A Test of Our Character - New York Times
The New York Times

May 26, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

A Test of Our Character
By
PAUL KRUGMAN

In his new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore suggests that there are
three reasons it's hard to get action on global warming. The first is
boiled-frog
syndrome: because the effects of greenhouse gases build up gradually, at any
given moment it's easier to do nothing. The second is the perception,
nurtured
by a careful disinformation campaign, that there's still a lot of
uncertainty about whether man-made global warming is a serious problem. The
third is
the belief, again fostered by disinformation, that trying to curb global
warming would have devastating economic effects.

I'd add a fourth reason, which I'll talk about in a minute. But first, let's
notice that Mr. Gore couldn't have asked for a better illustration of
disinformation
campaigns than the reaction of energy-industry lobbyists and right-wing
media organizations to his film.

The cover story in the current issue of National Review is titled "Scare of
the Century." As evidence that global warming isn't really happening, it
offers
the fact that some Antarctic ice sheets are getting thicker - a point also
emphasized in a TV ad by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is
partly
financed by large oil companies, whose interests it reliably represents.

Curt Davis, a scientist whose work is cited both by the institute and by
National Review, has already protested. "These television ads," he declared
in
a press release, "are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public
about the global warming debate." He points out that an initial increase in
the thickness of Antarctica's interior ice sheets is a predicted consequence
of a warming planet, so that his results actually support global warming
rather
than refuting it.

Even as the usual suspects describe well-founded concerns about global
warming as hysteria, they issue hysterical warnings about the economic
consequences
of environmentalism. "Al Gore's global warming movie: could it destroy the
economy?" Fox News asked.

Well, no, it couldn't. There's some dispute among economists over how
forcefully we should act to curb greenhouse gases, but there's broad
consensus that
even a very strong program to reduce emissions would have only modest
effects on economic growth. At worst, G.D.P. growth might be, say, one-tenth
or two-tenths
of a percentage point lower over the next 20 years. And while some
industries would lose jobs, others would gain.

Actually, the right's panicky response to Mr. Gore's film is probably a good
thing, because it reveals for all to see the dishonesty and fear-mongering
on which the opposition to doing something about climate change rests.

But "An Inconvenient Truth" isn't just about global warming, of course. It's
also about Mr. Gore. And it is, implicitly, a cautionary tale about what's
been wrong with our politics.

Why, after all, was Mr. Gore's popular-vote margin in the 2000 election
narrow enough that he could be denied the White House? Any account that
neglects
the determination of some journalists to make him a figure of ridicule
misses a key part of the story. Why were those journalists so determined to
jeer
Mr. Gore? Because of the very qualities that allowed him to realize the
importance of global warming, many years before any other major political
figure:
his earnestness, and his genuine interest in facts, numbers and serious
analysis.

And so the 2000 campaign ended up being about the candidates' clothing,
their mannerisms, anything but the issues, on which Mr. Gore had a clear
advantage
(and about which his opponent was clearly both ill informed and dishonest).

I won't join the sudden surge of speculation about whether "An Inconvenient
Truth" will make Mr. Gore a presidential contender. But the film does make a
powerful case that Mr. Gore is the sort of person who ought to be running
the country.

Since 2000, we've seen what happens when people who aren't interested in the
facts, who believe what they want to believe, sit in the White House. Osama
bin Laden is still at large, Iraq is a mess, New Orleans is a wreck. And, of
course, we've done nothing about global warming.

But can the sort of person who would act on global warming get elected? Are
we - by which I mean both the public and the press - ready for political
leaders
who don't pander, who are willing to talk about complicated issues and call
for responsible policies? That's a test of national character. I wonder
whether
we'll pass.

Posted by MIriam V