I think I've finally figured Al Gore out. It took a while, but I think I finally understand.
I was reading an article today (found here) about Al Gore and his "grand vision" for America to become "carbon free" within the next ten years. According to the article, this action will "solve global warming, end U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and rein in energy prices". What caught my attention was that it will "solve global warming"!
Solve global warming! The problem which, according to the National Geographic "presents the greatest test we humans have yet faced"? One which will supposedly bring death and destruction and storms and rising ocean levels, all caused by the huge amounts of carbon dioxide that people are releasing into the atmosphere! Wow, to solve that is quite an accomplishment.
Realize, that I am not arguing that the whole global warming idea is a hoax, necessarily, or that it's not really real. Certainly, to a reasonable degree carbon emissions by people has affected the environment and evidence shows that to a reasonable degree reducing our carbon emissions will have a positive effect. I agree. But let's GET REASONABLE about this! For one thing, ASSUMING AL GORE IS RIGHT, and that Global Warming is a horribly important issue for the world to address, then what effect will America, which releases a FRACTION of the world's man-made carbon emissions, have, EVEN IF it was to become "carbon free"? Let's see... man's emissions of carbon already are a very small fraction of the total output in the world (a lot comes from volcanoes and other sources), and America is a fraction of that... so America becoming carbon free, reducing the total output by a fraction of a fraction... that will SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING! Yes! We did it! And it was all thanks to Al Gore. He's our hero.
So this is what I was thinking... maybe Al Gore came up with this pretend crisis (Global Warming), so we could all come to a pretend solution, so that when in the end all the catastrophes don't happen, it'll all be Al Gore's doing, and we'll all raise him up as a hero and a world leader and .... you get my drift.
Anyway, just a thought.
****
P.S. The other two reasons, "end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and rein in energy prices" are far higher on the priority list. We should focus on those. And becoming "carbon free" would definitely help in those two areas a great deal. However, becoming "carbon free" so suddenly, economically speaking, is probably not the best option. The best course of action economically probably involves using energy sources which do emit carbon to a certain degree, but perhaps and hopefully less than today.
Another small thought -- all the Global Warming advocates speak up wind and solar energy a lot. But my understanding is that current technologies don't really make just those two sources of energy a feasible option, as they may only create a small fraction of our needed energy even with a lot of focused effort. Is this true? Am I right that in fact nuclear energy is the best option for our future energy needs? Or can wind and solar really do it on their own?
And what about the other problem I've heard about-- that the high demand global warming has created for ethanol is causing grain-farmers to create mainly corn, therefore making a shortage of other grains such as wheat. Is this true? What effect will that have on our economy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Global warming is not a hoax. Areas that are used to being snow covered are melting, such as Antactica. It is a serious issue that can in effect cause great catastrophies if not addressed, and I fear that the media making light of the matter and the government ignoring it will eventually be one of the factors that leads to serious problems both environmentally and economically for the nation.
As far as the US only being partially responsible that is true, but the US is a major player in the world as a whole, and what the US does the other nations will follow suit thanks to the creation of NATO.
The power plants all over the world are destroying our land by their emissions into the air and the water being tainted with the poisons that the employees are dumping into the water. We're killing off the wildlife as well as killing ourselves.
It will take a long time, even if we started cleaning it all up tomorrow, it would take over a century to really see the results in a measurable amount, and the fact that it would take that long is part of the reason that there is nothing being done at this point. People don't want to give up their luxuries in order to protect the environment for the future that they will not enjoy. Sad but true.
Until the people wake up and realize that what they do today does have an effect on their children and grandchildren and the way that they will live, nothing will change.
(the above deleted comment was actually written by me, Steven, not Ben, so I deleted it and reposted it under my actual name :-) )
**
Sorry, Angela, but while I agree that Global Warming is actually taking place, and while I even agree that human emission of carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment, --- while I agree in those two aspects, I do not believe there is enough evidence quite yet to say with certainty that there is a DIRECT CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP between human releasing of carbon dioxide and global warming.
Secondly, EVEN IF I ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT, I do not believe there is a feasible way to make any significant dent in curbing our effects on global warming (or reverse it) simply by reducing our emissions.
HOWEVER, don't mis-read me here. I fully support efforts to curb our emissions of pollution and carbon dioxide, but TO DO SO IN AN ECONOMICALLY AND WISELY-REASONED MANNER, instead of making rash desisions that probably won't leave us any better, but may in other ways leave us in a much worse situation. For example, imagine America did exactly what Al Gore wants, and cuts off all carbon emissions in the next 10 years. But what if in the process, energy prices skyrocket, our economy collapses, and we fall into another depression? Then in our poverty we release more carbon into the atmosphere than before? Or, look at the situation of ethonol: So many people are planting corn to make ethonol that the prices of other grains like wheat are going way up. We could screw over our economy in many ways if we don't do it right. If we do do it right, then we may be able to do exactly waht Al Gore is asking, perhaps in a bit longer time, in a way that keeps the economy strong and also addresses many other issues that are FAR HIGHER on the priority list. And realizing the near-impossibility of really uniting the world to cut off carbon dioxide emissions, then if the scientists really were right that many natural disasters are coming as a result, then wouldn't the best course be to take steps to prevent loss of life in such an event? Redesigning our cities to withstand big storms, moving away from the shoreline, making government organizations that have the ability to save people in disasters faster and more effectively-- wouldn't that be the higher priority? How come that's not happening, and why isn't Al Gore advicating that? Perhaps he doesn't believe his own prediction, since if he did he would be acting in a different way.
Those other reasons higher on the priority list are many. There's more reason than simply "solving global warming" to reduce carbon emissions. I stated at the end of my post that America becoming oil independent is very very important, and many things which lead that direction also at the same time reduce pollution. But we must FIRST be oil independent, so our economy is less affected by outside influences. Then we have the economic ability to make changes that can lead to a huge, if not complete, reduction of carbon dioxide output.
Yes, my piece is satire, and Al Gore's oppinion has helped some good things happen. But he's pushing it on a wishy-washy foundation of fudged-facts and unreasonable future predictions that much of the world has just blindly believed because they want to. National Georgraphic said that Global Warming "presents the greatest test we humans have yet faced". Don't you think moral problems like saving the family, (the desintigration of which could lead to the destruction of nations), or issues like preventing a nuclear war between Iran and Israel are a far greater test? We need to take action to solve the most pressing concerns first. Global Warming is an important issue on "page 2" of agenda items. I believe it's inclusion on "page 1" for so long has been a huge distraction, and allowed other huge problems to fall by the wayside.
Hey Steven!
Listen, I'm not a diehard fan of AL Gore, or his suggested conclusions of how to handle the whole envirnmental mess, but I wake up every day in an area that is so plauged by cancer due to the local power plants that we have three large hospitals dedicated to it, and they are filled.
There are other factors that have lead to this problem, it took a century for us to get to this point, and it'll take another century for us to fix (At least)
Using other sources of energy would be a great idea, bring back the water wheel to generate energy among the operations that work on the rivers and other major waterways. Bring in the windmills for the plains and then start working on solar energy. Oil is in a short supply and it takes how many millions of years for the earth to create it? Coal is another bad idea because it too is created over thousands of years before it is ready for us to use.
As far as the degeneration of the family, tell me about it! It seems that people think that the Jerry Springer lifestyle is the norm, and it makes me sick to see a mother yell at her child in public, not to mention the other abuses I have seen and heard about over the years. Satan is working very hard now to bring as many of our brethren as possible into his clutches and destroy as many lives as possible. What is sad is that there are some that are so deceived as to believe that Satan doesn't exist. All the while he is destroying them and their families completely and totally unchallenged. But that is a different subject entirely.
There is more to Global Warming than just Carbon Emissions, there is also the systematic destroying of nature in general in the name of progress, or redevelopment. The tearing down of our forests is actually worsening the air we breathe because the trees are the ones who produce Oxygen, WE NEED them to survive, and yet developers cut them down because they want to build a mall to make money. Even the nature preserves are in danger of being rezoned because the federal government doesn't have the money to keep them all up. The wildlife are dying off and becoming endangered species because they have nowhere to live, or no food to eat.
We have to take better care of the land around us, we cannot ignore it because it is not as pressing as a war in a land a half a world a way. I am not saying that the wars in the Middle East are not important; they are, but what I am advocating is for us to take care of what is around us keeping in mind that what we do today does have an effect, whether we see it or not, on tomorrow.
Do not think that what I am saying is that this issue is more important than any you've named, but what I am saying is that we have to look ahead and start planning for the future about this issue, to set goals that are; yes, a long time in coming and implement plans that will strongly encourage the companies to invest their time and money in improving operations and the quality of the environment around them. To begin making plans for our future descendents to follow because there is no way that the Global Warming issue will be solved in our lifetimes, but we can warn the future generations and pass the ball onto them about a vision and desire to improve the environment for everyone.
Does that make sense?
Hey, Angela!
Thanks for your response. For the most part, I agree with you. One thing to clarify, though. I think there is a difference in the way the two of us use the term "Global Warming". I think you are using the term to refer to "everything that hurts the environment". If that's the case, then yes, there is a lot that can be done right now to improve our environment! You're right that trees are important for our air, that coal power plants cause the air quality to go down which is causing cancer, etc. We need to change a lot of these things. And yes, as we raise our children, it's important to teach the general principle of helping the environment so future generations make decisions which improve the environment. The the vast majority of that I agree with!
When I use the term "global warming", it is very different than simply "hurting the environment". What I am referring to specifically is the scientific theory that the release of certain gases into the atmosphere (primarily carbon dioxide) adds to the "greenhouse effect" of the atmosphere, and is therefore gradually increasing the temperature of the earth. It is THIS I am referring. It is important to note that NOT ALL POLLUTION CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING. In fact, some may counter-act it.
There is large amounts of evidence that the world is in fact getting warmer over the last few decades. As you said, the melting of glaciers and ice in the artic and antartic is proof of this. However, there is not enough evidence (yet) to say unequivocally that this warming is taking place as a result of human-caused pollution. (But we can be cirtain that pollution is happening! Just whether it's affecting the warming of the earth is uncirtain). Therefore, if the goal is to stop global warming, (not just stop pollution in general), then to advocate the radical decrease of pollution for the sole purpose of stopping global warming, when there isn't even very much evidence that that pollution is causing it in the first place, I think that's stupid. If someone were to advocate the decrease of pollution for the sake of improving the environment, then sure, I agree. (as long as it's done in a way that won't collapse our economy or make the world starve to death :-) ). But to argue the point only in relation to Global warming is dumb, and that's what Al Gore is doing.
My point is, we can argue the SAME THING using much better and sounder arguments, using solid and not wishywashy evidence, using sound and not bad logic.
In essence, Al Gore says this:
"Despite being potentially counter productive toward pressing concerns, and despite being based on an unproven theory, let's take drastic measures to solve a long-term problem, even though we have no way to be certain our action will have any effect, or that the problem was caused by what we think it was caused by in the first place"
What I say, instead, is this:
"For the purpose of solving a pressing problem and also for the purpose of setting the groundwork for solving a long-term problem, lets take action. Let's not take drastic action toward the long term problem yet, since we don't have enough information about the problem to be certain of a good course of action, and to do so could jeopardize the solution to the more pressing problem."
--Steven
P.S. when you listed a bunch of other sources of energy (solar, water, wind, etc), you forgot to mention Nuclear Energy. It's very important that people realize that it is UNREALISTIC to think that the amount of energy our civilization uses could be generated with just solar, wind, and hydroelectric. We don't have that technology yet. We DO have the technology to do it with nuclear, and that is by far the better option at this point. And we can do it SAFE and CLEAN. But the wind and sun and water power can help, of course. :-)
Steven,
First off, sorry I couldn't get to your message sooner, but my cousin was married this weekend in Nashville,TN and I was with the family there, and when I came home, I had to work the day I normally have off as a compromise for my boss. So, I am just now getting back to the computer.
I understand what you're saying about global warming by the Al Gore Definition, and as I stated, I am not a die hard fan of his, but I do respect that he is trying to make a difference and bring to the attention of the general public his concerns with global warming as a whole.
I must admit that I am not very well versed in nuclear power. I used the versions of energy that I am more familiar with, so please forgive my ignorance concerning the nuclear version. I will point out though, that if we have to use a source that comes from the earth, such as oil and coal, then we will eventually run out over time, because the population of the world is increasing but the ability to create oil and coal still takes thousands if not millions of years.
My point about the trees has to do with the global warming because carbon dioxide is what Al Gore is saying is off balance in the atmosphere; my point is that if we had more trees and forests, the trees breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen; it may seem like such a simple-minded solution, but my point being, if we have too much carbon dioxide, perhaps we need more understanding of how the earth naturally takes care of this problem and increase the plants and other existing living organisms in order to regain a healthy balance of air quality. If we can't use the trees per se, perhaps science can learn and understand thru study of the trees inner systems and create machines that can do the same thing in factories to reduce the polution that they are emitting into the air.
Steven, I am not a scientist, I am a 35 yr old woman that because of a chronic health condition that, although I'm very intelligent, I have not had the fortune of going past an Associates Level of education in Accounting. My education is not in the science arena, so I don't know for certain if any thing that I am putting is even possible, but it would seem logical to me, that if we can't plant the trees in order to reestablish a balance within the atmosphere, which even if they were all planted tomorrow would take at least a century to fix if not longer, then we can use our technology to study them and try to recreate their air cleansing effects in machines... Just a Lame-brain idea from a crazy young woman in Indiana....anyway;
I hope you have a blessed week!
Angela
Hey, Angela.
It's been really interesting and enlightening to debate this issue. I didn't intend for it to be argumentative, or critical, or negative in anyway, so I apologize if it came across that way! I find it interesting to delve into the different logical arguments that people are using, and try to find the best course. I don't think your argument is stupid at all! You have a lot of good points. I think after our back-and-forth we've found that we mostly agree! That's a good question you have, I wonder if it would be possible to make machines that do what trees do for the atmosphere. I'm not sure.
If I do have something positive for Al Gore, it's the fact that regardless of his argument, he at least has brought the general public to a greater awareness of energy use and pollution in general, and as a result some political energy to make real changes have come about. That has been a very positive thing (despite my opinion of the illogical-ness and wishy-washy-ness of the scientific details :-) ).
Have a wonderful week!
-Steven
Steven,
I have enjoyed discussing this issue with you as well. I accept the apology, and appreciate it.
As far as Al Gore is concerned, I have mentioned that I am not a die-hard fan of his, as a matter of fact, I'm not a fan at all, but my parents are, so I have to listen to them sing his praises. I agree that his proposals in the movie, Inconvenient Truth, were very farfetched, but the environmental changes that he stated from meteorlogical sources cannot be denied. (Ex, the melting of the polar icecaps) As far as to what is the true cause, that remains yet to be seen.
I hope that we, as a people will take the situation seriously and be able to find a solution that will help to protect our environment and our planet before things get so out of control there is no turning back...
I guess that what I'm saying is that we truly agree about some of Al Gore's ideas as being a little bit on the extreme side. Anyway, Interesting Discussion!
Post a Comment