-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2006/06/25/dear-al-gore-heres-some-inconvenient-truths/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
The inconvenience lies in the fact that so few people in "developed" countries have had to face shortages.
When I first got to my college in NJ, it was in the habbit of switching off the lights when I was the last to leave the classroom?
Why? India and it's power cuts. They are a hassle, yes. But they teach you so much more.
Also, the problem is that the really educated people never do the educated things most of the time.
All new office buildings have their lights on all the time? Isn't it much more effective to design the buildings with motion sensing lights in the first place?
Ah, well ... some listen, many don't. But even those few help.
- Vinit
lets be realistic the world is driven by the economics of the dollar so big business and multinationals won't in themselves give a trot about the last tree or the last fish until it is inside their 5 year predictions...
we need lifestyle change but i'm afraid IMO humans being humans we just might join this mass extinction thing we see all around us... our very belief systems are also in the main about taking and not giving back.
I'm not sure about nuclear power though even if its a better answer than coal. Terrorism? Geological disturbance? Human error? Its a part of the world we live in as well.
So i have no answers I confess. But its really good to see someone with big readership bring real world issues up - the environment needs to sustain us after all.
Here in Los Angeles, much of the power is created by coal burned on Indian reservations in other states, because it's against the law to have such coal plants in California.
There's there's all the water for L.A. which also comes from hundreds of miles away in other states.
It's all quite insane, isn't it?
Would nukes work for power? France gets much of their power that way. So it is doable. Are nukes safe and what to do with the spent fuel rods is another question.
PS I've drive a hybrid, a Prius, since 2001. It's a great car, Toyota has said they plan for all their cars to be hybrids one day.
Vinit: a lot of the newer buildings turn off their lights automatically. In building 18, where I work, the lights go off at night, but not if you bring in your own lamp. If I were in charge I'd ban those kinds of lamps from being brought to work.
It turns out that unless you are not going to use a light for more than 36 hours it is better to leave it on. It will use less energy running than charging the ballast for a second time. Anyway, turning off the lights makes most people feel better.
We had to remove the light switches to save energy in our facilities. Interesting?
http://www.era-electronic.com/ppbx1x3.htm
The good news is that we have managed to cut green house gas emissions from cars by more than 25% since 1972 even though the number of cars has doubled during that period.
We are clearly going through a warming period, there is simply nothing we can do to stop it. Hybrids create the same amount of green house gas as conventional engines - they just reduce concentrated smog emissions in cities. Anyway, being kind to the environment is smart, but don't be taken in by alarmist like Al Gore - he has an agenda...
I believe what happens is that as the off-peak usage times occur the electrical rates are so low there is no real incentive to conserve absolute amounts of electricity used.
For residential customers of utilities, the charges are usually a flat rate per unit of usage. But commercial customers are charged on several overlapping rates. Efficiencies and conservation concerns should be addressed around peak usage of electricity.
As to warming, you - and Gore - might look at this:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpos...
Amongst actual climate scientists, there's no consensus view. You're about my age - do you remember the scare stories (from many of the same people) about "the coming ice age" in the late 70's?
And gas taxes? Are you kidding? You do realize that extra fuel costs ripple through the entire economy, right? If you want to take the current economy and slam it into recession, sure - add large gas taxes.
About "the world getting worse" - you sound like Paul Erlich. He's been wrong on every prediction of doom he's ever made, and you'll be wrong on this, too. Twenty years from now, the world will be a better place - just as it's better now than it was in 1986.
We've actually got the ability to transmute most of the transuranic (greater than 20 years of time) radioactive waste back to levels of radioactivity equal to the uranium these cycles are usually based around, which could then be sent back to the original mine and be, largely speaking, no significant worry.
Of course, we'd still have to get the funding and political support for giant reactors that the average American can do nothing but associate with Chernobyl (which half of them can't spell).
Yay, indoctrination!
Can't agree with the Scobleizer, either. Do you honestly expect people to drop their current vehicle (which will be worth nearly nothing due to a flooded market), buy new and expensive vehicles, and then not complain about the political party that removed something people consider more of a right that most in the Bill of Rights?
Go ahead. Think people were pissy about the economy in 2002?
bob wyman
We must not forget the oil industry. In Norway, politicians talk about environmental issues and the importance of those, but at the same time, they allow enormous amounts of oil and gas to be extracted and sold. This is the main reason why Norway is such a rich country. Clearly, politicians (not all of course, but many) care more about wealth than the environment.
I'm not so confident humans en masse aren't a lot stupid but you're right, there's no concesus. As there was no concensus that cigarettes would cause cancer in the 70's campaigns and Phillip Morris paid scientists nice wads of cash to assure us their product wasn't killing us - it was motorcars and microwaves and fast food.
But you and others do have a point about Al and others preaching doom to his own agenda. He's a politician.
Why that is a good thing is in the world at the moment very few politicians of note are willing to stand up on a box and take the environment seriously at all.
Joe Clark recently posted a good article on fawny.org stating we all live in internet silos of our own separate making with our own belief systems and prejudices. As I think we do in the real world as well. All I can really say for myself at least is we live in entirely different silos. Mass extinction imaginary? Where are all our lovely ocean species going along with the krill? When is enough forest into woodchips going to be enough?
In short our human philosophy of plundering the land to sustain a lifestyle can't go on forever. There are more people in the world than ever before using more resources.
... but I'm willing to admit to my silo, its only one picture and will go down with the ship like the rest of us eventually.
... on a bigger front we're also at the first point in history where the strongest aren't naturally predisposed to breed a new generation while the weak die off. From an evolutionary point of view that's a beautiful black hole for any species as well...
but yes doomsaying has a great historical tradition of being wrong. The funny part about the boy who cried wolf was the one time he was right... ouch.
"Um…Nuclear Power? Because radioactive waste that lasts for 10,000 years is GOOD?" - Better than uncontainable coal waste which kills right now, yes.
BTW, an interview you might be interested in (given the timliness of the topic) is Peter Tertzakian. Wrote a great book called "Thousand Barrels a Second". Which basically chronicles the lead up to the world's reliance upon oil and why it's time to wean ourselves. No real position on global warming. Other than hydrocarbons won't be with us long enough to remain the source of the problem.
Gerald in Tulsa
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/index.html
We should AT LEAST be able to have plug-in hybrids made widely available by the end of the decade, don't you think? Right now those are relegated to hobbyists who know how to (or can pay someone to) hack their Prius for them. They allow you to effectively get around 150mpg, and if you pay your power company extra for green electricity, you're not doing that badly at all as a citizen.
Coincidentally, the lead story on CBS Sunday Morning today was the controversy over nuclear power. Much of the rest of the industralized world is a lot higher on it than we are...France uses it for 80% of their electricity. The upshot is that enough time has passed since the two obvious incidents, in combination with the current energy crisis and administration, that its time might be coming around again in the U.S.
And you read a 300-page+ book just today?
Despair is a sin.
It's easy to pull a long face moan about how doomed we are and that we're leaving our kids a horrible world. It's a little tougher to get out there and do something about it all.
People are ingenious - given a smidge of incentive we can clever our way out of the current set of problems. This will generate more problems that the next generation can wail about. Such is the way of the world.
So - Scoble. Aside from blogging about how awful it is and turning off a few lights - what are _you_ doing about it all?
very few people are ingenious - many are actually illiterate and live in third world conditions in the third world. People en masse are just prone to be dumb - [enter your own list of dumb groups and cults]...
should we all just ignore the issues and wear happy smiles? really? i think its a good thing to have healthy discussion on both sides of the political / environmental debate.
"I’m not so confident humans en masse aren’t a lot stupid but you’re right, there’s no concesus. As there was no concensus that cigarettes would cause cancer in the 70’s campaigns and Phillip Morris paid scientists nice wads of cash to assure us their product wasn’t killing us - it was motorcars and microwaves and fast food."
It has been common knowledge that cigarettes cause cancer since at least 1964, with the surgeon general's warning. By the 70's, there were zero scientists disputing it. So no, it's nothing like the current debate.
What does Nuclear Power do for gas consumption with regard to transportation?
Nothing
What does Nuclear Power do for petroleum consumption with regard to plastic?
Nothing
What does Nuclear Power do to address the not inconsiderable expenses involved with finding a place to store the trash from them. Even the transmutation process ain't free, and it ain't perfect. Are you going to make sure that we can process all the waste generated by replaceing ALL our non-nuclear power generation with nuclear BEFORE we start generating tons of waste?
Probably not.
Where does the money come from to build the next generation of Nuclear power plants in the numbers needed to replace coal and oil fired?
How long does it take to build a nuke plant? Test it? certify it? Find the engineers to staff it, 'cause you ain't outsourcing it, and you ain't getting those folks for the bottom dollar.
It's all good and well to say "NUKES ARE THE ANSWER" but they rarely are, and when one goes wrong, which does happen from time to time, the effects last for decades, and generations.
Nukes are only going to answer one part of this equation, and it's the part that can also be addressed by a number of other methods, none of which have the potential downside of nuclear power.
And what's the the demonizing of the SUV? The SUV is most oft used by FAMILIES, the new Minivan of sorts. This is America, we are free to damn well drive what we want. You rather gas-saving Eastern European tincans? You Valley faux enviro's are hyprocritical as the day is long, with the fancy Lexus's and snazzy BMW's, all the jet-setting and culling up long commutes.
as opposed to meaning there is no environmental issue (a point which seems to roll off tongues without considering what no concensus means).
admittedly cigarettes were a way smaller issue but the same arguments applied that I hear now... its a complex issue they say, it can be any number of things...
the short of it is we'll either believe there is an issue or not depending on our particular world silo. Neither of us will change our views from some startling revelation today lol. Global warming is just one issue, as is meeting energy needs with fossil fuels, or depleting ocean stocks, growing populations, mass extinctions, yada yada.
but please don't tell me 'no concensus' means you're right lol...
That isn't what I said, nor what I meant. If you took it that way, I apologize.
very few people are ingenious - many are actually illiterate and live in third world conditions in the third world.
Being illiterate and/or in the third world does not mean you can't cobble up a better mouse trap or find a better way to do things. To reach for a bad example Abe the water carrier might be inclinded to think of a better way to get water from the river to his hut. Brian the computer geek simply has to go to the tap and draw water. I don't need to be ingenious about water, Abe does.
I need to be ingenious about better ways to run computer networks ..
should we all just ignore the issues and wear happy smiles? really? i think its a good thing to have healthy discussion on both sides of the political / environmental debate.
You're still ... asusming your replying to my comment ... reading things into what I didn't say. Yes, discussion is good. Pointless kvetching - which Scoble wasn't doing, but it was a near thing - is not.
Mr. Gore is trying to get back in the public eye and his "science" is not always correct and valid.
However I do agree that more nuclear power would be great to help solve some our dependence on oil. However digging for oil in ANWAR would be great as well.
The newer nuclear reactors are physically incapable of melting down. The only potential for contamination of the surrounding area is if the reactor were bombed or another equally disasterous event happened directly to the reactor.
Look, maybe the earth is getting warmer and maybe it isn't. Either way, there is no conclusive proof that man is the cause. Could it be it's getting warmer, well, because it happens to get warmer?
Hell, there is evidence of polar cooling which seem to flatly contradict the climate models that are the basis of the global warming hypothesis. Not only is the bulk of the Antarctic continent cooling, but temperature stations all around the Arctic rim have shown no overall temperature rise since the late 1930s.
So, if the greenhouse gas theory were correct and the climate models were really modelling the "real climate" then the high latitudes would be warming the fastest. But they aren't. They are barely warming at all on timescales where real climatic variation counts (and by that I mean less than 50 years).
Geez, Scoble, do you study history at all. Hell, we tried the "smaller cars" thing in the 70's and to what avail? Guess what? We survived.
The mere fact that a theory or methodology is widely accepted in its time--particularly among non-scientists--does not make it scientifically valid. In 100 years we will likely look back on the global warming crisis as a low point in the history of our society. It seems to be impossible to express an opinion on the issue without attempting also taking a shot at any dissenters. It's quite common to hear people justify their belief in global warming as "Well, a whole bunch of people say it's true".
The fact that so many people in the world believe, without understanding even the basic concepts, that global warming is indeed an issue should be a point of concern, not cause for celebration. It's certain that we do not know for certain how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon or how much is man made, if any. Nobody knows for suer how much warming will occur in the next century, again if any given that the majority of computer models vary by 400%. Finally, not sure how much man can do anyway. Nature adapts as history tells us. And Mother Nature seems to be pretty much undefeated.
i misread what you were saying...
And John, the transmutation process itself is free. The only cost (and reason we are not using it) is because it requires specific reactors to be built for it. Which is kinda impossible, since the tech is less than ten years old, and we haven't built a reactor in nearly three times that. The numbers I've seen suggest that such a plant can still get a good enough energy return to at least break even at current energy prices in a decade of use.
And, of course, you somehow believe that it's impossible to store the stuff for a few years while the system comes into play. Any real reason, or do you just want to be a prick?
Plastics, aspirin, chemical uses of hydrocarbons, those can't be fixed right now, not in a reasonable way (in theory, with enough energy we can reproduce them from dirt, but it's nowhere near feasible). Good thing neither you or I ever mentioned them or a possible solution to them before your random shotgun attack, and that they make up a vast minority of our actual energy use.
But, go on. I'm sure you've got perfectly good reasons to associate with your paranoia. Keep throwing them out without research and without even presenting the basis for them first.
Please. It really makes your side of the arguement look really intelligent when you decide that, because the theory of evolution doesn't explain the mongoose, that the theory is wrong.
Its just as inconvenient truth that the people who think others "need to read it" had the same views about the environment before actually reading it. It doesn't mean they're right, as if everything about the book is uncontroversial; it just means they're more willing to accept it without being critical. This isn't me trying to be critical of the book myself, I'm just sort of tired of this "need to read it" mantra.
btw, raising the gas tax is something that was promoted by Perot in his 1992 campaign if you remember; both for environmental reasons and for a source of debt reduction. in the last decade the price of gas has risen on its own; increasing the gas tax would have done the same earlier to prices earlier and pushing us to consider alternative fuels and alternative transportation; while at the same time helping reduce the debt. High gas prices now may motivate changes in transportation industries as they would have in that case, but without the benefit of federal income.
The Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand took the occasion to inform everybody that that was proof that New Zealand should be looking into Nuclear Power. You know, in case the only power line to the major city is damaged, we need Nuclear Power stations. (1)/(0) = ?
Accordingly I'm a little unsure about how seriously to take your comments, Robert. Are you asking the right questions?
i'm not sure this is a relevant statement in a civilised conversation
It's very interesting to see the points of view here so far. It demonstrates exactly what I was saying. We don't yet see a problem. There isn't consensus on even that. So, talking about solutions will always be controversial.
Wake me up when everyone here sees that there's a problem.
I guess it'll take mass breakdown of society before we get to that point. That's cool.
Oh, and Christopher, I took this position 15 years ago when I was a poor student taking the bus to class. Glad you did your homework and thought this was a position I took just because I got a Silicon Valley job.
Scoble, I think it would be easier to see a problem if global warming proponents could bring up something somewhat scarier than 1.1 degrees Farenheit (plus or minus a half a degree) over the last 100 years, or provides a meaningful
Or if Global Warming proponents could bother to explain why we should be worried about one or even ten degrees, given that in the year 900 AD, Vikings were growing grapes and vast crops of wheat in Greenland.
Or if we could actually get people to see how much humanity and similar species' contributions to 'greenhouse' gasses are when you actually consider normal levels of water vapor (the single most plentiful greenhouse gas).
Or, hell, explain why, despite being so convinced of global warming, Al Gore had no problems dancing around the country on a freaking private jet (and in the electronic age, no less!), which single-handedly provided many, many times the amount of CO2 (and water vapor, heh) of a family's normal use of an SUV.
The free market allocates resources with short-term profits in mind.
We've long seen that big business needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into acting more responsibly in the long-term. You want a look at how an unrestricted free market runs things? Look at working conditions in the 1890s.
For the same reason the President does it instead of walking - his time is valuable. Gore's flying around has the potential to do far greater good than it does harm, by opening peoples' eyes.
Nice to see so many people taken in by the the group advertising with "CO2 - they call it polution, we call it life" and funded by the oil companies. Screw the climate scientists - Big Energy must know what they're talking about, right? And no ulterior motives, of course!
That should read :
"than 1.1 degrees Farenheit (plus or minus a half a degree) over the last 100 years, or provides a meaningful counter to the problem (or at least more meaningful than Kyoto's 'best-case' scenario of 0.15 degrees Centigrade over 100 years."
To paraphrase Homer Simpson: "Models! Is there anything they can't do?"
Again, where's the proof any of this is man-made and that forcing everyone to drive a SMART car will help,. I agree with MYoung, this social engineering is getting out of hand. It's none of anyone else's business what I choose to drive. If you don't want to drive and SUV, fine. That means more gas for me and my SUV... and boat, and RV. Appreciate the sacrifice you will make.
First, he can use this amazing thing called the media if he wants information to go around. In case you haven't noticed by the reviews and friendly praise being slathered around not just the big media in the US, but also in the Great White North and across the Sea (didn't get a front page on Speigel this time, surprisingly), they tend to pay a bit of attention when people say the correct shiboleths. I doubt Al Gore's powerpoint presentation truely requires his physical being to make the most of it.
Second, as to the 'Big EBAAAAAL Energy Companies' : Have you checked, say, how well the EU is doing? Or Canada? They signed the provisions, and you sound like the sort of smuck to think that the government actually has your best interests in mind.
Canadian values for non-water vapor greenhouse gasses have gone up, not down. The European Union's European Environmental Agency believes that they will be running 7% over their 1990 values, instead of 8% below 1990 values, as Kyoto stated they should be, at the first mandated check (2012).
Have you looked at the United States, by comparision, particularly if you plug GDP and capita into the damned equation?
Amazingly, corporations, even EBAAAAL Amerikkkan ones, don't like to waste fuel, and that's what (non-water vapor) greenhouse gasses are, fuel that didn't burn at the best possible rate.
But damn those lazy energy companies, trying to make a profit without crippling the economy! How can we invite a nanny state into normal society when people can actually do things on their own!?
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/...
Frequently Asked Questions - Fluorescent
1. Where can I find information about the UltraMax™ electronic ballast system?
2. Why do fluorescent lamps need a ballast?
3. How do I minimize UV radiation from fluorescent lamps?
4. What should I do if I break a fluorescent bulb?
5. Is it more energy-efficient to turn a lamp off or leave it on?
6. Why is noise coming from my fluorescent lamp?
7. Can fluorescent lamps be put on a dimmer?
8. What is the wave length of a germicidal lamp?
9. How much heat is radiated from a fluorescent lamp?
10. Do light bulbs (such as fluorescent and compact fluorescent bulbs) give off hazardous amounts of ultraviolet (UV) light?
11. What are the benefits of CovRguard® and Saf-T-Gard® lamps?
12. What's the difference between a blacklight and a blacklight-blue bulb?
13. How should I dispose of fluorescent lamps?
14. What is the mean lumen output of a fluorescent lamp, and how is it different from the initial lumens?
15. Does GE manufacture fixtures for Circline fluorescents?
16. How can I get lighting product catalogs and sell sheets?
1. Where can I find information about the UltraMax™ electronic ballast system?
With GE's new line of UltraMax™ ballasts, lighting systems save more energy, become more adaptable, and deliver optimal lamp performance.
UltraMax ballasts can virtually "read" the incoming voltage and adapt automatically to any voltage from 108V to 305V.
Multi-Voltage Control (MVC) means fewer models handling more jobs, which reduces inventory requirements.
UltraMax's high efficiency design results in ultra-cool operation, providing AC energy savings during peak demand periods.
UltraMax is the only full line of T8 ballasts with a UL type CC anti-arc rating.
Download Product Brochure
back to top
2. Why do fluorescent lamps need a ballast?
Fluorescent light bulbs need a ballast because they use a gas to create light. When the gas is excited by electricity, it emits invisible ultraviolet light that hits the white coating inside the fluorescent bulb. The coating changes the ultraviolet light into light you can see. (Because fluorescent bulbs don't use heat to create light, they are far more energy-efficient than regular incandescent bulbs.)
The combination of gas, electricity, and coating in a fluorescent bulb is so effective at producing light that, without something to regulate the electricity flowing into the bulb, the light will continue to gain intensity until the bulb stops working. That's where a ballast comes in. It supplies the initial electricity that creates the light, and then it regulates the amount of electricity flowing through the bulb so that the right amount of light is emitted.
back to top
3. How do I minimize UV radiation from fluorescent lamps?
Lamp manufacturers generally strive to minimize ultraviolet light (UV) radiation in all lamps used in general lighting applications.
The amount of UV produced by standard fluorescent lamps, such as those in your office, home, or school, is not hazardous and does not pose a major health concern. In fact, a paper by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) explores this subject in more detail. It cites a study in which it was determined that UV exposure from sitting indoors under fluorescent lights at typical office light levels for an eight-hour workday is equivalent to just over a minute of exposure to the sun in Washington, D.C. on a clear day in July.
Some applications require the absence of UV. To completely eliminate UV, we would recommend using CovRguard® shatter-resistant lamps. Where CovRguard is not available, UV sleeves or filters are also used to eliminate UV.
back to top
4. What should I do if I break a fluorescent bulb?
Puncture resistant gloves are recommended for cleaning up broken glass. After picking up all large fragments, wipe area thoroughly to clean any remaining glass or phosphor residue. If necessary, ventilate area to remove any remaining fine phosphor dust. After handling broken lamps, wash hands and face thoroughly. Incidental exposure to lamp contents is not harmful. The basic phosphor used in the manufacture of fluorescent lamps is a relatively inert phosphate. The small amount of mercury contained in each lamp will not cause any significant amount of airborne mercury, since most of the elemental mercury remains adhered to the phosphor surface. No adverse health effects are expected from exposure to a broken fluorescent tube.
back to top
5. Is it more energy-efficient to turn a lamp off or leave it on?
The question of "turn them off or let them burn" is a common one in lighting. Since there is no surge involved in the starting of any residential bulb, the answer is "if you are not using them, turn them off." The cost of operating a light bulb is the wattage consumed while lighted thus the general answer is turn them off.
High intensity discharge lamps (rarely found in indoor household applications) and fluorescent lamps have different operating needs. If you have a fluorescent lamp, the general rule is turn the lamp off unless you are going to need it again within fifteen minutes. Frequent cycling, turning on and off for short periods of time such as in a closet application, can reduce the life of a fluorescent lamp.
We have a very large energy source sitting 93 million miles away that never sleeps, never stops and produces millions and millions MWs of "clean" energy.
Issues we need to solve and solutions need to be created;
Capture
Storage
Transmission
Usage
I am happy that Mr. Gore has been raising awareness but the truth is that we keep arguing and making this about who is “right”. “We hear you!” We don’t need anyone else telling us that the sky is falling. What is the answer, where do we spend our money to make the changes we need to make?
We really do have the power to think this though and change how/what we do next. We don’t have to keep going the same direction.
Side note: it is really funny that oil companies are making such “huge profits”, when really they are about to put themselves out of business. I liken this to a professional sports person. They have a finite amount of time to make money and then it all goes away unless they plan and invest in their future. Oil companies are the same, they need to take this time to say “ok, we have this much time left”, we need to roll the “hugh profits” in to finding other sources of portable energy to continue to create jobs, wealth and protect our way of living. If they don’t figure out something someone else will.
The next revolution beyond the “Information Revolution” will be an “Energy Revolution”.
I don't believe there is really such a thing as an ideally free market, no matter if there is planned government intervention or not there are forces on the market which prevent it from being ideal (nor do economists). Government policy is just a way to make sure in the way that it is not ideal it is compensated with long-term market (social) interests. In the end, any good government intervention should be understood to aid a healthy and competitive market in the long run--and government involvement, i.e. the monetary system, is what sustains the market in the first place.
...
I do think the global warming issue and environmental issue is being misrepresented by advocates because of political reasons. Most people you'll find agree that finding alternative energy sources is a good thing, that certain pollutants should be limited or controlled. Most people agree humans have effected the environment. The controversy is whether the situation is as apocalyptic as its portrayed.--When the argument is that fevered its hard to push through policies that most people will agree on, as people are distracted by debating over controversies. Programs that are not mainly environmental, but political, like the Kyoto accord, are misrepresented, and the debate becomes partisan.
sorry brian, my bad :(
i misread what you were saying…
No worries. Text is good and it's cool that we can have a conversation between my kitchen table in Wisconsin and whereever-the-heck you are but it takes a skilled writer to get nuance and tone across. Skilled I ain't.
Scoble
It’s very interesting to see the points of view here so far. It demonstrates exactly what I was saying. We don’t yet see a problem. There isn’t consensus on even that. So, talking about solutions will always be controversial.
Wake me up when everyone here sees that there’s a problem.
You want agreement between millions of Americans when we all can't agree on 'tastes great' or 'less filling'? Ya good luck with that.
I guess it’ll take mass breakdown of society before we get to that point. That’s cool.
Even then it won't happen. Lucky the odds are good we'll muddle through by the seat of our pants. Nessecity may be the mother of invention but she's a lazy bitch - we only do the barest minimum we need to do to get by. This seems to be the way of things.
But, until we notice massive effects we won't care. That's our nature.
Like I said, wake me up when all my commenters agree there's a problem. If the smart people in society can't see there's a problem then there's absolutely no hope for change.
We almost climbed on ladders to unscrew the florescent lightbulbs...why the heck do you need lights on everywhere all weekend long?
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
I also think when a government has been funding this research for 20 years the scientists (if you can call them that) have to come up with something to keep getting paid, it's true, if you do global warming research you get larger grants.
I can remember when the media were all up in arms about the ice-age in the 70's. This time it is different, the government and environmental whacko's have pulled one over on America, when 10,000 scientists are all being PAID to find something wrong, they will.
Remember the DDT scare in the 70's? Millions of people are needlessly dying in many countries because of mosquito borne illnesses. More reading here: http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov_2002/why...
I think we have more to fear from Toxic-Mold than global warming!
One large scale volcanic eruption can spew more greenhouse gases in a few hours than humanity has in the last few centuries. Have any thoughts on how any changes we make will deal with that little bit of reality?
Another thing - cost/benefit. The only way to lower emissions is to lower the level of energy use. Lowering energy use will cause economic dislocation, period. Depending on where we are talking about - say, India and China, where people are getting out of grinding poverty - that could be the difference between life and death. There is no consensus on this - when you and Gore can address the very real concerns of the actual climate scientists I linked to (back in my original comment), you let me know. In the meantime, I'd love to hear you explain to the third world that they can't have our lifestyle, because it's too harmful. Good luck with that - I hope you get past the lynch mob.
You don't have evidence that there's a problem, nor does Gore. What you have is faith. Heck Robert, millions of Americans have faith that the bible is literal truth - far more than there are enviro-faithful. Their scientific basis is about as solid as yours. Why should I pay you and Gore and more heed than I pay them?
I'll bet you a steak dinner at the restaurant of your choosing that we won't be staring down the barrel of catastrophe 15 years from now. One of us can collect in 15 years.
You are not the only one arguing for higher taxes on gas to reduce our addcition to foreign oil.
Here is what CEO of AutoNation, the largrsst chain of auto dealers in US is saying:
To shift behavior, you have to change the consumer's mindset. The party is over - cheap gasoline is not in our best interests. We have to have a tax at the pump that will justify a whole slew of technologies that are just sitting there if we can make them economical, both for existing engines and new engines. But $3-a-gallon gasoline isn't going to get it done.
link at http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/19/news/companies/...
We don't have to agree that there is a problem. We who believe that we can make a change need to agree on a direction and push the technology in that direction. I don't care who is "right/wrong" or if they think there is an issue or not. There is an issue, we pay a lot for energy. It's what drives our economy, our wars, and who has power over our daily lives.
Again right now we have a chance to change our direction.
And therein lies the difference between a Leftie and a Conservative; we dont need the govt taxing us yet again to figure out the non-problem of Global Warming.. (I seriously dont buy one shred of Gore's assumptions, cause they sure arent based on any 'facts')
Why cant the private sector do it? Why must politicians be the only people who can save this "doomed" country?
Granted, only a very, very teeny tiny amount of people believe that humans caused global warming, or can stop it.
But at least let the private sector do it without more of our taxes - they most certainly do it far cheaper and far quicker than the beaurocrats.
But I am in agreement about nuclear power; its cleaner and easier to deal with, but alas, lots of lefties are still very afraid of it for some reason.
Maybe the politicians can be of use there; they can teach the public that nuclear power isnt the big boogey man that the Dems have said it is for the past 3 decades.
well, Big Al says we're all dead in 10 years anyway... so, 15 years is not even in the cards for us at this point... better make that steak dinner reservation much earlier... :-P
Robert, I know you are miffed that the majority of comments on your blog arent buying this issue but you have to remember, a lot of us do remember the Coming Ice Age that was headed our way, then Global Dimming.
Gore is not a climatogist, he's not a scientist, he's a politician who just cant figure out how to stay relevant since he cant be President. At least acknowledge the perspective from which Gore is coming from.
The "facts" that most climatologists can agree on is that the surface of the sun is hotter right now... but since we dont have recorded meterological information for the past million years, I would say its anyone's guess as to what warming issues we are experiencing right now.
But its also summer as well - which, as far as I can recall in my own 42 years... is hot. But again, I'm no climatologist..
Okay Gatt, how about your back yard. it's safe, right? We'll just bury it in your yard. Hell, why bury it, it's so safe, should be able to just throw it in a shed out back, right? And if it takes ten, twenty years, well, that's fine with you right? if you move, no problem, we'll make sure it follows you.
Because after all, it's safe.
And of course, we can easily afford to spend the billions to replace all fossil fuel power generation in this country with nukes. We're just FLUSH with money right now at the federal level.
Just exactly what world DO you live in where we've got billions to spend on this crap?
Plastics, aspirin, chemical uses of hydrocarbons, those can’t be fixed right now, not in a reasonable way (in theory, with enough energy we can reproduce them from dirt, but it’s nowhere near feasible). Good thing neither you or I ever mentioned them or a possible solution to them before your random shotgun attack, and that they make up a vast minority of our actual energy use.
It's a good thing you took a look into the years of research into starch - based plastics. Of course, that gets no funding, because who suffers if we no longer need oil for plastic?
Hmm. Not the people using plastic.
Not the farmers.
Oh right, the oil companies. Who has huge amounts of money to pay off governments to ensure that non-petroleum plastic sources are starved for funds? Why, your bestest pals, the oil companies.
and since we can't easily replace petroleum based plastic, well why bother, right?
The reason I have a diesel is partly because it's a company car (company car tax is based on CO2 emissions, therefore most company cars in the UK are diesel), but also that recently fuel in the UK cost £0.99 per UK litre, this works out at about $6-7 per US gallon (is that incentive enough for you?)
I visited the US earlier this year a drove a Chevy Blazer, (I'm not sure if this is a typical SUV but) it had a 4.2 litre engine and was slower than my diesel, it appears to me that you have the worst of both worlds poor performance and poor fuel economy.
Diesels whether we like it or not are the future. Even Audi know this, this is why they entered a diesel in the Sebring 12Hr and Le Mans 24Hr endurance races and won both easily!!
That's not to say that I wouldn't have some 5 litre v12 if I could afford, but it better do 0-60 in under 4 secs and top out at over 200 mph, otherwise what is the point???
Cheers
Matt
Us europeans are paying about a buck fifty per litre of gas right now, roughly equivalent to 6 dollars per gallon. Yet we have (Western Europe does, anyway) a higher standard of living and better social support. The reason? Simple, really. The US spends too much money on its military - money which could've been used for environmental subsidies and research into alternative energy sources.
It's some extra work on his part, but every time he cruises by a gas station, he just laughs.
Hmm. I've been to Europe, more than once. I live in a middle class neighborhood here in the US, and I have over 3000 sq feet of living space (never mind my basement). I have gas that's scads cheaper than what you pay for (and I get 35+ mpg - I drive a small sedan). The unemployment rate in this area is under 4%, and it's under 5% in the US as a whole. In Germany and France, it's up around 10%. As to health care, I can get an appointment whenever I need one - I pay $15 per visit, my prescriptions are inexpensive, and a referral I recently got to a cardiologist (no problems, thank goodness) cost me nothing (directly - my insurance picked it up). To see the cardiologist? I made an appointment when it was convenient
My parents? My Mom worked as a travel agent, my Dad as a teacher. They are retired, and live 1/4 mile from a beautiful beach - check my blog in the "travel" category for some of the pictures I took of it. They can get appointments for a doctor whenever they need them.
Explain to me again how your standard of living is better? With waiting lines for medical care, fewer cars per family (harder to travel), smaller homes, higher taxes, and more expensive fuel.
I honestly hadn't heard of the starch-based oil immitation. If it's more economically and environmentally feasible than taking care of oil shale or drilling US soil, I'm all for it - we've got too much damned corn in the US as it is, and it would certainly allow us to give up on fossil fuels.
Hedding, your numbers seem off. The highest value I've seen credibly attributed to the United States in the last year is 25% of the world's CO2. That's not that far off from the EU's 'share', and America isn't that far from the EU in terms of population (and provides a much higher share of the global GDP).
This speaks to ignorance of the European lifestyle.
Waiting lines for medical care are a myth, and ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans have to wait for their specialist care as well. My fiancée took three months to get into her first neurologists appointment. Fewer cars per family would mean harder to travel only if Europe didn't have a far superior public transportation system - you can take high speed rail just about everywhere. I personally prefer smaller homes, the higher taxes help with amenities like cheaper health care and public transport, and fuel isn't that much of a concern when you can take the train.
. Get a VW Jetta, Golf, or Beetle... the T.D.I. version
(or if you are in europe... *any* diesel car)
. Fill it up with Biodiesel, equivalent cost to regular fossil diesel
The difference?
. 50 MPG (between 40 and 50 on these VW models)
. Made from soybeans! (in the US)
. 90% cleaner
. only release CO2 that soy beans got from the atmosphere in the first place (recycle!)
. Renewable every year!
. if you have time, make your own (I don't)!
There is NO CATCH.
As simple as that.
Been driving that stuff for 7 months, loving it.
-mano
ps: funny thing is, my cousin who has a farm in France said that it is *illegal* to use Biodiesel over there... pretty happy to be here IMHO... Illegal!?
The US produces 30% of the world's CO2 emissions, with 5% of the world's population.
If you don't see this as a problem, you are sadly PART of the problem. I really don't care how big your house is (mine is about the same size). We can buy "extra" health insurance just like you americans can - but our *base* coverage includes everything from non-vital surgery (early stage cancer, facial plastic surgery) to life-saving surgery and GP visits. I pay $20 to see a doctor. If I total up more than $200 per year in medical expenses out-of-pocket, the government pays the rest.
I can't really explain any better than this - my country, Norway, has a life expectancy of 79.54 years, the US has 77.85 years.
We have the same unemployment rate as you - 4.2%. How do you fare in supporting those who are unemployed? How about those who have a life-changing accident and can't win through in the legal system?
We have a FREE university system, including several very prominent technical colleges. Sure, there are private alternatives, but they are generally inferior.
But all this is futile, I suspect. The point is - if you want to prioritize the climate, something else has got to go. If you don't want to prioritize the climate, well, I guess you'll keep becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil - we'll happily sell you a few billion barrels a year.
http://www.iter.org/
It's a production scale Fusion reaction prototype under development.
Americans wait for how long for specialists? Maybe neurosurgeons are a scarcity in your girlfriend's neighborhood, but on average, not overall.
It would also depend on what type of insurance coverage she has... but thats a whole other issue to debate.
America is where the best and the brightest train for medical careers, and where most people want to come for top notch medical care. My in laws are Canadians and I cannot count the number of people in their town who pay for their own care in the states, because socialized medicine in Canada is so poor.
My father in law went to a major US hospital to be taken off all of the unecessary prescriptions his canadian doctors had him on. It probably saved his life and if he could live in America and pay for his own care, he would do it in a heartbeat.
Robert, let's reverse the situation.
Smart companies must come up with real solutions and implement them. Never mind the politicians, most of them are ignorant and massively incompetent to even comprehend what is at stake here.
I have given up on politicians. Afterall, how many John F Kennedy's we have had in the past decades.
JFK (the first one) wasnt all that awesome of a president.. he did, however, not have a rabid media at his backside 24/7.
"Camelot" was a made up fiction, brought about by Jackie Kennedy.
Ronald, Reagan, now THAT was a president!
And an interesting article on 'Captain William's great obsession' by Geoff Watts:
http://www.pol.ac.uk/home/documents/pol_new_sci...
Which has the interesting words:
"This long stretch of data provides clear evidence that sea level has been rising since the 18th century and that it began to accelerate during the second half of the 19th century - which is what you would expect if today's climate change is related to our output of greenhouse gases."
Food for thought. People aren't hungry?
Article that shows there is no consensus:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Using plug-in hybrid cars we can off-load some of current transportation fuel needs to the electric grid.
What does Nuclear Power do for petroleum consumption with regard to plastic?
Oil not used for vehicles is saved for the chemical industry. Coal not burned for electricity is also freed up for use as a feedstock for up to 100s of years.
What does Nuclear Power do to address the not inconsiderable expenses involved with finding a place to store the trash from them. Even the transmutation process ain’t free, and it ain’t perfect. Are you going to make sure that we can process all the waste generated by replaceing ALL our non-nuclear power generation with nuclear BEFORE we start generating tons of waste?
As opposed to coal-fired plants, which just dump their wastes to the atmosphere, in quantities far greater than the amount of nuclear waste. Huge empty areas exist all over the world that would make suitable storage sites. Waste can be reprocessed to eliminate the long-lived wastes (and turn it back into usable fuel). The most radioactive wastes also have the shorted half-lives (on the order of 30-40 years).
Where does the money come from to build the next generation of Nuclear power plants in the numbers needed to replace coal and oil fired?
Where's it going to come from to build any other type of power plant? Or are you just having fun pointing out that we were foolish to be duped by antinuclear activists into building fossil-powered plants for the past few decades?
How long does it take to build a nuke plant? Test it? certify it? Find the engineers to staff it, ’cause you ain’t outsourcing it, and you ain’t getting those folks for the bottom dollar.
It takes 2 years to build a plant with a standardized design, 5 if you go through the normal level of legal bullshit, and an infinitely long time if you allow anti-nuclear lawyers tie you up in court while spouting utopian rubbish about how conservation and renewables alone can replace fossil energy sources.
I was just around and well, its some kind of crazy idea we have in my class. We are all wondering if Al Gore would like to come to our University with his conference. Its a matter of some students that would be pleased if this man could come to Mexico. Do you guys know where can we ask for this request needed?
Find me ONE professional, university educated climate expert who claims manmade CO2 is not changing our climate, please.