An Inconvenient Truth review

This review has been a long time coming – I saw An Inconvenient Truth for the first time over a month ago, and I was eager to review it, but I wanted to see it again before writing about it. After I did, the Oilers made it to the Stanley Cup Finals, and anyone who knows me knows how stoked I was about the Oilers making it as far as they did.

Anyway, I've now seen An Inconvenient Truth three times, and every time I watch the movie, I come away with something new about Al Gore and global warming. (See the movie's trailer on the right side of this blog.) Before I get to the review, a few words about Gore.

I had him all wrong. I was unhappy with the way he ran his campaign in 2000 - I so desperately wanted him to beat George W. Bush, because I feared what Bush would do to the country (and many of those fears have been realized). I think he didn't respond quickly and effectively enough to some of Bush's lies during the campaign, a few of which were whoppers. Because of those feelings, I felt Gore was a wimp. I no longer feel that way.

Whether it was "losing" the election in 2000 or for some other reason, Gore has kind of come into his own as an activist and elder statesman. I'm impressed, and it's why, at this early stage, I support Gore for the Democratic nomination in 2008. But, there'll be much more on that topic in the coming months.

A Republican friend of mine asked me right before I saw the movie for the first time what Gore's scientific credentials were. It seemed like a fair question at the time, but the more I think about it, the more I realize it was an attempt to call into question Gore's expertise on global warming. Let's lay that to rest right now. After writing two books, consulting with numerous scientists (many of whom are worldwide leading experts on climate change), it's not a stretch to say that Gore, while not a scientist, has done plenty of homework, background and research on global warming. He’s traveled to the North Pole and Antarctica and has consulted with climate change experts around the world about this movie and his books.

Psst - to probably about 99 percent of the American public, it's safe to say this: He knows a helluva lot more about global warming than you do.

On to the movie. The documentary is mostly a multimedia presentation of Gore discussing the startling facts about climate change to an audience. It might not sound exciting, but it's not supposed to be – it’s intended to be informative, and on that count the movie succeeds in dramatic fashion.

Gore starts the movie with some humor: “I used to be the next president of the United States.” After lots of laughter from the audience, he deadpans, “I don’t think that’s very funny,” then he laughs. Where was this Gore during the 2000 election? I like him with a sense of humor – it helps his message resonate. When someone lacking charisma tries to appeal to the masses, his delivery and manner distract from the message, no matter how important his words are. This was one of Gore’s biggest problems in 2000; how often did we hear people decry his "wooden" manner? Too often. He certainly isn’t “personality plus” now, but it’s a big improvement over his former persona.

Gore continued about the 2000 election:

“It was a hard blow, but what do you do? You make the best of it. It brought into clear focus the mission I had been pursuing all these years and I started giving the [global warming] slideshow again.”

Those were the most heartfelt words I’ve heard from him about the election in quite some time. He’s a bigger man than me; I would have had a very difficult time recovering from such a devastating, bitter defeat.

Following his discussion on the 2000 election, Gore wasted no time facing his foes and taking on his critics.

He quickly acknowledges that global warming cuts a wide swath across the political spectrum in a bipartisan way. There are people in Congress, in both parties, said Gore, who keep global warming at arm’s length, because if they acknowledged the problem, there would be dramatic consequences and politicians would have to make some very tough choices, and that’s not politically convenient.

But, he states, “This isn't a political issue; it's a moral issue," and I couldn’t agree more. “If we allow [global warming through the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases] to happen, it’s deeply unethical,” said Gore. Too bad that most politicians in this country simply aren’t listening. Take a look at some of these facts, and everyone in this country should be listening.

Many critics or doubters of global warming suggest that the recent spate of hot years is just an aberration; that these cycles happen all the time. Yes, they do, but not like they have in the past two decades. To wit, 10 of the hottest years on record have all occurred in the last 14 years, and the hottest of all was 2005. Think about that for a second – the hottest year on record. Last year, over 200 cities and towns in the United States set all-time temperature records.

Last year also set some other not so wonderful records – the highest ever-recorded number of Atlantic hurricanes; the highest ever recorded number of typhoons in Japan; and also an all-time tornado record in the United States. Scientists have literally been rewriting textbooks – it was thought that a hurricane could never hit South America, because the water temperature is too cold that far south. But, no more; a hurricane hit Brazil last year. Brazil! It's not a reach to say this anomaly occurred in part because of warmer ocean temperatures.



And do we need to even talk about Katrina (above), the storm that will forever be burned into America’s consciousness as our costliest natural disaster in history? Gore talks about Katrina in the movie, and critics have been quick to jump all over him, claiming that Gore stated that Katrina happened as a result of global warming. But, that’s not what he said. (Sounds like another "I invented the Internet" distortion to me.) What he does say in the movie is that warmer ocean temperatures contribute to much stronger storms such as Katrina, because warm water is like rocket fuel for hurricanes.

To illustrate that last point, it’s useful to remember Katrina’s track – it was a category 1 storm when it first made landfall in Florida, but as it passed over the peninsula and hit the much warmer waters of the Gulf of Mexico, it gained ferocious strength and quickly turned into a Category 5 hurricane.

Some of the statistics from the 2003 heat wave that scorched many parts of the globe are pretty eye opening, too, and Gore ticks them off in the movie. The heat wave killed 35,000 people in India, and the highest temperature ever recorded in that country also occurred that summer – 122 degrees Fahrenheit. Last year, 37” of rain fell on Mumbai, India, in 24 hours, yet another all-time record.

And how about the recent flooding that the Mid-Atlantic has experienced? Last week, a tropical system dropped over a foot of rain on the Baltimore/Washington area, resulting in Biblical-like floods. Pennsylvania hasn’t been spared, either, as the Delaware, Susquehanna and Schuylkill rivers have all jumped their banks from fierce rains. In Monroe Country (where I was born), 7.02 inches of rain fell in a 24-hour period last week. In less than two years, there have been four record-breaking storms that have resulted in brutal flooding in eastern Pennsylvania. Recent flood levels are equaled only by the infamous ’55 flood.

“This is unprecedented,” said meteorologist Ben Gelber in The Pocono Record. “It’s remarkable.”

Why all of these examples? Because, as Gore reasons in the movie, these storms will become more and more frequent as the Earth heats up and the climate changes, and no one on the planet will be able to escape it.

Global warming has many far-reaching consequences, and Gore outlines many of them, and they are worth noting here.

Species loss is now occurring at 1,000 times the normal background rate, and it’s because rising temperatures adversely affect the ecosystem. Hotter temperatures are resulting in an increase in mosquitoes, ticks, lice, rodents and other pests, and unfortunately, these aid in the spread of new diseases, as well as old ones previously thought to be controlled or eliminated, such as SARS, West Nile, Malaria and Polio.

The West Nile Virus arrived on the Eastern Shore of Maryland in 1999, and it was all the way across the continental United States in six years.

Right now, the areas we all need to look at with concern are Greenland, Antarctica and the North Pole. All three are undergoing radical changes.

But first, it’s worth noting what Gore states the melting ice in these areas does to the planet and how it affects all of us. Ice and snow in these areas act like a giant mirror, reflecting 90 percent of the sun’s rays back out of the atmosphere. However, water absorbs 90 percent of the sun’s rays. So, as water warms and melts more ice, there is a greater absorption of the sun’s rays, raising water temperature, which melts more ice, and so on. It’s a giant snowball effect, if you’ll pardon the pun.

As a result, says Gore, there is now a faster buildup of heat at the North Pole than anywhere else on Earth. That should be the single-most frightening thing that people take from all of the statistics on climate change.

If either Greenland or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet at the South Pole melted (not all of Antarctica, just the Western Ice Sheet), ocean levels would rise by by an estimated 20 feet for either one. What would 20 feet do? Gore illustrates the effects, and they aren't pretty. People in Bangladesh; Calcutta, India; Beijing and Shanghai, China; and the Netherlands, one of Europe's “low countries,” would all be displaced. The refugee displacement from a 20-feet rise in sea level would be about 40 million people. Gore brings up an important point when considering this possibility – there’s huge hardship when 200,000 people are displaced during a disaster or war in Africa or Europe. Just begin to imagine the horrible possibilities if 200 times that amount of people had to head to higher ground.

Earlier in the review, I mentioned how Gore has visited both poles as part of his research on global warming. In the movie, he mentioned two experiences worth sharing.

He traveled to the North Pole in a nuclear submarine to see firsthand what the Navy has been reporting for years – that the ice is thinning at a dramatic rate. Since 1957, the Navy has kept meticulous records of North Pole ice, because submarines can only surface if ice thickness is 42 inches or less. For years, Gore lobbied the Navy to have its ice thickness records declassified, and the Navy finally agreed.

The findings? Brace yourself. Since 1970, ice thickness has decreased by 40 percent, and two recent studies have shown that in 30 to 50 years, North Pole ice will completely disappear in summertime. Got your attention yet?

In Antarctica, scientists can drill cores in the ice and analyze the atmosphere, just like scientists can read tree rings. By examining these ice cores, scientists can go back 650,000 years to measure all sorts of readings, including carbon dioxide levels. Gore said scientists can read some many subtleties in these cores.

"And they showed me and ice core, and I couldn't believe it, but they pointed to a core and could tell when the U.S. Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and you can see it - a clear difference in the ice," said Gore. In other words, scientists could tell when the world's biggest polluter stopped polluting so much.

Many doubting Thomases regarding climate change point to the fact that temperature is cyclical; that it goes up and down over thousands of years. It does. But, going back 650,000 years, scientists who have examined these ice cores have found that carbon dioxide level has never gone above 300 parts per million, even during the cyclical warming years. Until now, where it currently sits measures nearly 400 parts per million, and rising fast. Scared yet? Keep reading.

Global warming is having effects in the United States, too. Warmer weather sucks the moisture out of the soil, and global warming dramatically increases this evaporation, said Gore. We take our food supply for granted, but what would happen if we lost even 25 percent of our growing capacity? I shudder at the thought.

President Bush likes to tout the idea of ethanol as a solution to our energy problems. What would happen if millions of acres are too dry to even grown enough to feed Americans, much less grow corn for ethanol? It's doubtful this administration has even considered such a scenario, since it won't even acknowledge the existence of global warming as a problem. While Republicans dicker, the Earth cooks.

Speaking of energy solutions, Bush has been beating the ANWR drum since he got into office, often expressing his desire to turn the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge over to his oil buddies. I often crack up when I hear Bush say he's confident the area could be explored for oil reserves in "an environmentally friendly way." Anyone remember the Exxon Valdez? Oops.

Anyway, the reason I bring up ANWR - here's a statistic from the movie that would make oil exploration of the area difficult: 35 years ago, the tundra was frozen an average of 225 days per year. Because of warmer temperatures and permafrost melting, that average is now below 75 days. Trucks would have difficulty traveling over the region to get oil and other supplies in and out of ANWR with the mucky, melted permafrost. There's a bit of irony there - getting more oil out of the ground that will ultimately make Earth's temperature rise is now more difficult because temperatures have risen.

Gore talks about two dramatic examples of expansive bodies of water and what higher temperatures have done: Lake Chad and the Aral Sea.



Lake Chad, a formerly enormous body of water in Africa that borders Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Nigeria, has decreased dramatically in size. In the 1960s, the lake measured some 420,046,926 miles, but it now encompasses less than 1,398,085 miles. Some of the lake's disappearance has to do with demands on the lake’s water and its sources of water, but it’s also related to hotter temperatures and droughts from climate change. The lake nearly dried up in 1908 and 1984, so is the lake’s disappearance entirely from climate change? You decide. Gore thinks so, and I’m inclined to agree that it’s at least a piece of the incredibly complex puzzle of global warming.



The Aral Sea is an even more dramatic example than Lake Chad. In 1960, the Sea was the world’s fourth largest lake, with an area of 2,873,220,393 miles. Today, the lake encompasses 182,972,441 miles, less than 25 percent of its original size, and still shrinking. It has shrank so far, in fact, that the sea has split in two – the North and South Aral Seas. The southern sea has all but been abandoned, but the northern section is being revitalized somewhat.

Like Lake Chad, the causes of the sea's dramatic changes aren’t exclusive to global warming, including abuse and neglect by the former Soviet Union by extensive irrigation on the rivers that feed into the Aral, but you’re kidding yourself if you think global warming is not playing at least a part. People, when huge bodies of water start disappearing, something's wrong.



These boats that sit stranded in the sand are located on a former canal that was desperately dug to try to keep the two separated Aral Seas connected. The effort failed, as water levels have dropped dramatically.
###

So, many ask, why the renewed concern about global warming in the United States? There are many reasons, but perhaps no larger one than this – we are the biggest producer of greenhouse gases in the world – no country even comes close. As Gore points out, we belch 30.3 percent of the world's greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. That’s more than South America, Europe and Asia combined. Ouch!

Here's a radical thought - maybe it's one of the reasons we are so hated in the world. (A Republican like Ann Coulter would immediately interpret this as "RJ hates America." People like her can pucker up and kiss my ass.) As a country, we are preachy about so many things, but consider this - why the hell should other countries implement measures to curb global warming when the political leaders of the biggest polluter of all sit in defiant denial? We need to adopt a leadership position now, so countries like India and China do the same. As I've blogged before, if those two countries are indifferent to global warming this century, start buying canoes. You'll need them.

So, you might be thinking, “Well, let’s get going then! Let’s reverse this trend and stop this madness.” Oh, if only it were that easy. There are two obstacles to that happening in the United States – the oil companies and, as I just mentioned, politicians. The two are undeniably linked.

Take, for instance, James Inhofe, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma (and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee). He was quoted on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003 regarding global warming:

"Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science,” calling global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

What a douche. (And who the fuck decided to make him chairman of the Env't & Public Works Committee?!? That would be brainiac Republicans who rule Congress. Brilliant choice, people!) I wonder where the cash is coming from to compel him to utter such ridiculous bullshit? His hot air doesn't help global warming, that's for sure.

However, in An Inconvenient Truth, Gore has a much more delicious example of political denial. Phil Cooney was appointed by President George W. Bush on January 20, 2001 as chief of staff for White House Council on Environmental Quality. Like many of Bush’s appointees (Hi again, Brownie!), it’s useful to look at his past to understand his brilliant decisions while on the job for the Bush administration.

Before joining the Bush administration, Cooney worked as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute’s oil & gas lobby, where he defended Exxon following the Valdez disaster in 1989. Admirable work, and that’s someone I would definitely want working on my team to deal with environmental issues large and small. It’s important to note that Cooney is a lawyer who holds a bachelor’s degree in economics, with no scientific training whatsoever. Predictably, it didn’t take him long to begin his, ahem, “magic.”

In 2005, it was revealed that Cooney radically altered reports on climate change in 2002 and 2003. As Gore states in the movie, this was a very big embarrassment to the White House, and on June 14, 2005, Cooney resigned, only to be hired by ExxonMobile the very next day. But, as is the case with so many embarrassing things with this administration, let’s just get mad at The New York Times for reporting it, not for the actual fuck up. It’s not the administration’s fault, it’s the newspapers for reporting it, right? Jackasses.

After discussing Cooney in the movie, Gore rolls out a gem of a quote that is perfect in describing the whole idea of a guy like Cooney rewriting climate change reports, and it’s by Upton Sinclair:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Well said.

The real problem with global warming is the concerted effort on the part of the oil companies to confuse, scare and manipulate the public. They are well funded and relentless.

According to Gore, (and it’s awfully hard to argue), their objective is to reposition global warming as theory, not as fact. Is it working? To a certain extent, yes.

Gore cites a recent massive study of 928 peer-reviewed articles on global warming, which represented 10 percent of all of the articles (and I believe it was over a year’s time). Of those articles, guess what number disagreed that there was a problem with global warming? Zero. A large number of articles, and zero disagreement.

Another study over that same time period examined 636 articles in the popular press. The percentage of articles that said that global warming may be a problem? Try 53 percent. So, the gusher of bullshit that oil companies are showering on us is working, to some extent, on mental midgets like James Inhofe, President Bush’s environmental advisors, and probably a Republican near you.

This short passage, from an article on CNN's Web site, should tell you what you need to know about the diverging views of President Bush, who wants us to be skeptical about global warming, and Gore, who knows we shouldn't be. Take a read:

"New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment," Bush said. "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."

Gore said the causes of global warming should not be ignored. "Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus?" Gore said, his voice rising with emotion. "Is it because ExxonMobil wants us to set it aside? Why should we set aside the conclusion of scientists in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, and around the world including the 11 most important national academies of science on the globe and substitute for their view the view of ExxonMobil. Why?"

Get that whole story from CNN Here.

I have to take yet another shot at the president, for (shock!) a broken campaign promise from the 2000 campaign. He ran on the promise that if elected, he would implement a mandatory cap on carbon emissions, the principle greenhouse gas. Upon taking office, just about overnight, he announced that he would implement voluntary greenhouse gas limits on big offenders, like power companies that burn fossil fuel. What's next, Mr. President - pedophiles as daycare workers?

Thanks for not letting us forget the president's broken promises, Al. During one of the movie's more poignant moments, Gore states, “Our principle obstacle is political dogma. Yes, politicians make decisions that will largely affect the way we go, but a baking Earth will cook us all.

“Our ability to live is what is at stake,” continues Gore. And that ability has no political party.

He brings up another example that’s too apropos to ignore. Many opponents or disbelievers to global warming reform say that “we can’t protect the environment without hurting the economy,” said Gore. “They say that Chinese and Japanese automakers will sweep in and steal market share from American automakers.” Psst - they're doing it anyway.

However, according to Gore, American automakers can’t even sell some of their cars in China, because they don’t meet the pollution standards. In China! Automakers and members in Congress on both sides of the aisle have opposed raising mileage standards for years, particularly on the biggest polluters of all - SUVs. Now, it’s coming back to bite politicians, SUV drivers and car companies in the ass, particularly Ford and GM.

Hey GM, keep churning out your Hummers. Same with you, Ford – how many millions did you make from sales of Excursions and Explorers in the feel-good ‘90s? All of those SUV drivers can choke on those high gas prices now. They aren’t getting any sympathy from me, but those SUVs are belching out millions of tons of emissions every year, and that affects us all.

Predictably, the Swiftboating of Gore has begun, and it seems the more successful the movie is, the more pissed off Republicans and the few remaining opponents of global warming become. (And it’s looking to be one of, if not the highest grossing documentary of all time.)

My favorite half-baked witticism comes from David Harsanyi, a walking, talking asshole from the Denver Post, who tries to be clever by writing in a June 5 article:

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

What his ham-handed analysis fails to consider is that Gore has probably offset his traveling by doing more things in other ways than Harsanyi has even considered possible. (And, judging from his idiotic piece on global warming, Harsanyi’s mind is probably capable of very little cogent analysis.) And Gore may not be a scientist, but he’s done worlds more research than you have, David, and he’s written two more books on the subject than you have.

I’m not done with Harsanyi yet. He continues in his column:

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

Oh yea, Harsanyi, people are forcing you to ride a bike, and Al Gore is knocking on your door now to pick up your air conditioner. People like Harsanyi don’t add to the discourse, they subtract from it, but that’s probably his goal, anyway.

You know what? This isn’t the first time Gore has been railroaded for his beliefs on the importance of protecting the environment. Take a read on then-President George H.W. Bush’s comments about Gore in late October 1992 (and it’s worth noting these words were uttered by an increasingly desperate president who knew he was going down in defeat):

This guy [Gore] is so far out in the environmental extreme, we’ll be up to our necks in spotted owls and out of work for every American. This guy’s crazy! (A video clip of these comments is played in the movie. Hard to deny it when there's videotape, eh George? Like father, like son - environment be damned.)

Gore winds up the movie on a positive note, and it’s a good thing. I enjoyed and highly recommend An Inconvenient Truth (as if you didn’t know by now), but after hearing all of the dire predictions and statistics, I needed a dose of optimism and good news.

Just about every country on the planet has ratified or pledged to abide by the Kyoto Protocol, save two; the United States and Australia. But, the good news is that many states and cities in America have passed resolutions to move toward Kyoto’s goals, including Pennsylvania.

Gore blows the horn of optimism when he reminds us of America’s many noteworthy accomplishments: we formed a nation after fighting a revolution; we made a moral decision to abolish slavery, deciding that we couldn’t be half slave and half free; we overcame adversity by fighting World War II in two theatres and defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; we desegregated schools; we’ve cured diseases, including polio; we landed men on the moon; we fought and succeeded in bringing down Communism; and best of all, we’ve already played an integral role in nearly solving another global environmental problem - the destruction of the ozone layer. We took the lead in getting almost every country to eliminate chloroflurocarbons, which destroy ozone.

We whipped those problems, so there’s plenty of reason to believe that we can beat this one, too. But, global warming is more serious and a more daunting task than all of the above put together and multiplied by a factor of 100.

“It’s time for us to rise again to secure our future,” says Gore. By “us,” I take it that he means all American citizens. It is time for us to rise and take back our destiny from the repugnant oil companies and corporations (and the politicians who are in bed with them) who are determining our destiny for us, without our consent.

“We have all the knowledge and technology we need to solve this problem, save political will,” says Gore. “But in America, political will is a renewable resource!” You're damn right it is. A memorable line from a memorable movie.

We can do it, one person, one city, one state, one election at a time. We can and we must, or the consequences will be worse than anyone can possibly fathom. When I think of this journey that we must embark upon, I’m reminded of some great words by an American poet, Dave Matthews. These lyrics, from You Might Die Trying, brilliantly illustrate the coming journey of combating and ultimately defeating global warming. …

To change the world, start with one step / However small, the first step is hardest of all / Once you get your gait, you'll be walkin' tall / You said you never did, cuz you might die tryin'…

Well said, Dave.

I’d rather die tryin’ than die fryin’.

Get involved, people. The world is run by those who show up.

Meet the 21st century's biggest non-nuclear threat

Recently, much has come to light about global warming, and just about none of it is good news. This growing problem and concern should be on every American’s mind, now and into the foreseeable future. I know that isn’t going to happen, but I hope and pray that our next president, no matter Democrat, or heaven forbid, Republican, makes this important issue a top administration priority, because our current president’s indifference is sending this horrible message to the rest of the world: “We’ve got bigger things to worry about.” The good news in all of this is that the latest scientific data should jolt even the most hearty of global warming deniers out of their smog-induced drowsiness.

New evidence strongly suggests that much of what dozens of government agencies report about on science is edited with a heavy hand at the White House, according to Rick Pilts, NASA’s top scientist on climate change. Recently, Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes interviewed Pilts about climate change, and what he had to say was highly disturbing.

His thoughts? “The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say ‘There’s so much to study way upstream here that we can’t even begin to discuss impacts and response strategies. There’s much too much uncertainty,’” said Pilts. “And, it’s not climate scientists who are saying that. It’s lawyers. It’s politicians.”

Pilts, much like the much-maligned Richard Clarke (the former anti-terrorism chief – more on him in a future post), has worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations; he worked under President Clinton as well as current President George W. Bush. Every year, he wrote a report on climate change called, “Our Changing Planet.” He was responsible for writing and editing this report, and he sent a review draft to the White House. “It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy, by the chief of staff of the council on environmental quality, Phil Cooney.” When asked if Cooney is a scientist, Pilts responded, “No, he is a lawyer, he was an environmental lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before going into the White House.”

This is unsettling, to say the least, but hardly surprising considering this administration’s environmental record. The 60 Minutes report offered up hard evidence – first Pilts’ notes, then the final copy of the report. Take a look at these examples:

One line in the Pilts draft that read, “Earth is undergoing rapid change” was rewritten as “Earth may be undergoing change” in the final report.

Further down, “uncertainty” becomes “significant remaining uncertainty.”

Another line that said, “energy production contributes to warming,” was crossed out altogether.

“He was obviously passing it through a political screen. He would put in words ‘potential’ or ‘may,’ or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequences of climate change,” said Pilts.

In one section, Cooney added the line, “The uncertainties remain so great as to preclude meaningfully informed decision making.”

60 Minutes obtained the final report, and Cooney’s edits made it into the final report. Pilts, clearly seeing that there was no room at the White House for people who disagree with the administration, resigned. Sound Richard Clark-ish to you? Sure does to me.

Wow, I feel so much better about global warming knowing that our president has former lobbyists who share values with oil companies making edits on climate change reports to Congress. Clearly this administration has its collective head in the smog when it comes to global warming.

More damning evidence that the administration doesn’t acknowledge/doesn’t care about global warming: In a Web exclusive I just watched the other day, 60 Minutes' Pelley had this to say about global warming, and I’m paraphrasing here:

Dr. James Hansen heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is the agency’s preeminent institute for studying the Earth and the Earth’s climate. Way back in the 1980s, Hansen was one of the first scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases were causing the Earth to warm. Since then, his research has been cutting edge in a number of ways. A few weeks ago, the Goddard Institute found that 2005 was the hottest year on record. The White House continues to say that we need more time, that there is so much we don’t understand, that we can’t conclude anything just yet. Hansen says the research and the data are in, and that there is no doubt that the Earth is warming, rapidly.

*****

When I hear and read things like that, I can’t help thinking our planet is sitting on the stove, the burner’s on high, and the water is starting to do more than simmer. So, just what is America doing about it? Our politicians stall and debate, while Earth cooks. What the hell are we waiting for? What’s even more sickening to me, and I’m sure to a significant portion of the rest of the world, is that the United States has about 5% of the Earth’s population, and we contribute anywhere (depending on where you are getting your numbers) from 25 – 33% of the Earth’s greenhouse gases. Stevie Wonder could see the disparity with those figures.

To be fair, Pelley also reports that the administration is spending billions on research on climate change, probably more than any other administration. That’s encouraging, but what this administration is not doing is acknowledging the fact that much hard, credible evidence is conclusive now, and the time to act is yesterday. In my view, what Bush is doing is simply postponing (Read: Until January 20, 2009) the necessary tough choices that will affect industry, jobs and the lifestyle that Americans are accustomed to.

Republican sycophants are quick to jump up and down and say, “But Bush recently proposed alternative fuel sources, like ethanol and hydrogen cells!” Yes, but simply putting forth these ideas, and actually offering real and tangible incentives for companies to aggressively pursue these technologies are two different things. It’s a typical Bush strategy that I’ve become all too familiar with these past 5+ years – he puts forth an idea or suggests something, then later shrugs his shoulders and says, with a straight face that Congress isn’t doing anything about it. He counts on and usually is rewarded by the public’s two-week memory span. He then later substitutes his “idea” for “doing something about the problem.”

Remember Bush’s proposal a few years ago for the U.S. to have a manned mission to Mars? It’s a lofty and admirable goal for Americans to achieve. Too bad he didn’t have one suggestion or solution to how we would pay for the $100+ billion price tag. His proposal was greeted with so much enthusiasm, he failed to mention one word about his Mars mission proposal in his State of the Union speech just days later.

Time recently ran an entire series on global warming in the April 3, 2006 issue. The report contained a number of eye-popping statistics, not the least of which is this passage:

If everyone lived like the average Chinese or Indian, you wouldn’t be reading about global warming. On a per capita basis, China and India emit far less greenhouse gas than energy-efficient Japan, environmentally scrupulous Sweden and especially the gas-guzzling U.S. (The average American is responsible for 20 times as much CO2 emission annually as the average Indian.)

It makes me shake my head in amazement that other countries don’t resent us more than they do. It’s pretty breathtaking that we aren’t taking a leadership role in the world in curbing greenhouse gases, thereby cutting down on what could be humankind’s biggest scourge since the dawn of the nuclear age.

To be fair, the Clinton Administration deserves blame here, too. Following Kyoto’s creation in 1998, Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors did a thorough analysis of the potential impact of the treaty on U.S. GDP. The conclusions were that GDP impact could be significant. I ask you, if sea levels rise 5 feet, 10 feet or more, what impact will that have not only on U.S. GDP, but all Americans and humankind?

Although Clinton deserves some blame, President Bush earns marks that are no better on global warming. In fact, his record is substantially worse. For beginners, his thoughts on Kyoto, as found on Wikipedia:

“This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. . . . America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. …Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

So, Kyoto is seemingly dead – Clinton did not and Bush will never present Kyoto for ratification in the Senate. I’m not an expert on Kyoto, and of course an environmental treaty as far reaching as this one deserves careful consideration.

But, the U.S. should be showing much more leadership on global warming. Perhaps we could come up with our own alternative, or at least work on our own to drastically cut greenhouse gases? Bush simply throws his hands in the air, says the treaty is flawed, and then proceeds to pretty much ignore this growing threat.

Prior to the 2000 election, candidate Bush ran on a promise to make mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide (greenhouse) gases. After taking office, Bush proposed voluntary emission cutbacks by companies. This is akin to telling a drug addict, “I think you should stop, so I’m asking you to cut back on your crack cocaine use, but I’m not going to make you.” Yea, right.

The scary part about our lack of leadership on global warming is its effect on the two sleeping, but quickly awakening, economic tigers in the world – India and China. To be blunt, without even factoring in the U.S. contribution to greenhouses this century, China and India could quite literally hold the fate of the world in their hands. Ask yourself – how worried should they be about their emissions when the U.S. continues to stall and even deny that there is a real problem?

Put yourself in the positions of both India and China and consider the problem from their perspectives: The United States has been burning and belching fossil fuels into the atmosphere since the mid-to-late nineteenth century, while in the process getting rich and forming the world’s largest and most expansive economy. We’ve profited, polluted and pilfered. Fast-forward to now – it’s very obvious to just about everyone that the Earth is warming at a rapid rate, the bill for the environment is due, and we’re walking out on the check. Why should China or India have their economies stymied in the name of environmental recovery when we refuse to even adequately address the problem?

A few startling facts from Time’s report:

“Barbara Finamore, director of the National Resources Defense Council’s China Clean Energy Program, estimates that China’s total electricity demand will increase by 2,600 gigawatts by 2050, which is the equivalent of adding four 300-megawatt power plants every week for the next 45 years. India’s energy consumption rose 208% from 1980 to 2001, even faster than China’s, but nearly half the population still lacks regular access to electricity – a fact the government is working to change. ‘They’ll do what they can, but overall emissions are likely to rise much higher than they are now,’ says Johnathan Sinton, China analyst for IEA [International Energy Agency].”

Time also reports that “India’s greenhouse-gas emissions could rise 70% by 2025, and the increase in China’s emissions from 2000 to 2030 will nearly equal the increase from the entire industrialized world.” Frightened yet? You should be. This will not only affect our children, but their children, and their children, and their children. This is a planet-threatening problem, yet few people seem to take notice. But, the Indian and Chinese governments are taking notice at U.S. inaction. To wit, also from Time:

“‘Our issue is that, first and foremost, the U.S. needs to reduce its emissions,’ says Sunita Narain, director of the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi. ‘It is unacceptable and immoral that the U.S. doesn’t take the lead on climate change.’”

It’s tough to disagree with him. Bush’s position is that developing nations should be made to curb their emissions. True, but we had no restraints when we were developing and experiencing an industrial revolution, so why should other countries? True, our industry boom was before anyone realized the drastic effects on the environment, but it’s not a stretch to see our government’s hypocrisy. We need to take the lead, and take it now. Discovering not only alternatives to fossil fuel, but also ways to reverse global warming is a much bigger undertaking than flying to the moon, curing Polio, and inventing nuclear weapons put together. In fact, it’s a much bigger undertaking than all of humankind’s inventions in history put together. No one on the plant is immune to global warming’s effects.

Frustrated at our government’s inaction? Turn your frustration into determination. Here’s a small list of things you can do to make a difference, and don’t say to yourself, “I’m just one person, what kind of difference can I possibly make?” Imagine if Jonas Salk felt that way, or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At the risk of sounding like a desk calendar, a 1,000-mile journey begins with one step. So, take these steps to limit your contribution to energy consumption, trash and pollution. Conserving water, waste, electricity or any natural resource has an impact on the manufacture of goods and environmental impact. Here’s a quick list of things I’m doing/trying to do as much as possible.

1. Grocery store plastic bags – reuse the ones you do get, and refuse a bag when you don’t need it. I know this sounds like a simple one, but these bags are made from petroleum, if I’m not mistaken, and think of how long they will sit in a landfill. Most grocery stores give you a few cents per bag with each shopping visit, so you can save dozens and even hundreds of bags a year simply by bringing in old ones. Ever go into a convenience store and they offer you a bag when you buy as little as a pack of gum? I experience this all the time, and I refuse a bag every time. If I absolutely need a bag, I reuse it. I read somewhere that the average person uses 250 of these bags a year. Imagine if you reused the ones you already have, while using maybe 50 new ones a year and you reuse them! It would make a big difference. Now, multiply that difference by millions of people, and hundreds of millions of bags could be saved a year.

2. Turn off those lights and lower/raise your thermostats for the season. I know, I know, easier said than done, but even a few degrees makes a difference. I’m not talking about when it’s 100 or 10 degrees outside, but in the moderate spring and fall seasons, wear a t-shirt to cool off or a sweater to warm up. Every bit helps. Also, consider energy-saving bulbs. Yes, they are a bit more expensive, but they last up to 5 times longer (some more) and use a fraction of the energy. Another energy saver: turn off your computer monitor. If you have to leave your computer up and running, use the energy saver mode, and turn off your monitor when you walk away.

3. Walk! I know, again, easier said than done, since I live in the city. But, do it whenever you can, or ride a bike. With gas skyrocketing (and we may never see, no I take that back, we will NEVER see $2 a gallon again), it makes all the sense in the world to hit the pavement when you can. It becomes surprisingly addictive once you get started. And I don’t need to talk about the benefits of walking – more exercise, savings in automobile costs, weight loss, etc.

4. When you buy your next car, pick one that is fuel-efficient. Hybrids are becoming all the rage. If I were buying a new car right now, it would be a Toyota Prius. Good looking, and amazing on gas. Better yet, take mass transit when you can. Coming to the city? Why not take the train? A word of caution about the “hybrid” label though – read the fine print. Like “organic” and other buzzwords, it’s often abused for the positive PR effect. Make sure if you are buying a hybrid, you truly are getting a hybrid with the benefit of significant fuel savings.

5. Purchase from companies who are being good corporate citizens in environmental ways – be it recycling, pollution, emissions, philanthropy, whatever. Hey, even Wal-Mart is becoming a bit greener now, and if that company can do it, just about any company can. It pays to do your homework.

6. Recycle. It’s so obvious, but it’s one of the best things you can do to prevent/reduce the manufacturing of new bottles, bags, cans, glass, paper, etc. On Earth, nothing happens in a vacuum. If more paper is recycled, in theory that reduces the number of trees felled to produce the paper… more trees means more absorption of carbon dioxide… which means a cooler Earth… etc. And once you think about it, there are sooo many things that can be recycled; mobile phones – take them to your nearest Verizon store, and they get refurbished and donated to Hopeline, an org. that gives mobile phones to victims of domestic violence; ink cartridges – take them to Staples and get $3 off of your next purchase (it doesn’t even have to be the purchase of another ink cartridge), etc. You get the idea – from computer monitors, old tires, appliances and clothing – chances are, most things have a way to be recycled or reused.

7. Get politically active and demand that global warming become an important issue in campaigns both big and small. The best way for politicians to hear your voice is with your vote. When elected leaders see that the electorate is taking the matter seriously, they will take it seriously. You can be heard not only by who you vote for, but by writing letters advocating recycling (or more of it) in your area, supporting mass transit, etc. Sitting around and complaining about it does nothing. I fell in love with a bumper sticker I saw the other day – “Quit Bitching and Start a Revolution.” Exactly right.

8. Join one or several of the many organizations dedicated to preserving and saving our environment. The list is endless. One site I found that I’m taking an interest in is Our Energy. It’s worth a look, but there are many others – Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to name a few. I just joined both – I want to put my beliefs into action. If you find more sites and/or organizations or have recommendations, please leave a comment at the end of this post and I will pass it along. And of course I will be writing more about global warming in future posts.

These are just a few of the things you can do, and it really does become addicting and gratifying once you start to find all of the little ways you can make a difference. Plus, it can be a real money saver to boot. Americans need to wake up and realize that we are having a significant impact on the environment, but if we all work together, we can help cool down global warming. Let’s lead by example and show the rest of the world how it’s done – most notably, China and India.