that house.  Really, anyone who is not satisfied by that explanation is not being reasonable.

On Junkk Male2's very very very long post: Thanks, it has its moments.  But we do not need Brits telling us how to spell, especially since American "humor" and "civilize" are closer to their respectively Latin and Greek etyma than are the British bastardizations of those words, with an unnecessary "u" and an overly historicized "s."  And hitting Al Gore over the head with Mahatma Gandhi is totally unfair, for the reason mentioned above.

Nevertheless, Junkk Male2 is absolutely right on this point: we cannot get enough humor.  That is a good moral for the sometimes overly solemn contributors to Gristmill to take to heart.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

It's not at all clear what the white house even thinks of this issue, let alone whether it even cares:

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/02/rewriting_hi ...

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/02/the_white_ho ...

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/02/on_global_wa ...

And I wouldn't put it beyond the white house to blow smoke about this issue, and feed the Chicago Tribune a line of bull. Remember the "reading contest" between Rove and Bush? Was that a case of press-playing weirdness or what?

Roberts holds people accountable for making ridiculous comments. If that makes him "abrasive," then you've managed to create a new meaning for the term.

John Fleck has lost all sense of neutrality and has turned himself into a Roger Pielke Jr. cheerleader. He should be embarrassed for himself as it's becoming increasingly clear that he lacks an understanding of the science of climate change.

Benny Big Eye

You're certainly welcome to feel admiration or affection for Al Gore for doing what he has done.  If you really think that he is the best voice behind action on climate change, that's perfectly fine.  In my opinion, all he has done is popularize the issue but he hasn't put forth any good suggestions on how to deal with it.  I found the movie lacking for that reason.  It wasn't enough for me.

I just think that it's getting carried too far, and the focus here has become about Al Gore and not about climate change.  

If it's that serious of an issue, why are we content to just slap him on the back and say "job well done" when in fact, still nothing is being done?

As for Al Gore he did have a rationale for putting the stress on the problem as opposed to proposing solutions:

"The time will soon come when enough people have absorbed the warning and accepted the truth of the challenge we face, so that the mix between danger and opportunity can be dialed up toward the 'opportunity' part of the spectrum," he says. "But right now the United States of America is still mostly in a bubble of unreality, where the climate crisis is concerned. So to punch through the Category Five denial, there has to be emphasis on what the danger is."

But if Al did one thing, he worked hard on the movie and his words are now found in schools, churches, and theaters all over the world.  If you have never been involved in movie production it is grueling work.  

What the conservative backlash has proven is that they are their own worst enemy.  They attack, ridicule, and tear things apart.  Geez, that's some way to run a railroad ... why not be constructive and bring some careful analysis or intelligent debate to the topic?  

-----------------------

Now for the humor part, I will never forget when Delbert McClinton came to Antone's down in Austin TX and asked the girls to kiss his finger.  About a dozen rushed to the front of the stage.  

"Thanks, gals, I've had that finger up a pig's ass all day long and man, that sucker was starting to hurt!"

/sammie

Onward through the fog

So you want an under-two-hour movie that not only lays out the basic science behind global warming in a way that's entertaining enough to become the third-highest-grossing documentary of all time and win an Oscar, but also lays out a comprehensive solution to the problem? Perhaps you'd like Gore to ride a unicorn to your house and give you a massage, too?

Should you care, see here for a long speech given by Gore on ways to tackle global warming. It's jam-packed with good ideas. You'll give him credit now? Maybe lift a finger to defend him against political attacks? At least refrain from joining those attacks?

I will never, as long as I live, understand why progressives so quickly and casually toss overboard the leaders that are working to advance their causes.

grist.org

Benny Big Eye writes:
<<
Gee, caniscandida. Could you please provide some examples of DR's "abrasive" style, other than simply stating that it is so?
Roberts holds people accountable for making ridiculous comments. If that makes him "abrasive," then you've managed to create a new meaning for the term.
>>

No, BBE, I will most certainly not do so, having complained about DR's abrasive style for months now.  Actually, this is something of a red herring, so far as you and the issue of Al Gore are concerned; it is really something between DR and me, and the very few who may be interested in the dynamics of Gristmill.

On the other hand, DO NOT tell me what I should and should not find abrasive.  If I could, I would invite you to spend some time within this pathetic old body of mine, and let you look out upon the world from within these so far OK eyes.  But that seems to be an impossible suggestion.  So, should we not agree, first, that you must back off; and secondly, that I may be allowed to say that DR's style, every now and again, does not win him any friends?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Thanks for the link to the speech, at least there he's getting into specifics.

I don't think I ever attacked Gore, just expressed weariness over the obsession with him. As far as political attacks go, I still think that he should be the one to respond to them.  After all, they are directed at him.  Maybe the numbers are lies, maybe Gore offsets it all, maybe he uses green energy.  That's all fine, but HE needs to be the one to tell us.  

Unfortunately, you're not representitive of the majority of the U.S. moviegoing public.

You wrote:
<<
But I really like Dave's style, and I have a sneaking suspicion that I may not be alone. Consider skipping his posts rather than asking him to change. Your gain would be my loss.
>>

A. Of course you are not alone.  In fact, I am sure DR has far more all-adoring fans such as yourself, than he has cranky old readers like me who find him abrasive (at times!).

B. No no no, I shall not skip his post, I enjoy them (on balance) too much, and generally (when I can understand them, e.g. when he is not shooting too high into the economics-o-sphere) I actually please myself that I am learning from them.

C. I am not asking him to change.  I am only asking that he recognize how abrasive he can be.

C, to the nineteenth. You, on the other hand, are another story ...  (Ha ha.)

D. "My gain" would be everyone's gain, actually, including your own, only you do not understand what I am (very very minorly) asking for.

Benjamin du grand oeil, Of course what I say is true.  But the truth value has nothing at all to do with the number of times in which I assert it.  If I never said it, it would still be true.

Really, though, this is a major distraction.  I am glad, I guess, that what I said (very very minorly) got registered somehow.  But really, that was secondary.  And I WISH, YOU GUYS, that you would wake up and realize that the point was in fact how much I LIKE DR.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I do not learn much from DR but his links are most excellent.  I know the press is watching and his description of A. Gore's energy metrics was I suspected, normal for his climate and business.  The Huffington Post reflects DR as a valuable writer.

CC.  I depend on your adult supervision on the art of languages.  Such allows me freedom from the distractions, to focus on the science of numbers.

People just don't trust models.  Models are all based on numbers, equations, processes, data, terrabytes of data actually, and summarization.  Even attempting to run a global average of different land, sea, and atmospheric ambient temperatures requires a darned model. I'm a numerical modeler myself, and see this every day.   People just don't trust us and it doesn't matter if we're rednecks, hippies, or both.

Conservatives are the most likely to complain the the model is "rigged" with assumptions that SWAG the data in a particular direction.  This causes me to throw my hands up in the air as say "well OK, you fix the model or build a new one, come on."  

Well folks that never happens except in very few instances.  THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF FIXING A MODEL.  THeir response is like an elderly person that doesn't like reading the sorry-ass news anymore, so they cancel their newpaper subsciption.

Onward through the fog

The emotion I feel, that I feel in others, is that global warming was a hypothesis four decades ago, sans complicated supercomputer models, and now it is worse than anticipated, no longer distant theory.  The destruction of the Earth is very difficult to assimilate without emotion.  The numbers required now are no longer about blackbody reirradiation and thermal inertia.  They are about the economics of 80% global mitigation.  And, yes, I'm as mad as hell.

Despite Mark Twain's fine copywriting advice, I often have a lot to say, but it is sincere and it is well meant. Hopefully this next effort will be better appreciated for its content rather than its length (oh, missus, for the Benny Hillophiles out there). I'll try and do a USA Today version, but no promises... or charts. Sometimes important issues are hard to deal with superficially lest things get taken out of context or suffer from lack of proper investigation and explanation, don't you find? Imagine a Simpson's length version (including ad breaks) of an important issue, say, like Global Warming (I know, they did do one, and it was very good, though the real message may have passed some by).

Along with a few others who posted in reply to the invitation, I do not believe that the intention of the original post or blog was meant to solicit responses only from those who had something supportive to say to the proposition. Though I guess some in the team can believe certain balls only get played with when you support the side who owns them. But you could argue it's like those who make and sell baby bottles getting in a snit at any publication that carries a less than flattering report on their safety to babies, and then bunker down and have a group `others suck' in babybottle.com with fellow baby bottlers. Best to take the opportunity to engage in discussion, persuade and prove your product, or case, is valid. If it is. Saying those who pass comment are in the pay of non-babybottlism is just throwing... er... baby bottles out of the pram.

In all my years living and working in the States I never really saw the truth of the old adage 'Separated by a common language', but in that vast, great country, with distance amplifying demographic differences, I must say my sense of humour did meet varied responses. It is to my shame that I neglected to remember this in posting to a blog that spans not just the world but, more importantly, the Atlantic to the Pacific, centre of the known universe.

I would also never presume to tell any one anything. I often opine. I always ask questions. I may suggest another course. But I am not sufficiently convinced of my rectitude in anything to `tell' anyone anything. I sometimes envy those who do, as it allows them to insert their values in places where others may hesitate, or not be welcome. Often this can be with favorable outcomes (depending on whom you ask). On occasion it can be seen as an unmitigated global disaster.

So my opening remark was merely intended as humor. Just as my American co-workers would remind me (I thought with a degree of irony of their own), 'there is no 'I' in team, I felt my light-hearted play on words would be appreciated as a suitable introduction to a piece on the value on `team debate' being conducted in the spirit of levity, with humor at its core. But in being put right on the error of my ways at least I have had a lesson in both ancient linguistics and nationalistic fervour (whoops).

Sadly, you don't need to go looking too hard for offence. If you seek it, it will find you. So I am sorry for any given. It was unintentional.

What I am not sorry for is having a thoughtful opinion on a core issue that the environmental movement faces today.

It is undoubted that the single greatest task that we're (if I may make so bold as a non-leader) facing today is the motivation of the masses. When a voter or consumer stirs, politicians and corporations pay heed. But I am not so sure about media. By my understanding they are supposed to objectively form and reflect public sentiment and opinion, but it seems all too often they set out to shape it. This may be due to the unelected nature of the senior officers at the helm (not a problem exclusive to the media, one should add). It is hard not to let personal views stray into subjective issues. Just as it is hard for an employee not to see that their next paycheque can depend on supporting those views. Ain't democracy and its defenders wonderful?

It's also desperately unfair, but the media will seldom allow any public figure to change their mind, even over a span of decades.

This is not a problem for Mr. Gore, as his commitment in the long term is undoubted, if perhaps not his effectiveness while in office and, until fairly recently, out of it (by my, non-US awareness). However, as Steven T concedes, this is just the beginning, and the media scene needs to be managed, and managed well to get the result we all are aiming for. That was my main point. What is, is. And how such as the UK press reports needs to be addressed, especially if it is indeed disturbingly unrepresentative of the true facts. We are talking a global situation here. (Tip : defences like `Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway' wouldn't fly too well here. We don't waste because we can afford to. Especially when setting examples. So as a suggestion I'd drop that one).

Having spent my time in the States in the more affluent regions of the Coasts, Texas and Utah, I do not feel qualified to speak of the blue-collar (wo)man's views there, or how they get reflected, but I do wonder how representative the views expressed in a niche medium such as this are reflective of national commitment and belief. As we are talking the future of the planet, the number of participants outside of a relatively small clique is still disappointingly small.

Which returns us to the point at hand. The BBC, with access to a nation of 60M, and a more than sympathetic commitment to green issues, was quite happy to run the negative reporting with little context. If it's juicy, tabloids such as The Sun will deliver a print readership in the many millions. You can score positive coverage with celebrity, but it is a tenuous pact that you enter into, and the sword is double-edged, and once unsheathed can be turned very quickly and be hard to return.

Yes, Cameron Diaz will be most welcome to stand in Hyde Park and tell us why she drives a G-Wiz. But it will be asked how she got here to do it. And while Jamiroquai may say that his latest gig to get in the Guinness Book of Records (in a plane) was offset by 'his people', there are those who may suggest that not going up there in the first place may have served the planet, here and now, less well than his immediate career PR.

I mentioned Gandhi because a previous poster had, and not as an `attack'. I do not see anything in what I wrote accusing Mr. Gore of anything, unfairly or not. I merely felt it an suitable analogy to give pause for thought to those who expressed the view that  double standards are OK so long as it is in a good cause. Especially when dealing with the media and the masses.

Because I simply beg to disagree. If you are trying to persuade the working public, and no longer have a compliant (greater good for the future vs. great headline tomorrow) press to help you shape their views, you better have a good story, with no holes, and an even better team in place to sell it, both in front and in back of camera. I for one simply cannot support  `a rationale for putting the stress on the problem as opposed to proposing solutions'. As any life assurer will tell you, you don't sell a policy by scaring people with death. But these boys still make sales... and have been doing so for years... how?

I just think that if you are setting yourself up as a 'leader' or spokesperson for mitigating our effects though personal behaviour, you need to set the credibility bar at a manageable level. It's one, wonderful (though I would imagine the ownership of the resulting valuable invention may result in that being covered, as simply good business) thing to put up $25M chump change as a prize to kill greenhouse gasses, but is it helped by our Mr. Branson also punting rich old folk into orbit to have their Kodak moment on top of a few Brazilian forest's worth of greenhouse gas compo? I'm erring on, at best, a mixed message for those who may see their house rates go up if they don't put insulation in, which many can't afford. I'm only sorry they are not reading this, as I doubt many are.

But it's going to be a great target for those sipping their Fairtrade Fortnight mocha latté dusted with airflown (isn't that... no... never mind) truffles, who can afford the money, time and selective causes to support without much denting their cosy lifestyles. How many buying the products advertised here do so `as well as' rather than `instead of'?

Green is good, but not much for the planet's chances if it is merely seen as a hobbyhorse to jump upon to further conspicuous consumption in another guise. I am not advocating hair-shirtism, but a bit of cutting back could be a good way to go. And to inspire others to embrace the lead, those at the 'top' (wherever that is any more, and I am afraid, as a tea-party sympathizer from the old oppressors' country, I have my own views on who deserve to be called `leaders') could well look at the examples they set.

But in light of some defensive replies (I get one from caniscandia, who with some irony gets one from another. Even poor old Green Granny (no ageism intended) gets a serve for not toeing the line. How divide and rule is that!) I see here to a post about good humor, may I wish you the best of British luck.

If this is the best you can do in the country that has the most power to effect change, the planet is going to need it.

Me, I'm off now to do some more about it. In my shed.

(1,827 words. Sorry, caniscandida;(


Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

I was just in a foul mood on account of the hoohah (or brouhaha, hullaballoo, hue-and-cry) over Al Gore's house.

On Fairtrade Fortnight mocha latte', and hair-shirtism: Yes, it is curious, the way all kinds of ads pop up in unexpected places.  I for my part generally ignore them, and cannot remember ever giving an on-line advertiser my custom.

And yes, you are right, it would be nice if we consumed less.  But it is hard to get away with saying that too often, when we are trying to maintain an atmosphere of "civilised humour."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Oo-er... outed. Yes, 'tis I. Thank you for the faint praise, so I will continue writing. Noting your comment on my lengthy predilections (and a slight case of RSI), I made my next (on the Colbert post subsequently) reply brief to the point of invisibility. I rather think it all rather proved a few of my points, mind.

Moods were fouled all round I'd hazard. I just fear the eventual victim will be rational debate and clear, persuasive communication to the general public. And mixed messages.

I actually popped a tweak in the Brit Fairtrader's blog to wonder about the food mile consequences of his actions.

Above and beyond the affordability to some of these worthy efforts by urban journalists, there is also the fact that they send out some contradictory notions that need to be weighed up. Save underpaid mango farmer? Save planet he/she stands on with the rest of us from unnecessary emissions by simply doing without? Tricky dilemma for the ethical activist.

Mine is how to visit my wife's family in Singapore as she hasn't seen them in a few years (maybe I can find a conference to attend and offset?). Green ain't easy, is it?

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

But I'm guessing this option may present a few budgetary issues, not to metion our family's 14-day total leave allowance (inc. travel time)?

Other than that, it's a plan.

If only some of us didn't have to factor in money and time at every turn.

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

Spending time and saving money will protect civilization.

Spending time and saving money is protecting civilization.

Last time I looked most have to work to earn money to pay mortgages, feed and educate kids, etc. Work means 50 weeks a year at home. A lucky few have other sources of income to fund their beliefs and, one trusts, their practices.

But you are right; I try to spend most of my money and my time at home funding and generating content for my free re:use ideas website. It actually seems to help some save money, AND time, AND the planet (a bit).

Still not too clear how I do this and fulfil family obligations.

Anyway, as we're big on boats being a cure, try this:

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/ever-get-that-sinking-f ...

Maybe that freighter trip would have served civilisation better by not being taken at all. Hmmmn?  I wonder what it was loaded with? Or picking  up for the return? Consumer goods to save folk time and spend more money? Who's to say?

I have to say I still find being green a bit of an exercise in compromise. I envy those who are able to be so black and white about it.

It will be interesting to see who can serve the interests of the future best by motivating the masses with pragmatic and realistic solutions, as opposed to whacking out simple sound bites, no matter how dead right they may be.

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.