overcame Nazism, Communism, we are the freest country in the world, abolishing slavery, was resolved problem of the hole in the ozone layer, if we overcome these problems, we can overcome global warming, Al Gore says his audience. Fortunately, capitalism is about to expire itself, even when you have to destroy everything else, I tell myself. The sun's rays reach the earth and are returned to space, he explains, because it remains normal temperature of the earth. At some point, the high emission of methane gas prevented the sun's rays were returned out of the atmosphere and stay on earth, raising the temperature. How much security talks with Al Gore and his government has defeated Communism, and has destabilized entire regions, promoted coups, has invaded Sudan and Iraq, has sponsored paramilitaries and currently sponsors the killing of Palestinians. Without doubt, the U.S. can overcome global warming because it has allied with the Vatican and Margaret Thatcher to defeat enemies like communism. America can go anywhere to bring democracy, even if they have to go against what the people want, and that being free is an obligation and the United States will not rest until we are fulfilling our obligation. Al Gore won the Oscar for Best Power Point of the year, has won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is therefore impossible to avoid "An Inconvenient Truth" as it is the most important work on climate change, but when examined and there is grandstanding of his words, is its commitment to "prune" its subject, leaving it more or less schematic. His criticism of the system has accelerated the global warming problem is more like "air" by calling in some way, and that ignores the underlying problems and avoids mentioning the economic and social relations. Al Gore outlines his theme, namely that "cuts" to say what exactly is global warming, impartially, it emphasizes that the data mentioned "are not in dispute" are scientific measurements revealed that even as that had previously been kept secret because they were considered "National security" as in the case of the increasingly thin ice of the North Pole. But what good is defining this? Why because everything appears very accurately? Is there something that is not before us in this complex development? When you look more closely at this document, it appears increasingly force a number of personal motivations that have led former Vice President to give lectures around the world, a powerful personal motivation, it is true, because she has seen how the small farm where he grew up has also been affected by climate change. But, in the same way, "An Inconvenient Truth" is directed to individuals, ie individual solutions, but what is the real strength of the individual solutions? If the U.S. is responsible for thirty percent of the emissions of gases that produce the greenhouse effect, how is that responsibility is placed on individuals? Yes, I know exactly what we do respond to this question, we are not part of the solution but we contribute to the problem. Although I defend my conviction that question is never part of any problem! I guess it's necessary to put a bit because you put a grain of sand is one of the most uplifting, all granite and put a little time shines as a beautiful little castle on the beach, which speaks well of the importance of collaboration, and could be eternally shining example of the will until the waves have to either dissolve in an instant.
I think I know where I'm going: to see the general approach of the tape of Al Gore as their arguments erupt in a deafening, with the weight of events. So you can see how the data, one after another go by a cascade of certainties, only because of global warming will evaporate and any of its tributaries reaches the sea. I read that the solutions proposed by Al Gore are: plant a tree, turn off your appliances, adjust your thermostat, use less hot water. What is the value of these grains of sand with respect to the waves of the big companies, if you implement these suggestions in the greatest number of citizens of the world, is the general trend is reversed? How much water does Coca-Cola, whose profits are greater than the GDP of many nations? The president of the Coca-Cola has more power than the president of Portugal, but why people can not vote for president of the Coca-Cola? Not me who asked this, but José Saramago, a communist who could not beat the United States government. If the decisions of TNCs have a much more significant than those of individuals, what is its real obligation to the global warming? If only the logic of the accumulation of capital that has moved the history of the last century, violating human relationships to make them "market relations", is fighting the case with "placebos" which are not intended to accumulation? "The deeper to find the roots of the global environmental crisis, the more I become convinced that it is the outward manifestation of an internal crisis, ie in the absence of a better word, a crisis 'spiritual'." (Al Gore) Since, we almost always walk past when it comes to such critical problems, we can even agree with their diagnosis, but never agree with the solutions, we do not want the same kind of world. Or at least we do not believe that the solution is "spiritual" even though the documentary by Al Gore wants to trip the viewer into the puddle of sentimentality. Many have fallen there, and many are still there, because many viewers do not ever fall into the trap of an argument, hampered by sentimentality. "If you believe in prayer, pray ... for people to have the courage to change" is one of the rules of Al Gore. I imagine that he must give some value, since otherwise there would have been set, and faith always he has some respect, enough to turn it over quickly each time it appears in any discussion.
But I used the word "placebo" as there is an error in the recipe that gives viewers a sort of Brechtian anti output, as the viewer makes graphic catharsis with Power Point and confidence that comes follow the simple steps of the politician is sufficient. No one is opposed to these steps (and pray he hurt anyone), but what is the next step. Perhaps there is no next step, because it already showed the audience how easy it is the phenomenon of global warming, and he breathed faith and we have seen that the former Vice have a genuine interest. "An Inconvenient Truth" puts a hand to stop these questions, since it seeks to reduce climate change a problem of spiritual order. But this implies a larger effort to shape the viewer, even when it masquerades as an "awareness" because it is denying (or is evading) the economic and historical relations are responsible.
When Al Gore says "we" is also defining its audience as "they" who have overcome communism, those who have fought for democracy and those who have overcome their problems. And they talk to themselves, listen their own words so that there is no doubt that they are surrounded themselves. A thick forage "we." A hand that is touching the world and covering of "we." And so on creating a safe world, made of a "we" that involves a God who is communicating and expressing through the perception of that community. Al Gore to speak of a "natural design" that must be returned to nature, an important mission that God intended his people-and more precisely, the Democratic Party. But the U.S. election race course is out of "intelligent design" divine. Candidates are not have learned anything, or have learned it all:
"It's funny what happens to the Vice President who chose the current candidates to run America: Republican John McCain, who announced his decision to clamp down on global warming go to the November elections in the company of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, a member of the National Rifle Association and believes that the phenomenon is not caused by human activity. Meanwhile, Democrat Barack Obama, who is distinguished for having voted against the Iraq invasion and continues to reproached his opponent, will be accompanied by Joseph Biden, a senator for four consecutive periods which strongly supported the Iraq invasion and now criticizes and repent. "(Juan Gelman)
And" global warming "may well be a center of attraction, which is taken as a flag or not, according to votes to grant. Although this is outside the world that applies to conference attendees of Al Gore, to touch them only to change light bulbs, using more public transport or "pray that the people have the courage to change." Democratic discourse conveyed to humanity (ie those who are not "we") want to order to do what is within your reach, who cultivates his garden (Voltaire) if it has not been covered by melting snow. Want to be an interest to collaborate. But in no way intended to question anything. This is how defines citizen action, as there is no room for protest. And so, in effect, there is no room for protest, because the protesters are trying to see beyond. For the protest there is repression, especially as the protesters rarely want to stay in the area that allows them wanting more. They want to see if they have committed crimes and find responsible, and that is personalized too. Should comply with a series of small actions, everyday, not threatening anything. Perhaps the world, this world messed up!, Can return to normal. Well maybe not have to manifest God, since God sometimes chooses to manifest itself beyond the limits of his goodness and can sponsor a military invasion. Meanwhile, be content with that Gore wanted to share with us the blame. The damage is done, seems to say, and now is no time to apportion blame or liability measure: we all have a part to blame. That might be a superficial moral of the following words of Carl Sagan:
"Our technological civilization is putting herself in danger. Worldwide fossil fuels simultaneously degrade the human respiratory health, living in forests, lakes, coasts and oceans, and climate. It is certain that no one intended to cause such damage. Those responsible for the fossil fuel industry tried simply to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders, to offer a product that everybody wanted and to support the military and economic power of nations to which they belonged. He who does not know what they did, that his intentions were benign, which most of us in the developed world, we have benefited from our civilization based on fossil fuels, which many nations and generations contribute to the problem, are reasons to believe that it is time to take the blame anyone. We got into this mess one nation, generation and industry, and not one of them that we remove it. If we are to avert climate danger that is effective, we must work together for long. The main obstacle is, clearly, inertia, resistance to change in the major industrial multinational entities, economic and policies that depend on fossil fuels when they are the ones that create the problem. As a growing awareness of the seriousness of global warming in the United States seems to diminish the political will to do something about it. "
However, the importance should be given to the scientist industrial multinationals as agents of inertia. And these companies are blind spots, large blind spots! of the arguments of Al Gore. Is that your telescope is not only small and isolated galaxies celestial points.
I stopped in the documentary of Al Gore by the excessive diffusion has received "An Inconvenient Truth", and therefore greatly interested me state that I think are the dangerous limitations. Because it is a work without innocence, which aims to separate the climate problem of social and political reality. The applause that lists the U.S. cities to support the reduction of gases causing the greenhouse effect should be stopped one minute we can see the situation after the financial meltdown in the United States, where a bank and an insurance-vastly larger than the twin towers of the WTC, have fallen over the world. If the government after rescue these businesses can not finance the necessary technology to curb emissions of methane, how can you even think about the decline of these gas emissions?
And then, how to deal with the socialization of guilt? Nobody wants to be guilty, since guilt is a gift to be received in secret, no one is willing to take it public. What's more, you can take the blame by words, but never bear any consequences. We can all be guilty as long as nobody asks anything in return. But the reality is unquestionable. Or at least pretty close. And yet, I would not be in favor of skepticism that claims to be apolitical in a time to be "skeptical" is a form of "stop flow" climatic destruction, as the "performance" called "Placebo" held in May 2008, in Argentina, by the artist Mookie Tenenbaum, which was to place a cube of one thousand kilos of ice on the Plaza de Mayo. Since "placebo" is an imaginary cure for a bad imagination, Tenembaum demonstrating against global warming overall, but considering it "an evil imaginary"
"Placebo draws attention to the cloromanía-mania with green, and the termomanía, which were installed decades ago. Termomanía call the obsession with soil temperature and a range of actions that consuming resources and energies of an irrational way to avoid it. On the issue should be noted that the symptoms that alert today on the alleged global warming, are the same on the basis of which the scientific community to announce in 1972-on cover of Newsweek, which, however, that we Greenhouse inevitably lead to a new era glacial. "
Placebo says the artist is" a protest against protesters "and that" there are no environmental problems. " But this've heard it long before. (And guess Tenenbaum knows, or should be required to know that Canadian scientists warned the U.S. government about the dangers of hurricanes in New Orleans, which were much more than an imaginary evil.) I put these ideas here as a mere witness, because the protest has to be more imaginative if they want to continue your existence as it has begun a criminalization of protest, and also should be aware of those who protest against the protesters, as the state's repressive apparatus is usually very short-sighted to distinguish these minutiae. Place an ice cube on the hot to cure an imaginary imaginary disease is, however, less aggressive to human nakedness nudity on the planet, as it did Spencer Tunick in the Aletsch Glacier Chalet in 2007 because the human body naked aggression against the eyes of the moralists is smaller than the planet's aggression against human nakedness. Similarly, the critic is quite violent pacifism, as evidenced by the large number of police surrounding the peaceful demonstrations, such as peaceful protest in London's Heathrow Airport, which sought to extend it not because of their impact on global warming. Violent art, but their confrontation is nothing to be resources that displays the power, or to God, who in fulfillment of His mysterious plan falls to us to ask: what is the world we want to leave the cockroaches.
(Conversation in the College International Book Fair, Veracruz, September 2008)
0 comments:
Post a Comment