Ok, all this EV talk reminded me. I did see Al’s movie last week.
My big complaint, he really doesn’t offer solutions, kind of left thinking, were doomed.
That and It looked like his CO output graph and # of people on the planet would have meshed together very nicely also. Not sure why he doesn’t point that out. Other than its more doom and gloom with out a solution.
I saw an interview last night on PBS with them talking about the decision to possibly place Polar Bears on the endangered list. The environmental activist interview was echoing Dirk Kempthorne’s admission that the need for this list was because of the ice melting due to global warming.
Gwen Ifill, the host then asked the activist, “So let’s assume the cause is global warming, what can we do about it in a practical sense” (ie. turn around the global warming).
That pretty much put an end to the discussion.
I think we have to start moving away from the discovery of global warming to actually doing something meaningful about trying to reverse it which is the hard part of course.
I think we have to start moving away from the discovery of global warming to actually doing something meaningful about trying to reverse it which is the hard part of course.
a good idea. except one major problem: there ain’t nothing we can do about it. this train already left the station and it is going full speed ahead. see, “field notes from a catastrophe” by elizabeth kolbert. you will quickly see why.
OK, fair enough, but as I’ve said here, we MAY be able to mitigate the worst effects if WE ACTUALLY MODIFY OUR PRESENT BEHAVIOR.
What’s the alternative? Do nothing? Tell me how that benefits you personally.
Sorry the libraries closed right now, so why cant we put a whole bunch of mirrors on the poles to reflect the sunlight back up instead of it being absorbed into the water?
One step at a time. Barely 6 months ago, gw was still considered debatable by most people/media/politicians. Al Gore’s movie helped push the issue to the forefront of people’s consiousness and now, yes, the next step is to start looking for workable solutions.
I think it still is, but it appears we have no time to waste, and Al has been giving this speech for years, I would think the scientist would have ideas/ proposals by now.
They do, however, implementing them causes a bit of an issue with the political folks as it will cause some detrimental effects on the economy and no president or prime minister wants to reign that parade into their country.
It will continue to be ignored until it is too late. Just the way I see it.
I think it still is, but it appears we have no time to waste, and Al has been giving this speech for years, I would think the scientist would have ideas/ proposals by now.
The ideas are out there. You can pay for many of them with energy efficiency savings, but not all of them. And right now we are unwilling to pay for nebulous emission reductions as an aggregate.
Just about every state has an energy efficiency plan, but lack the resources to put very much into action. California and NY are the leaders in this area. But some consider the rules they enact to be draconian. The result, at least in California, is that the energy consumption per capita has stayed stagnant over the past couple of decades, while the average in the U.S. has gone up 50% or more.
This one may be a bit more “lefty” than you might like, but try renting “KiloWatt Ours”. There are a few things that I find a little unsettling about how they tell the story, but they provide a good list of things you can do in your home to save money (and energy).
that’s the problem with hypocrits like Al Gore. quick to point out the problem, but never offer a solution.
meanwhile, he lives in a big ass house and jet sets all over the world. hmmmm…
that’s the problem with hypocrits like Al Gore. quick to point out the problem, but never offer a solution.
Pointing out a problem and not offering a solution does not make you a hypocrite.
Pointing out a problem and getting people to recognize we have one is the first step in doing something about it, which Gore is trying to do and I think he deserves credit for that.
I’ve read quite a bit about this (from all sides, I hope) and here’s what I’ve learned.
What’s clear: Global warming is happening.
What’s unclear: The extent (if any) that this was caused by humans. More importantly, what (if anything) humans can do now to mitigate the problem.
The trouble with Al’s movie is that it mixes science with speculation and fails to distinguish between the two. He, like many other politicians, is in a rush to “do something” even though it’s unclear that these actions would do any good, and regardless of the consequences they would have on government spending, people’s jobs, etc.
"I think we have to start moving away from the discovery of global warming to actually doing something meaningful about trying to reverse it which is the hard part of course. "
So are you saying you want to start a global cooling plan? Maybe we should pick a year when we feel the global environment was ideal and then try to maintain that by adding stimulus to either cool or heat the world as necessary. If it starts to cool, we could (according to many of you) just release a bunch more CO2 and the temperature would go up. If it gets too warm, we just have to set off a few volcanoes and we can cool this place right back down.
But, kittycat, he does use his family’s inherited tobacco money to buy carbon credits as offsets, so that makes everything all right.
What’s underlying a lot of this debate is the assumption that the current temperature range is somehow the “correct” temperature of the earth. It’s simply the temperature range that we’re used to, and have build our lives around.
Over the millenia, the earth has warmed and cooled significantly, yet we’re supposed to believe that the current warming is unnatural and due only to our CO2 emissions. Worse yet, we’re supposed to believe that reducing our emissions in the next few years can somehow reverse or mitigate this warming.
I think Al’s focus being on global action via political channels is well placed. Individual efforts certainly count, and voting en masse with individual dollars certainly influences the market, but it will take national, international and global initiatives to make any meaningful changes beyond feel-good individual measures. He could drive a prius, ride the bus, etc., but I think he feels it’s more important to bring the message to the masses than to lead by example. (He’s tried to lead once before, didn’t go so well…
That being said, I found it odd that he never discussed the full spectrum of GHG’s, specifically methane and nitrous oxide. While they aren’t growing in concentration at the rate of C02, they are still growing and are just as responsible for trapping heat (methane traps 20x more than CO2). Methane and NO are produced mainly by cattle production, which is primarily responsible for rainforest destruction, which is a carbon sink that aids in reducing GHG accumulation in the atmosphere. Why he did not address the fact that beef demand and consumption is the key component in this highly destructive cycle, I don’t know.
I suspect Mr. Gore enjoys a good thickburger now and then.
"I think we have to start moving away from the discovery of global warming to actually doing something meaningful about trying to reverse it which is the hard part of course. "
So are you saying you want to start a global cooling plan?
I’d love to but as we say here, it’s above my pay scale. My point is that we keep hearing how global warming is the problem but hear little about solutions, that’s all. I can only take care of my little square of earth and do my best to conserve but I have been doing that my whole life and apparently, after seeing Gore’s movie, I’m not doing too well.
Oh, so you are now all claiming that If I reduce my energy consumption, that will reduce global warming. Has anyone proved or demonstrated that yet?
Now if Al were so sincere about this why is he not driving around town in either EV or a Pious? why has he not downsized his home, to one more appropriate to his needs? why is he flying and not taking the train?
Aren’t all of the above, practical things he could do to help, and demonstrate his belief’s by his actions? I don’t think any of the above are asking to much of him, yet he does NONE of them. therefor I conclude that either those things won’t work hence he is not doing them, or this is not that big of a deal, since he is the expert/spokesman.
I will take my lead from AL.
What’s underlying a lot of this debate is the assumption that the current temperature range is somehow the “correct” temperature of the earth. It’s simply the temperature range that we’re used to, and have build our lives around.
It is the “correct” temperature range for supporting human life, which is probably why we appeared when we did. The earth can, and will, exist with much higher and lower ranges, but those will not support human life beyond a point.
Over the millenia, the earth has warmed and cooled significantly, yet we’re supposed to believe that the current warming is unnatural and due only to our CO2 emissions. Worse yet, we’re supposed to believe that reducing our emissions in the next few years can somehow reverse or mitigate this warming.
If there is a measurable historical correlation (over hundreds of thousands of years) between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2, why would you think there would be no temperature increase occurring now (which, apparently, there is), with CO2 levels at unprecedented levels?
You can argue that we don’t produce GHG’s with our activities, but you’d be wrong.
You can argue that CO2 doesn’t correlate with global temperature, but you’d be wrong.
You can argue that reducing emissions will have no effect on global warming, there is no logical reason to believe that to be true.