Toulman's argument sounds like the point Evo raised after the floods earlier in the year.

See
http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/2007/02/evo-asks-good-question-on-climate.html#comments
and
http://mabb.blogspot.com/2007/02/evo-morales-developed-nations-are-to.html

Yes, it does. I'm always a proponent of looking beyond the "glamorous" positions on social issues. Too often, I'm afraid, socialites & others from "privileged" positions seem more interested in doing something to make themselves "feel" better, than actually addressing the root causes of problems.

Toulman's argument sounds like the point Evo raised after the floods earlier in the year.

Yes, indeed. I think Evo and Toulmin have a point: developing countries are bearing the brunt of the damage to the earth's climate caused by rich countries and something needs to be done about that too. These are very interesting questions that I hope will be addressed in the current debate about global warming.

As a parenthesis: Evo must be disappointed he didn't get the Nobel Prize. I personally think he was never a serious contender, but some people and a certain press in Bolivia seem to think otherwise. It's also rumored that the Bolivian embassies throughout the world were given explicit instructions to campaign full-time for him (is this acceptable use of public resources?).

Even if it was a long shot, it's still interesting to notice that he somewhat sensed that climate change was going to be the determining issue for the Nobel and tried to address this topic in recent speeches. But his problem is that, as an advocate of coca cultivation, he has no credibility in this area. Coca expansion has caused such a catastrophic and irreparable damage to the environment that even the UN sounded the alarm recently.

Some of Evo's supporters seem quite bitter about Gore's Nobel. See article in Los Tiempos.

Are you saying Al Gore takes glamorous positions and/or has been avoiding root causes of climate change?

I'm saying it's easy for millionaires to discuss the world's problems w/o realizing that they're often doing it as a modern sense of "civilizational imperialism" (you know the whole "take up the white man's burden" etc., etc.).

A similar argument was made a few months ago about the recent Vanity Fair special issue about Africa that was filled w/ non-Africans talking **about** Africa, w/ little attention to, you know, actual African voices.

But maybe it's more straightforward than that.

People in Bolivia need reliable water supplies and conditions that allow growing food. This is not human rights, democracy, or economic systems. Al Gore is not going to save Bolivia's glaciers, which have been important as reliable, all-year water supplies for many Bolivians. But least he's tried.

See for example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6496429.stm

You make Al Gore sound like Madonna. I think the Toulmin article you cite misrepresents Gore's concern. Gore proposed long ago negotiation and money for supporting adaptation throughout the world. But if he sees persuading the United States as the most important step right now, which means not discussing it all in terms similar to reparations, can you disagree with him?

Yes, Gore is certainly not like Madonna. And I do think that he's probably more knowledgeable (as a former senator & vp) than most celebrities. I'm not intending to attack his overall goal, which is quite noble. My point is merely that much of the "global" environmental, human rights, development, etc. movements are still dominated by upper middle class, American/European concerns.

And, for example, it's one thing for Gore to make a "safe the environment" pitch aimed at an American audience in the US. It's another thing to do so in London or other parts of the world.

Perhaps Toulmin does misrepresent some of Gore's proposals. But she's not a dilettante. And I don't see why being critical of Gore (even if we like him) isn't useful for strengthening or sharpening the environmental movement. Or is he a sacred cow?

Not a sacred cow. Not even close. But the quality of the criticism matters.

I'm not sure how important this is in practical terms, but look at the composition of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shares Prize with Gore). It's very international (like the UN, so no surprise)--lots of Latin Americans, including Freddy Tejada Miranda (Bolivia).

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/bureau.htm

There are other Bolivians working on this. See "Andean experts meet on climate change": http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/07/content_6486267.htm

There are some articles in SciELO on climate change: http://metaiah.bvsalud.org/subject/search.php

By the way, the Oxfam position is much like Toulmin's (and in reality probably Gore's): http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/briefingpapers/bp104_climate_change_0705
I wonder if any Bolivians or Latin Americans had input.

(OK. I'll hush up.)

I do not keep up with the day to day evolvement of Gore's ideas on the matter. I guess then I do not have a comment on his theories, per se. I did notice that the original article was written over a year ago. Perhaps he has had a chance to broaden his concepts. It is hard to enjoy such a first person, I told you so type of message no matter who wrote it. It sounds more as if she felt she was snubbed than Gore really missing any points. It seems as if she could have toned her article to add to what he said instead of creating the view of animosity. This is not a joke and everyone needs to put all their efforts towards it, not chip away at the credence of those putting the issue into the forefront.

Another, kind of ironic thought is the IIED is a legal tort in the USA. The letters stand for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

I think Toulmin's point was that Gore approaches the issue of the global warming from the perspective of how it will affect the first world (higher energy prices, etc). Others approach the question from a third world development standpoint. The two are often bound to clash.

The question really is not a matter of justice but of natural survival. The world will survive global warming, but whether humanity will or not, and who will live and who will not at this point is a question. Is it a matter of justice whether the world population responds sufficiently to in ways that stave off the effect of nature's response to what we have done to our environment? There are some conditions over which people have some individual control in the choices they make. Whether the consequences are just or not is pre-empted by the fact survival of some or many is at issue, and what can justice provide those who do not survive?

Obviously a part of the solution could be fewer people. In other words, the sooner those whose survival is marginal are no longer a part of this world the better the chances the rest might survive global warming. That is unfortunately an undeniable fact which may soon become increasingly obvious. Whether it is just or not to those whose fate is determined by the consequences of global warming and the response or lack of to its contributors, cannot under any circumstance be compensated. In other words when it is a matter of survival according to the physical laws of nature, just how is justice served?

Is it always a matter of who has the most causes the most trouble? Like the above posting, everyone is responsible for the problems facing humans. There is no country or peoples, poor or rich, who do not share. Poor countries do not practice birth control or even safe sex, to generalize. Corruption takes what resources there are and leaves nothing but waste in its place. Poor countries squander what they do have and do not try to protect the environment. Look at the fires and pollution in Boliva as of late for example. Even as there are cries that rich countries are causing the melting of the galciers, smoke, and the resulting emmissions from the fires, add to the problem. Add that to changing the oil and washing cars and trucks in the rivers as another simple thing to rectify. Bolivia is an example of blaming others and expecting others to act first. Bolivia is also a typical poor country full of waiting for someone to save them. The government could use some of the money it is holding to start projects to benefit the environment and put its people to work. I don't mean logging the national parks for the benefit of a few either. When one acts in a responsible manner then it attracts others to act. Boliva can help itself by showing an intitative. Build recycling facilities, start natural energy programs, respond to the intensive logging, etc. Use its resources to solve its problems. All the bandaids from foreign countries are not going to help. I did not read the other article but the easiest way to win the peace prize is to be a beacon of hope without trying to be.

Panel Urges Global Shift on Sources of Energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/business/worldbusiness/23energy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"Energy experts convened by the world’s scientific academies yesterday urged nations to shift swiftly away from coal and other fuels that are the main source of climate-warming greenhouse gases and to provide new energy options for the two billion people who still mostly cook in the dark on wood or dung fires.
In a report commissioned by the governments of China and Brazil, the 15 experts called for, at a minimum, a doubling of both public and private energy research budgets and a firm — and rising — price on emissions of greenhouse gases to encourage a shift in investments toward cleaner or more efficient technologies."

Another interesting international panel of scientists. Still not the campesino perspective, but maybe closer to what you'd like, Miguel.

Definetely. Thanks, Jon. It's not so much that I want a "campesino" perspective, so much as I'd like a better acknowledgement that the kinds of solutions available in the west (drive less, change light bulbs, recycle) don't really apply to third world economies.