[kevman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Environmentally friendly doesn't have to be ugly either.

But at $100,000 + that isn't the answer...yet...

Originally Posted by Bingo

The Kyoto math being flawed but then the flaws themselves basically ignored gave me great conern to the whole thing and that hsn't disipated. I'm more than sure that man has a role in polluting the atmosphere, logic dictates that for sure, but I'd like to see a greater effort to slow down and get the math right and not race to solutions and finding supporting data to keep the train rolling.

Now that just seems rational...

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The supporters of both sides often (but not always) tend to be persons who have chosen their positions well before even viewing or reading any materials on the subject. It's not likely even a slick easy-to-digest film such as this will change the minds of many (one way or the other), as anyone who wishes to be educated on the matter has probably sought out education in the past.

Bingo! That there is a HUGE part of the problem.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Ok,

Watched it, yah there are some cooky things going on there (the whole Africa thing etc)

But there are a few points which I assume would be true (they wouldnt run it if it was absolutely false and easily disproved?):
.
.
.

Thanks

MYK

You're not trying to actually bring science into the debate are you??? Everyone knows politics run this debate...

Originally Posted by Cowperson

For environmentalists, the trick they have a hard time with is working towards a goal within the confines of human nature . . . .

Assuming the common human, yes, the selfish, self-absorbed human who loves more and not less, regardless of culture, will gladly live like a monk, versus their previous lifestyle, simply because he/she is educated on a particular environmental issue is a loser strategy most of the time.

Further more there are billions of people in developing countries that we want to share our same quality of life. So not only do we have to give up some of our "freedoms" we have to ensure that those that have long strived for what the western world has will never have that chance???


I haven't watched the movie yet but I look forward to approaching it with an open mind.

On a some what related tangent that makes you think a little...
Have any of you read Peter Tertzakian's "A Thousand Barrels a Second"? One of the things he discusses is in history for change to be made things had to be compellingly better. He discussed man's change from wood to coal and coal to oil relating it to the fact that each new technology was compellingly better than it's predecesor. His point being that if electric cars were to ever replace gasoline vehicles they would not only have to be equivalent but they would have to be above and beyond otherwise there would be no means for change.