Fox news does it again:"Could Gore's movie destroy economy?"

You mean, to people who pray at the altar of profit, that almighty god, that objective which trumps all other goals - people such as yourself, Okie.

Many of us believe it is more important to live and act responsibly than it is to make as much profit as possible.

Cycloptichorn

The question was: "If people buy into [Al Gore's] global warming hysteria, will it put him in the White House and our economy on the skids?" Steve Forbes answered yes, and called Gore's new movie "a real recipe for more socialist regulation."

I happen to agree with the obviously correct answer by Steve Forbes. Fortunately, the term "if" was at the head of the question, and I don't think very many people buy into Gore's stupidity, but "if" they did in great enough numbers and acted accordingly, it is obviously a recipe for tanking the ecomomy and more socialism, because what Gore is really saying is that the free market is not providing the correct course, the government must intervene and steer us toward much costlier and more uneconomical ways of life, which requires socialistic regulation.

All of this is totally obvious to people that understand the free market and how the economy works.

What did Al Gore do about this while he was a senator or during the 8 years he was Vice-President?

Nothing.

Why is that?

If Gore actually believes the internal combustion engine is one of the greatest threats to mankind, as well as other sources of pollution that fits into his view of what is so dangerous, and we are near the tipping point now, I would think he should try to enact very drastic measures to correct it NOW. After all, small incremental effects would be useless, with increased populations and emerging countries will more than take up the slack in any reductions of pollution. Let him try to get us all to ride bicycles, park our cars, trucks, and RVs, shut down the power plants, etc.? We are certainly not going to do it voluntarily unless he gets his government to declare martial law and force us all to do what he wants.

This subject is totally in the twilight zone, as is Al Gore's ideas.

Have you seen the movie? I ask because I haven't so I don't know if he believes the internal combustion engine is one of the greatest threats to mankind. What makes you think that drastic measures must be of the form of economy crippling regulation? Republicans have been singing that tune since the 80's and in my opinion that's what has made this problem worse. If it had been acknowledged then, and small, low-impact, incremental measures had been put in place then, don't you think the problem would be less likely to need such extreme measures now?

And I'll just reiterate that the fact that it might cost us money is no reason to ignore a serious problem. Do you ignore a gaping hole in your tooth because it will cost you money to go to the dentist? Do you avoid fixing your car because it costs money? We have a choice between spending money on long term solutions to the problem, or spending money on the near term consequences of doing nothing.