Al Meyerhoff: It's getting hot

Al Gore is spending $300 million for a publicity campaign to convince the American public the climate is changing and it is a crisis. That's like sponsoring an ad campaign to convince the world that the planet is not really flat.

It's not all his money, of course. Most of it is from the film "An Inconvenient Truth." Inconvenient indeed. But that this campaign is necessary at all speaks volumes about the failure of environmentalists to persuade our citizenry that the climate threat is both real and immediate, overcoming not just skepticism but national torpor and attention deficit disorder as well. When there is a polar bear on my front lawn, call.

With a touch of jingoism (including Americans landing on Omaha Beach and the moon) Gore's "we can solve the climate crisis" campaign urges that good old-fashioned American know-how can prevent climate change – and without waiting for others to help. That's another odd approach, since actually the problem to date has been precisely the opposite. The ads are also disturbingly similar to the "I believe" campaign being run by "clean coal," a concept that at least some feel is oxymoronic.

That said, given its scale alone, the former vice president's publicity campaign may fundamentally change the American public's collective mind and, with it, the terms of the climate debate. Nevertheless, similar campaigns, such as opposing tobacco, drugs or guns, have failed, as they were not part of a well-conceived political strategy. Thus, what is most important is whether Gore's effort will jump-start the environmental community to unite behind a common legislative agenda, including the grass-roots and electoral work needed to accomplish actual change. Purposefully bipartisan, the Gore media blitz endorses a national carbon-emissions cap but presses no specific legislation by Congress or the next administration, whether it is John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

In his famed New York University speech, Gore eschewed politics and said that climate change should be viewed as a "moral issue. It is not a question of left or right; it is a question of right or wrong." Forty-five years ago, Rachel Carson made that same argument about the impact of pesticides, asking "whether any civilization can wage a relentless war on life without destroying itself?"

In truth, such appeals to the greater good – prevent climate change to save the natural world – have proven insufficient. Pesticide use this year reached a record 6 billion pounds worldwide.

Ultimately, it's self-interest

Global warming is not rocket science. It is caused by carbon emissions and can only be contained by reducing them. Action by those responsible will not come from 30-second commercial spots, moral suasion or "continued scientific assessment, development of cost- effective options, public debate and consensus building," as urged recently by the U.N. International Chamber of Commerce delegate.

It will come through the accumulation and exercise of economic and political power. Gore and the environmental movement need to join together and give the public a clear,coherent and consistent message on why and how to stop climate change, demanding mandatory action to do so. Otherwise,"Silent Spring II" will be written from a lifeboat on New York's Upper East Side.

People ultimately act from self- interest. Americans need to be convinced that by declaring war on the weather, they could become its victims, because warming brings with it floods and hurricanes, drought and famine, massive human migrations and the rampant spread of disease. The body politic must be persuaded that a warming climate threatens its homes and its families, its children and its children's children.

It is, of course, thanks to Al Gore (and sweet reason) that except for Rush Limbaugh, few now believe global warming is a hoax.

Yet, environmentalists seem unable or unwilling to drop the other foot and unite behind a common agenda. Some urge that climate change already is irreversible – we must focus on mitigation. Others say technology can still save us – if we act, but only by 2012. Various solutions are offered by some and then condemned by others – clean coal, bio-fuels, ethanol, nuclear power. Some voices claim warming will mainly damage the developing world (poor Africa), others say it's all China's fault.

About the writer:

• Al Meyerhoff, an environmental lawyer for 30 years, is former director of the Natural Resource Defense Council Public Health Project. Reach him at alm@csgrr.com.