Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

Al Gore's argument « Previous | |Next »
September 12, 2006

Al Gore, who is in Australia to promote his an art house documentary An Inconvenient Truth, said the following on ABC Radio this morning:

Australia in many ways is more at risk than any other nation. You have climate extremes now because of your latitude and your place in the middle of the ocean, an island continent and those extremes are predicted to get worse ... You have, here in Sydney, in Brisbane, in Perth and elsewhere, shortages of drinking water. You have more fires, you have threats to the Great Barrier Reef, you have more Category Five cyclones and, most importantly of all, the soil moisture is being threatened as scientists have told us it would be. Australia is the driest of the inhabited continents and you’ve ingeniously created this magnificent civilisation in a place where the water is marginal and yet global warming threatens that. We can solve it but in order to avoid that harm we have to see it as a moral issue and discharge the responsibility we have to those who come after us.

Sounds a reasonably persuasive account doesn't it. The reasonable voice of liberal Enlightenment reason, rather than the preaching of a lefty moral guardian. Addressing this should be our top priority is the inference.

So reasonable even The Australian drops its stirring the anti-intellectualism of the populist right in Australian politics, and accepts the case. It says in an editorial that In the film, Mr Gore successfully challenges the thesis that global warming is a part of a cyclical weather pattern rather than a man-made phenomenon. So global warming is real and it is caused by carbon dioxide. The problem for the editorialist is the real cost of tackling climate change. But this is not spelt out with respect to Australia. The editorialist dances off into talking about the developing world needing to industrialize to overcoming poverty and it being more important to ensuring clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education for everyone.

The editorialist just recycles the arguments of Lomborg's The Sceptical Environmentalist that we are better off improving the lives of poor people in the developing world instead. What is not mentioned is the cost of the Australian's proposal:

Instead of criticising John Howard for failing to sign the climate protocol, Mr Gore would be better advised to put his weight behind the Prime Minister's Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, an intitiative that brings the US and the Asian tigers inside the tent to develop solutions such as carbon sequestration, geothermal power and clean coal technology.

Doesn't the cost of carbon sequestration need to be addressed? Will not that increase the cost of electricity---double it on some accounts?

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:40 PM | | Comments (1)


After seeing Al Gore the other evening & listening to the arguement put forth you can't deny what was said in regard to global warming.The facts have been available for years, it's time for all governments to decrease emission instead of increasing them in the name of the economy or coffers.