by Chandra Janean

Created on: March 03, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

There is a lot of buzz out there about an article published by Michael Reagan titled "An Inconvenient Fraud" which can be seen at the following URL:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes &id=19626

This article is primarily in response to Al Gore winning an Oscar for his documentary film: "An Inconvenient Truth." This documentary is merely a tool, it is not a be all end all doomsday claim. The film is being used as a tool to educate those who would not tend to lend an ear to environmental issues of this nature. On the flip side, Mr. Reagan is glorifying George W. Bush's actions as "walking the walk" because his home is "eco-friendly." This being said about the man whose leadership has led to the deletion of scientists work, and general downplaying of available government climate change science. This also being said about the man whose Administration is attempting to roll back clean air standards for some of the nations most polluting industries, rather than pushing for enforcement of current pollution laws which are being broken (i.e. illegal.)

Personally I have to admit that I have no animosity towards Al Gore's carbon footprint, I have only respect and admiration for his endless efforts at trying to educate the global community about problem's that we all face in modern times. It is my view that when there is "risk" of harm to human and environmental health, we should exercise "precaution" to reduce that "risk." We as a society do not know what the outcome that drastic climate change will have on our planet, but one can guess based on the most recent climate anomalies occurring around the world that the outcome will be potentially devastating to our way of life.

If we have feasible alternatives we should be using them, but to label Gore as a hypocrite is not doing anything more than adding discourse to the debate that should be moving away from "debate" and into "action" through global policy / paradigm shifts. I view Bush as the ultimate hypocrite, coming from an oil profit family. George W. resides in the prime position of power to influence American views on climate change, yet he dumps federal money into dirty industries, while powering his own home with alternative fuel.

A narrow focus on either of these gentleman's life-style's and presumed energy consumption can be picked and chosen to reflect either opinion in favor or against the hypocrisy argument. I would like to see Michael Reagan elaborate a bit more in depth just what the "Carbon Credits" that Al Gore pays into are. "Carbon Credits" support investment in technological advances of alternative fuels and infrastructure, not just protection of forests (carbon sinks.) For more information go to http://www.terrapass.com/
These advances will benefit all of society, not just the elites who can afford to do it right like George W. Bush's geothermal heating system and rainwater irrigation which are great for his household, but aren't doing much for the country.

Learn more about this author, Chandra Janean.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.