I ended up spending half my weekend arguing with a friend about the environment, so maybe Gore achieved his goal (if that was his goal). Most of the argument centered around this idea that we could all, by changing our behavior in numerous but relatively small ways, bring this problem under control. I hate this line of rhetoric; it makes it sound so simple, when changing behaviors en masse is actually enormously difficult. This free rider problem is so big that it can't be fixed without a huge cultural shift (laws require political capital, which requires popular support); this is why I was ranting the other day about the defects of democratic government.
One quick aside: the movie mentions ethanol as a possible solution (or part of a possible solution) to the global warming problem, and this seems like a pretty good indication that Al Gore will run for president in 2008. Are there any other reasons one would support ethanol? I can't think of any.
Ethanol makes plenty of sense if you're talking cellulose-based ethanol and not corn-based. Brazil is doing nicely with sugar cane with a much smaller car market.
Changing behaviors en masse is very easy. Introduce incentives or disruptive technologies and people's behavior will change. Changing the behaviors predictably however, AND channeling them the way you want them to change - is much more difficult.
Forexampe, even if we elect Dems to Congress, who's to say that they'll actually vote to do even the simple things like raise CAFE standards in the face of automaker and oil money?
I think it was Matt Yglesias who once used the amusing phrase "pimping for Big Corn" in the context of discussing Tom Daschle and ethanol subsidies.
That's hilarious, and absolutely true. Yet another systemic issue with democracy...
Post a comment