Blog Action Day

Today is Blog Action Day, which is the day where lots of bloggers write on one subject in an attempt to really raise consciousness about a certain issue. This year's issue is the environment, which works out pretty well for me, since I was thinking of writing a post like this anyways.

On Friday, Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reading comments about this award are interesting. About half the articles/posts/etc. that I've read discuss the implications of this for Gore's political career: will he run for President? if not, which Democratic candidate will he endorse? Is Hillary Clinton "green" enough for Gore to support?

The other half of the comments I've read are Gore-bashing comments, suggesting that, for any number of reasons, Gore doesn't deserve the award. Among the most-cited reason is that global warming isn't a problem, and that this is all a liberal European, anti-American conspiracy to try to influence American politics.

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind rejecting global warming as valid. And I'm not just saying this to make a rhetorical point, or to criticize those who think this way--it's just that I legitimately do not understand why so many people are so invested in rejecting the idea of global warming.

For me, my reasons for not understanding go something like this:

It seems that there are two possibilities--either global warming is a problem, or it's not. If global warming isn't a problem, and we work to change it, nothing enormously bad will happen. If global warming is a problem, and we don't work to change, the consequences will be devastating. In other words, the cost of being wrong about global warming is much more significant if you don't act to fix global warming. It's sort of like Pascal's Wager, but about the environment, rather than God.

Now, some people say that working to stop global warming will hurt the economy, because we will be stunting the growth of big businesses, and that limiting the use of fossil fuels will really slow the economy down. Oh, and individual households will be hurt because they'll be spending more on things like eco-friendly cars, appliances, and food. I can understand this objection in the short term, I guess, but honestly, in the long term, going green seems like it's a huge economic benefit.

To start on the individual level...

Yes, replacing appliances with more energy efficient ones will have a large initial start-up cost, but once you do, you'll save lots of money monthly. Turning down the furnace or air conditioner will again use less energy, and in the winter, a slightly cooler house will give you a good excuse to snuggle up to your significant other! My husband and I ride the bus, instead of driving and parking when we go to work, so we're able to own one car and avoid the ridiculous gas prices and parking rates. The compact fluorescent light bulbs are more expensive than incandescent, but they use less energy and last longer, again saving money (plus, a lot of stores offer pretty hefty rebates for those things). Buying local produce that's in season is more energy-efficient than buying imported fruits or vegetables, and it's usually fresher, better-tasting, and cheaper. I could keep going, but from my experience, there are a lot of things that you can do to "go green" that are not only relatively easy to do, but will save you pretty significant money in the long run.

For corporations, the initial cost of going green is perhaps more significant, but the potential for future innovation and cost-savings is endless. There is forever the complaint that so many American jobs are getting outsourced, that the US can't compete against powers like China, and that the US economy is becoming too service-based, rather than production-based. Well, here's our big chance! There is seemingly endless potential for US companies to develop greener products and processes--energy sources, cars, air filters, etc. Not only could developing these products and processes lead to overall lowered energy consumption, but it could give the economy the kick-start it needs by making the US a cutting-edge innovator in the area of clean technology.

I guess to me, the fight against global warming is also a fight against unnecessary consumption and waste. Releasing less crap into the air and water will always seem better to me, even if it has nothing to do with global warming. Clean air, clean water, and a stable climate seem like things that should be desirable to everyone, which is why I have such a big problem understanding why so many people are so resistant to even considering the fact that people like Al Gore might be right.

I, for one, do think that he's right. I think that his consistent stance on the environment for the last several decades shows that this is not some political agenda, but rather, a deep, impassioned belief in working to make the world a better place. So, congratulations Mr. Gore. And thank you for making the environment a key issue in this next presidential election, even without your participation.