<p>I already told you what I will do. I will continue to work with people who are suffering and, in some cases, dying from Al Gore. I will continue to work with families of 10-year-old girls who are being sold into virtual slavery because of Al Gore. I will work with families and communities whose land - which they had worked for hundreds and hundreds of years - is now a gray, chemicalized waste because of Al Gore. I will work with fisherfolk communities where there are no longer any fish because of effluents released as a result of Al Gore. I will work with communities whose water is polluted and/or watertable destroyed because of Al Gore. I’ve been doing this since Al Gore started preaching the gospel of neo-liberal globalization in the late '80s, and I have no reason to stop now. (and, I must say, I’ve been surprisingly effective, in my own little way.)</p>
<p>“You like the premise, but you don’t like the solutions (perhaps because of your intense dislike of the person who is advocating it).”</p>
<p>Al Gore says the point of no return is 2015. I have absolutely no reason to doubt him - after all, he won the Nobel Prize. So I’m really willing to do something if you can tell me what I can do today that will change the trend by 2015. Not 2040. not 2030. Not the 22nd Century. 2015. </p>
<p>I’m still waiting. I’ve told you what I plan to do. I’ve showed you mine. Now show me yours.</p>
<p>Bingo…I want to feel good at night and sleep without any sleep aid.</p>
<p>Do you propose that we continue spending money on Fossil fuels and trying to make them more efficient?</p>
<p>Yes</p>
<p>Do you propose that we continue to spend tax dollars on bio fuels </p>
<p>Yes</p>
<p>Do you propose to continue spending money on consumer education on being more energy efficient,</p>
<p>Yes</p>
<p>even though most of the energy issues are at the power generation, factories, and industrial levels? then that would reduce significantly more than the automobiles produce.</p>
<p>Mini–not arguing with your premise, but as Simba says, and I mean this with all sincerity, I think you are likely to have a good idea of what you think should be done about Climate change, notwithstanding Gore’s connection to it, and I would still be interested in your non-Gore-related ideas (not what YOU would do–you’re doing plenty good work already, but what you think should/could be done.)</p>
<p>Well, to reitterate what you said to me earlier, you are wrong. Personally, I don’t ever tell people that they are wrong. But, you are willing to say it to others, so; why not.</p>
<p>The 3 things you say “YES” to are all Band-Aids. You show that you have no desire whatsoever of developing alternative means of energy. You want the way we produce energy to remain in affect forever it seems. </p>
<p>The 1 thing you said “NO” to, you are incorrect. Many studies have shown that:</p>
<p>Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants
In 2002 about 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation. </p>
<p>Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars
About 20% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps).</p>
<p>These same Ultra-Green sites also add in the cutting down of too many trees and the rain forests and well as additional burning of Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil</p>
<p>These are from your own studies by the people you believe in. So please, if you are going to debate, at least know what you are talking about. Fixing power plants, industries, factories, etc… is a LOT EASIER to do than millions and millions of individual automobiles. Plus, it will have twice to impact and affect.</p>
<p>Again, all you care about are band-aids and “Feeling good”. You don’t care in the least if the problem is actually fixed.</p>
<p>“Mini–not arguing with your premise, but as Simba says, and I mean this with all sincerity, I think you are likely to have a good idea of what you think should be done about Climate change, notwithstanding Gore’s connection to it, and I would still be interested in your non-Gore-related ideas (not what YOU would do–you’re doing plenty good work already, but what you think should/could be done.)”</p>
<p>I don’t think there is ANYTHING that can be done that meets Gore’s “point of no return” by 2015, short of immediately banning ALL foreign imports (and I really do mean all - food, clothing, wood, petroleum products, natural gas, car parts - all of them.) Rationing gasoline to less than one-third of what it is today. Cutting the defense department immediately by 80% (so much of our energy expenditures are defense-related); closing half of our highways. Banning all non-essential air traffic. Then taxing all remaining goods based on the distance between production and consumption. Even then, I’m not sure it is enough.</p>
<p>I can justify what I do now based on global warming. The cutting of the mangrove forests, the creation of export products, the movement of people away from their land and to the cities, the creation of petroleum-based agriculture are all major contributors to global warming - and all of it heavily due to the work of Al Gore. But I won’t.</p>
<p>What I will say is that until one brings the poorest of the poor into the dialogue - since it is they who look up with hungry eyes toward developmental patterns that have gotten us into this mess to begin with - not much really is likely to occur.</p>
<p>Oh - one last thing - the abolition of the U.S. government as we know it would go a very long way toward meeting Gore’s 2015 deadline.</p>
<p>“Socolow’s model for stabilization attempts to prevent a doubling of the amount of carbon emissions by 2050 by stabilizing at the current rate of 7 gigatons of carbon/year, globally.”</p>
<p>If Al Gore is correct, Socolow is absolutely irrelevant.</p>
<p>I AM back to earth. Al Gore’s earth. 2015. I’m taking him at his word. I’m still waiting on you (are you floating in la-la-land?) 2015 is the point of no return. What would you have me do?</p>
<p>We should probably start putting money into figuring out how to actually eliminate greenhouse gases. As far-fetched and crazy as it may seem, the problem isn’t going to simply go away with our ever-greatening population and consumption habits. Everyone agrees that there’s just no way that everybody will be able to stop emitting carbon emissions, and lowering the rate will only delay the probably inevitable. Humanity has been able to survive and thrive best through invention, not reduction. I’m sure that if we put enough effort into it, we could probably find a way to dissolve or at least reduce the thickening greenhouse layer enough to resolve the current crisis. It’s certainly just as viable as trying to force everybody on the planet to ditch their gas-guzzling cars and drive imperfect hybrids, or forcing stubborn governments to change their energy policies. This way would not necessitate a unilateral effort by all nations. </p>
<p>“You win. I don’t have anything to show, and retirement only 7 weeks + 2 days away I am floating in la-la land.”</p>
<p>I’m jealous, and universal unconditional unemployment is a GREAT way to reduce global warming (though probably not enough, and it would have to be pretty universal, if Al Gore is correct.</p>
<p>So, putting that aside, do you really think Al Gore is correct? Or, put another way, given his list of namby-pamby feel-good “changes” and his 2015 “point-of-no-return”, do you think he was just showing another part of his hypocrite side? (I do mean that as a serious question.)</p>
<p>“Humanity has been able to survive and thrive best through invention, not reduction.”</p>
<p>How about an anti-gravity machine? Then we just punch a hole in the ozone layer, and whoosh!..(though we might lose some birds on the endangered species list.)</p>
<p>may be he is, may be he is not. Too me Al Gore just represents a symbol (too much of a Hindu background. You know very well that we Hindus have one stone figure for every good virtue. You name it and we got it) and summary of several thousand researchers who are much more intelligent than me.</p>
<p>I am thinking of having lunch with you this summer in Olympia (any good veggie restaurant there?).</p>
<p>What if he (and thousands others) is right?</p>
<p>Yes! We can easily accommodate you. The Indian restaurants are relatively mediocre, but this is ‘crunchy-town’, so virtually everywhere will accommodate. </p>
<p>I think Al Gore really doesn’t believe what he said about “point-of-no-return” - it was just a scare tactic, and moved people away from the real issue, which is dealing with the massive (and some cases, killing) negative global impacts of “Gorian” neo-liberal globalization. </p>
<p>enderkin; you are most definitely on the right track. Conservation and trying to make existing carbon based fuels more efficient is a band-aid. It’s a waste of time, money, and resources. There are plenty of ways to think outside the box to use different forms of energy to produce electricity. There are plenty of ways to develop means of transportation that don’t require the combustion engine. There are more efficient ways to produce energy rather than the conversion method that we use now. Unfortunately, too many people listen to people who have ulterior motives and don’t actually care about ultimate results.</p>
<p>Plus, all this is assuming that mankind’s reduction of his/her part of the CO2 increase is in fact a significant contribution to global warming in the first place. That too is still very much debated among scientists. However, there are those that will have you believe that 90+% of scientists say it is; even though that too isn’t true. The ONLY consensus among scientists is that global warming does exist. Anything beyond that is debatable. </p>
<p>The fact is; if we concentrated our efforts on more efficient forms of energy, the human factor would take care of itself. The problem is, many of these people have a cause that they are fighting for. To divert attention to the real issue of energy means that have to concede that their position may not be the most efficient. They just can’t let their emotions and ego do that. They have to fight to be right instead of just doing what’s right.</p>
<p>P.S. He did go to big H</p>
<p>Add to that the nobel prize and he’s worth a nickle</p>