Please somebody, defend Al Gore for me. What is it that you think he is trying to accomplish with his rhetoric?
“We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization,”
And: “This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.”
And: It “could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force.”
Oil demand: “This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we’re in the front car.”
Polar ice: “Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland.”
If he just hadn’t invented the internet, maybe none of this would be happening!
I think the best way to defend/protect Al Gore would be to put him in a lock box.
Why cant everyone just wrap their head around the idea that an economic crisis is an opportunity to make some serious change to the structure of our country and world and focus our attention on one thing or two things and do them really really well and ask everyone in the world to get engaged.
Instead we get everyone yahoo throwing in bunch of garbage into a stimulus bill to try and cover every base of the economy. Seriously, WWII helped get this country get through the Depression, a cause that mobilized the entire nation.
Besides climate change/energy conservation/renewable, what sort of “cause” could generate that type of cross-culture enthusiasm that could really provide lasting beneficial change?
I listen to these pundits night after night talk about a different thing that this country really needs to get itself right and you know what, none of them seem to know. “Bad banks” or “shovel ready projects”, tax breaks. Give me a break. In my opinion, none of them. Can we afford a bad bank, $2T; shovel ready project, i guess we will need longer roads that will all need repaving 10 years from now; tax cuts, no way, people are just hoarding money right now anyway. Give me one really good idea that will really have some kick, that people around the world can participate in and benefit from.
Sorry if im rambling. I started writing this 30 minutes ago and got distracted a couple of times.
Joe-
Are you saying they should put everything into the “climate change/energy conservation/renewable” cause? Let the banks, auto companys fail?
Im advocating any big idea that can change the people’s thinking about what we really value rather than what we can consume and how quickly we can consume it. Do we really value all of the excess junk we buy? Or the monster houses we can barely afford? Or the extravagent vacations we all say we deserve? I think my/our generation is starting to realize what tough financial times really are and what we need to survive in it.
I do not think that some magic bailout/stimulus plan, which is being paid for with borrowed money, will return us to the same level of prosperity we were all used to a short while ago as most people think it will. There is no way that an $800 billion pakcage will grease the wheels to get back all the $10T in lost “wealth”. It will cost trillions more with no guarantee of results. IN my opinion we are starting down a road of no limit “all in” stimulus for a chance at doubling our money. The consequences of losing will bankrupt this country and many others.
How much money is it going to cost to make everyone’s mortgage, home value, or credit solvent? If we did that, what happens then? Are we going to go out on spending sprees again? Or will people wake up with a bailout hangover and sit on the sidelines for years to come. I think people will have to figure out that their standard of living is going to have to bounce backward to be more in line with the rest of the world. I dont think people are ready for that news yet. We’ll spend and spend our way to prosperity, but at the end of the day, we’re going to have to back up.
If youve ever seen it, one thing I learned from the movie Touching the Void is that sometimes the only way to get out of a tough spot is to have a little faith and go all the way to the bottom first.
Sorry again for rambling. Its tough to do this during a lunch break.
I see a couple of issues with rolling the dice totally with alternative energy.
The first being, is the technology ready for prime time? Yeah, you can build the grid. Yeah you can throw up wind turbines.
But even with the grid and the turbines, how long does it take simply to build out capacity and have enough people learn how to build and manage the things? Most of this will be local too, because its best to build them as close to site as possible.
After wind and grid, I think you’re getting into a cost/benefit analysis of how much money that you want to throw at research? Researching solar. Researching batteries. How much do you want to overpay for solar right now, if its ten years from being cost-comparable to what wind or nuclear is now? How many overpriced, partially defective electric cars do you want on the road?
I’m not saying don’t spend every dollar that can semi-efficiently be spent on a variety of energy issues. My guess however is that dollar amount is a lot lower than the amount that you might want to spend as stimulus.
I agree brian that not all of the technology is there, but why not extend tax rebates for people who install green or greener technology on their homes, property, cars etc. Every dollar spent on green technology would be tax deductible. Every person, not just those who itemize, everyone who buys efficient lightbulbs, low flow shower heads, toilets, etc. everything. penalize some of the more damaging things….plastic bags, for instance.
you could set up a system in which efficient technology ranking system and the the more efficient prduct you buy, the better the rebate. this will also encourage research and innovation as corpporations will compete to have the “most efficient” product.
A couple of quotes pulled from David McKay’s Sustainable Energy, Without Hot Air (which goes on sale here in the states in a few months…) and then some thoughts.
Heat pumps
Further reading on heat pumps: European Heat Pump Network
ehpn.fiz-karlsruhe.de/en/,
http://www.kensaengineering.com,
http://www.heatking.co.uk,
http://www.iceenergy.co.uk.
More from Professor McKay:
The conclusion that I basically took from Professor MacKay’s book is this: Electrify everything. Everything needs to get on the grid.
That’s going to take a lot more electricity than we currently produce. This allows us to throw up wind turbines and smart grid infrastructure with abandon because those things are cost effective now. We are not wasting any resources by building more and more generating capacity. We can use the turbines and the capacity we already have. As we put up more capacity, we can either put more stuff on the grid, if the technology is ready, or we can just temporarily idle the carbon based producers while we wait for demand for that capacity to rise.
The question is, how do you implement a program to convert everything to heat pumps?
And just to clarify a little further, I’m focusing on heat pumps because it is economically efficient to start installing them now.
All of the heaters in our building are heat pumps.
Heat pumps are one part of the solution. The American innovation engine will create the technology months after the need becomes apparent. Gore’s rhetoric scares people into thinking about the environment. Rush scares people who have no opinion of their own to agree with him. Mr Limbaugh’s lack of education and affinity for tabloid does much more disservice for healthy discourse as Mr. Gore’s rhetoric as a doomsdayer. The future demands of power require energy resources that are renewable and cheap. In ten years, the mode of transportation will not be a gas-combustion car. America elected someone who symbolically stand for a change in gluttonous consumption habits. The economy will be able to continue regardless of which car company comes up with the next technology. Propping up bad companies is counterproductive and counter to one of the defining laws of nature; survival of the fittest. The big three should die. American auto workers can make a paradigm shift. Why should it take a social/political change in atmosphere for Mr Wagoner to finally decide to care about the future of his employees? The science exists. Just start looking. A scientist in California ran a combustion engine on Salt water last year. Yes, salt water. A 12 year old from Alberta was able to biodegrade plastic in one month for his science fair. Gore is finding an audience in his rhetoric of fear. Bush found an audience with fear rhetoric. Why blame Al Gore for wanting to protect the planet? That’s like yelling at Muhammed Yunus for giving loans to the poor. Technology issues are moot. Give the industry an incentive, like a recession.
Gus, as you’re so fond of telling me, you took way more science in college than I did. As such, I shouldn’t need to explain to you that what is burning in those demonstrations is not salt water but rather the by-product of breaking down the bonds in water: hydrogen.
Since the byproduct of burning hydrogen is water, all that is really happening is this “combustion engine” is turning salt water into hydrogen into water. At 100% efficiency, this processs is energy neutral. Given current science, this process is no where near 100% efficiency and thus requires more energy to make hydrogen than you make by burning hydrogen.
That said, I don’t disagree with your optimism that technology will eventually solve our problems. Your view is way closer to mine than that which has been expressed by Joe.
I 90% agree with this statement:
What I would say is:
The future demands of power require energy resources that are
renewable andcheap and renewable.Here’s my point. Al Gore is still fighting the last war: convincing people of a need to take relatively quick action to change carbon emission habits. He won that war. The problem is the question of “what now?” Your primary response was to call Rush Limbaugh stupid.
Seriously?
That’s all you got? Rush Limbaugh is stupid?
Yes, I’m baiting you. I’m trying to get the “global warming lobby” to understand that they’ve won their battle. Other than nucular, the presidential candidates had the same global warming platform. Big business is onboard. The Dems control Congress.
But….now what?
I have a couple of thoughts on this that relate to comments people have made.
Joe,
I understand exactly what you’re saying, and conceptually, I agree. It often takes something major to get people to act in unison (Pearl Harbor/9-11/Mortgage Crisis etc). We need to act in unison to get out of this mess, both economic and environmental. We have shown a capacity to do this in the past. It would be nice if the solution to both could be found in one core “action item”, but I don’t think that’s possible.
You mention government tax breaks for using energy efficient products/services. I totally support this idea. Playing devils advocate though, this type of policy often ends up disproportionately benefiting the wealthy since they can afford the up front premium paid for efficient products.
Heat Pumps. They’re awesome. If you don’t have one, go get one.
Goostaf,
You make some interesting assertions, but I’m struggling to understand (but do WANT to understand) what your actual point is. See Below:
“The American innovation engine will create the technology months after the need becomes apparent.”
I agree. Does this mean we (as voters/concerned citizens) don’t need to worry/bother with this issue?
“In ten years, the mode of transportation will not be a gas-combustion car.”
Ok, you’ve stumped me here. You say this pretty matter-of-factly. I’m curious what you’re basing this on. I’ve seen studies that show the average consumer keeps their car anywhere from 10-13 years. So even if a car was introduced TOMORROW that was not at least partially gas powered, it would still be at LEAST 10 years to convert the majority of the population. I recall a funny youtube video with Jack Nicholson driving a hydrogen powered car where he makes similar claims. The video is from 1978.
My point is that just that 10 years is beyond optimistic. I would say its functionally impossible. I’m curious what you see happening in the next 10 years that would completely rewrite the book on how we buy/sell/use cars.
“America elected someone who symbolically stand for a change in gluttonous consumption habits.”
Do you really feel like Obama’s message and success hinged on combating “gluttonous consumption”? He never even told people to ride a bike, but rather to better inflate their car tires. I’ll give you the generic “change” component, but the consumption side I think is more of a stretch.
“The big three should die.”
I’m happy to debate the merits of that statement, but my question has more to do with what you say next:
“American auto workers can make a paradigm shift.”
I’m honestly curious how the latter is possible in the face of the former. So some further comment on that would be appreciated.
Now, I’m not simply trying to be a contrarian, I’m legitimately curious as to what your further thoughts are on these statements.
Also, Brian, Rush IS stupid, so no need to raise a fuss about that. 😉
Goostaf, what’s your opinion of the nearly 700 scientists vocally dissenting with Gore and the 2007 IPCC?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
I’m not sure how I feel about their stance, or their means of demonstrating it, but I find it worthy of further study. I’d be interested to hear what someone else (particularly with a scientific background) thinks about it. I took a lot of science in college, but was more interested in the physics side than the chemistry/biology angle, so while I have a pretty solid grasp of the concepts at work, I’m still on the outside looking in.
After my impassioned retort to Brian, I realized that my comments stirred up more than I realized. I apologize for not explaining my earlier statements for I am not used to a healthy discourse on other blogs. Most blogs turn ad hominem very quickly. I appreciate your request for me to clarify.
The Green Paradigm shift is bearing down upon us. In the same time America switched from Laser disc to DVD, we could see a whole new product line of segways moving our white collar work force to work. I own an older diesel car that I restore mostly for nostalgia sake. Most American consumers just want a method of transportation that doesn’t cost that much and still enables freedom. There are many inventions that can replace our current mode of transportation and our reliance on fossil fuels. These inventions will “pop up” if the Social/Political environment allows it.
In addition, American auto workers could easily find themselves, using basically the same skills, making green technology. Green technology has the potential of being a larger cash cow than the oil an coal companies. Politicians in Washington hold the power as to whether we can tap into the great entrepreneural and innovative spirit of America. This is the perfect time to do so and the fact that Obama has chosen men and women of science to make America’s decisions is very optimistic.
Obama owned one bike, one car, one home before the election. How many did McCain and Palin own together? Point proven. I may be inferring that Obama won on an anti-gluttonous platform, however that is not a big stretch, just a connecting of the dots.
Carter put solar panels on the White house, Reagan took them down. Are we going through the same burp of conservative energy use we did in the late seventies? I don’t think so. People think LED’s are smart, CFL’s are smart, solar panels are smart, actually anything that does not use that much energy to manufacture is smart. However, people won’t go out and buy them unless there is some positive or negative incentive to change. $5.00 gas is going to make everybody think about change. Now, a recession is another chance for people to make changes. Technology is the future. The difficult part is choosing the technology that is not only environmentally-friendly, but also profitable and employable. Eight billion people on our planet imply that our decisions about energy policy are very profound as a cause and effect for global harmony.
Because the GOP, led by Rush Limbaugh is asking all GOP to dissent in every attempt to avert financial disaster, America is still having difficulty passing bi-partisan legislation. Rush WANTS Obama to fail and implores his audience to write their congressmen. I do not remember anyone in the Liberal camp ever calling for Bush’s failure. He didn’t need any help from the Dems, Bush had Cheney.
I attempted to cover a couple of topics. I will rant more a little later. I have to get some things done. I was baited to share my views on the open comment section with Brian, and I must admit, I appreciate the dialogue produced as healthy discourse and a lack of condescending jabs. Like I said earlier, there are some crazy blogs out there with some crazier bloggers. Brian’s newsburglar is a breath of fresh air. The Newsburglar is getting better and better, despite the fact he has to bait his friends. JK Everyone has a point of view and I respect them all.
Wow! Mike, you are asking awesome questions. I can respond after I get some work things done. Your last question is an invitation for me to geek out. I apologize in advance.
Goostaf,
You’re right about the paradigm shift but I’m not as optimistic on the time frame. I’m not sure where you’re going with the DVD analogy so I’ll assume its just an example of a transition that happened over a short period of time.
Anyway, I’d like to focus on the following statement:
“There are many inventions that can replace our current mode of transportation and our reliance on fossil fuels.”
This is factually accurate. Practically speaking though, there’s a lot not being said here. If I asked you to be more specific and name the many inventions, I’m sure you could. I’m also sure I could probably create an equally long list of why they’re impractical or unfeasible.
I guess what I’m getting at, is that there is a “hump” we have to get over. There’s a “hump” for almost every economic/environmental initiative out there. There’s is this huge inertial status quo. I love the idea that Obama might be the man to push us over the hump and I think we’re still a long way from knowing if he will or won’t. I’ve said on other posts here, I’m currently best described as cautiously optimistic.
In the interest of full disclosure. I tend to vote Republican. I also dislike Rush Limbaugh. In case you’re curious, this is not uncommon. I don’t think Rush dominates the mindset of the GOP (in fact it pains me to even have to discuss him, but whatever) any more than Michael Moore dominates the mindset of the Democrats. At least I hope they are both relatively non-influential when it comes to the thinking group of each party. It’s just laborious to have to deal with the likes of Rush, or Hannity (cringe) or Michael Moore or George Soros, or whoever the guy is waving his fist (wallet) at the moment. I’d much rather get down to brass tax and hash out the specifics with other thinking individuals, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans.
Because of this, I’ve really gotten a taste for the Newburgler as well. I feel like even though it’s really just getting going, it’s got a sense of reality too it. One that isn’t burdened by expected opinion. I think Brian quoted it at some point in his manifesto on here and the quote now alludes me but it was something along the lines of, “We’re all entitled to our own opinions, but we’re not entitled to our own set of facts.” I like to be informed by facts, and by people who can efficiently digest those facts to form coherent thoughts and strategies. I love analysis even though I often misspell the word.
Anyway, speaking of rants, I’ve certainly ranted enough for now.
alludes? Ugh!
Mike, I would agree, cautiously optimistic is a very good way to put it. Like you, I am hungry for facts and find myself blogging around searching for meaningful discussion as to what everything means. Most sites offer great topics but crazies to talk with. I will look for good conversation regardless of political persuasion. I prefer to have my point of view challenged, because my perspective needs to be constantly refreshed.
You are correct in my DVD analogy. I meant to make a point about how quickly technology can change and therefore the paradigm.
I like the fact that politicians use Film to further their point of view. I am pretty sure that most people take a politician’s film with a grain of salt. As for Michael Moore, he may be extreme, and he IS a filmmaker, and I only see him speaking out for the quiet little guy (ie. auto workers, uninsured, people without guns, etc.). I don’t have much bad to say about Michael Moore because he is making people aware of issues. I don’t always agree with him, but I will always watch his movie/docs. I like to be aware of issues, but that does not mean I want to watch Expelled because I think Ben Stein can teach me something new about Creationism. Ha Ha! Film is powerful, as an opinion-maker, unfortunately.
It’s an interesting point about using film. I personally love the medium. It has so many upsides and applications. It also has a few problems. I don’t want to get into any lengthy debates about Michel Moore (although I will if cornered), but suffice it to say, that while I can often understand his agenda,(standing up for the little guy is a noble cause), to me, he does a disservice to film. I don’t subscribe to the same by-any-means-necessary ethic Moore does. He abuses context, subverts his audience and plays fast and loose with facts to suit his cause. He abuses artistic license and hides behind the fact that he’s first an entertainer. I recognize he has an agenda and that’s fine. I’m just fearful of a powerful tool, like film, when it’s misused. If I didn’t have a strong grasp of actual facts, I might actually form an opinion based on a Michael Moore movie. The idea that lots of people do makes me shiver.
A similar situation occurred with a co-worker a couple of years ago. We were discussing that weeks SNL episode. I’m a big fan of SNL, in particular of the Weekend Update segment (for obvious reasons). Anyway, it was during the uproar over Donald Rumsfeld. They made a joke about how to choose a good Secretary of Defense. The punchline was something along the lines of “maybe if we chose someone who actually had experience in the military”. My co-worker rightly took this to mean that Donald Rumsfeld was purely a civilian and that it would make more sense to have a military man in that position. I informed him that Donald Rumsfeld may be many things, but he’s not a “civilian”. He was in the Navy, flew fighter pilots and had already been Secretary of Defense once before, even serving in the reserves for some 15 years or thereabouts. My co-worker was genuinely surprised that SNL would outright mislead it’s audience simply to get a laugh. I said they may not have been misleading, SNL writers are not generally known for their accurate understanding of historical fact. Jokes are easier to pull off when the facts are irrelevant. I just think they’re intellectually lazy. I mean c’mon, there are a million things you could lampoon someone like Rumsfeld on.
Anyway, short story long, if a viewer doesn’t have command of the facts, they are easily led astray and I think Michael Moore intentionally takes advantage of that.
Needless to say, so does Rush Limbaugh.
Oh, and for the record, I wouldn’t/haven’t seen the Ben Stein movie either.
Very true, Mike. Ultimately, one show of SNL or one Michael Moore movie/doc is not going to formulate 100% of anyone’s opinion. People put parodies and docs in context, whether they realize it or not. I don’t think anybody really came away from the SNL Weekend Update you mentioned(aside from your coworker) without testing that new knowledge either on a coworker or another news segment. Those of us who are lazy, would, as you stated, be inclined to file the Rumsfeld/civilian tidbit to use at the next holiday party. However, when I hear “facts” from docs, comedy shows, or now even news shows themselves, I usually have further questions that beg me to look further. This is not always the case, but at the same time I don’t spew random “facts” from a comedy show. I might have been the coworker who would ask you “Was Rumsfeld a civilian?” harmlessly averting an intellectually arrogant situation. In any case, other people aren’t as informed as me and you, but it is not our job to inform them, but rather our job is to help them ask more questions. Hopefully, ignorance is replaced by curiosity.
“Hopefully, ignorance is replaced by curiosity.”
I like that saying!
“People put parodies and docs in context, whether they realize it or not.”
I certainly hope so. 🙂
Isn’t that the correct way do quote a quote?
@Niki
?