Yesterday I decided to spend a little time catching up on blogs I've neglected to read for a while. I started at Barbara's "Silverwheel Astrology" then moved on to Dr. Glen Barry's at "Earth Meanders" (17 July post)- I got no further.
Although the authors of these two blogs hold opposite views about climate change, the bloggers and many comments speak out against Al Gore and his "mission", albeit for different reasons.
It's no surprise that Al Gore is an irritant to those skeptical about man-made, or indeed any global warming. I can understand also why dedicated environmentalists might feel miffed to see him, with celebrity helpers, getting so much publicity when their own efforts have gone well nigh unnoticed over many years.
Al Gore is caught in backlash coming from both sides of this debate, not only in blogs, elsewhere too. Backlash is a by-product of success, of course, so I suppose it was to be expected. I'm not sure whether there's a coinciding astrological transit - transiting Mars is hanging around his natal Venus just now - maybe that's it.
I've noticed recently another discernable backlash. People who appear to have been scolded and chided by over-eager "Greens" are becoming weary of it. Over-zealous nagging is never helpful, and eventually turns counter-productive.
My personal opinion on climate change remains that human activity over the last century has contributed to, and exacerbated, change which may or may not be part of a natural cycle. I feel pretty sure that even the most qualified expert doesn't know for certain what's going on, or what's in store for the future. Isn't risk limitation the best way forward? It surely must be, unless we are truly short-sighted and uncaring, for the risk is scarily unquantifiable. Isn't this what Al Gore's mission is all about?
Solutions involved in combatting man-made climate change (whether one believes that it exists or not), would greatly benefit humans and the planet in the long term. Deforestation is patently bad for the planet. Huge mountains of waste plastic and other non-degradable materials will someday become a menace if nothing is done to reduce them. New sources of energy will be essential in coming decades - oil will someday run out. If population isn't limited soon, Mother Nature will do it for us. Glaciers are melting - proof is there for all to see. Ocean levels will therefore rise, to what extent is uncertain. Whether currents such as the Gulf Stream will be affected is also a consideration. Banning new development on flood plains, and vulnerable coastal areas, would surely benefit the environment whether catastrophe comes in our lifetime, or things trundle along much as they are now.
As for Al Gore's penchant for recruiting celebrity helpers - what does it matter about their motives or their lifestyles? The message is the important thing. Their luxurious lifestyles give these people the freedom to do what they are doing. It's the superficial, yet essential, side of Al Gore's mission. He's attempting to reach the youth of the world - those who will have to deal with after-effects from long decades of our not caring.
I admire Al Gore a lot, my only disappointment is that, so far, he declines to run in the 2008 presidential campaign. Without strong action from the government in the USA, which I suspect will not be forthcoming under any other presidency, nothing will change here - except, perhaps, the climate.
Although the authors of these two blogs hold opposite views about climate change, the bloggers and many comments speak out against Al Gore and his "mission", albeit for different reasons.
It's no surprise that Al Gore is an irritant to those skeptical about man-made, or indeed any global warming. I can understand also why dedicated environmentalists might feel miffed to see him, with celebrity helpers, getting so much publicity when their own efforts have gone well nigh unnoticed over many years.
Al Gore is caught in backlash coming from both sides of this debate, not only in blogs, elsewhere too. Backlash is a by-product of success, of course, so I suppose it was to be expected. I'm not sure whether there's a coinciding astrological transit - transiting Mars is hanging around his natal Venus just now - maybe that's it.
I've noticed recently another discernable backlash. People who appear to have been scolded and chided by over-eager "Greens" are becoming weary of it. Over-zealous nagging is never helpful, and eventually turns counter-productive.
My personal opinion on climate change remains that human activity over the last century has contributed to, and exacerbated, change which may or may not be part of a natural cycle. I feel pretty sure that even the most qualified expert doesn't know for certain what's going on, or what's in store for the future. Isn't risk limitation the best way forward? It surely must be, unless we are truly short-sighted and uncaring, for the risk is scarily unquantifiable. Isn't this what Al Gore's mission is all about?
Solutions involved in combatting man-made climate change (whether one believes that it exists or not), would greatly benefit humans and the planet in the long term. Deforestation is patently bad for the planet. Huge mountains of waste plastic and other non-degradable materials will someday become a menace if nothing is done to reduce them. New sources of energy will be essential in coming decades - oil will someday run out. If population isn't limited soon, Mother Nature will do it for us. Glaciers are melting - proof is there for all to see. Ocean levels will therefore rise, to what extent is uncertain. Whether currents such as the Gulf Stream will be affected is also a consideration. Banning new development on flood plains, and vulnerable coastal areas, would surely benefit the environment whether catastrophe comes in our lifetime, or things trundle along much as they are now.
As for Al Gore's penchant for recruiting celebrity helpers - what does it matter about their motives or their lifestyles? The message is the important thing. Their luxurious lifestyles give these people the freedom to do what they are doing. It's the superficial, yet essential, side of Al Gore's mission. He's attempting to reach the youth of the world - those who will have to deal with after-effects from long decades of our not caring.
I admire Al Gore a lot, my only disappointment is that, so far, he declines to run in the 2008 presidential campaign. Without strong action from the government in the USA, which I suspect will not be forthcoming under any other presidency, nothing will change here - except, perhaps, the climate.
Gore wouldn't have a chance anyway with the Aquarian in the running.
ReplyDeleteHUH??
ReplyDeleteWhich Aquarian - there isn't one!
It'd be a whole different ballgame if there WAS an Aquarian in the line-up.
I think you mean the (ahem) Gemini Party of which your esteemed s-i-l is Commander in Chief. Yeah - well if he'd stop singing "Stuck in the Middle with You" and take a few long strides to the left where he belongs there'd be hope for us all ! ;-)
Ah, you are right! What could I be thinking? Nothing probably.
ReplyDeleteAnd isn't that appropriate....The word verification for this comment is GAGME ....
I was just about to!
ReplyDeleteTo the left where I belong? Hmmmmm. I find "the left" (far left, that is) as troublesome and ineffective as I find "the right" (far right, that is). "The middle" is where the independents reside, and given that most of the pressing questions humanity faces can't be solved by clinging to stringent ideology, I'll just stay where I'm at.
ReplyDeleteGeminis see both sides, which is vital in decision making. At least, that's what I learned in school. Of course, it was an American school, so that's probably wrong, right?
Right, sir!
ReplyDeleteIn some circumstances I'd agree with you. In the current situation in the USA, after 8 years of far right rule, it appears to me that things have sunk so low that only a fundamental shift would help. Playing footsie with conservatives, seeing their point of view, etc. would only ensure that nothing much changes.
"The Centre" is relative I guess, TNPOTUS. One man's centre/center is another man's far left.
I've noticed that some Americans seem to have an in-built fear of communism, and fear that leftist policies would head that way. Even socialism seems to be almost a dirty word here. That's sad. I've remarked often to HWK that a good dose of socialism is what the USA needs.
But I'm English, so that's probably wrong....lol! :-)
Right you are about the general American distrust of socialism, which is odd, since socialism has been part of the country's history since Pilgrim/Puritan days. And actually, it even pre-dates the European settlers, havinb been found in another form among those Injuns that white Europeans/white Americans slaughtered for a few hunnered years. Did people really think Hillary came up with "it takes a village"? Naw, it was some bronze colored person in some teepee somewhere between the North Pole and Tierra del Fuego.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, American conservatives are deathly afraid of communism and express their contempt for socialism with wisecracks about Brits and Canadians and Dutch and such. However, it's hypocritical contempt, because American conservatives have benefited from socialist ideas like public schools, trade unions, wide spread distribution of wealth and the like. Part of this conservative angst over socialsim is just that romantic American vision that the nation was built and sustained by rugid individualists and lonely genius types who created the better lightbulb all by their lonesome.
Over the course of history, American liberalism has traditionally been a much more mild strain of that affliction than is found in Europe, but American conservatives won't accept that reality. As is often their bent, they try to "scare" people away from anything they don't personally believe, even if those beliefs are based in incorrect information, bias and prejudice, or just flat-out lies.
As far as The Centre, you're right about matter of perspective. Before coming to Oklahoma, I thought I was a progressive and occasional moderate, who also had some conservative leanings when it came to matters of economics. For many years, I've referred to myself as a libertarian who leans left, which is not the contradiction it may seem on the surface. However, I found out quickly from some Okies that I was some type of radical leftist, who wanted everybody raised from cradle to grave by the state, and who would sell his soul to Lenin or Stalin to see that become reality in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. It's absurd, but it's all a matter of perspective - and, perhaps, shallow intellect.
Anyway, I still like "Stuck in the Middle With You" as the theme song, because in general, I'm as little impressed with the new Democratic congressional regime as I was with the Republican-run congress. I'm all for regime change, but I only see one or two of the current Democratic candidates (Obama and that lil' short Peace Lover) who would make fundamental changes in the we do the business of politics in this here country. That's why I like the line "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."
We need to get together and chat about wll this, because your regular bloggists or bloggers or blog practitioners or whatever you call 'em are probably bored with my blather.
May goodness, I hope my mother doesn't see the above submission. She's really give me low marks for proof-reading. But it's late and I've pounded out several thousand words today. So please excuse the fluffs!
ReplyDeleteAny fluffs you make are nothing compared to my own TNPOTUS!
ReplyDeleteIf any blog-reader goes back to read your comments they should be both entertained and educated - I'm very glad to have 'em here. Thank you kindly for visiting.
If you see this, and have a spare few minutes, slip over to a blog called ASTROTABLETALK
- clicking on the link above left in the list of "Trines" will take you there. There's an article about a possible Bush/Cheyney coup which I found somewhat disturbing and wondered what you'd think about it.
Yep - I'm sure we'll be having a natter one of these days.