I think the issue of environmental protection along with the stronger focus on clean energy sources HAS to be forced by governments and international organizations. They have the power to do that and they should use it. That would, for a change, benefit all of us (I know, I am being sarcastic about how politicians often do things only for themselves - seemingly).

There are already many companies out there which try to get a foot in the door and establish a market for cars fueled by clean energy; there are the companies that have the knowledge about solar, wind and water energy. The only reason there is hardly any market for it is the cost - well, and because the lobbies for the oil/gas companies are so much stronger and powerful *cough*Remember the debate in the US about cars having to meet certain environmental guidelines this year*cough* And probably the latter has a large influence on the former.

I think once a government has established a legal framework (taxes, house building guidelines, energy preservation rules and so on) that calls for action from both the economy and the people, what choice do you have but to comply? Yes, maybe grudgingly, but which major change has ever come easy?

Of course, these are my dreams and that probably won’t happen until it is too late and then everyone will just be in a frenzy to do something.

Well, there is a lot of truth in his words that something must be done and it must be done right now - totally irrespective, by the way, of the question whether global warming is a reality or but an illusion due to “normal fluctuations”. The ongoing scientific discussions about this question (which has not yet been answered conclusively) fuel Gore’s opponents who gladly accuse him of presenting debated theories as facts, deliberately ignoring that global warming is not the only reason why anything must be changed at all.

For me the most important issue is the dependency on oil (foreign oil, that is), which has so many unfortunate consequences and implications. The ever-increasing oil prices do not only lead to economical crises but also to wars for oil disguised as wars against terror. It is hardly a secret anymore that the war in Iraq was primarily motivated by the country’s numerous oil deposits. The same is true for the externally-sponsored civil war in Sudan - but this is a completely different story.

It is questionable, however, if the proposed changes can be achieved in 10 years’ time. It definitely can’t be done on short notice just by self-regulation of the economy. But I’m not sure either if it is such a good idea to try and achieve these goals “by force” (taxation can be considered force). People tend to oppose changes just for the sake of it if they feel “harassed” by the government. Thereby, these political efforts can easily become extremely unpopular, which doesn’t help the cause at all. It is, therefore, imperative to convince the people that it is the right thing to do.

I mean, I don’t mind criticism at all. Not everyone will agree, many people will say the demands he’s making are outrageous and so forth. No problem with that. It’s the unqualified bashing that annoys me. Interestingly enough, the news agencies and newspapers did a decent job on reporting; with smaller newsgroups it is pretty obvious which way they are oriented politics-wise or who sponsors them. They drag out (and I repeat myself) studies about Gore’s personal life which have been PROVEN to be wrong just to discredit the messenger.

I could climb up trees when I read this sh**. They are not smart enough to report the facts and to do research if they want to prove Gore wrong; no, they start a mudslinging to destroy the person so they won’t have to listen to “inconvenient truths” anymore.

Sorry for the rant.

There were so many news reports out there today that bashed the messenger because they are afraid/cannot understand the message.

I like to call that the american way of discussion
But seriously, what did you expect of the media industry, especially the american? I only say “fair and balanced” *shivers*

I don’t know. I try to hope we will, but at the same time I have the same pessimistic view on this, especially when it comes to lobbies, as you do.

BTW, thanks for actually reading through this! I didn’t think anyone but me would take the time. And I am just waiting for the first comment to quote the faked report about Al Gore’s own energy spending. There were so many news reports out there today that bashed the messenger because they are afraid/cannot understand the message.

He actually touched a Point that I think is most important to the environment issue: pricing in environment damage. When it’s cheaper to fill a truck with a product somewhere, drive it through europe, do one production step there, an then transport that product back the whole trip, there is something wrong. Thats because you don’t pay for the damage you cause to the environment. I fully support the CO2 tax idea. And it’s easily doable too, just collect the tax for the potential CO2 at the time of first sale of oil, coal, gas, etc.

But the problem is the lack of political will to do it. Lobbyism is a big point in that (the oil lobby is the one with the most money), and election-based thinking of politicians doesn’t help either.

My opinion: great idea, but not going to happen. I’d love to be proven wrong, but right now I see us paying the huge price for what we have been doing in the last 100 years. Yeah, I’m a pessimist when it comes to politics.