Editor,
Though I have found it difficult to stomach past commentary from the impudent and self-righteous right hand of columnist Scott Darnell, I must agree with a point he made about Al Gore on Friday. As a cheerleader for a more progressive national energy policy to address global warming, concerned Americans expect Gore to be the archetype of a carbon-neutral lifestyle.
My concern is that Darnell's political myopia and inability to see beyond next quarter's bottom line is more likely to sink our economy than Gore's warnings. The pertinent issue is not about the hypocrisy of Gore and other affluent Americans; it is about the commitment all citizens must make to a stronger, sustainable economic future, as well as their role gaining rapid independence from foreign oil, a point somehow overlooked by Darnell.
It is disturbing that Darnell goes on to attack the message as well as the messenger. I recommend that, before he produces a diatribe on something he clearly knows little about, he study the science of global warming carefully, as all college students should. He claims that Gore has created "hysteria" about global warming which will "bring catastrophe" to our economy, yet unlike Gore, he produces no empirical evidence to support his views. Is Darnell suggesting that personal energy conservation and requiring higher
fuel efficiency standards will break America's back?
My take on the body of Gore's work is that he is merely seeking to implement a responsible energy plan, which was a portion of his platform in his 2000 presidential campaign. This plan recognizes that our present course is dangerous and unsustainable. Unfortunately, Vice President Dick Cheney largely ignored these ideas and developed a backroom energy plan, which has mainly beefed up profits for big energy companies and done little to make our future more secure or globally competitive.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Even if global warming were not such a pivotal issue, national security and long-term environmental pollution from coal-fired energy sources certainly provide significant reasons for Darnell to reconsider his views. To ignore this now is an issue of global morality. How can we be respected as a global leader unless we lead the way?
Had President Bush rallied the nation toward the changes needed in energy policy more than five years ago - when he pushed us into Iraq to protect our access to future oil reserves - our country might now be in a much better position to control its economic future.
Providing very strong incentives to suddenly redirect and retool American industry is not new. I'd suggest that Darnell visit the World War II Museum in New Orleans, as I did while working for Habitat for Humanity over winter break. I came away from the museum and from my experience with Habitat for Humanity re-energized about how strong and adaptable Americans can be during a time of crisis. This country and its people can accomplish truly remarkable things when stimulated by leaders. So far, our leaders have asked us to do nothing but continue to shop since Sept. 11, 2001.
While perhaps stiff, old Gore knows we are prepared to make substantial individual sacrifices and lifestyle changes if they can improve the future for our children and our planet.
Bill Niendorff
UNM graduate student
