An Inconvenient Truth

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(B Rad @ Jul 9 2006, 05:51 PM) [snapback]283575[/snapback]</div>

It is on the "list"

 

I saw it a few weeks ago up here in Toronto.

For those around here - it's playing at the Cumberland Theater (Yorkville) in Toronto.

GREAT movie.

 

Funny you should ask. I saw it the night before we picked up our Prius. It made our choice all that more satisfying.

I already knew many of the facts about global warming, but having it all in one place, with an excellent delivery, made it quite interesting.

///d@

 

Haven't seen it. However, I tend to agree with Samuelson, below. All of the sermonizing by Gore and others really doesn't get at the core issue.

For those who believe we are headed for catastrophe, no realistically attainable CO2 reductions are going to make a significant difference in global temperature. For instance, the Kyoto protocol, which the European community loves to flagellate the U.S. with, will result in an immeasurable temperature reduction by 2100 - and note that the Europeans cannot even live up to their commitments on that, despite the preaching.

See here for references:
- Even universal acceptance of the Kyoto rules would postpone warming by a mere six years in 2100 (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5280)
- Europe behind on Kyoto pledges (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4561576.stm)

We will need a technological solution - which is something the global warming movement has in large measure failed to accept.

=============================================================
ROBERT J. SAMUELSON NEWSWEEK
Global warming and technology

July 5, 2006

Al Gore calls global warming an “inconvenient truth,” as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and – barring major technological breakthroughs – we can't do much about it. This has long been obvious. Let me explain.

From 2003 to 2050, world population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty – and freeze everyone else's living standards – we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.

Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways: improve energy efficiency; or shift to energy sources with lower (or no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China, for instance, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now, a new report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections cited above come from the report).

The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent – and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere. Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do “renewables” (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.

Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.

Since 1800, there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the global weather system. But if the majority view is correct, the IEA report indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45 percent increase may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is uncertain; so are the consequences.

I draw two conclusions – one political, one practical.

No government will adopt the Draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're “doing something.” The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.

Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts 221 cities that have “ratified” Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global warming. They're public relations exercises and – if they impose costs – are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing oil; but the global warming effect would be trivial.)

The practical conclusion is that, if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.

 

Could you please provide a link in the future and only copy/paste a small portion? Copying and pasteing an entire article is a violation of copyright and does not conform to Priuschat posting policy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 11 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]284809[/snapback]</div>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6070400789.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jul 11 2006, 09:26 PM) [snapback]284800[/snapback]</div>

I love it when people who haven't even seen a movie post criticism that happens to be completely wrong and completely contradicted by the movie itself.

It is the global-warming-denial crowd that refuses to accept the idea of a technological solution. Everyone else is clamoring for new technologies: Improvements to solar, improvements to batteries, improvements to fuel efficiency, improvements to power distribution, improvements to meeting transportation demand, improvements to electric cars, etc. The global-warming-deniers fear that limiting carbon emissions will lead to economic disaster, while everyone else believes that technological innovation will continue to drive our economy in a reduced-carbon-output world.

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jul 11 2006, 11:26 PM) [snapback]284800[/snapback]</div>

Well, ironically I did see it this evening. Even if this might hurt, I must say to you, TimBikes, that to come to any conclusion and then include text when you haven't even seen the movie is totally unresponsible.

I have seen many documentaries and this one is so well done and with such undisputable data to support it that I emplore you to see it for yourself before coming to a conclusion. Saying "All of the sermonizing by Gore and others really doesn't get at the core issue" and you haven't seen the movie? I think you might feel like a retraction would be appropriate. Trust me, you have really hit a nerve with me. You read someone elses conclusion and automatically conclude they are right before seeing it for yourself? If this isn't what is happening in congress I dont know what is. We have all the republicans agreeing with themselves and the same for the democrats. Can't anyone make up their own minds up anymore?

B Rad:

I totally agree with you this is not a political movie. I don't give a rip of the timing. The message is what is important. I can not fathom anyone with any ability to comprehend this subject after seeing this documentary to not conclude that we have an extremely serious global problem on our hands. There is no single answer which will get us out of this issue.

The message with this movie is simple: AWARENESS

Gore had taken this message to congress and it fell flat on its behind. Not because of the message, I might add. Our kids are going to inherit a world which will be painful to live in if we don't do the simple suggestions provided in the movie, NOW. These suggestions will not kill us to do them and Gore shows that it would have a dramatic effect.

After seeing this documentary I am convinced it was presented from his heart. I can tell if this was politically motivated and I believe he is frustrated beyond belief in the culture we call Washington, D.C. So, he is taking the message he has given over a thousand times to the people in a way which more people will see.

I pray people will truly listen and allow for the possibility he might be right. For if he is and we do nothing I believe we will collectively pay a consequence never before seen.

See the movie. Learn from it. Then comment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Jul 11 2006, 10:41 PM) [snapback]284830[/snapback]</div>

Trust me Three60guy - I have studied up on the issue in extensive detail for nearly 2 years. I doubt Gore is going to enlighten me with any new data I haven't already read about.

Regardless - my comment (and that of Samuelson) is that the issue is one of solutions, not problems. Awareness is all well and good, but it doesn't solve the problem. Since you have seen the movie and I have not, perhaps you can enlighten me to Gore's solution. More Kyoto protocols, perhaps? :lol:



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Jul 11 2006, 10:35 PM) [snapback]284829[/snapback]</div>

Bob - please re-read my post. My whole point is that we need a technological solution. By the way, I did not pass judgement on the science of global warming in my post, so why am I a "denier"?

And why is it that one cannot have a reasoned discussion about the issue without being personally attacked? Do any of you care to discuss the core comment of my post, instead of attacking me?

Gore movie or no Gore movie, We will need a technological solution - which is something the global warming movement has in large measure failed to accept.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jul 12 2006, 01:24 AM) [snapback]284834[/snapback]</div>

Gore's core element is what you attacked without seeing the movie. And you expect us to have a reasoned discussion on core elements when you have already made your mind up without viewing this material? (is this Bush I am talking to?)

And I quote "I doubt Gore is going to enlighten me with any new data I haven't already read about." Dang if that doesn't sound downright biased. Go see the material and then comment. Then and only then can this be on a level playing field. I personally will not be sucked into arguments concerning solutions when the population on the whole is confused by material you suggest. All it does is create doubt and that is covered in the movie as well.

So, as I said before.... (please)

See the movie. Learn from it. Then comment. Then and only then can we have a reasoned discussion, which we will be happy to have with you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Jul 12 2006, 02:07 AM) [snapback]284845[/snapback]</div>

I sense a great deal of "smug" in this post.

BTW - Blah, blah, blah. AlGore's views on GW are well know and well published. Hence, seeing the movie is not a prerequisite to engaging in a reasonable discussion re GW.

 

Gore doesn't really want to fix global warming. If he was so sure about his data and his solution to the problem, he'd play the movie on prime time TV with limited commercial interruption.

Oh.. wait... it's about money.. Global warming and saving the planet is not the primary focus..

If saving the planet was the issue, it wouldn't matter how much it cost to produce the film or how much it cost to put it on the air. That is just money. It's the planet that we care about...

Or... is it the money.. I think it's the money... Gore wants $9.50 from me to become educated and begin to care about global warming and to be convinced I need to change my lifestyle... Why not intrigue me into watching it on prime time, sunday evening on NBC?

Because it is about the money....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Jul 12 2006, 12:07 AM) [snapback]284845[/snapback]</div>

Sorry - I've only seen 1 movie in a theater in the past year (you know, family and kids take up most of my time). So when it hits DVD I may get around to renting it. In the meantime, as others have stated, Gore's views are pretty well established. So, back to my point, which you seem unable or unwilling to discuss:

We will need a technological solution - which is something the global warming movement has in large measure failed to accept.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 12 2006, 09:43 AM) [snapback]284930[/snapback]</div>

Another who hasn't seen the movie. How obvious.

Geez folks, this is too important to just put out posts here just to irritate me. Yes, I agree with Gore after I saw his presentation. But if you "think" you would not be a believer, don't just sit and write opposite views just to take the opposite point of view.....see what Gore has to offer and then comment from an informed point of view.

And if this has been as important of an issue for TimBikes to research for 2 years I would think he would prioritize the two hours to see Gore's point of view as well.

This bantering with TimBikes will now end on my part because it serves no useful purpose. If he sees the movie I would love the interaction. If that is smuggness, so be it. But to have a useful and informed conversation with him on a subject this important I would think would bring our awareness up for us all. And wouldn't that be a win-win for everyone?

Otherwise, let's get more comments from others who have seen this informative documentary.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Jul 12 2006, 08:16 AM) [snapback]284955[/snapback]</div>

It is the movie that serves no real purpose. As my boss always says, don't bring me a problem, bring me a solution. Seriously 360guy - do you really think that after reading hundreds of journal articles, news articles, several books, and hundreds of hours of discussion and debate on climate change forums a 2 hour pop movie is going to bring me a lot of info? Why can't you just address the issue I raised?


We will need a technological solution - which is something the global warming movement has in large measure failed to accept.

Oh - maybe because Gore didn't give you the answer in his movie...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Jul 12 2006, 10:16 AM) [snapback]284955[/snapback]</div>

So, it's not about the money with you either....

PM me and I'll tell you where to send the $20 so my wife and I can go see the movie. I would be happy to spend the 2 hours to see it, but I"m not giving Al my $20.

My point was: If it's about curing the planet then Al should spend the money to put the movie in front of the audience(movie production costs, airtime costs, etc). If it's about the money then he should charge $9.50 per person and see if anyone comes to see it. He will get a small percentage of people to see it at $9.50... a small enough percentage that if ever one that saw it changed their behavior to whatever he is proposing, it won't make a bit of difference.

If it's not about money, he should put it on primetime TV, free to all America so that his message gets out to all of us, so that maybe all of us will change our behavior. All of us changing our behavior might make a difference.

All of us paying $9.50 to see the movie will only make Al more wealthy (and maybe change our behavior).

I stand by my premise: Al made the movie hoping there are enough tree huggers that will go see it so that he(and his investors) can make a profit on this movie. That's the primary objective. If someone changes their habits after watching the movie, that is a secondary side effect.

Please note that my take on this movie is not challenging or supporting it's content. I am only addressing misplaced motive. (his actions are not lining up with his claims)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 12 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]284984[/snapback]</div>

I can certainly understand your point of view if you didn't understand that he must have had costs involved in producing this documentary. His producers, meaning the people who put up the money to make this film, no doubt want to get some reasonable chance at recovering their investment. That is how it works in this country. And depending on how many people go see it in the theaters will determine how soon it goes to DVD and then to free TV airing. Can you name ANY other film that doesn't require that business plan? Be honest!!! If you were responsible for the investment in a movie wouldn't you require it to maximize the return? Seems reasonable to me.

 

I saw it!! With a theater full of the choir. So he was basically preachin to the choir. I did learn a few things though. I enjoyed it.

Came home and visited the web site and signed up for that terra pass thing. Whatever that was. I got it in the mail and its still sittin there. It eased my conscience a little.

HOWEVER, I took the "footprint" test (or whatever its called) and guess what?

My big ole house with too few occupants cancels out any benefit I gain from driving my Prius.

I guess it could be worse though - I could still live in a big house and be driving my old LANDCRUISER too