Should Al Gore fly to Oslo to accept his Nobel Prize?
I don’t want to dampen the celebration over Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, but I wonder if this is, as they say, a “teachable moment.” Should he skip the trip to Oslo, Norway, on a fuel-burning jet and instead accept the award by teleconference?
I realize two plane flights would make little difference to Mr. Gore’s carbon footprint (certainly by comparison with the much-publicized utility bills for his home). But as he pointed out in “An Inconvenient Truth”:
Flying is another form of transportation that produces large amounts of carbon dioxide. Reducing air travel even by one or two flights per year can significantly reduce emissions. . . . If your airplane travel is for business, consider whether you can telecommute instead.
Should Mr. Gore follow his own advice here? You could argue that the publicity generated by his presence in Oslo would do more to combat global warming than the reduced emissions from trip. But you could also argue that the symbolism of staying home would send an even more powerful message about the need for everyone to conserve energy. He could generate plenty of publicity by delivering the Nobel lecture through a video link and letting the prize be sent to him on an energy-efficient ship.
1 comment:
I agree...setting a personal example is a prerequisite of leadership. It would be a hugely powerful symbol if Gore appeared by teleconference to accept the award.
I do believe one problem that many celebrities have who advocate environmentalism is their own consumptive lifestyles. It would be easier to convince people if you set the right personal example.
Ghandi and Mother Theresa are good examples of those who won the Peace Prize and set a good example.
Post a Comment