Beyond Al Gore and Inconvenient Truths: A New Generation, A New Vision, a New Dream

Al Gore, the erstwhile trumpeter of inconvenient truths and dire warnings of climate catastrophe has fallen under attack by the climate deniers and flat earth-ers of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

CEI is taking Gore, perhaps the most visible figurehead of the climate movement, to task for living in "a posh Nashville mansion" that allegedly uses 20 times the energy of a normal American home while making money as he calls for action to halt the climate crisis.

Adhering to the age old maxim, "If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger," they cry "Hypocrite!" trying to besmirch Al Gore's cause as they besmirch his reputation.

Some of my friends and fellow bloggers have been bustling to rise to Al Gore's defense.  I on the other hand, have not.

So what if Al Gore isn't a perfect model of a modern major climate hero?  That's only a problem so long as we insist on making him our figurehead.  His alleged hypocracy is only a problem if we insist on making climate solutions all about personal sacrifice.  Heck, the bulletproof veracity of the dire predictions of climate science is only critical if we insist on making our movement solely about avoiding the nightmarish future Gore describes in "An Inconvenient Truth."

So defend Al Gore if you want, but I'm going to waste little time on it.  Al Gore is not the leader of my movement.  He's not my inspiration, or my hero.  His message is not the message that inspires me to act.

Do we think he's going to be our MLK with a message of inconvenient truths and dire warnings?  Is that what will inspire America and the world to act?

The leaders of my movement are the hundreds and hundreds of citizens and activists, many (most) of them young, working day in and day out to make a difference, trusting implicitly that others out there are doing the same.  These climate champions aren't former "next presidents of the United States," or millionaire politicians. They are everyday people rising to do great things, motivated not by fear (by a sense of urgency, yes) but rather by a vision of the better world we're striving to create, a sustainable, just, and prosperous future.

Don't get me wrong, Al Gore has done a great service, tirelessly raising the profile of climate science and highlighting the warnings of the nightmare future we stand to inherit if we fail to act to end the climate crisis.  But now it is time for a new generation of leaders, and a new vision of a brigther future, a vision where we talk not about "inconvenient truths," but about the very convenient fact that we stand at a moment of unique opportunity, at a catalyzing chance to create a better world.

A crisis is not yet a disaster. Gore himself says something akin to that, although that message is often lost in the rest of his rhetoric.  A crisis is a choice, a choice between futures, and we still have time left to choose.

Will we choose the nightmare or the dream?  And which will inspire us to action?  I say it's time to dream.

•  Tip Jar

  Tips for the movement's real climate heroes!

  by WattHead on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:47:09 PM PDT

  •  Al Gore did not mention factory farms

    in his film. #1 destroyer of the earth. Sorry Al, you lose.

    by bebacker on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:07:19 AM PDT

    •  He also

      flies on private jets. I don't trust any messiah and I don't think we should have a standard-bearer for environmentalism. The issue is too important and figureheads can be too easily smashed.

      by Libertaria on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:26:18 AM PDT

      •  he purchases carbon offsets for his travel

        all the crap the diarist mentions has been brought up before. Gore's house has the second-highest rating from the US Green Building Council.

        I don't see why the diarist has to make his personal declaration of independence from Gore by attacking him. Gore's not your leader? Great, fine, I don't really care or see how it makes one iota of difference, as long as you're interested in fighting climate change.

        But the diarist is only repeating tired right-wing talking points that do nothing but attack a man who is one of the world's most respected environmental advocates.

        by limpidglass on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:58:25 AM PDT

        •  Just wish I was

          rich enough to live a lavish lifestyle and be able to buy carbon offsets. I live a green lifestyle the old-fashioned way-- by being poor.

          As far as using rightwing talking points, I find it tiresome when people use the term 'rightwing talking points.' Facts are facts and are nonpartisan. Find a new line of intimidation.

          And I'm probably to the left of most people around here.

          And of the hundreds of millions of houses in the US, Gore's is the second-highest rated!? Oookay. Call me crazy, but I'm betting my little hovel uses less energy than his.

          by Libertaria on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:50:06 AM PDT

          •  so now it's not OK for him to be rich?

            Would it be better if he were rich and didn't bother to use his wealth to be as environmentally sound as he possibly can? Or are you arguing that he doesn't deserve to have more money than you?

            Your post drips with resentment of the rich. When you say you're to the left of most people here, do you mean you want a complete and total redistribution of wealth, so that no one is rich or poor?

            And of the hundreds of millions of houses in the US, Gore's is the second-highest rated!? Oookay. Call me crazy, but I'm betting my little hovel uses less energy than his.

            Did you understand the article I linked to? The US Green Building Council doesn't rank every home in the US in numerical order, how the hell could they have the time or the manpower to do that? It has four levels of environmental soundness, like A through D on a report card, and anyone who wants them to rate a building can ask them to do so.

            The Green Building Council's certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification.

            We all have to do what we can. Gore doesn't pretend that everyone is financially able to make the kinds of expensive technological improvements he has to cut his environmental impact. But he does point out that there are things everyone can do about this.

            Do you bike, walk, or take the bus rather than drive? Use cloth bags at the grocery instead of plastic? Use compact fluorescents? Those too are stopgaps, until we restructure our entire political and economic system to build environmental sustainability into them; but they are stopgaps that anyone can use.

            You seem to be more interested in slagging Gore and being angry that he has more money than you than anything else. Being poor is not an excuse for not trying to be environmentally sound. And attacking a man who spent thirty years bringing the environment to the world's attention does nothing to help matters.

            by limpidglass on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:31:00 AM PDT

            •  Yes, I would like to see

              more redistribution of wealth. Wouldn't you? I won't be lectured to by any sanctimonius fat cat. And I do do all those environmentally things you suggested.

              by Libertaria on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:43:21 AM PDT

              •  you didn't answer my question

                to put it bluntly: when you say you're way to the left, are you a Marxist? Do you want to do away with all distinctions of wealth?

                I support redistribution of wealth via taxation, and I wouldn't mind bringing back the 90% income tax on personal income for the top tax bracket that was standard during Eisenhower's day.

                But you seem to be saying that you don't want anyone to be rich at all.

                I'm not well off. I don't even own a car. But I don't go around ranting about those who are very rich, unless they're doing something to harm me.

                Being rich is not a sin, no more than being smart or beautiful is a sin. What's wrong is having wealth, intelligence, or beauty and misusing it for selfish ends.

                Nor is being poor somehow a badge of nobility in and of itself. It's just being poor.

                So I'm sort of at a loss to understand your hostility here. I'm just curious where you're coming from, is all.

                by limpidglass on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:46 AM PDT

                •  Buying carbon offsets

                  is a way for the rich to assuage their guilt. The Catholic Church used to sell indulgences.

                  I've pretty much explained where I'm coming from. I don't like huge concentrations of wealth. Why should any one person need tens of millions of dollars while others go hungry?

                  by Libertaria on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:51:34 AM PDT

                  •  quit with your

                    crappy smearing of a Nobel Laureate who has done more to help save the enviroment than you could ever hope. It's fucking revolting and it makes you sound exactly like the  to which the diarist cites.

                    by taylormattd on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:26:30 PM PDT

                    •  Thank You!

                      It is revolting that this diary is being used as a vehicle to repeat right-wing smears of Gore! Sickening.

                      by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:29:21 PM PDT

                      •  I don't know

                        what this guy has chosen to do this. I took Watthead's diary to be an attempt to repudiate the republicans "attack the messenger" strategy, and to instead embrace the climate change movement.

                        It really ruins the spirit of what I assume the diarist was driving at to use it to repeat stupid right-wing smears.

                        by taylormattd on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM PDT

                        •  Libertaria

                          has used up a substantial amount of bile already on Elliott Spitzer, he must have gotten bored.

                          by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:36:00 PM PDT

          •  Material that CEI will be disseminating

            is not "facts", but twisted distortions of them.

            "20 times the average American" use of electricity ... sort of, if one ignores things like Gore's home is in the area of highest electricity use in the country ... or that his "home" is also an office with many people working there ... or that ... etc ...

            CEI is not interested in truth but in confusing you/us with truthiness.  

            Remember CEI: Tobacco does not cause cancer.  It will be too expensive and destroy the economy to do anything about Ozone.  Etc ...

            by A Siegel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:31:58 AM PDT

            •  Thank You for this reminder

              Why are we attacking Gore here? Who's next Mother Teresa? Geeze...

              by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:15:34 PM PDT

              •  Absolutely. She was Catholic, wasn't she? n/t

                by PaintyKat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:27:16 PM PDT

                •  Yes

                  And she must have bought some of the indulgences. Geeze a diary with attacks on Gore and catholics- a two-fer!

                  Honestly this is nauseating!

                  by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:34:07 PM PDT

          •  Looks like your envy is turning you green n/t

            by PaintyKat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:24:13 PM PDT

        •  Why can't we have both?

          It's a false choice.  I'm not going to ditch Al Gore Jr. Nobel Laureate.  I'm also not going to ignore anyone just because I admire and listen to Gore.  I can actually do both at the same time - and I don't consider this some kind of rare super power either.

          This kind of old guard, that's-so-yesterday thinking isn't very useful.  We need everybody on board, rich and poor, young and old, famous and obscure.  Dissing anyone because of "X" is just a great way to drive away anyone who is "X".

          by Fabian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:07:00 AM PDT

          •  I'm not ignoring the diarist

            the vibe I'm getting is that he/she thinks of Gore as some kind of pessimistic old fogey who's way behind the times and wants, as the young tend to want, to cut themselves completely loose from everyone who's gone before.

            Gore's spent thirty years studying and thinking about the climate crisis, and probably knows more about it than any other politician alive. His understanding of what we need to do to fight it is profound, and it is foolish to deride and dismiss his hard-won wisdom.

            I see way too much blithe optimism in the diarist's dismissal of Gore's inconvenient truths as bleak pessimism. Gore's actually more optimistic than I am. He seems to think that a popular movement alone can make serious progress on climate change. I don't believe that real reform on climate change can come until we enter a crisis on the scale of the Great Depression, and while we should try our best to build a popular environmental movement, it won't reach critical mass until after the crisis hits.

            Also, restoring the environment is a long-term project, requiring the work of not just one, but many generations. It will not be completed in our lifetimes, perhaps not even in our grandchildren's. And it will require considerable sacrifice from us spoiled Americans who comprise 5% of the world's population, but consume a quarter of the its resources.

            Gore himself has said that one reason he's fighting for the environment is so his grandchildren can have a decent future. Gore's youngest son is of the diarist's generation.

            Gore's motives are the same as the diarist's: preserve the environment for the sake of the young. Why does the diarist, then, feel he has to insist on distinguishing his motives from Gore's? It never crossed my mind that the diarist might be so shallow as to care about climate change only for Gore's sake.

            There's no reason for the diarist to reject Gore just because he's older, nor is Gore trying to steal the thunder of the younger generation.

            Dismissing Gore as old and worn-out would be just as foolish as dismissing the young as ignorant and apathetic. Everyone has a part to play in this struggle, and everyone will be needed.

            by limpidglass on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:03:45 AM PDT

          •  Exactly!

            Why throw anyone overboard? I'll keep Gore, and let others prove themselves too. But honestly is it necessary to kick Al Gore to the curb?

            by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:24:11 PM PDT

        •  Is Watthead attacking Gore?

          I don't see that.  "Alledgedly ..." or "done a great service ..."

          It would have been nice for Watthead to write something like "to be clear, the CEI is peddling truthiness rather than truth, blackness rather than light ..." before the declaration of independence. But I don't see the "attack".

          by A Siegel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:29:46 AM PDT

          •  I see an attack

            sorry, that's my opinion solely. But I've re-read the diary and normally I rec the environmental diaries but this one just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Have you read Libertaria's comments about Gore?

            A sanctimonious fat cat

            ! Honestly! No Use for cannibalizing our best and our brightest...

            by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:27:41 PM PDT

          •  See my comment below "I didn't attack Gore"

            by WattHead on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:12:32 AM PDT

        •  I didn't attack Gore

          I just didn't defend him.  It's not about the messenger, it's about the message, and that should have nothing to do with Gore.  

          Look, CEI's attacks on Gore are largely baseless, entirely designed to confuse and distract from his cause, and peddled by the same flat-earth denialists that claimed smoking had nothing to do with cancer.  If CEI had it's way, our children would be dying from second hand smoke, since they claimed it has NOTHING to do with cancer.  

          But the point is, THAT's not the point.  It's not about CEI, or about Al Gore, it's about the need to rise to the climate challenge and seize the opportunity to build a better future, a sustainable, just, and prosperous future, before the opportunity passes us by forever.  Why does Al Gore's private flights or large (green designed) house have anything to do with the veracity or import of that effort?

          by WattHead on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:17:10 AM PDT

          •  CEI would have our children smoking

            they wouldn't stop with second hand smoke.

            That is why the develop all those campaigns to hook youth into cigarettes.

            PaintyKat

            by PaintyKat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:30:15 PM PDT

          •  Why don't you defend him in your own diary

            when Libertaria is repeating and amplifying the right-wing smears on Gore. Or is Gore expendable to you! He's doing it right where you can respond to it.

            What was the point of your diary?

            by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:31:49 PM PDT

        •  Thank You!

          So the idea is we should dump Gore and leave him to his fate at the hands of the haters and flat-earthers. Good Lord this makes me sick.

          I'm having none of it. Why anybody would work as hard as he has for the ingrates in this country, never mind this party - is beyond me.

          I am now very glad he didn't run for President!

          What a snotty diary! You don't have to worship him but respect him, now that would be nice!

          by vcmvo2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:51:27 PM PDT

          •  Sure I respect Gore

            That's why I wrote this in the diary:

            "Don't get me wrong, Al Gore has done a great service, tirelessly raising the profile of climate science and highlighting the warnings of the nightmare future we stand to inherit if we fail to act to end the climate crisis."

            The point is that several of the commenters here just spent plenty of time and digital ink engaging in a false debate with the likes of Libertaria.  I'd certainly love to see Gore's reputation intact.  He deserves both respect and recognition.

            But this movement and this cause aren't about Gore, and they aren't led by Gore.  The point of the diary is that we shouldn't, as a movement, be vulnerable to the kind of baseless smear campaigns CEI and friends are fond of running.  We shouldn't place all our eggs or pin all our hopes on a monolithic figurehead, not when our movement is so much greater than that, when it is led, as a write, by hundreds and hundreds of every day people fighting to make a difference.

            by WattHead on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:20:34 AM PDT

            •  And Al Gore himself goes to great lengths

              to praise and award and bring recognition to those people.

              He does NOT waste his time or his bytes by attacking good people.

              You don't tear others down to build yourself up.

              Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

              by bronte17 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:20:52 AM PDT

              •  How am I tearing down Gore?

                Again, I didn't attack Gore, I just pointed out that defending him isn't critical to our movement, or shouldn't be, and that the more we insist on having a single figurehead as our leader, the more vulnerable the movement is to ad hominem attacks on the messenger, instead of the message.

                by WattHead on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM PDT

    •  Humanity: #1 destroyer of earth

      Let's put the blame right where it belongs.  Even there, I'm being inaccurate - Earth will not be destroyed by us and evolution will replace any and all species with new, better ones.  Even us.

      So it should read:

      Humanity: #1 destroyer of humanity.

      by Fabian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:28:32 AM PDT

  •  Mainly a nice piece ...

    but "dozens and dozens" ... Isn't it more like 1000s and 1000s?  How many were at Powershift?  How many worked Bali?  

    Also, if there are "dozens and dozens", why suggest basically pushing Gore aside?  Isn't your point that we should recognize and embrace the myriad of leaders that are out there when it comes to making a change? And, from your perspective, the "youth" leaders?

    Sadly, perhaps, Gore can call Pelosi and, I suspect, get her on the phone.  Obama as well. Corporate CEOs.  Reporters.  How many in the youth climate movement can do this.

    Finally, we should emphasize that the attacks on Gore are by the same people who live in a Black Hole of Denial.  Issue is not to 'defend Gore', but to bring a spotlight to the dishonesty and 'truthiness' rather than truth that they bring to the table.

    by A Siegel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:27:07 AM PDT

  •  An excellent point. It takes all kinds ...

    ... to make the world, so its an inescapable fact that no one approach will cover all the bases.

    Indeed, I was struck at the big rock concert to save the planet that amongst all the various actions I could take that, when done collectively by large numbers of people, would be equivalent to taking a certain number of cars off the road for a year ...

    ... none of the actions included not driving a car for a year.

    So poverty and a little prior experience with cycle commuting has helped me to take a step beyond the limit of what rock concerts to save the planet can imagine as possible.

    by BruceMcF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:06:03 AM PDT

•  Nothing Wrong With Adding Generations But

  generations typically don't take real power till they're around 50 years old.

  Gore's generation just hit its stride around 15 years ago or so.

  Just for reference, we had WW2 presidents from 1961 thru 1992. So you're going to deal with boomers involved in leadership for a good decade to possibly two to come yet.

  There's no reason for any conflict at all between generations on this crucial issue. Only between political ideologies.

  So, go to it kids, I'm eager to see what you can put together. And don't be surprised if you get a ton of support from Gore's generation.

  by Gooserock on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:56:12 PM PDT

  •  No generational war

    Gooserock, excellent comment.  I'm not calling for any generational war.  I'm just saying that Gore is not my inspiration, or my hero.  That inspiration tends to come from the younger generations, the Millenials who will live tomorrow with the consequences of our actions today.

    All I'm saying is it's time for some new messengers and some new messages.  We've had our nightmare.  It's time to dream.

    by WattHead on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:59:37 PM PDT

    •  the dream will require sacrifice

      take one example, overpopulation. The sad fact is that there are simply too many of us for there to be enough resources to go around.

      Right now, Earth's carrying capacity is thought to be somewhere in the range of 4 billion to 5 billion people.

      There are 6.5 billion of us.

      Right now, the world population increases by 91 million people a year. Supposing that we can reverse that and decrease the world's population by 50 million a year. It would take then about 50 years to reduce the population to that manageable level of 4 billion. And once that level is achieved, it will have to be maintained, in perpetuity, and possibly even decreased as necessary.

      Think Gore's behind on this one? In Earth in the Balance, written fifteen years ago, he proposes, as part of his "Global Marshall Plan", a multinational effort to control the global population through education, economic development tailored to the needs of local populaces, and dissemination of effective birth control methods.

      This is not going to be any easy task. Green jobs and alternative energy sources are a start, but it will take much more than that to achieve real sustainability.

      by limpidglass on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:40:22 AM PDT

      •  I finally read

        Earth in the Balance a few months ago. You're exactly right - Gore was (and still is) way ahead of the curve on environmental protection. How sad that 15 years after that book was first published, we're hardly doing any of the things Gore so passionately advocated in it.

        by pattyp on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:23:29 AM PDT

      •  Why do we insist on calling it sacrifice?

        Sacrifice is a pain you willingly endure because it's the right thing to do, its noble.

        Why not talk about investment?  We regularly invest now in a future payoff down the road, something we're willing to pay up front for.

        Yes, building a brighter future will require investment, real, concerted investment on the part of our society.  But sacrifice?  Perhaps, but that's not the central meme for me.  

        by WattHead on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:24:39 AM PDT

    •  while I respect Gore for getting the message

      out, what motivates me on this issue is knowing that if we don't fix things, we lose technological civilization and go into dieoff.

      Perhaps sooner than even the most pessimistic public projections indicate.

      by alizard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:05:52 AM PDT

  •  And I do hope we'll have plenty of support...

    ...from Gore's generation (heck, even from Gore himself).  The climate crisis is the challenge of my young generation.  Solving it is our greatest opportunity.  But we cannot go it alone, nor should we have to.  We all have a common interest in a brighter future, for ourselves and for our children.  Together we can make that future a reality.

    by WattHead on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:01:04 AM PDT

•  I think its funny

  to watch all this brewhaha about Al Gore.  I think it is because he makes such an easy target for the naysayers.  But, I remember teaching this concept via environmental health (with other educators involved with ecology, environmental science) as a truth for many years before it was an inconvenient truth.  We were exited at the prospect of the documentary because it seemed it would then be in reach of the collective consciousness.  Then came the orgy of corporate 'green' and now we must maintain vigilance in deconstructing lies from truth.  So, I'm glad you've found a movement and a voice.  But, I think your dream will require personal sacrifice.  I think that the greatest of dreams are not achieved without sacrifice. There are a great many in other generations who are and have been sacrificing a great deal for your dream before you knew it was your dream.  Do not make the mistake of dismissing them or their place in your dream

  by educonfidential on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:25:48 AM PDT

•  It's a pity

  that we lost the past 8 years of having Gore as president during this critical time in our history.  The people elected him, but the oil companies preferred to have their own puppet in place, someone who would place profits over human lives.  It remains to be seen how this will all play out, but I greatly fear we have lost some time we could not afford to lose.  

  by Miss Jones on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:24:42 AM PDT

•  amen

  and let's hope that the oil companies money won't derail it again

  by askyron on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:28:57 AM PDT

•  Bravo, Watthead & his peers

  This climate catastrophe-in-the-making is just one of a million messes, regardless of who is the public face of it or whatever.  What I am just l-o-v-i-n-g so much about the kids coming up now is this willingness they seem to have to accept responsibility for addressing the messes even though it wasn't for instance, them that melted the polar ice caps.

  These "echo 'boomers"? is that what they're calling 'em?  I can dig it.  TV then, internet now, the original 'boomers being the first TV kids and these kids now are the first digikids.  This having grown up with the technology you see before you, itself a quantum revolutionary leap in humankind's ability to "inform itself out of committing suicide" much as TV, for all it's faults, was in previous times (Vietnam images being a major factor in that war eventually stopping, etc.).  They even have a barbaric and silly war to watch their peers get chewed up by for no rational reason.

  This is a pretty steep ledge we have to talk ourselves down off of, but WattHead I gotta tell ya that based on what I see at the micro (my own personal interactions every day with your generation) and the macro (your generation's impact on the presidential race, for instance) from you guys I am ALL FOR giving you the keys to the (your non-internal-combustion-engine-powered vehicle of choice here).  

  It's your world, we borrowed it and us and everyone before us, having been (can you believe it?) EVEN MORE FOOLISH than us even, well you seem to have noticed by now that it kinda got fukt up pretty bad.  We're sorry.  But I will look you in the eye and say that if any generation can set it to right, or at least get it going back in the correct (survival) direction, it's y'all, and I mean that.  

  by emperor nobody on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:17:19 AM PDT

•  Ju-Jitsu

  I agree with you that it's not wise to put Gore on a pedestal and abdicate responsibility to the glamorous figurehead.

  But there is an upside to defending him from attack, because it's possible to take the negative energy being directed at him and turn it back upon the denialists.

  They are clearly desperate. And I'd argue that Gore deserves 1000 times more of a carbon footprint than the average American -- not just a mere 20 times more -- because he has been at least that much more effective as an individual in advancing the cause.

  This is not a dispensation for him to pollute at will. It's a recognition that his work demands the expenditure of energy. We can't have him driving around the country to speaking engagements in a fry-oil mini-van, etc. Yet that's the kind of ideological purity the denialists at CEI are demanding.

  How about we take one coal plant off-line and donate the carbon credits to Gore and 100,000 other activists? That would be a wise offset.

  by SolveClimate on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:58:59 AM PDT

•  Perfection is the enemy of the good

  How did this diary make the Rescue List?

  We have to go far, quickly.

  Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

  by bronte17 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:22:56 PM PDT

  •  Good Question

    I asked it myself.The Rescuer didn't take it as an attack on Gore, and he didn't read the comments. We generally rescue something based on the merits of the diary itself.

    by vcmvo2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:07:53 AM PDT

    •  It contains the requisite generational bias

      the anti-boomer, anti-oldsters that seem essential for the current political climate that is so sad and counterproductive.

      But it is good to know how the cards line up though.  We will know for the future.

      There is something really off-putting about the use of posessive pronouns like "our"our and filling the diary with "my" movement.  There is entirely too much "I" and "my" to masquerade as any collective movement or action.  And it becomes pretty clear the "our" doesn't mean everyone.

      All that comes out is self-centered and exclusionary and let's kick anyone to the curb that is over 50.  All of that know-it-all is really ugly and it is difficult to find merit in the diary.

      The diary itself is offensive and the comments are more so.  And what in the world was the MLK slap?  Seemed really out of place, therefore felt nasty.

      PaintyKat

      by PaintyKat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:55:54 PM PDT

      •  Please see my comments above...

        titled "No generational war" and "And I do hope we'll have plenty of support..." before you charge me with trying to "kick anyone to the curb that is over 50."

        Calling for new voices and new messages doesn't mean I'm "anti-boomer" or "anti-oldster".  What's wrong with building a stronger voice for the group with the most standing when it comes to climate change - the young and the poor who will be most impacted by the effects of a climate gone wrong and who stand the most to gain from solving the climate crisis?

        And where's the slap against MLK?  I simply asked if we are holding out hope that Al Gore will be the climate movement's MLK with a message about "inconvenient truths" and warnings about nightmarish futures.

        by WattHead on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM PDT

        •  What did MLK have to do with the topic

          of the diary.  MLK fought against poverty but I don't believe he was an environmentalist so why would he be brought up in respect to VP Gore or environmentalism?

          Those of us who have grandchildren have just much of an investment in our environmental future as anyone else.    There is a continuity to families and they don't happen in one generation. I care about my grandchildren and all future generations as well.

          I've never been exposed to this kind of generational conflict nonsense until now.  Boomers are taking care of their parents and their own children and helping with their grandchildren but somehow we are these useless drags on the American political system.  NOT.

          And perhaps if your message were a bit more inclusive you might actually get more of an audience.  None of us are going to die off soon to leave it up to your brilliance.

          Al Gore is a brilliant and dedicated environmentalist who won the Nobel prize so he is no lightweight when it comes to environmentalism.  You could do a lot worse than him to look up to.

          When you have contributed as much to the discussion as he has, get back to us.  Otherwise, your aggrieved, self-aggrandizing attempt to put him down belongs at Free Republic.  I am at my limit of folks with overemphasized senses of self-importance who lack the ability to give credit to those who came before them.

          PaintyKat

          by PaintyKat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:56:10 PM PDT