Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 13

I finished Al Gore's Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit.

It was a heavy book to read in that it had a great deal of sophisticated discussion about science and policy.  Consequently, there were probably things that I missed or failed to absorb as I read it.  I was pretty much expecting this to be the case when I started the book.  But, overall, the book was rewarding in terms of what I learned.  I especially appreciated Gore's discussion about what policies towards the Third World do not work, and which policies might work better instead.

But there were a number of things in the book that took me by surprise.  For example, Gore talked at great length about such issues as history, addiction, relational dysfunction, and even his son's accident changing his family's life----and he related those things to the environment, often in an analogical sense.  Consequently, this book had somewhat of a poetic feel.  Did I like that?  Well, it was different!  There were times when I wondered what Gore was driving at, or where exactly he was going, and I felt like he was getting into distractions.  But, as I reflect more, there was part of me that actually enjoyed his holistic treatment of environmental issues.

Something that took me slightly by surprise was Gore's ideological flexibility.  I already knew going into the book that Gore did not believe that we had to choose between a strong economy and the environment.  I also had a hunch that the way that many Republicans have characterized his book is not entirely accurate, the same way that Democrats sometimes (Republicans would say "often") caricature Republican positions.  But I didn't entirely expect for Gore in this book to seek common ground with conservatives who oppose big government, or the Catholic church and pro-lifers on addressing over-population in the Third World.  Moreover, Gore actually sought to address the arguments of climate-change deniers (particularly those with credentials) rather than casually dismissing them or crying conspiracy.  As one who long regarded Gore as a pompous ideologue who looks down on those with whom he disagrees, I was pleasantly surprised.

In terms of where I was disappointed, I wish that the book had gone more into green technology and how that could create jobs----particularly how other countries are achieving success in the area of green technology.  Perhaps he covered that more than I remember, and I missed it, but I don't recall him going into this issue all that often (though he did recommend cheaper and cleaner equipment on quite a few occasions).  That surprised me, for I can tell that he regards it as an important issue because he has brought it up in a number of settings (i.e., on talk-shows, in debates, etc.).  Perhaps my problem is that he did discuss this issue, but not in a manner to which I'm accustomed.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 12: Ideological Flexibility

For my write-up today on Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, I'll use as my starting point something that Al Gore says on pages 348-349:

"To most of us, the principle sounds unassailable: let the polluter pay.  But what about when it applies to each of us instead of to a nameless, faceless corporation?  For example, rather than require homeowners to pay higher property taxes to cover the cost of garbage collection, why not lower property taxes and then charge for garbage collection directly----by the pound?  Those responsible for creating more garbage would pay more; those who found ways to cut down would pay less.  The interest in recycling might rise dramatically.  And when choosing between products at the store, people might even start avoiding unnecessary and bulky packaging if they knew it was going to end up in their garbage.  There is an economic rule of thumb: whatever we tax, we tend to get less of; whatever we subsidize, we tend to get more of.  Currently, we tax work and we subsidize the depletion of natural resources----and both policies have contributed to high unemployment and the waste of natural resources.  What if we lowered the tax on work and simultaneously raised it on the burning of fossil fuels?  It is entirely possible to change the tax code in a way that keeps the total amount of taxes at the same level, avoids unfairness and 'regressivity,' but discourages the constant creation of massive amounts of pollution."

In the 1992 Vice-Presidential debate, Dan Quayle said to Al Gore about Gore's book: "In the book you also suggest taxes on gasoline, taxes on utilities, taxes on carbon, taxes on timber. There's a whole host of taxes. And I don't just -- I don't believe raising taxes is the way to solve our environmental problems.  And you talk about the bad situation in the auto industry. You seem to say that the answer is, well, I'll just make it that much worse by increasing the CAFE standards. Yes, the auto industry is hurting, it's been hurting for a long time, and increasing the CAFE standards to 45 miles per gallon, like you and Bill Clinton are suggesting, will put, as I said, 300,000 people out of work."

As far as I could tell from the transcript, Gore didn't get a chance to respond to Quayle on this.  But what Gore probably would have said was that Quayle's reading of Gore's book was rather one-sided, for Gore in the book endorses certain tax cuts, plus Gore believes that environmental technology can save companies money and entail the creation of jobs.  While Quayle portrayed Gore as a hard-core leftist, Gore in the passage that I quoted from his book actually appears to be quite flexible and open to a variety of approaches, some of which can be characterized as conservative: privatization of garbage collection (if I'm understanding Gore correctly), reduction in property taxes, and lower taxes on work.  Whether that matches Gore's voting record and the record of the Clinton Administration, I don't know.  But one thing that I have admired about Gore in terms of his book is his openness to different ideas.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 11

In my latest reading of Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Al Gore talked about a Global Marshall Plan for the environment.  This came up in the 1992 Vice-Presidential debate, as Dan Quayle referred to page 304 of Gore's book to say that Gore supports the federal government spending $100 billion "for environmental projects in foreign countries" (Quayle's words).  I checked page 304 (assuming my edition of the book has the same pagination as the one that Quayle read), and the only reference that I saw to $100 billion was when Gore said that the U.S. spent 2 percent of its GNP between 1948-1951 on the Marshall Plan, and today that percentage would amount to $100 billion.  I could not tell if Gore believes that we should spend that much, however, for Gore talks about why the U.S. would be reluctant nowadays to launch something like a Marshall Plan (i.e., the budget deficit, post-Vietnam discouragement in assuming global leadership).

In terms of how Gore defined his proposal in the debate, he said: "What I have called upon is a cooperative effort by the US and Europe and Asia to work together in opening up new markets throughout the world for the new technologies that are necessary in order to reconcile the imperatives of economic progress with the imperatives of environmental protection."  Indeed, Gore did talk about technology in my latest reading of his book.  For example, he proposed something like the Strategic Defense Initiative for the environment, which he calls the Strategic Environment Initiative (SEI); while Gore was a critic of SDI, he recognized that it resulted in technological and scientific innovations, and he wonders if something similar could be done in a systematic pursuit of environmental-friendly technology. 

Gore also discussed encouraging literacy and contraception in the Third World, to help the environment and to control over-population.  This discussion was interesting.  Gore talked about George H.W. Bush's record of support for contraception as a solution to over-population before he became President, yet Gore maintains that Bush became resistant to promoting contraception in the Third World as President out of a desire to appease his anti-abortion constituency, specifically the part that is opposed to birth control.  Gore does not believe that opposition to abortion has to entail opposition to contraception, for there are many opponents of abortion who are fine with contraception, and the use of contraception can lead to fewer abortions.  Gore also appears to believe that common ground can be found with the Catholic church, for "Spokesmen for the Holy See have repeatedly signaled that although the Church's formal view is not likely to change, it will not block others who wish to promote contraception, and it is anxious to play a vigorous role in addressing the other factors that help to hasten the demographic transition" (page 316).

I said in an earlier post that I would discuss Gore's view on world government.  Gore touched on that in my latest reading.  Essentially, Gore regards world government as unfeasible, and he states that "The administrative problems would be gargantuan, not least because the inefficiency of governance often seems to increase geometrically with the distance between the seat of power and the individuals affected by it" (page 301; conservatives have long made this point in arguing that state and local governments are more suitable to handle a number of domestic concerns than is the federal government).  Instead of world government, Gore supports "international agreements that establish global restraints on acceptable behavior but are entered into voluntarily----albeit with the understanding that they will contain both incentives and legally valid penalties for noncompliance" (page 302).  How is this different from world government?  Perhaps it's different in the sense that individual nations get to implement the global restraints, rather than for those restraints to be implemented by an international authority.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 10: Rights

For my write-up today on Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit,  I'll talk about something that Gore says on pages 277-278.  Gore says that "The emphasis on the rights of the individual must be accompanied by a deeper understanding of the responsibilities to the community that every individual must accept if the community is to have an organizing principle at all."  Gore then says on page 278 that the West has prioritized the rights of the individual over the rights of the community, posterity, and the earth itself.  Even when environmental damage is criticized, Gore maintains, the emphasis is on the individual rather than anything larger than the individual, for the spotlight is often on how individuals have been negatively affected by environmental damage.

This is a particularly controversial passage in Gore's book.  In my post a while back on the topic of the environment in Newt Gingrich's Real Change, I say the following:

"Chapter Sixteen also disapproves of Al Gore’s contention that all humankind and posterity, not just individuals, have rights, for Newt interprets this as 'some collectivist and non-democratic elite’s interpretation of what is needed' (page 194)."

Where do I stand on this?  I don't know.  On the one hand, I can see Newt's point that embracing a notion of communal rights can lead to a slippery slope in which the government can find an excuse to infringe on individual rights.  Moreover, I think that it would be going too far to say that the community has "rights" that are inviolate (but whether or not Gore is arguing that, I'm not sure).  On the other hand, I agree with Gore that we should look beyond what affects individuals in the here and now, in a specific country, while not ignoring the broader human community, ecology, and posterity.  In addition, I'd be hesitant to say that even individual rights should be absolute, especially when an individual exercising his rights can infringe on the well-being of the community.

I'd probably embrace a fairly broad interpretation of the principle that we have rights, but our rights should not infringe on the rights of others.  But I don't have a full-fledged system on when the government should be able to violate individual rights.  Would I be open, for example, to the government using eminent domain to seize people's property in order to create a mall that can employ people in the community and uplift the economy?  I'd be very hesitant to be open to that, to tell you the truth.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 9: Building Bridges

For my write-up today on Al Gore's Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, I'll start with something that Al Gore says on pages 247-248:

"Meanwhile, religious conservatives might be surprised to find that many deeply committed environmentalists have become, if anything, even more hostile to overreaching statism than they are.  The most serious examples of environmental degradation in the world today are tragedies that were created or actively encouraged by governments----usually in pursuit of some notion that a dramatic reordering of the material world would enhance the greater good.  And it is no accident that the very worst environmental tragedies were created by communist governments, in which the power of the state completely overwhelms the capabilities of the individual steward.  Chernobyl, the Aral Sea, the Yangtze River, the 'black town' of Copsa Mica in Romania----these and many other disasters testify to the severe environmental threats posed by statist governments."

I'm not sure how I would have reacted to this passage had I read it in 1992, back when I regarded Al Gore as someone who supported a big government, statist environmental agenda that was contrary to individual liberty.  And I wouldn't be surprised if Gore thought that the government should do certain things to help the environment.  Nowadays, as I read this passage, I appreciate Gore's attempts to form a bridge between environmentalism and a cause from the "other side", if you will: less government.  I saw something similar when I watched Gore's 1992 appearance on the 700 Club, which is on YouTube (see here).  Gore not only praised Pat Robertson's organization for planting trees in the Third World, but Gore also said that he opposed world government----and Gore's appearance on this program was later than Pat Robertson's book against the new world order.  Gore may have had Robertson's book in mind, or Gore may have simply been aware that there were conservatives who feared a one-world government----Gore talks about that later in his book, and I will blog about that when I get to it.  But, again, I admire Gore for seeking to build a bridge with the other side.  That differs from how I often have conceptualized Gore----as one who smugly looks down his nose on those who disagree with him.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 8

In my latest reading of Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Al Gore talks about addiction and human dysfunction.  What's this have to do with the environment?  Gore ties these things into the environment by saying that our exploitation of resources is addictive and reflects our dysfunction.  And Gore believes that a significant part of the problem is that we have lost our connection with nature. 

Gore distances himself from environmentalists who are anti-human, for he believes that humans can co-exist with nature if their attitudes are changed.  In my latest reading, he could have elaborated more on how we are disconnected from nature, or what connection with nature would look like.  But I can speculate about what he means.  For one, nature is beautiful and can inspire us.  But, two, it's important spiritually to have an attitude of humility, and what corresponds with this is humans not seeing themselves and their own wants as the end-all-be-all, but realizing that they share the earth with plants and animals, who have value in their own right. 

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 7

In my latest reading of Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Al Gore says that environmental damage is actually costly to the economy, particularly in a long-term sense.  When forests are cut down, what is there left for the timber industry of the future?  When soil is overworked, it eventually loses its productivity.  Gore provides other examples, as well.

What I want to focus on in this post is something that Gore says on pages 193-194:

"Some companies are trying to guess whether the new public awareness of the environment is temporary or permanent.  Major paper mills, for example, facing a round of investment in new capacity, must decide whether the current interest in recycled paper is here to stay.  If so, then large investments in recycling plants will be profitable; if not, they may face serious risks in making such investments.  Such prophecies often tend to be self-fulfilling, of course.  But here is where the government can play an important role----and too often has failed to do so.  The Bush administration talks loudly about the tendency of a free marketplace to solve all problems.  But many of our markets are highly regulated, often in hidden ways.  In the case of the paper industry, for instance, taxpayers currently subsidize the manufacture of paper products made from virgin timber, both as the largest single purchaser and by further subsidizing the construction of logging roads into national forests.  In addition, the federal government pays the entire cost of managing the forest system, including many activities that exclusively benefit the timber industry.  All of these policies encourage further destruction of a critical natural resource."

I'm not entirely clear as to how Gore thinks that the government can help, in the area of recycled paper.  Does he think that the government should invest in recycled paper, if private industries do not do so because they do not find it to be profitable?  But Gore does point out that the government, in certain ways, is already on the side of the timber industry----as a consumer, as a subsidizer, and as a builder of infrastructure that encourages logging.  This reminds me of the libertarian argument that government is part of the problem because it is on the side of special interests, giving them an unfair advantage.  What Gore says also calls to my mind the argument by green conservatives and libertarians that, when land is not personally owned but is owned by the government, the government can easily encourage environmental devastation of that land, whereas private owners would take better care of it (see here).

I wonder, though: Is Gore against the timber industry, which provides a number of jobs?  Could there be a way to maintain the timber industry, while also preserving the trees that are so necessary for absorbing carbon, for giving us oxygen, and for serving as a resource for the timber industry?  Perhaps businesses could replant trees after cutting them down (though it may take a while for the trees to grow).

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 6

For my write-up today on Al Gore's Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, I'll start with something that Gore says on page 179:

"...men and women who care must be politically empowered to demand and help effect remedies to ecological problems wherever they live.  As the dramatic environmental problems in Eastern Europe show, freedom is a necessary condition for an effective stewardship of the environment.  Here in the United States, a hugely disproportionate number of the worst hazardous waste sites are in poor and minority communities that have relatively little political power because of race or poverty or both.  Indeed, almost wherever people at the grass-roots level are deprived of a voice in the decisions that affect their lives, they and the environment suffer.  I have therefore come to believe that an essential prerequisite for saving the environment is the spread of democratic government to more nations of the world."

A while back, I wrote a post about Newt Gingrich's argument that capitalism is better for the environment than socialism and communism.  I've heard a similar argument from other right-wingers: "Oh, so capitalism is bad for the environment, huh?", the argument runs.  "What about the damage that was done to the environment in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe?  Chernobyl, anyone?  And how about China's pollution of the environment?"

I disagree with this argument if it's point is that a laissez-faire economy is best for the environment.  In my opinion, it would be comparing apples and oranges to liken the government imposing environmental regulations to the sort of system that Communist countries had or have.  Communist countries were collectivist, but my impression is that they were willing to disregard the environment when they felt that doing so would increase productivity.  Saying that Communist countries have hurt the environment does not mean that laissez-faire capitalism is right.

At the same time, I do think that capitalism can generate the wealth and productivity that are necessary for cleaner technology to be developed, and for companies to be able to financially bear environmental regulations.  And please keep in mind that many countries that have been called socialistic----such as certain nations in Western Europe and Scandinavia----actually have a solid capitalistic element.

I also think that Gore does well to point out that democracy can be conducive to good environmental stewardship.  In a democracy, if I don't like for my neck of the woods to be polluted, I can make my will known on this and perhaps effect change.  My understanding is that, in a number of Communist countries, people had no say about what their government did, and so they couldn't do much if the government contributed to the pollution of where they lived.  And yet, democracy may not be fool-proof, for polluters are also part of a democracy, and they have a significant amount of power and influence on the government.  And even everyday people may not like rigorous action on the environment, fearing that this could cost them their jobs.  Moreover, even in our democracy, there are people who lack power, and their neighborhoods especially suffer environmental degradation, as Gore notes.  That needs to be taken into consideration, and somehow rectified.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 5: Trade-Offs

For my write-up today on Al Gore's Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, my main theme will be trade-offs.

On pages 137-138, Gore discusses the Third World.  Gore says that there are impoverished Third World countries that are seeking to finance their debts through selling exports, by taking the land that they used for subsistence farming and using it to produce "monocultured hybrid crop varieties" that they then sell abroad.  Gore acknowledges that this approach has "temporarily conquered hunger in a few of the Third World nations", but he does not believe that it addresses the problem of the "wealthy elite" owning "a huge percentage of the productive land."  Moreover, Gore says that the "higher yields" of crops "often cannot be sustained over time", for "pests and blights catch up with" the crops and "overirrigation and overfertilizing take their toll on soil productivity."  Gore also critiques development programs that are funded by "international financial institutions" because he believes that "in too many cases they turn out to be wildly inappropriate for the culture or ecology of the region in which they are placed."

On page 141, Gore talks about trade-offs in terms of pesticides.  Pesticides kill pests that are harmful, but also helpful pests.  Gore refers to a story that was told by environmentalist Amory Lovins about how a pesticide in Indonesia that was used to kill malaria-spreading mosquitoes also ended up killing wasps that "controlled the insect population in the thatched roofs of the houses", with the result that "the roofs all fell in" (Gore's words).  The pesticide also poisoned a number of cats, which resulted in an increase in the rat population and a bubonic plague epidemic.

What could be done instead?  Would debt forgiveness of Third World nations help the situation?  How about supporting Third World leaders who would redistribute the land and allow it to be used for subsistence farming?  Would a land Sabbath allow the soil to rest?  And how would one solve the problem of malaria?  Would using a less-powerful pesticide do the job?  Some of what I have just listed have their own weaknesses: they result in less productivity and wealth for the nation.  But would that matter, if people are able to support themselves by growing their own crops?

Are there perfect----or, if we can't aim that high, better----solutions?

(UPDATE: On page 322, Gore talks about such things as increasing "the productivity of small farms with low input agricultural methods", environmentally-friendlier technology, and crop rotation.)

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 4: Clouds

A few posts ago, in writing about Al Gore's Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, I mentioned Al Gore's reference to an argument that the greenhouse effect could actually lead to cooling, since it would result in more clouds.  Gore also referred to climate-change skeptic Richard Lindzen, who teaches at MIT.  In my latest reading, on page 90, Gore interacts more with the clouds argument:

"...speculation that the cloud system might somehow cancel the effects of all the extra greenhouse gases has not withstood analysis.  It is true that the water vapor in clouds both contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing radiant energy and plays a cooling role by scattering light, in part back to space; as a result, any change in the number and distribution of clouds would have a big impact.  But the evidence to date strongly points to the conclusion that water vapor seems, unfortunately, to amplify the warming trend as it traps even more infrared heat that might otherwise escape from the atmosphere.  Though there is more uncertainty where clouds themselves are concerned, most water vapor is outside clouds, and clouds too may magnify the warming rather than lessen it.  Indeed, the leading proponent of the idea that water vapor serves as a cooling thermostat, Richard Lindzen, publicly withdrew his hypothesis on how that might happen in 1991."

I found this interesting because Gore argues that, while clouds have a cooling effect, they can also have a warming effect.  I guess that the question is which is greater, the warming or the cooling effect.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 3

In my latest reading of Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Al Gore talks about the dramatic effects of shifts in climate throughout history, as they led to such things as famines, migrations, plagues, and competition for resources.  In some cases, Gore notes, volcanoes caused these climate shifts.  On page 73, Gore states his point behind giving us this history lesson: "All of these changes in climate patterns took place during temperature variations of only 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade.  Yet today, at the close of the twentieth century, we are in the process of altering global temperatures by up to three to four times that amount and causing changes in climate patterns that are likely to have enormous impacts on global civilization."  Such consequences would include migrations----as the rising sea level would displace some people and soil erosion would render subsistence farming impossible in certain locations----and the political conflicts that could result from that.  Moreover, the hole in the ozone layer makes people less resistant to disease in certain areas, and "populations of pests, germs, and viruses migrate with the changing climate patterns" (pages 74-75).

The reason that this discussion stood out to me was on account of right-wing arguments that I have heard about climate change: that the climate has historically gone through cycles that had little to do with human activity, that natural things such as volcanoes pump a lot of pollution into the air, and that the global temperature has only gone up a few degrees.  Gore acknowledges that there have been climate fluctuations throughout history, that volcanoes have sometimes contributed to that, and that there have been times when the temperature has only gone up by a few degrees.  But, for him, that is not inconsistent with human activity contributing to climate change, and climate change (even by a few degrees) having disastrous effects.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 2

In my latest reading of Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (copyright 1992, 1993), Al Gore talks about climate change skeptics.

Gore acknowledges that there are scientists who are skeptical about climate change----he mentions Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT.  Moreover, on pages 36-37, Gore refers to certain arguments that are advanced by a few scientists that climate change is no cause for alarm: that greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the atmosphere results in the production of more clouds, which help to regulate "the earth's temperature"; and that "we don't have to worry about climate change causing widespread droughts in the middle of continental landmasses because the faster evaporation of moisture from the soil in a warmer atmosphere will be offset by changes in rainfall patterns."

Gore is all for seeking answers to questions to alleviate uncertainty, as well as debate.  But he expresses what his problem is on pages 38-39: "In this case, when 98 percent of the scientists in a given field share one view and 2 percent disagree, both viewpoints are sometimes presented in a format in which each appears equally credible."  As a result, according to Gore, there is a reluctance to take the difficult yet necessary steps to address the problem of climate change.  Meanwhile, there are special interests that are quite satisfied with the status quo.

Not long after Gore makes this statement about scientific consensus, Gore refers to times in which widespread scientific agreement has been wrong: on continental shift not having occurred, for example.  I was not entirely clear on what his point was there.  But I can see his larger point about climate change skepticism.  There are plenty of debates that may not make that much of a difference----even if we get something wrong, we can come back later and get things right.  In the case of climate change, however, suppose that those who believe that it exists and is caused by humans are right.  If we do nothing to address the problem, there may come a point when it can no longer be addressed, with disastrous results for nature and human beings.

But skeptics about climate change can come back and say that we can't impose regulations that will damage the economy over a speculative doomsday scenario.  I think that's why Gore's arguments that you don't have to choose between the environment and the economy are so important.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 1

I started Al Gore's Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (copyright 1992, 1993).  I have two items from my latest reading.

1.  Gore discusses his 1988 Presidential run, during which time he talked a lot about environmental issues, back when many people in the U.S. did not exactly prioritize them.  After Gore lost the Democratic nomination and George H.W. Bush became President (and Bush pledged to be a leader on climate change, but this, according to Gore, turned out to be an "empty promise"), Gore plotted a strategy on how he could be a leader on environmental issues in the Senate.  Gore met with Senator Tim Wirth, who was saying many of the same things that Gore was, so that both would not get in each other's way and end up sacrificing the cause to "destructive forms of competition" (page 10).  Gore says on page 10, "It was the kind of conversation I probably wouldn't have been comfortable having only a few years earlier, but by then it seemed entirely natural."  I liked this statement because it highlights an important element of growth: becoming comfortable or adept in doing things that, before, you were not comfortable or adept in doing.

2.  On page 28, Gore addresses the question of why so many could care when a little girl named Jessica McClure fell into a well and was rescued, when a lot of people in the U.S. are apathetic about the over 100,000 children who die of starvation and diarrhea, due to crop failures and politics.  Gore's answer is that people don't know what they can do about the latter, or they deem a response to the latter to be impossible or to demand too great of a sacrifice, and so they "sever the link between stimulus and moral response."
Some problems do look too big to handle.  At the same time, it is remarkable what a number of charities are doing in the Third World: bringing clean water to areas, constructing schools, etc.  Do they eliminate all of the problems in the Third World?  No.  But at least there are a lot of people there who are getting help.

Does Gore believe that there are manageable solutions to climate change?  I'm not sure what he thinks today, to tell you the truth, now that we are twenty years after he wrote this book, and twelve years after his 2000 Presidential run.  I remember talking with my Mom about Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and the solutions that he proposed to climate change----including the things that we as individuals could do----struck me as manageable.  (I have not yet watched the movie, so I'm basing this on my conversation with my Mom, who did watch it.)  And Gore in this book does not believe that we have to choose between the environment and the economy, for developing clean environmental technology creates jobs and saves companies money, especially since environmental damage can be quite costly.

Gore has often been criticized for being a hypocrite when it comes to the environment----that he flies a polluting private jet rather than more environmentally-friendly planes, that his house is not as environmentally-friendly as George W. Bush's house, etc.  Gore does not respond to those specific charges in this book, for it was written before all of that.  And yet, Gore in this book does recognize his own hypocrisy.  On pages 14-15, he says: "I have tried to confront in my own life the same ill habits of thought and action that I am attempting to understand and working to change in our civilization as a whole.  On a personal level, this has meant reexamining my relationship to the environment in large and small ways----everything from wondering how my spiritual life can be more connected to the natural world to keeping a careful eye on our household's use of electricity, water, and, indeed, every kind of resource----and recognizing my own hypocrisy when I use CFCs in my automobile air conditioner, for example, on the way to a speech about why they should be banned."  I guess what he's saying is that life is a journey, and nobody's perfect, but hopefully we can do some self-evaluation and make improvements.  I doubt that I live an environmentally-perfect life, either.  But it's good to reflect on the issue.