"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[photon]

Even if we went to below 1990 levels, other countries like China aren't even part of it, so our net impact on the planet would be basically nothing.

Rather than the stick, why not use the carrot. I would love to see incentives to people to buy more effecient or electric cars. Have programs to reward people who buy high effeciency furnaces, CFL lights, etc. Set clear guidelines for companies so they can meet them, but do it over time so companies have time to adjust, to find new cleaner ways to do thing. Use the strength of the economy to improve things, don't harm it with rash actions.

Even if tomorrow we were at 1990 levels, it would have no impact on the world if we only account for 2% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Same situation there, it's a global problem and global solutions need to make people and governments want to change. You can't just tell China to drop emissions by 50%, they're producing so much of what the world consumes right now. Better would be global programs to find and improve cleaner ways to generate energy, find and promote more effecient ways of consuming it, etc.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

jolinar, I never actually said that I thought Kyoto was a great idea either. I'm a little confused as to how this suddenly has become a debate about the merits of Kyoto, which is only one proposal, and a very short-term one at that.

Well.....here's the thing....Kyoto is "THE PLAN" as far as most people are concerned with CO2 reduction. So what else is there to talk about? I have said that reduction is required....if you are not talking about Kyoto....what are you talking about?

I'm also a bit puzzled. Climate science is, in your view, too complicated for scientists to make accurate predictions. Yet economics is not so complicated that you won't believe off-the-cuff predictions from Chamber-of-Commerce types?

Please tell me you aren't saying that economics is as complex as climatology! And I posted more than just the Chamber of Commerce version.

That's a little weird. One group is trained in making predictions in a field where trends are by and large predictable in the longer term. The other group lacks academic training and is working in a field where predictions have historically been impossible. Why are you willing to believe the second group and not the first?

Humans and their activity have a tendancy to be predictable.....climate on the other hand.....not so much.

I'm not suggesting that I know what the economic impact of Kyoto or any other proposal would be. All I'm saying is that we must FIND a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while preserving our way of life, finding alternative sources of energy, cultivating environmentally responsibly uses of resources, etc. This has to be done on a global level, not only a national one--but of course the largest offenders MUST be brought on board for any initiative to make any sense at all.

This is exactly what I want aswell.

It isn't realistic to suggest that we can stop using fossil fuels overnight. But it is long past time to start developing alternatives. And I'm not the only one who thinks this. Oil companies have started spending millions of dollars researching alternatives so that they can make the transition when it inevitably must happen. If THEY believe that this is important, why can't everybody else?

Most people do, including myself.....but lets do it in a responsible manner.

Even GEORGE W. BUSH has acknowledged that there's a need to address climate change. Other "socialists" who have said that this must be a priority in the next little while include Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, and a host of both Republicans AND democrats in the U.S.

No-one's saying it's going to be easy--what we are saying is that it must be done. When even Bush comes on board, you know that it's time to sit up and listen.

Not sure why you are bringing this up??? I have said many, many times that something needs to be done....so...???

I'm even more confused by your comment about the Liberals. Nothing in the Liberals' history inclines me to believe that they will take swift, decisive action on global warming. This isn't about party politics. It's about the Earth, which is kind of important because we need it to live on.

I brought the Liberals into the equation because their main priority is Kyoto.....nothing is more important than Kyoto.....they calim they will stop and no end to meet Kyoto targets.....that is what people are talking about, that is what the movie is about......that is why I am talking about Kyoto.....

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I was specifically responding to another poster's prediction of dire economic consequences is ANY action were taken (even the hypothetical Iowa_Flames_Fan environmental program! )

When did I say the economy will go to **** if ANY attempt is made at CO2 reduction. In fact....I have said the exact opposite....please....read what I have posted....in more than 1 thread have I said something needs to be done....but over a longer period of time, with the global community on board. You can't solve a problem when the major stake holders are not involved.....and Canada is not a major stake holder in the overall scheme of things.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a fair point, actually. The thing is that frequently people who claim we aren't the cause are doing so as an argument against taking any action at all. And if you think about it, if we aren't a primary cause of climate change, it stands to reason that not much that we do will help. But you're right that there are a range of opinions on that point.

Frequently? I doubt it. You may run across a few that are severely resistant to doing anything, but I doubt any of them would not want our air cleaned up... just not at any cost.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I was specifically responding to another poster's prediction of dire economic consequences is ANY action were taken (even the hypothetical Iowa_Flames_Fan environmental program! )

That's not even the case...

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree that we all need to consume less and help the environment more. I think almost all people agree with that. What we don't need to do is go all crazy following these domes day sayers and jump on board a flawed agreement like Kyoto.

Far be it from me to defend Jolinar, but you both are jumping to conclusions about the other that aren't true. His conclusions about you are much easier to refute (and have been done before), which is why I'm directing this at you.. and Hulkrogan.. and all the others who want to assume what he's thinking.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

What worries me is the possibility that the passage of Kyoto will lead to a belief that this issue is done and over with, when what's needed is long-term change in the way that we consume energy.

This sounds exactly like what the Liberals did after they signed onto the agreement however many years ago. I will admit that they tried a few initiatives, but with very limited success. Now they want to bring it back? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by photon

Even if we went to below 1990 levels, other countries like China aren't even part of it, so our net impact on the planet would be basically nothing.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You can't solve a problem when the major stake holders are not involved.....and Canada is not a major stake holder in the overall scheme of things.

The problem now is the whole world seems to have this attitude. China says they aren't going to worry about it until the US does, because the US created the problem in the first place. Canada says, why us? We're just tiny and it won't matter. We'll do it when the US/China does it. I'm sure if the US started the ball rolling people would follow, but I really don't see that happening. Someone has to be first. Sure we can't make much of an impact if just Canada does it, but if you get 10 countries with similar C02 output to Canada on board all the sudden you are getting somewhere. Eventually, the last countries to hold out will be pressured into following.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well.....here's the thing....Kyoto is "THE PLAN" as far as most people are concerned with CO2 reduction. So what else is there to talk about? I have said that reduction is required....if you are not talking about Kyoto....what are you talking about?

He wasn't even talking about a plan... he was talking about the need for a plan and you automatically jumped to the Kyoto assumption.

You two both agree that changes are needed, and both agree that Kyoto isn't the answer. You're closer to being on the same page than you think.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

When did I say the economy will go to **** if ANY attempt is made at CO2 reduction.

Well, here are your exact words.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

BTW...if you think the oil sector would be the only industry affected by a policy such as Kyoto, or Iowa Flames Environmental Program.....you really do not have any clue.

We both know there is no "Iowa Flames Environmental Program." What you clearly meant by that was to say that Kyoto OR anything else that a reasonable person could come up with.

And for the record, climatology and economics are probably, as a matter of scale, similarly complex. There's one difference. Historically, climate forecasts have been possible with relative accuracy, especially in the long term. On the other hand, you could fill a bookstore with economic predictions that have turned out to be wrong. I'm just curious as to why you'll believe one set of predictions but not the other. You haven't really answered that question, except by acting incredulous. Yes, economics is complex. I don't pretend to understand the long term implications either of global warming or of acting to curtail it--neither should you.

Here's the truth, as I see it: alternative energies MUST be found, both because of the global effects of greenhouse gases, and also because fossil fuels, though we don't know with any certainty how much of them is left, are 100% guaranteed to be finite.

What this means is that there will be two kinds of economies. Those that are prepared to be responsive to this inevitable change, and therefore thrive--and those that are too inflexible to react to them, and therefore crash. Hand-wringing and sandwich-board doomsday predictions aren't helpful. If we think an economic crash is likely, doesn't it make sense to try to come up with solutions now rather than later?

And no, this isn't about Kyoto. Kyoto is a tip-of-the-iceberg solution that is in any case for all intents and purposes dead, since the U.S. has made it clear that they will not participate. It would be beyond stupid to pretend that it's Kyoto or nothing. It's time to think outside the box and come up with something new. If the Liberals are still pushing Kyoto, then they're idiots. Kyoto was a mealy-mouthed compromise that wasn't able to generate the amount of consensus that was needed. It's time for new initiatives and new proposals--past time, actually.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

The problem now is the whole world seems to have this attitude. China says they aren't going to worry about it until the US does, because the US created the problem in the first place. Canada says, why us? We're just tiny and it won't matter. We'll do it when the US/China does it. I'm sure if the US started the ball rolling people would follow, but I really don't see that happening. Someone has to be first. Sure we can't make much of an impact if just Canada does it, but if you get 10 countries with similar C02 output to Canada on board all the sudden you are getting somewhere. Eventually, the last countries to hold out will be pressured into following.

As others have brought up, some of the European countries have already started. Norway being one example that I remember being talked about.

It's not about being first to do it. Someone's already been first.

To me, it's more about "how much action" and "consequences of those actions".

Canada starting to act won't influence the US or China one iota. IMO, no need to overact and destroy our economy (Kyoto) for little impact, but definitely a need to act in a more rational manner.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Frequently? I doubt it. You may run across a few that are severely resistant to doing anything, but I doubt any of them would not want our air cleaned up... just not at any cost.



That's not even the case...



Far be it from me to defend Jolinar, but you both are jumping to conclusions about the other that aren't true. His conclusions about you are much easier to refute (and have been done before), which is why I'm directing this at you.. and Hulkrogan.. and all the others who want to assume what he's thinking.



This sounds exactly like what the Liberals did after they signed onto the agreement however many years ago. I will admit that they tried a few initiatives, but with very limited success. Now they want to bring it back? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Fair points. I guess for me, there's a difference between putting the onus on individuals and putting it on corporations and governments--but you're right that we're not that far from being on the same page--though I would also argue that where I think Kyoto was an ineffective proposal that wouldn't have done enough to curtail emissions, jolinar thinks it would have caused the economy to crash. It's possible that both are true--all the more reason to come up with another alternative.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If the Liberals are still pushing Kyoto, then they're idiots. Kyoto was a mealy-mouthed compromise that wasn't able to generate the amount of consensus that was needed. It's time for new initiatives and new proposals--past time, actually.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...4?hub=Politics

It's not just the Liberals that are idiots....

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by calculoso

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...4?hub=Politics

It's not just the Liberals that are idiots....

I don't want to get into too much of a political debate--because it's been a while since I followed Canadian politics very closely--but it kind of sounds like the opposition parties are using Kyoto to play "gotcha." Politics is politics, I guess--but forcing a bill through knowing that its only consequence will be to put the government in a tough place is pretty irresponsible.

And as I said before, Kyoto isn't even a good long-term solution, even if its targets could be met. In an ideal world, both sides would attempt to come together to come up with something else, but I guess that's not really how it works.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

but it kind of sounds like the opposition parties are using Kyoto to play "gotcha." Politics is politics, I guess--but forcing a bill through knowing that its only consequence will be to put the government in a tough place is pretty irresponsible.

Yeah that's just a little annoying, knowing that they are just screwing around, trying to make the other guys look bad while they all know that not a thing is going to change.

What are we going to do, fine ourselves if we don't get with the program?

If they do come up with a plan in the next 60 days I'm sure the words "study" and "studies" will be prominent.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

We both know there is no "Iowa Flames Environmental Program." What you clearly meant by that was to say that Kyoto OR anything else that a reasonable person could come up with.

That is not the case...and you know that. A reasonable person would take a responsible approach at the problem....not an approach like Kyoto.

This little debate between you and I started when "I" brought up Kyoto. Yes...I was talking about Kyoto and how I believed that if we implemented it, it would be bad....very bad for our economy. You brought up a point where you believed I said that ANY intervention would be bad for the economy....which was not correct.

So....what I am suppose to think we are discussing when you were the one that commented on my Kyoto remark. Kyoto......

[Salisbury]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

The problem now is the whole world seems to have this attitude. China says they aren't going to worry about it until the US does, because the US created the problem in the first place. Canada says, why us? We're just tiny and it won't matter. We'll do it when the US/China does it. I'm sure if the US started the ball rolling people would follow, but I really don't see that happening. Someone has to be first. Sure we can't make much of an impact if just Canada does it, but if you get 10 countries with similar C02 output to Canada on board all the sudden you are getting somewhere. Eventually, the last countries to hold out will be pressured into following.

No I dont buy that. If we do it it, is only going to make us feel better about ourselves that we are doing the 'right thing'. Our economy will suffer whilst those who dont partake will steam ahead, overtaking those 'green' countries, with no total reduction in carbon emissions, making our valiant efforts a wate of time. I say if we do this, reduce our carbon output and cripple our economy, then the rest of world has to join in also (including USA and the developing world), otherwise what exactly is the point?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by calculoso

As others have brought up, some of the European countries have already started. Norway being one example that I remember being talked about.

I actually brought up Norway, and used it to make the point that environmentalist policies don't have to kill your economy. I'm not saying the world should go out and destroy their economies and watch the US and China steam ahead. My point was there are policies that really have negligible economic impact that would actually be a really good start. Once this is demonstrated by enough countries, the US and China will have a more difficult time saying "Nah... we don't feel like it".

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Could someone provide me some information on CO2? Colour me uninformed, but I'm not clear on how CO2 is directly connected to Global Warming. I know that Venus's atmosphere is 95% CO2, and has a surface temperature of around 400 C or so, and that Mars' atmosphere also has about 95% CO2, but has a surface temperature of 6 C, and that the difference is pressure. Earth has 0.0035% CO2 in the atmosphere and our average temperature is what... 20C? I'm not convinced that CO2 has a direct affect on surface temperature.

Chlorine emissions I can totally see, since Chlorine ions can yank an oxygen ion out of an ozone molecule. I would assume other pollutants such as sulphur also depleting the ozone layer.

I know that ozone has a direct affect on the amount of radiation reaches the surface. Does someone know the effects CO2 has? Better yet, anyone know where we can read this UN report for ourselves? It sounds like it would be an interesting read!

[Bill Bumface]

There is a better graph in the Wikipedia entry for global warming.

[troutman]

Al Gore is planning a MEGA-Concert:

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdail...-mega-concert/

Al Gore is teaming up with the organizers of Live 8 and a slew of music biggest stars for a twenty-four hour concert across seven continents (yes, including Antarctica) on July 7th (7/7/07) to raise awareness of environmental issues. The Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Foo Fighters, Snoop Dogg, John Mayer, Akon, A.F.I., Fall Out Boy, Tim McGraw, and Faith Hill are among the participating artists being announced at a press conference in Los Angeles today.

[Jake]

All I can say is that all of the harmful pollutents being put into our atmosphere can't be a good thing... but I don't see why we should harm our economy by instituting a policy (Kyoto) that would have an imperceptible effect on future global temperatures. If we're going to do something at least make it something worth while and do it when we know a more about the situation.

There have been no climate change studies involving the entire CO2 cycle. None have considered the ocean as a CO2 resevoir.

There also havn't been enough studies that have taken the earths internal heat flow into account. There is a very strong coorelation between the earths surface temperature and internal heat flux. One interesting fact is that there is a fresh water lake below the ice and above the bedrock in Antarctica with a temperature of 1 degree. The internal heat of the earth raised its temp by about 20 degrees. If internal heat flux is significant then CO2 is responsible for alot less of the temperature increase than many think.

Also, the coorelation between CO2 and temperature is not as clear as some are making it out to be.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by troutman

Al Gore is planning a MEGA-Concert:

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdail...-mega-concert/

Al Gore is teaming up with the organizers of Live 8 and a slew of music biggest stars for a twenty-four hour concert across seven continents (yes, including Antarctica) on July 7th (7/7/07) to raise awareness of environmental issues. The Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Foo Fighters, Snoop Dogg, John Mayer, Akon, A.F.I., Fall Out Boy, Tim McGraw, and Faith Hill are among the participating artists being announced at a press conference in Los Angeles today.

Is that what happens when you let Al Gore pick the line up?

(We don't have a sick smilie...)