I am very, very upset that I missed this special showing of An Inconvenient Truth, which featured a bunch of local leaders in a roundtable discussion with the audience on the themes presented by the movie.  The below-linked article is a good read, but because it hits on a specific question of mine, I am particularly drawn to comment on the last line of the piece:

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

“If Gore is wrong, won’t that be embarrassing. But if (Williams) is wrong, won’t that be tragic for the future,” Bechtold said.

Wait. . . Would it really be so embarrasing for Gore to be wrong?  Think about it: what would be so embarrasing if after ten years of assuming Gore was right we had cleaner-running cars, more efficient factories, better environmental controls, cleaner air. . . .  What is so embarassing about that?

This is the part about the Global-Warming deniers that I just don’t get.  I mean, I can understand the auto and gasoline industries having thier problems with the implications of Global Warming, but what about the rest of humanity?  Where is the incentive to be so vehemently against the idea of environmental conservation?  If you could spend less money on gas because your car uses less, if you could breath cleaner air, if you could save money on your heating bill, what possible evil is there in simply running our day-to-day affairs more intelligently and responsibly?

Technorati Tags: environment, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Global Warming, Rochester

powered by performancing firefox