Under Gore, the Earth changes and economic problems resulting from an uptick in disasters would have been the central issue, and his approach to
handling this would likewise have been vastly different from the Bush/Cheney tack. Gore, as Kerry, entered the fray in Viet Nam, and did not step away
into safe zones as did both Bush and Cheney, who evaded service. This points to a key difference in personality, the ability to face a frightening
situation, or the reverse, an inability leading to the need to create a blockade, a safe zone for the self. Both Bush and Cheney exhibit a personality that
would themselves run for safety at the first hint of danger, would themselves forgo their responsibilities to the greater good, and would themselves
consider only their personal safety and comfort during times of duress. This is what they did during the Viet Nam era, and they assume the public would
react as they are prone to do, and thus anticipating a public that would desert their responsibilities at the first hint of danger, they insist on a tight
cover-up. Gore and Kerry exhibit different personalities, able to confront and engage a threat, and thus would assume a public that would do likewise,
an extension of the self that affects all perception. How would the world differ, if politicians controlling NASA and the USGS and able to lean on media
outlets within the US with National Security directives, had been under a more stable and mature leadership, as Gore and Kerry represent?
Human cultures are under constant threats, violent weather, droughts and floods, volcanic eruptions, wild fires, plagues, warfare, and earthquakes. All of this is outside of the average humans control, and most of this outside of the control of the power structures. Would an uptick in these threats, from nature, cause humans to leave their jobs, their families, their homes, and run screaming in the streets? The common man waits until the threat is upon them, else economically they cannot continue to make a living, pay the bills, care for their assets and attend to their responsibilities. If this were not true, then how does much of the world live under constant threat, yet go through their day-to-day? A steady uptick in these threats does not change this paradigm. Look to the villages on the sides of volcanoes who delay evacuation until the eruption overtakes them. The goats must be fed and the fields tended. Look to the cities along rivers likely to be flooded by deluges upsteam, where evacuation is forgone for a fight against the flood tide with sand bags and neighbor rescuing neighbor. This is the reaction of the common man, who have their hearts with their communities, and like Gore and Kerry do not run from this.
Thus, a frank discussion of increased Earth changes, and the potential threat this represents, would not create a change in the way the world runs, only increased awareness of potential threats and what steps to be taken in the event. Leave the coastlines and river basins. Plan on self sustaining communities with gardens and flocks and herds. Expect to rebuild new homes and barns, using scrap from the devastation along with carefully chosen supplies. Faced with the potential of losing homes and livelihood, and having to live in a more primitive manner, the public would consider their options. How does this differ from today, when they anticipate a volcanic eruption or a flooded city? Today, they expect shops to be open, insurance to cover losses or neighbors to offer help in restarting a homestead devastated. The potential being discussed would differ in that no such rescue would be possible, as all would be devastated. Thus, the plan would change. Not just run for cover when the disaster struck, but run for safety with key supplies. Not just run to a spot just outside the danger zone, but run to a place where rebuilding a community in safety might be possible. Thus, discussing the potential of a worldwide cataclysm allows the public to plan and prepare in a logical manner.
Boom boxes and video games would be left behind, but the seed stock and gardening tools would be treasured. Cosmetics and high heeled shoes would not be packed, but Vitamin C and first aid supplies would. The stove and refrigerator requiring electricity would be replaced by wood burning stoves and dried beans and rice, and frozen meat with fishing rods and nets. If electricity is a commodity the planner cannot do without, life in the dark or back into the age of candles and torches, serious plans for wind or water mills and their construction or purchase would be laid. The throw-away mentality, where one can always buy another pair of shoes or an new outfit, suddenly concerned with the durability of wool and leather clothing, and how to construct these with a treadle sewing machine or hand tools. Barn raising techniques, such as the Amish employ today, where teamwork and leverage and hand tools do what a crane or forklift might do, will be studied and these hand tools suddenly taken out of the garage and well oiled. The attitude changes, and when the time comes that those with their hearts in their communities are forced to leave, they are already well on the road to rebuilding sustainable communities elsewhere. This is what Gore would have offered, by being more open about the Earth changes and less rigid in an increasingly brittle cover-up, and this is what Kerry would likewise offer and Bush unable, due to his personal inability to deal with threatening situations.