Dear Al, Congratulations!

Dear Al,

Congratulations!

I wish to congratulate you on winning the Nobel peace prize. I admire your work in raising the consciousness of people about global warming. I have had a change of heart from some years ago when I scoffed at global warming. I remember when they called you “ozone man” and “Owl” Gore, and I snickered. I apologize. You were a prophet crying in the wilderness. The science is in. The issue is settled. You were ahead of your time. Global warming is happening and the activity of mankind is a major contributing factor.

I know you have come in for a lot of criticism and ridicule. A few months ago, you got a lot of criticism from people who said you were a hypocrite because your 20-bedroom, 8-bathroom mansion in Belle Meade with heated swimming pool and gas-lamp- lined driveway uses 20 times as much electricity as the average house in Nashville. Also, some wondered why you need four homes. I don’t like hypocrites. I was disappointed to discover that Rush Limbaugh was a druggie. And, all of those family-value Republicans who have long-term mistresses disappointment me. Anybody might fall from Grace, but purposely living a lifestyle contrary to what you preach is wrong. It you are going to campaign for virtue, you should walk the walk. But, Al, I don’t think you are a hypocrite.

I understand you work out of your home and you have to host a lot of parties, and a mansion that big just takes a lot of electricity. It is often a tactic of people to attack the messenger when they don’t like the message. And, Al, your critics are not above playing the class-envy card. I know it is usually Democrats who play the class-envy card, but Republicans do it do when they can get away with it. The reason Republicans play the envy card less than Democrats is not that Republican are more moral; it is because it does not fit their agenda. The Democrats believe the size of the economic pie is fixed and it is their job to redistribute. Republicans believe we can always make a bigger pie. So, the use of envy simply fits the Democrat agenda better. But, in this case they are trying to use it against you. Populism is the often the refuge of scoundrels.

You can’t help it if you are rich and I don’t hold that against you. I would like to be rich myself. You being richer doesn’t make me any poorer. I don’t expect you to sell your goods and give the money to the poor. Anyway, you bought carbon offsets. Some have said purchasing carbon offsets is like buying indulgences, but if the offsets really do off set, then use all the energy you want. I don’t care. I don’t expect you to live like a commoner. And, I also understand you are remodeling to make your home more eco-friendly. You are changing out all or your light bulbs and I understand you are putting in the same kind of eco-friendly, geo-thermal heating system that George Bush has had in his home for years. Good for you.

Anyway, you won a very prestigious award. I have sometimes wondered, however, why the Nobel Prize ever got to be so prestigious. It is not recognition by your peers, like the Country Music Awards, and is not an honor bestowed on you by the United Nations or anything. Gallup didn’t poll the world to see who should get a Nobel prize. It is not like the Pope making you a Saint. Actually, the Parliament of the somewhat unimportant country of Norway selects five little-known people who decide who gets the award. Did you know that Mahatma Gandhi never did get the Nobel Peace Prize? Many think he did. He was nominated five times, but was never selected.

Al, I also know some people are trying to say that you did not deserve the Nobel Peace prize because your global warming work was not related directly to the cause of peace. However, I think the augment that if we have continued global warming, there will be conflict over natural resources and therefore, curtailing global warming will curtail future conflict has merit. Anyway, there was no other category you fit for a Nobel Prize.

In any event, a lot of other people who got the Peace Prize also came in for criticism. Theodore Roosevelt got it for ending the Russo-Japanese War and some people said he did not deserve it because of his intervention in the Philippines to suppress a revolt snacked of imperialism, but it didn’t bother me. Another great Tennessean, Cordell Hull, got it for his roll in establishing the United Nations; yet his roll in pressuring FDR to refuse asylum to a shipload of Jews seeking asylum from Nazi Germany and their subsequent death in concentration camps should have disqualified him, some have said.

Of course a lot of people said Henry Kissinger did not deserve it, despite his role in negotiating the Vietnam Paris Peace accord. Some feel the secret bombing of Cambodia should have disqualified him and others feel his betrayal of our South Vietnamese ally and the subsequent massive deaths at the hands of the Communist in Vietnam and Cambodia should have disqualified him. And, some claim that Arafat should not have gotten the award because he was a terrorist. And, then there was the African woman who claimed HIV was engineered by white scientist to kill Africans, and some felt that that tarnished her image, and she did not deserve it. So, Al, you are not the first person who got the award that critics said should not have gotten it. It is a prestigious award, so you can rightfully be proud.

Now that you got it, what are you going to do next? I don’t think you have to worry about Bush getting the Supreme Court to take it away from you. I don’t think he can do that. So, you have all of this political capital. Not only do you have this prize, but also you have the two Oscars that your movie won, and a best selling book.

Face it you have raised consciousness. Mission accomplished! So, you don’t need to do Inconvenient Truth II, and one Live Earth was enough. I know Willie Nelson is doing Farm Aid for about the twentieth time, but I think one Earth Aid is enough. After the first one, it is kind of like reruns. So what next? I have a suggestion. Use your political capital to fight for a structural change that will really stop global warming. Don’t waste your enhanced prestige to tell people to change light bulbs or properly inflate their tires. Those things are commendable, but you know as well as I do, that if the problem is really as dire as you say it is, we must do more than that, or more than tinker with the CAFE standards.

In the past you have advocated a carbon tax, including, higher gas taxes. I know that during the Presidential campaign of 2000, you said we needed lower gas prices not higher gas price, but you were trying to get elected then and I don’t hold that against you. Since then, you have often called for a carbon tax. I know many of your most loyal supporters are not going to be happy until we are all living in caves and grubbing for worms. Some are not going to be happy until we remake human nature. But, that is not going to happen. Some of your most loyal followers may have other agendas rather than defeating global warming.

If we had a carbon tax, then people wouldn’t have to be persuaded to conserve because it is a moral choice; they would conserve because the harmful effects of carbon consumption was adequately priced. People respond to prices. There should be no free polluting of the environment with global warming emissions. All of the other alternatives would be cheaper if only carbon emissions were priced. Alan Greenspan, a guy who knows as much about economics as you do global warming, says the economy could tolerate a revenue-neutral gas tax of $3. So, Al, I hope you will not waste your new prestige on symbolic things and instead will make the best of this opportunity to make the structural change this planet needs. You can do it, Al!
I know this has been a long letter. Thank you for indulging me. Again, congratulations on the Peace Prize.

Oh, by the way, I ran into you at an art opening recently, at the Tag Gallery on 5th Ave. I am the guy who said, “Are you really Al Gore or an Al Gore impersonator.” Afterwards I felt so stupid. I think I had had one too many glasses of wine and was just surprised to see you out at an art opening, like a normal person. I am normally not a star-struck idiot. I am sure I did not make a good impression. If I every run into you again, I want to shake your hand and say, “Congratulations on winning the peace prize. I hope you move on to phase II of your campaign to save the planet.”

Sincerely,

Rod Williams

Top Stories

Alan Greenspan Calls for $3 per Gallon Gas Tax

Watching Alan Greenspan on BookTV Cspan2 Sunday night I felt like I was fortunate to be sitting in the presents of a wise sage. He was being interviewed to discuss his new book, The Age of Turbulence. The next day I rushed out and purchased the book at Borders Books for 40% off of the $35 retail price. (Free plug for Borders) I look forward to reading it.
In the past, as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan had to be reserved. If Greenspan sneezed the world economy could catch a cold. Now, out of office Mr. Greenspan is speaking his mind on a variety of subjects and it is obvious that he has thought long and hard on the things about which he has opinions. With the mind of an economist, his utterances are not emotive but reasoned rational arguments.
In the hour, or maybe longer, interview he explained why he was a “libertarian-Republican” and not a “right-wing Republican”. He told of his relationship with Ayn Rand and the impact she had had on his intellectual development. He explained why he viewed China as a partner and not a rival and why Chinese investment in the American economy was a positive development. He discussed the dangers of growing income inequality and how this gap could lead to a dangerous populism. He spoke of the evolving roll of intellectual property and how it was replacing manufacturing as a creator of wealth. He explained how world trade was making the world a more integrated and a less dangerous place. He explained why Bill Clinton was one of our best “Republican” Presidents.
One of the things he discussed that most impressed me was global warming and how to combat it. He said that it was his conclusion that the scientific evidence is irrefutable that global warming is real and a very serious threat and that we must combat it. He said that there is no way to combat global warming without reducing the output of CO2 emissions. To do so we must get the cost of CO2 up in order to get the use of C02 down. The worse single source of CO2 emissions is the private automobile. To significantly reduce CO2 emission, he thinks, we need a gas tax of about $3 per gallon phased in overtime with the revenue rebated to the public as tax cuts. He says this could be achieved without wrecking the economy.
While there are many promising technologies that could flourish, he said, if only gas cost more, the most promising technology is battery-powered vehicles. Hybrids may be an interim promising step but the solution is battery-powered vehicles where the consumer recharges his car overnight. The reason why this is so promising is that it does not require a new distribution system, as would be the case with some other proposed alternatives. Also, we would all be charging our car overnight when demand for electricity is low, thus maximizing the use of the infrastructure already in place.
I know that many of the people who have long warned of the dangers of global warming are not going to welcome economic solutions to the global warming crisis. They are not going to be content until we change human nature and people are no longer “greedy”. Expressing love for Mother Nature however and persuading people to change their evil ways is not going to solve the problem. Without the application of economic principles, the problem of global warming will not be solved. Unfortunately, at the present time no politician can get elected to office while advocating a $3 per gallon gas hike, but with people of the stature of Alan Greenspan calling for rational solutions, policy makers may develop the nerve to provide leadership and offer serious solutions. I just hope that the cowardliness of politicians and the ideologically driven obstructionism of environmentalist do not cause us to wait until we are beyond the point of no return.
I am glad that Alan Greenspan is saying the things that need to be said.

Top Stories