He used to be the next president of the United States of America, but although he lost the election (or it was stolen from him, depending on how you see things), Al Gore has just won the Nobel Peace Price for his "efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay down the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."These efforts relate to lectures on global warming Gore has been presenting for years to audiences around the world, but especially for his highly influential and critically acclaimed film, based on these lectures, An Inconvenient Truth.
So, as a tribute to Al Gore and his efforts, and because this is a deeply important issue to which everyone ought to be exposed, I have looked and looked and looked, learned Chinese in about half an hour, until I finally found the entire documentary, which I am posting below for everyone's enjoyment and education.
Congratulations, Al!
As a side note, I have always secretly loved the fact that the Nobel Peace Price is based on the last will and testament of the man who invented dynamite. Sweet lady irony... you are indeed an autological creature!
PS. Not to be a sourpuss or anything, but does anybody know why the Kyoto Protocol was never signed by the Clinton Administration, when Gore was vice-president? I could look this up myself, but I'm really tired right now, so I'd appreciate some help from anybody who knows or researches this question. Thanks loyal readers!
.
As opposed to doing homework, I looked up what I could on the issue. The United States DID sign the protocol, I believe in 1997. However, it had to be sent to the senate to be ratified in 1999. With many senators saying how they would not ratify the protocol, Clinton decided to not send it to the senate - the issue was that the United States would not adhere to the policies if other developing nations did not, ie. India & China, as they are the biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions. Until the Kyoto protocol was amended to have the developing nations follow the same program as America, the U.S. will not follow the recommendations of the Kyoto convention. The reason we (the U.S.) are against it is because developing nations receive Carbon points if they do certain things to make their nation more environmentally friendly, but in doing so, the Carbon points can be redeemed for the right to have a higher emission standard, basically negating the process in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSo - that's pretty much what I gathered from the issue - if anyone checks my facts and I misconstrued them in anyway - let me know. :)
Thanks for the info!
ReplyDeleteThat does sound very self-defeating: we have reduced our carbon emissions thereby earning the right to increase them???
That makes no sense at all... which is not to say that it couldn't be true, unfortunately...
I read further into this and I'm part-wrong - the developing countries do not get carbon points that earn themselves extra emissions for a period of time...here's how it works:
ReplyDeleteThe super-power countries are the only ones with emission limits - unfortunately, the developing countries do not have a ceiling. However, the developing countries do earn carbon credits whenever they participate in programs that are environmentally sound. Those carbon credits are sold to the super powers, so THEY can have higher emissions for that time period. There's even a market that will be traded like stock for carbon credits!
Sorry for my confusion...hope that clears it up.