Wednesday, September 14, 2011


Just watched Stephen Colbert interview Al Gore, who stressed that it was our wars over keeping oil that kept us from affording a technological replacement for the internal combustion devce that causes climate change. Good reasoning, Al.

The other night I watched an msnbc special, on the changes in America in the ten years since the excuse for the longest of those wars, during which intrepid war correspondent Richard Engle remarked, “Lovely New York water, heh, heh, heh,” as he was being decontaminated after exposing himself to the poisonous Hudson river in which he’d joined the “new” NYPD searching for terrorist’s bombs along the banks. Good priorities, Richard.

Here’s my point. Al Gore has stressed climate change as his focus for action to return to a more symbiotic way to exist within the natural curve of the planet by citing temperature trends and more drastic weather patterns. It’s not that I deny climate change is one of the symptoms of the industrial-age human alienation of themselves from the planet which birthed them, I don’t. But of all the symptoms it remains the most debatable and debated boondoggle in any effort to lessen our footprint. Climate change is evident in geological and biological records occurring in natural cyclic patterns throughout the history of Earth, which tends to be deniers strongest argument. The strongest argument for climate change is measuring how extreme the weather has gotten in the recent past based on the ignorant hubris of civilized humans to continue to build “permanent” cities on the coasts (the land left after the last chunk quaked into the ocean) and rivers (the trickles left since the last “no ice anywhere” period) because, miracle of miracles, earthquakes and hurricanes cost more in lives huddled in more high rises every year.

Just like Richard Engle laughed off the admittedly deadly pollution of the Hudson river while demonstrating the efficiency of the NYPD to keep the homeland free of theoretically possible terrorism, Al Gore pushes the theoretically most debatable of the many arguments for getting off of fossil fuels while the horror of our pollution of water, land and air remains undeniable and undiscussed, — from the Hudson river to the burning kitchen faucets near fraking operations.

What the frack.


Brian Miller said...

denial is a river that wraps the world...terrible pun i know...but if it affects the way we is so true...

Anonymous said...

True dood. Al is on an attack against fossil fuels, and that's fine. Yet he is quite focused on energy alone, so it is an unfortunate distraction to other pressing issues like pollution which is killing the planet just as quickly as natural disaster after disaster. Pollution, pesticides and the other undebatables are currently casually ignored while slowly churning about in the entertainment section for those who choose to indulge into information...somewhere between the Michael Pollan books and nature channel documentaries. Not the top story in the news. To get back to Al, I guess one man can't tackle every demon. Others need to stand up and attempt to champion them, and they do, just not as loudly as Al. After all Monsanto and many whole industries are getting lots of criticism, but that's where it stops now.
PS. Nice to see your post here again. My lessons in patience do have rewards.

mahakal said...

Al Gore is a distraction, and we could be tapping ambient energy using technology developed a century ago by Tesla, and so many other non-polluting ways of too-cheap-to-meter power. But that's not the corporate American way.