Despite Gore's Nobel Climate Not Top Issue

Former VP In An Effective Advocate, But The American Public Focuses On More Iraq, Health Care

(WASHINGTONPOST.COM)  By Juliet Eilperin
Former vice president Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize meant the same thing yesterday to both his supporters and detractors: He ranks as the world's most effective advocate for curbing global warming.

While an array of activists, politicians and business leaders have all called in recent years for more stringent limits on greenhouse gases linked to climate change, no one more than Gore has reshaped public perception of what was once a wonkish scientific debate. But for all that, the issue remains far down the priority list for Americans.

Through his tireless travel and slide-show presentations, captured on screen in the 2006 film "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore has inserted himself into the policy debate at home and in other countries across the globe.

"It's difficult for Americans to comprehend how Gore is one of the most influential global leaders of our time," said Icelandic President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, who met Gore more than two decades ago. "He is influential not only for his views, but for how he is mobilizing action and awareness in all countries, on all continents."

Polls show that Gore's efforts have helped raise the profile of global warming among Americans -- an April Washington Post-ABC News survey found that the percentage of respondents identifying climate change as their top environmental concern had doubled from a year earlier, to 33 percent -- but in the public's mind, it still lags far behind such issues as the war in Iraq and health care in importance.

In a September Washington Post-ABC News poll, less than 1 percent identified global warming as their top issue for the 2008 presidential campaign, and a January poll by the Pew Research Center ranked it fourth-lowest out of 23 policy priorities that Americans want the president and Congress to address.
Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who co-chaired the international scientific study this year that called the evidence of global warming "unequivocal," said she was not surprised that the U.S. public does not rank global warming as a higher priority.

"The world has many problems, and just like every person, we tend to put on the back burner the ones we don't think will erupt tomorrow morning," Solomon said in an interview. "The key thing is that people understand the problem, and I have a lot of faith in humanity's ability to solve the problem it understands."

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who had dinner with Gore and a few friends in Seattle two weeks ago, said he jokingly chided Gore for not being "sufficiently alarmist" about the possible consequences of climate change in his movie and public appearances.

"I said, 'You really dropped the ball. You really undersold this global warming thing,' " Inslee said, adding that new scientific results consistently show that the climate is changing more rapidly than researchers had anticipated. "He said, 'I agree. Virtually everything you see is going faster, and in a more negative direction, than I described.'"

Regardless of its immediate policy impact, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to honor Gore -- along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- speaks to the emerging political and scientific consensus on the need to make more dramatic cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activity.

John P. Holdren, a Harvard University scientist who chairs the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the award establishes that "climate change is the most challenging of all environmental problems that threaten peace and prosperity. It's a recognition that he has done more as an individual, and the IPCC has done more than any organization, to bring the reality and the urgency of that danger to the rest of the world."

Hollywood producer and environmentalist Laurie David recalled that, when she first proposed making the documentary in 2004, Gore was skeptical that people would watch it.

"That was the hardest part, to convince him to make the movie," David said. She added that though she initially had to beg friends in Los Angeles and New York to attend Gore's climate lecture, she remained confident that his message would resonate with the public.

Some skeptics, such as Myron Ebell, who directs energy and global warming policy at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, said they now fear that Gore's heightened fame would lead to a carbon cap that they and many Bush administration officials oppose. "Clearly, the momentum in this country is for mandatory energy rationing policies," Ebell said.

Polling director Jon Cohen contributed to this report.

[taotxzen]

allow for Iraq to get their *** together to defend themselves.

katg21

How do you purpose this when all the military leadership in Iraq keeps saying that there is no military solution to the war and yet Bush refuses to press for a political solution, where is Ms. Rice these days?

What is our political policy in Iraq? I know the Bushes refuse to talk to Iran, thats a great first step to avoid a conflict.

[taotxzen]

katg21

I think the lesson here is BEFORE you kick the door in on a country and go in ''Guns Blasin'' you had better first consider the ramifications of your actions.

''You break it, you own it.'' Colin Powell

[katg21]

Remember, science is based on facts, NOT consensus
ROTFLMAO, Seig Heil, Hillary.!!!
Posted by MCVett

Now we agree on something.

[katg21]

Yet you are endorsing a policy of attacking Shiite Iran simply because Bush and the Saudis are telling you that they are the ''''terrorist...Posted by taotxzen

No, not what I say or endorse. We are fighting fundamentalist wackos here and they are in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Seria, you name it they''re everywhere. It just so happens that Iran is sponsoring the shiite wackos in Iraq, how could you not be suspicious of their motives? God help us if we have to invade Iran but it may be necessary, that''s all I''m saying here. I think it is most important for our country to maintain strength in that region and allow for Iraq to get their *** together to defend themselves. We leave and we give a crazy dictator all of the control. Do you really want that?

[mcvett]

In the 1970''s, it was scientific consensus that the
earth was going to have "global cooling"

So tell me, who won the Nobel "Peace" Prize in the 1970''s for
their work on "global cooling"?????

A few centuries ago, an overwhelming majority of scientists
stated as "fact", that the sun revolved around the earth.
Until a fellow by the name of Copernicus proved the "consensus" wrong with facts.

Remember, science is based on facts, NOT consensus

ROTFLMAO, Seig Heil, Hillary.!!!

[taotxzen]

You need to understand that there is a very calculated reason that Bush Inc. refers to this as a war on ''terror'' rather than a fight against Al Qaeda, you know the people that actually attacked the US.

You ask most Americans who are the terrorist in Iraq and they will say Al Qaeda which is Sunni. Yet you are endorsing a policy of attacking Shiite Iran simply because Bush and the Saudis are telling you that they are the ''terrorist.''

Saddam was a %u2018terrorist%u2019 Iran is now a %u2018terrorist.%u2019 Make no mistake, I do not care for Iran%u2019s leadership, however, they had zero to do with 911 and Al Qaeda.

[taotxzen]

katg21

It certainly sounds like from your perspective it is all about the oil.

OK, here is how your scenario plays out: we support the Sunni Warlords (that until recently were allies to AL Qaeda) and help them defeat the Iranian backed Shiia. We declare victory and invade Iran.

You have now further destabilized the area. Al Qaeda now has an ally running Iraq and can easily return and bin Laden and company are still free and by the way quite giddy, they could not have orchestrated it any better!

[katg21]

taotxzen,

Also, this is not a war against Iraq, Iran, etc.. It''s a war against religeous extremists and they can be found in many middle eastern countries, any country for that matter. That is why this war is so difficult to "win". We do not dictate when this ends; it was they who declared holy war on us and it only ends for them when we are dead. Leaving Iraq does nothing to help our cause, only theirs. Sometimes I think you libs care more about our enemy then you do your fellow americans and soldiers. It''s very disheartening.

[katg21]

Also neither Iran nor Iraq attacked us on 911. Are you saying that Iran should be a higher priority than going after the Al Qaeda that did actually attack us?
Posted by taotxzen

We are going after Alqaeda, we''re beating their a$$es in Iraq. So you''re saying you trust Iran? They are sitting on one of the largest stocks of oil and you actually believe that they want to build the nuclear capability for energy purposes? Why is Putin helping them? Who''s the fool here. Look, doesn''t matter that Iran didn''t attack us on 9/11, they are just waiting to take advantage of Iraq''s "interests" if we leave, you okay with that happening? Believe me, we won''t be leaving any time soon and your dems in congress, Hillary, Edwards and Obama know that too. It would be political suicide to cut and run.

[taotxzen]

Also neither Iran nor Iraq attacked us on 911. Are you saying that Iran should be a higher priority than going after the Al Qaeda that did actually attack us?