|
 I'm not sure which ad put out by Al Gore's
new global warming ad campaign is worse -- the one featuring House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi with former GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich on a love
seat, or the spots with the Revs. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson noting
their agreement on the issue.
I don't
think Pelosi does herself any favors posing with that sultan of smarm,
Gingrich -- even for an issue so dear to the left. Gingrich's role
confirms the suspicion of many Republicans that the Newter will say any
trendy thing to get his face in the limelight.
Also,
my first thought when I see Robertson and Sharpton on the same side is
this: that any cause that can put them on the same side, well, it can't
be good. And it's sure to involve cameras and professional lighting.
Over
and again, Gore has argued that an overwhelming consensus of scientists
believes that global warming is man-made and likely to have
catastrophic consequences including a sea-level rise of some 20 feet.
So who does his new three-year $300 million public advocacy campaign
get to hype the cause? Two politicians' politicians.
Robertson,
a man who has warned that widespread homosexuality can result in
"earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor." And Sharpton, who
became famous during a 1987 race-tinged controversy involving a
15-year-old girl's unsubstantiated accusation that six white men raped
her and smeared her with feces. The ads told me: Forget science; forget
the steak. Savor the sizzle.
Gore's new
climate-change campaign calls itself "We," as in "wecansolveit.org."
But its focus is not on how We can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
now. No, it focuses on how We can tell others how They should think
about global warming. We's focus is not on what We can do to reduce
emissions, but what We can do to get Them to walk and talk in lockstep
with the crowd.
So when you click on "We
are Succeeding," you don't read about how entire towns have begun to
carpool or that Hollywood biggies are giving up private jets to save
the planet. No. For the most part, success is tallied by a convert
count. As in: "Thousands Urge the Press to Ask Questions on Global
Warming," "Stunning Response to Calls for a Global Treaty," "State
Department Feels Public Pressure in Run-Up to Climate Conference."
Then
again, the global warming movement always has been more about symbols
and professing belief than results. Our betters in Europe have spent
the last seven years scolding George W. Bush for scorning the Kyoto
global warming treaty, which Bill Clinton never asked the U.S. Senate
to approve. It was enough that Clinton said he supported Kyoto; true
believers ignored the fact that under Clinton/Gore, U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions grew.
Or as The New York Times
columnist Gail Collins recently wrote, "The Europeans have a perfect
right to look down on the United States since they've set much more
ambitious targets for reducing global warming. While they do not appear
to be likely to meet any of them, it's the thought that counts."
Collins
summed it up: In We-ville, it is the thought that counts. Support new
technologies, and you're a global warming goodie. Say you believe, buy
an eco-friendly light bulb, and you've begun to do your part. Denounce
non-believers for standing in the way of progress, and you don't have
to make progress. If you're rich, you can buy carbon offsets. If you're
not, grouse about the price of gasoline (which is prompting Americans
to cut back on their driving) and demand that Washington spend more to
develop new technologies later.
Once
again, I have to wonder whether Gore really believes that global
warming is the imminent threat he says it is. After all, his Palo
Alto-based Alliance for Climate Protection could spend its many
millions hectoring people for driving to work alone or not unplugging
their electronics -- and urge each individual to cut his or her energy
by, say, 10 percent today. Or Gore could show some leadership by
pushing the affluent -- who by definition use more energy -- to not fly
in private planes, to live in smaller and fewer homes, and to find
bigger ways to save energy than token gestures like limiting their use
of toilet paper, as rocker Sheryl Crow famously suggested. It's called
leading by example.
Instead, it seems, ads
with Pelosi, Gingrich, Robertson and Sharpton -- designed to ask
Americans to push Washington for innovations that may help in the
future -- are what global warming gurus see as the best use of an
expected $300 million. Apparently, We are in no hurry. Source
|
