An Inconvienent Truth

It's not just the melting ice that's going to raise average sea levels, it's the expansion of the existing water as the temperature increases.

 

I watched the DVD this past weekend. I see from the comments on this thread that people don't appreciate that Al Gore brought the message. No matter what you think of Gore's motives, solutions to Global Warming will most likely require politicians to work cooperatively to make any progress. People working independently and in separate groups with specific agendas won't get it done either, we need someone who can bring this diversity together to bear on the problem.

Regarding the ultimate question, are we going through global warming? Irregardless of the causes, to this untrained person, it seems unnatural to see the great loss of ice and snow cover that has occurred in my lifetime.......or anyone's lifetime. I would say that things are warming up quite nicely.... and rapidly.
Schnozz

 

As long as you resign yourself to the fact that you'll be listening to Al Gore for the next hour and a half, the movie wasn't that bad (more like a slideshow than a movie, though).

I don't know why others objected to the "personal" stuff from Gore - sure beat looking at slides.

Just make sure you're at least 45 feet above sea level and you'll be fine. Oh, and move to Canada.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 2 2007, 07:29 PM) [snapback]369852[/snapback]</div>

The personal stuff was good. It exemplified how many of us feel when subjected to new evidence that makes us question our worldview. I just think the political stuff shouldn't have been included. It had very little to do with GW and more to do with showing how he was wronged by GWB. I like Gore and literally hate GWB but from a scientific standpoint I don't think it should have been included as it simply angers the very people who we need to see the movie and change..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hjon71 @ Jan 2 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]369595[/snapback]</div>

Gosh... thanks for quoting the ENTIRE thing again though! Serious... please don't do that. Comment great. Quote the whole page-long post again... not great. Thanks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 2 2007, 09:03 AM) [snapback]369592[/snapback]</div>

Hi Tripp!

Far cheaper, yes. But more valuable? Totally depends on the circumstances. And it sounds like Chogan's situation is quite similar to mine. On my house, the PV system supported itself instantly from the moment I turned it on. A solar water heater would take LOTS of years to not only pay back the energy used in making and installing it, but would also be a huge financial loss in the meantime. While I don't like to think of these things only in terms of dollars out of my pocket - it is the energy payback part that disturbs me the most. I use VERY little NG (I have NG water heater and NG central heat) but use a lot of electricity. I'd have been foolish not to install PV, which is SAVING me money every years since I installed it. And after pricing solar hot water, I've determined that I'd be pretty foolish to install it here - because of my situation. If I had four teenagers showering twice a day here, I'd put one in yesterday. But my little family is well trained in hot water use, and it just doesn't make sense.... for us.

2c that you can spend any way you'd like.

 

i cant say that i am a fan of gore, although my respect for him has grown exponentially. here is a guy who was defeated and by the ugliest, underhanded election in our history.

he could have just went home, spent his family's million's living the good life.

but he chose to keep presenting the message that he had hoped to act on when he became president. i have to say i grudgingly admire him for his strength of conviction and his tireless efforts to bring his message to the masses. this movie has undoubtedly created a movement towards addressing the issue of GW more than anything yet to date.

now is he just doing this to build momentum for another try at the presidency?? maybe... and i still blame him as being the major contributing factor towards letting the big three get out of complying with major CAFE legislation... but that was not because he favored that move, he was simply outmaneuvered by the best of one of the most powerful industries in the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jan 2 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]369615[/snapback]</div>

I suppose I agree with you, but ... a smidge of leadership here would make this happen a lot faster. Like most people, I guess, I prefer situations where my success or failure depends on my own efforts. I loathe the fact that we're all in the same boat, so that the success depends on average behavior, not my personal responsibility. Absent leadership, I'm forced to depend on the altruism of the average American. I think that's a slender reed on which to hang our future. And I don't think it will be enough. From the standpoint of economics, this is exactly the situation in which collective (government) action makes sense. But we see zero action at the political level, and I'm afraid that's an accurate reflection of the will of the American people. So Gore has it right - first you need to change people's minds, then you can get some action on this.

It's not as if the economics here is rocket science. To the neoclassical economist, the problem is that the true cost of using carbon-based fuel is higher than your out-of-pocket cost. And the benefit of buring the fuel is private, but the harm is public (widespread, planetwide). How much higher remains a guess. But zero is clearly the wrong number. The neoclassical solution would be a carbon tax. Tax the carbon content of fuels. But then, people misunderstand taxes. Contrary to popular opinion, it's not as if the money disappears. It is just redistributed. If you worry about the disproportionate impact on the poor, use the money from the tax to buy down income and social security taxes at the low end of the income scale. Or force it to be budget-neutral to the government in some simpler form (e.g., pro-rata reduction in all marginal rates). If it were up to me, I'd use it to balance the budget. (Aside: I see today that Fearless Leader has once again proposed to balance the budget -- six years from now. How can propaganda be effective if it's reruns?)

To the neoclassical economist, the only harm from the tax is the distortion of the resulting patterns of production and use, the so-called "deadweight loss" or "tax wedge". For purely private consumption (where there are no external impacts such as global warming), there is a net loss of "consumers' suplus" as transactions that would have occurred, absent the tax, fail to occur as the tax deters consumption. So, people are less well off in terms of overall welfare because they don't buy some items for which their value in use (their "utility") exceeds the cost of production. But of course, in the case of carbon-based fuels, the whole point is that the total cost of the product is higher than the price you pay at the pump. Current consumption is above the optimal level, because the private price paid does not capture the public harm caused. So, in theory, a modest tax would improve overall welfare by moving consumption closer to the optimal level including all costs.

Sorry to blather, but it's not like there isn't an obvious starting point staring us in the face, even for those who care nothing about equity and who care little about the impact on the poor. But to say the "T" word is to invite instant ridicule. So we're stuck -- we can't do the obvious thing. My guess is that we'll do essentially nothing. Hence my pessimism.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jan 3 2007, 09:33 AM) [snapback]370042[/snapback]</div>

I tend to agree but we must remember that the zeitgeist can change.

If you had lived in the days of slavery you would have forecast that it would never change. And yet the zeitgeist has changed and slavery has long been abolished.

The same with capital punishment: some think it will never be abolished but slowly world opinion is changing and there are now only 69 countries that operate the death penalty.

One can think of several examples where public opinion has changed, or is changing, but the trouble is the change tends to take quite a long time and in the case of global warming it may be too long.

 

What about the 8 years he was arguably the 2nd most powerful man in the world? What did he do about global warming then? What did he do to help the environmental situation? Somebody tell me what he did? I think it is just very convenient now to be concerned about it. Am I cynical yes I am. As for the 2000 election, all he had to do was win his HOME state of Tennessee and Florida would not have mattered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Walker1 @ Jan 3 2007, 10:51 AM) [snapback]370122[/snapback]</div>

I agree W has been a huge disappointment and needs to go. I am not sure Gore would have been any better. Iraq would not have happened, but my guess is that Gore would have lost in '04 any way.

Someone made the point in this thread earlier that Gore's motivation for making the movie was not political. I wonder if you could get Hillary, or John Edwards or Obama to agree with you on that and keep a straight face. If Gore really believed everything he said in the movie and wrote 15 years earlier(Earth in the Balance) he would not have sat idle from 1993 to 2001. I know much needs to be done concerning the environment I just don't need to hear it from him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 3 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]370095[/snapback]</div>

Now? You think he just now picked this as a cause? As VP, he pushed for support of the Kyoto treaty, wrote Earth in the Balance, probably more stuff I can't think of right now, and I recall him being environmentally concerned as a Senator. I've not seen the movie yet, but I have no doubt of his sincerity on these causes (can you tell I grew up in TN yet?). Not sure why he didn't carry TN, other than the huge amount of gun-control and other wing-nut propaganda that my relatives seemed to be picking up on at the time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 3 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]370095[/snapback]</div>

Second most powerful man in the US? John N. Gardner, FDR's first VP, described the job as:
"the spare tire on the automobile of government" and "not worth a bucket of warm spit".

But assuming we can attribute actions in those 8 years to Gore, and assuming that's not merely a rhetorical question, let's Google "gore environmental record" and read the few items. Ten minutes, one minute per item.

First up:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/ju...nvironment.html

Says the Audobon Society gives him an A+ rating on environmental issue, but the Heritige Foundation gives him an F. 'Nuff said. A quote:

"All told, the Clinton-Gore administration has declared more national monuments than any administration since Teddy Roosevelt."

Second up:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...gore/index.html

Says opposing presidentical candidate Ralph Nader thinks Gores environmental record is poor.

Third up:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...i_19550538/pg_4

Is a puff piece, but says that Gore pushed a market-based approach to reducing carbon emissions, that was shot down by Clinton, in this quote:

"The vice president wasn't making much progress at the White House either, where he was pushing an energy tax designed to encourage energy efficiency while simultaneously reducing [CO.sub.2] emissions and the deficit. This was just the sort of market-based approach advocated in his book, but it went nowhere. Bob Woodward quotes Gore in The Agenda, his account of Clinton's first year in office, arguing steadfastly against claims that the BTU tax would be viewed as a burden on the middle class: "If you're bold," Gore says (sounding like Sierra Club icon David grower), "people will come around." Clinton lacked Gore's faith, and dropped the tax."

Fourth up, more of the same article:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v82/ai_19550538

"A typical view is expressed by the Sierra Club's political director, Dan Weiss. "Gore is the best we could ever hope for," he says. "It's hard to imagine a more pro-environment president ever being elected."

and

"Surprisingly, Gore's environmental voting record in Congress was less than stellar. The League of Conservation Voters accorded him a mere 60 percent rating for his service in the House, and 73 percent for the Senate. In the House, he held hearings on hazardous-waste dumping, taking on homestate companies and helping to bring the issue national attention. Yet his courage failed when it came to confronting two environmentally disastrous projects of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the quasi-governmental public-power and development agency championed by his father.

Fifth up:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/21/cf.00.html

Quotes Mary Matalin. Sorry, paid assassins are out-of-bounds. Plus I couldn't make head or tail out of it.


Sixth up:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/235/index.php

OK, Gore haters, read this one. Another Nader quote:

“The best case Al Gore has made to any environmentalist in this election year is that he is not George W. Bush,†Nader said today. “But Gore cannot even attack George W. Bush’s record in Texas with complete credibility,†Nader noted, “since his administration has broken its promise to clean up the maquiladoras that suffer from the rank environmental problems along the Mexican border, problems that have only gotten much worse since the passage of NAFTA. The decaying corporatist Democratic party has becoming very good at electing very bad republicans.â€

Seventh up:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V117/N28/hove.28o.html

"Criticism from environmental groups has centered on the lack of action in two important areas: local air-quality control standards and global greenhouse emissions. On air-quality, the White House has taken what it would like to call a centrist position. The Clinton administration remained silent on demands by EPA head Carol Browner for tougher standards, but also resisted Republican demands for changes that might reduce standards for certain localities.

On greenhouse gases, the White House can make no claims to centrism. Five years ago then-Senator Al Gore ostentatiously turned up in Rio de Janeiro to criticize the Bush administration's prevarications on the global climate change treaty. Gore demanded tough global standards, strong American leadership, and even a "Marshall Plan" for funding other nations' programs to reduce emissions. Although the Bush administration eventually signed the treaty, the United States has refused to commit to a timetable for reduction of its own emissions. The Clinton administration has even gone so far as to declare that other countries targets are too ambitious."

Eighth up:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0601-01.htm

Is a Seirra Club board member compariing Gore to Bush:

"I was disappointed to see that you published an article focusing on a memo I wrote six months ago about my concerns regarding Al Gore's environmental record. I think it is unfair and misleading to take an outdated e-mail written in the context of the Gore versus Bill Bradley race, and to use it the context of the Gore versus George Bush race.

My original memo was part of a vigorous and heated debate inside the Sierra Club -- months ago. But there has never been a debate inside the Club on Mr. Bush's status as environmental villain No. 1.

Bush's henchmen at the Republican National Committee, who distributed this dated e-mail, failed to ask me my opinion on the worrisome governor's lackluster environmental leadership"


Ninth up:
http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issue...hp?issue_id=406

Automakers dislike Gore.

Tenth up:
http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/gore.html

It's the "Youth for Socialist Action" website, and they didn't think Gore did nearly enough.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 3 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]370136[/snapback]</div>

I read "Earth in the Balance" before Gore was Vice President and thought he might really make a difference. He did nothing at least publicly for the environment that I can recall. I would like to see all of his "campaigning"for the Kyoto Treaty,( Which I think is a total sham by the way), higher CAFE standards, or any other environmental initiatives while in office. Did he ever make the environment an issue during his campaign against W? Who knows that might have been an issue he would have gotten some traction with, I know it probably could have changed my vote. He is a fraud as far as I am concerned. He had is moment in the spotlight and blew it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Walker1 @ Jan 1 2007, 05:53 PM) [snapback]369338[/snapback]</div>

I watched AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH last night. It's very impressive and a persuasive piece of work. Despite its length of one and a half hours it holds the attention completely as well as any first class movie. How can anyone ignore this, or deny the facts? I suggest that if you haven't already got the DVD you should not only buy one now for yourself but several more for your friends and relatives.

Some of you seem to think that Gore has 'failed' in the past. He may have failed so far to change attitudes to global warming but he's still young. Some U.S. states are beginning to see the light. This reminds me of a well-known verse by an English poet "Say not the struggle naught availeth,"

It continues:
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back through creeks and inlets making
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861)

I've been pessimistic about global warming so far but after hearing Gore's lecture I see small signs to give hope that public attitudes will change in a big way in the next 5-10 years.

 

Maybe our best hope is to encourage the schools to show the film, to reach the largest possible number of young people. As you say, it holds the attention, and our 11-year-old found it riveting. Apparently he announced during his science class that "I thought it would be boring but I was enthralled." The producers offered to send a free copy to all science teachers. Their organization decided not to authorize a mass unsolicited mail-out because of the (minor) political content, so it is available upon request instead. An even better idea might have been to create an edited version for the schools. I have read that "Super Size Me" is doing that, to excise the sexual content.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Jan 4 2007, 07:11 AM) [snapback]370651[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lbligh @ Jan 4 2007, 07:36 AM) [snapback]370653[/snapback]</div>

I signed up about 20 teachers at my site to each get a copy. If we're in the first 50,000 they'll arrive in 6-8 weeks. Several teachers I spoke to say they will certainly use it. Many do several research and written projects during the year and subject matter is always difficult for middle school. Global Warming would give the students a good start and could lead in so many directions.

If Super Size Me offers free DVDs as well, I'll sign up for those too.