Sure Al Gore’s message is a good one, but is it disruptive?

January 24, 2007 —

I try not to wander too far from topic on this blog, but I just got back from seeing Al Gore speak at a local university. And in addition to acquiring the worst photo of Gore now found on the Internet (seen at left,) I came away with a few thoughts that are currently taking over my standard geek mind share.

Nobody gets the gravity of this phenomenon. It certainly is not a pervasive topic. And since I don’t think Gore is doing a poor job of relaying his concerns, I started thinking that perhaps he needs to alter the way he’s presenting them. Considering he chairs a certain board, maybe he could borrow some queues from another visionary.

For instance, polar ice cap melting sounds important and all, but what if upon sliding into the ocean, an Antarctic ice sheet could automatically adjust its viewing orientation and allow us to access the Internet in widescreen format.

And, glacial retreat? We still have 34 good years of glaciers left on the planet. What if by tapping a glacier on a map, the nearest coffee shop would automatically be dialed. Perhaps then they would be more important to us.

And speaking of dialing, I didn’t hear a single reference to visual voicemail through the course of his speech. If this whole “global warming” thing doesn’t have a new way for me to check my messages, how are we to believe that it’s disruptive?

As we were driving home in my wife’s car (somehow it felt wrong to take my huge SUV,) she mentioned that Gore missed an opportunity to give a receptive audience a short list of actions (plant a tree, switch your light-bulbs to cfl’s, etc.) I agree, but what has always struck me in his message was that even if we did the most that was politically feasible, we would still be far below the minimum of what’s absolutely necessary. Buying a TerraPass isn’t enough.

Towards the end of his speech, Gore made the point that there is no price tag on the issue. Individuals and corporations realize no financial penalty or reward based on carbon footprint. He suggested dropping income tax altogether in favor of a use tax based on annual CO2 output. As the rest of the room was applauding, I couldn’t help but think most would see that as a political agenda (or just plain strange.)

But his very next point was clever. Gore suggested putting a cap on “carbon units” (my phrase, not his.) Basically, corporations would be capped at what they could use. A company’s productivity would then be regulated by the efficiency of their production.

Now, to me, that seems like it would actually result in further reasons for outsourcing, but the idea is a good one. At the personal level, maybe putting a cap on personal carbon output is the only thing that would get our attention.

However you look at it, global warming is a huge issue. And, if the best we can do is move towards a 20% reliance on ethanol a decade from now, we might be feeling the impact quite some time before we’re doing anything to slow it. It might give us all a new perspective on the word disruptive.

The SUV, by the way, is officially for sale.