Al Gore
Rob
Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Environmental Friend or Foe?</div>As the Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" was being handed to him, his house was <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html" target="_blank">generating</a> one of the <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659" target="_blank">biggest carbon footprints </a> on the planet.
Gore's reply was that he offsets his large shoe size by purchasing reductions in CO2 elsewhere in the world. Though, <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528" target="_blank">some also believe</a> that it is all, in fact, a money making scam.
What do you think? Has Gore done more harm than good? Or does the work justify a lavish lifestyle?
Personally, I think the idea of "carbon neutral" lifestyles and "offsetting carbon footprints" is a lot like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence" target="_blank">Indulgences</a>. So the rich are allowed to pollute, because they can spend the money to make it all better? I don't like that idea at all.
Gore's reply was that he offsets his large shoe size by purchasing reductions in CO2 elsewhere in the world. Though, <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528" target="_blank">some also believe</a> that it is all, in fact, a money making scam.
What do you think? Has Gore done more harm than good? Or does the work justify a lavish lifestyle?
Personally, I think the idea of "carbon neutral" lifestyles and "offsetting carbon footprints" is a lot like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence" target="_blank">Indulgences</a>. So the rich are allowed to pollute, because they can spend the money to make it all better? I don't like that idea at all.
Comments
But as he was going to do retrofits on the building, he caught up with some snags with his local city council.
Because Solar panels were regulated as "Generators" the same way that diesel generators are.
And thus the city ordinance did not allow solar panels to be put up on the roof.
An lobbying group picked up on this, and then spun it on FOX News to make it a big "issue".
That said, rather than buying offsets, he bought wind power directly for his house.
The same way that you buy any other form of electricity.
Frankly, given 20 years, and the ability to convince 18 national academies of science to sign on.
That's a pretty damned big "conspiracy" just to make some chump change.
The same goes for lifestyle. Unless you think there's something immoral about the amount of money he has, I wouldn't begrudge him using it to live the way he wants, and paying people to take care of his carbon is a reasonable way to do that. The movement would be better served by having a leader that lead by an example <i>everyone</i> could follow, but I don't think there's anything immoral about his approach, just sub-optimal.
Corporations (usually) produce tangible goodies for a large population. Individuals don't produce anything but resentment when they do things like that.
There's a big difference between corporations that buy pollution credits and allowing individuals to justify a lifestyle that's hazardous at the expense of other individuals who are not so fortunate.
Corporations (usually) produce tangible goodies for a large population. Individuals don't produce anything but resentment when they do things like that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Still, so long as he's offsetting his carbon emissions, what you are really arguing is that he shouldn't have that much money, or that he shouldn't be able to spend it for the lifestyle he wants. Dealing with global warming is going to have consequences, and any sensible implementation of policy will effect the quality of life of the poor more than the rich. That's inherent to any economic hardship, which this is certainly going to be. Whenever people have to cut back it most hurts those with less to spare.
Less mudflinging, more actual politics ftw.
Edit: Oh, how do the people finding this out live? Or rather, how do the people who pay people to find crap on Gore live?
As Rob mentions, carbon taxes will have much of the same effect as the old indulgences. It's not good if we can increase traveling with airplanes because we buy ourselves a good conscience. Buying reduced carbon emissions has to work in tandem with less heavy pollution activities as plane travel etc.
Ultimately the west has to deal with growing nations like China and India who are interested at getting the same standard of living as the west, which would be an environmental disaster. Imagine every Chinese family getting a car or two and changing it every few years. Either the west has to accept lower levels of consumption at home or keep rising countries from growing to much economically.
Still, so long as he's offsetting his carbon emissions, what you are really arguing is that he shouldn't have that much money, or that he shouldn't be able to spend it for the lifestyle he wants. Dealing with global warming is going to have consequences, and any sensible implementation of policy will effect the quality of life of the poor more than the rich. That's inherent to any economic hardship, which this is certainly going to be. Whenever people have to cut back it most hurts those with less to spare.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1642112:date=Aug 4 2007, 03:45 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Aug 4 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]1642112[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
His message doesn't really have anything to do with how he lives.
Less mudflinging, more actual politics ftw.
Edit: Oh, how do the people finding this out live? Or rather, how do the people who pay people to find crap on Gore live?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference is that these people aren't touting cleaner living. It's hypocritical at worst, and pigheaded at best. What do you mean his messages don't have anything to do with how he lives? He's talking about how our own actions that produce carbon emissions may eventually lead us to ruin, urging us all to ratchet down the production of these emissions. Then, his house burns more electricity in one month than an average house does in a year. The only thing that saves him from blatant hypocrisy is the he's bought these so-called carbon credits.
What I'm saying is that he doesn't have to live a life of extravagance. In fact, he could not burn that much electricity and still use the money he spent to buy carbon credits to buy carbon credits. Now his carbon footprint is, in fact, <i>negative</i>. By his own definition, he's the most environmentally pure mind on the planet.
But, nah, he apparently doesn't want the title of the environment's champion, he just wants to point out flaws in our system and let someone else handle it. If you want change, you have to sacrifice. Our leaders can be moving around pawns on the chessboard anymore.
To bring out the most argument promoting example. Let's compare Gore's house to <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php" target="_blank">President Bush's</a> new <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200703/CUL20070301c.html" target="_blank">ranch house</a>.
/me ducks
So Al Gore's a polluting, pigheaded hypocrite. Who cares? Does it make what he says any less true? No. The issue isn't who's saying this stuff, it's what's being said. Climate change is a problem, and whether it's a pedophile or Jesus telling us that, we still have to change either way.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I care, and I'm sure alot of people do. Look, if someone has a guts to stand up and say that the world needs to do something, they better damn well be willing to follow their own advice. If they don't, they're hurting the believability and strength of their own cause.
What does it say about the credibility of the global warming theory that one of it's biggest champions is doing something like this? So, let's all listen to what Al Gore's saying:
Become rich, expect the meek to change their lives while you pollute enough for ten of them. They're poor, it's <i>their</i> job to pick up your slack.
Not to mention that we wouldn't just accept everything that comes out of anyone's mouth. We have sources we trust and sources we don't. I'm sure if a bum was talking about global warming, we wouldn't listen as closely as we would if Al Gore was talking about global warming.
The indulgence analogy is some-what flawed, because he doesnt polute. He uses electricity, but his electricity is not polluting.
If a carbon-cap and trade system were ever introduced, maybe that would even help the poor abit.
He invented the intraweb, did he not? Case closed.... ... .. .
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't funny the first time someone came up with that "creative misinterpretation" for propaganda reasons, and it's still not funny now. He was very helpful in recognising the importance of the internet early on and advocating funding. Vincent Cerf goes as far as saying: “I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator.” in regards to Gore.
Not to mention that we wouldn't just accept everything that comes out of anyone's mouth. We have sources we trust and sources we don't. I'm sure if a bum was talking about global warming, we wouldn't listen as closely as we would if Al Gore was talking about global warming.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the bum was talking sense I would listen.
But hey, we all know it's how politicians look and from what family they are that matters, not what the actual politics look like! Rawr.
If the bum was talking sense I would listen.
But hey, we all know it's how politicians look and from what family they are that matters, not what the actual politics look like! Rawr.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While that's a beautiful sentiment, I'm sorry to say that I can't believe you would. Everyone has a list of people whose opinion they value the most, and I really don't see a random bum on the street being very high in your list. Credibility of witness! It's an important thing in law, and it's an important thing in life.
I don't really even know how this got so tangled. It was never a question of the validity of global warming theory, it was a question of the responsibility of Al Gore in particular. I feel like I'm defending myself for attacking grand an enigmatic global warming construct itself. Sheesh.
If we want the kind of reductions being talked about, what we need is exponential change, not tiny voluntary incremental change. You don't move a mountain one pebble at a time, you break out the dynamite, and the steamshovels.
More progress will be made by changing laws than changing lifestyles.
It's kind of silly to think that a cap and trade thing would regulate anything below a medium sized business.
You want a big SUV? <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/phoenix" target="_blank">Okay sure thing</a>.
You want a giant power plant that delivers inexpensive electricity? <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/csp4" target="_blank">No problem</a>.
_
That said, if it'd make you happy I do think biological "future" offsets are a dumb idea.
Unless they can point towards it within the last 12 months then theres no way in telling it's gonna be real.
I also think that Gore's push for biofuels is a crock.
But thats just the physics speaking.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/biofuels" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/biofuels</a>
Then again, no presidential candidate could win without the cornstate Iowa. So he wouldn't want to mess that up for them I guess.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/iowa" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/iowa</a>
But thats just the physics speaking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's still in a lot better situation than PV-cells are right now. Current PV-cells take years to repay the substantial amount of energy used to produce them. PV solar has very limited production capacity and will take a long time to ramp up. Electric vehicles need large quantities of batteries whereas there is a huge installed base of internal combustion engines compatible with ethanol or ethanol+gasoline mixtures or biodiesel.
It would take multiple decades to phase over to solar, whether we persue that or not we should be opportunistically persuing all other easy alternatives that make sense. There are many utterly wasteful things we shouldn't be doing whether we get our electricity from renewables, nuclear and sequester nearly all CO2 from remaining fossil fuels or not.
Lighting consumes a very significant chunk of total electricity consumption, if people cared they could save themselves a large chunk of cash by replacing all lights that operate for long periods of time with flourecent tubes or CFLs. There's lots of cellulosic waste that we would otherwise just burn for energy that we could use to make ethanol that cost us no farmland; we should use it as soon as it becomes economical to do so(taking into account best estimate of cost due to GW). Meat and dairy products are very inefficient to produce and ties up a lot of land; it is commonly eaten in very unhealthy quantities which result in heart and vascular disease(which was almost unheard of before being a fat b****** became the norm), it cost enormous amounts of time, effort and money to fix( we could take cardiovascular research money and distribute it to more useful research on diseases like cancer, malaria, figuring out how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, autoimmune and age related disease etc). Better city planing to discourage wasteful traffic jams(better public transport? Bicycle paths?).
Well thats the trick. I don't think anything is gonna get done on an individual level anyways.
If we want the kind of reductions being talked about, what we need is exponential change, not tiny voluntary incremental change. You don't move a mountain one pebble at a time, you break out the dynamite, and the steamshovels.
More progress will be made by changing laws than changing lifestyles.
It's kind of silly to think that a cap and trade thing would regulate anything below a medium sized business.
You want a big SUV? <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/phoenix" target="_blank">Okay sure thing</a>.
You want a giant power plant that delivers inexpensive electricity? <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/csp4" target="_blank">No problem</a>.
...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not so sure I agree that changing lifestyles will have so little an effect. Your analogy about moving pebbles is true if there is only a small crew working on moving the mountain. Small crew as in 300 people. There are 230 million people in the United States. If every person in this country reduced emissions by 1 pound per year, that's 230 million pounds less per year. If people like Al Gore also contributed to the funds he uses to "buy emission rights," that's even more pounds per year.
If then corporations also reduced by a more substantial amount, then we're really getting somewhere. I never discount the power of the individual, both in dire circumstance and reinforced with incentive.
That's a wonderful sentiment but how do you get people to reduce emissions? In this country any effort to force people to things is met with resistance. I agree the ultimate goal is to reduce emissions, but you have to look at paying for your carbon footprint as a step in that direction. In order to get people to reduce emissions you have to get them to look at the "hidden" costs of things. Costs such as the environmental cost of your hamburger from McDonalds since it came from a factory farm. The oil pollution cost of transportation and processing of the meat in the patty and the corn in bun.(OT but the same goes for most everything in the supermarket, even Whole Foods)
You get people to look at the "hidden" costs by setting up an environmental tax. Voluntary at first to get people used to the idea and then mandatory so now the environmental costs are now reflected in the price up front instead of after the fact.
It's still in a lot better situation than PV-cells are right now. Current PV-cells take years to repay the substantial amount of energy used to produce them. PV solar has very limited production capacity and will take a long time to ramp up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hence the reason to use thermal solar, and thinfilm solar.
I know for a fact that thinfilm solar only has a 6 month energy payback.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/csp" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/csp</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/csp2" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/csp2</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/csp4" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/csp4</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/pv" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/pv</a>
There's also the potential of quantum dots.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/quantum" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/quantum</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1642517:date=Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soylent_green @ Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]1642517[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Electric vehicles need large quantities of batteries whereas there is a huge installed base of internal combustion engines compatible with ethanol or ethanol+gasoline mixtures or biodiesel. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and ethanol needs large quantities of pumps that we don't have, and trucks to haul it everywhere, because <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/e85stations.png" target="_blank">ethanol is not compatible with any existing infrastructure</a>.
Furthermore, if you are looking short term, we'd be far better off with <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png" target="_blank">Clean Diesels</a> and <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png" target="_blank">Hybrids</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1642517:date=Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soylent_green @ Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]1642517[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
It would take multiple decades to phase over to solar, whether we persue that or not we should be opportunistically persuing all other easy alternatives that make sense. There are many utterly wasteful things we shouldn't be doing whether we get our electricity from renewables, nuclear and sequester nearly all CO2 from remaining fossil fuels or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And it would take multiple decades to get even a few percent of our fuel replaced by ethanol, when you take out the energy inputs that went into making that same ethanol.
Currently, corn ethanol is merely laundering natural gas, coal, propane, and diesel.
What you get out that was truely renewable is almost nothing.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/etoh.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/etoh.png</a>
<a href="http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/05/e85-spinning-our-wheels.html" target="_blank">http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/05/e8...our-wheels.html</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1642517:date=Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soylent_green @ Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]1642517[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Lighting consumes a very significant chunk of total electricity consumption, if people cared they could save themselves a large chunk of cash by replacing all lights that operate for long periods of time with flourecent tubes or CFLs. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but this one so far is self funding. It just makes good economic sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1642517:date=Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soylent_green @ Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]1642517[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
There's lots of cellulosic waste that we would otherwise just burn for energy that we could use to make ethanol that cost us no farmland; we should use it as soon as it becomes economical to do so(taking into account best estimate of cost due to GW). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cellulosic waste is an oxymoron in most cases.
It's "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs".
<a href="http://venturebeat.com/2006/11/05/why-cellulosic-ethanol-will-not-save-us" target="_blank">http://venturebeat.com/2006/11/05/why-cell...ill-not-save-us</a>
<a href="http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf</a>
<a href="http://culturechange.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107" target="_blank">http://culturechange.org/cms/index2.php?op...view&id=107</a>
<a href="http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem-of-cellulosic-ethanol.html" target="_blank">http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/lo...ic-ethanol.html</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1642517:date=Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soylent_green @ Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]1642517[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Meat and dairy products are very inefficient to produce and ties up a lot of land; it is commonly eaten in very unhealthy quantities which result in heart and vascular disease(which was almost unheard of before being a fat b****** became the norm), it cost enormous amounts of time, effort and money to fix( we could take cardiovascular research money and distribute it to more useful research on diseases like cancer, malaria, figuring out how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, autoimmune and age related disease etc). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that would be forcing people to change their lifestype choices, and frankly that ain't gonna happen unless tje economics simply go sky high.
<!--quoteo(post=1642517:date=Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soylent_green @ Aug 7 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]1642517[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Better city planing to discourage wasteful traffic jams(better public transport? Bicycle paths?).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but thats merely dealing with congestion, not really global warming.
So Al Gore's a polluting, pigheaded hypocrite. Who cares? Does it make what he says any less true? No. The issue isn't who's saying this stuff, it's what's being said. Climate change is a problem, and whether it's a pedophile or Jesus telling us that, we still have to change either way.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agree totally.
People who concentrate on criticising one particular advocate of climate change are either missing the point entirely or have some vested interest in undermining the credibility of that person or a climate change policy.
They are also many, many high-profile advocates of climate change and to believe that the hypocritical actions of one particular advocate undermines the fact that climate change is occuring is foolish.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Rob"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Rob")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I think the idea of "carbon neutral" lifestyles and "offsetting carbon footprints" is a lot like Indulgences. So the rich are allowed to pollute, because they can spend the money to make it all better? I don't like that idea at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have to disagree entirely with you there. Basing the particular definition of "Indulgence" on your Wikipedia link, an "Indulgence", in short, seems to be a pardon given to a sinner after they have done some (in all honesty) token activity to "offset" their sin. From the article (and again imo), these gestures are only superficial. E.g. praying, saying a holy phrase etc., none of which are likely <b>actually</b> remedy whatever sin that person has done.
This is <b>completely</b> different from a "carbon neutral" lifestyle where someone is actively and practically offsetting their carbon emissions. These people are <b>not</b> simply polluting, saying sorry, then telling people they won't do it next time. These people (admirably) skip the wishy-washy rhetoric and are actually entirely reversing the effects of their pollution.
The reason I used the Indulgence example is that the system was abused. We Catholics believe that the Pope is God's proxy on earth, therefore what he says goes. For example, if the Pope says that you're going to hell, then you're going to hell, no matter how pious you are. That's really what excommunication is.
Now, at some point during the Indulgence fiasco (which was all created to make the church money), the Pope says "you pay us, you can have a get out of Hell free card." So, people could commit murder so long as they had the money to pay off God.
Keep in mind that in those days, religion was as much a fact as Global warming. If, one hundred years down the line, we find out that Global warming was a gross over-estimation, a miscalculation, then all of this carbon credits stuff will be thought of as less than scientific, mere rubbish. Just like now, we look back on the "laws" of Christianity and (many of us) scoff, call it it rubbish.
So, we have two systems to excuse horrible behavior, behavior which serves to subjugate the common human, and two similar belief systems backing them up. Christianity and the promise of Hell backs up Indulgences, Global Warming theory and the promise of cataclysmic climate change backs up Carbon Credits.
In either case, the whole system would be better off if said offenders had simply not done those offenses to begin with:
If the one who bought an Indulgence for murder had not murdered, there would be one more live person, and more cash in his own pocket.
If the one who bought carbon credits for having a personal jet had not bought that personal jet, they're could possibly be less pollution (depending on how effective carbon credits are), there would be less hatred for this person, flying high in a personal jet, and this person would have even more money.
Further, if this person had went ahead and bought the carbon credits anyway, this person is no longer "carbon neutral," but "carbon negative." This person's now a philanthropist, and still they have more money than they would have the other way (not buying the jet).
So, what are carbon credits? They're simply a way for the rich to continue to live a lifestyle of extravagance while maintaining an acceptable level of personal and public guilt. Much the same as Indulgences were to the rich in the old days.
If, one hundred years down the line, we find out that Global warming was a gross over-estimation, a miscalculation, then all of this carbon credits stuff will be thought of as less than scientific, mere rubbish.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what is the worst that can happen?
[youtube]zORv8wwiadQ[/youtube]
"We know that if you're on this Earth, it's because God put you here."
"We know that a woman's place is to assist her husband."
Because the Lord tells us so.
"We know that we're here because we've been evolving our way up inch by inch."
"We know that Global Warming is an issue, and we need to work on it <i>now</i>."
Because science tell us so.
And the fundamental argument against your entire reasoning in this topic is that gore's personal behaviour has little to do with his fundamental message. Just like Catholic priests raping kids do not undermine the fundamental message of Christianity. Just like Bush inability to pronounce basic English words has little to do with the validity of the neocon agenda. Just like any ad hominem argument belittles the one making the point and not the person under the micrsoscope.
So setting aside the fact that Gore, like all of us, has plenty of room for personal improvements, do you have any other criticisms of the basic argument he has set out?
...
Because the Lord tells us so.
...
Because science tell us so.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I could examine "the Lord's" assumptions and test his conclusions then you might have a point. Unfortunately, I can't.
We also ask questions in science, so maybe that's the big difference. But, it's also just another, more different way of looking at the world. Intellectual exercises can't be measured alongside a system of faithful obedience (read: blind following). There's no basis for the comparison. Which is more right than the others? You can't answer that question until you've made some basic assumptions about the world and defined some metrics; both of these add bias.
Before I derail my own thread, I'll try to make a connection. This is all important because the theory of Global Warming exists due to our science. We've asked a question, "Can we live in an environment without changing it?"
We've answered that with a resounding "No."
So, applying our science, we've determined how much we're changing it, how often, and how bad it will be for us. Now, most of what I've read by the scientists at the core of this urges some caution before just taking the conclusions and running with them. Any level headed scientist would tell you to be skeptical, because a skeptic asks questions. This, however, has not stopped radical polarization.
And it's not stopped people like Al Gore riding high on the wave of dissent and fear. As you said, puzl, he's made himself a poster child. If he really cared about the environment, common sense would say he'd try to be fixing it, not just maintaining it. Instead, he's set up a system in which 'right' and 'wrong' are defined by how much an decision helps or hurts the environment. Right decisions are okay, wrong ones can be made okay if one has enough money.
What happens if someone makes a law in the near future requiring everyone to live carbon neutral lifestyles? That's fine for Mr. Gore and his multi-million dollar war chest, but the common citizen working hard just to get by is going to have a hell of a time justifying that car trip to work, or paying a bus fare that's been tripled in order to buy the carbon credits.
If anything comes of carbon credits, I think it can only be at the cost of the individual. Putting in legislation on big business it hard because it's so well connected. It's almost as bad as getting the senate to ratify legislation to limit the terms of senators. This is something that I think we really need, but it's never going to happen.
I don't suggest a conspiracy, but I do suggest that when people in power play for popularity, a lot of innocents get stepped on.
Okay, science itself doesn't tell us anything, but it's application produces truths that we accept. That's my point. The application of religion also produces truths which those under it accept. You can get caught up in the minor differences, and distinguish our current system by saying that we test, document, and reproduce our results. I suppose this somehow makes science better, more <i>real</i> than religion. But, who decided at the beginning, when the scientific method was first written down and preserved as canon, that reproducibility was the infallible test of truth? It makes sense, sure. But the belief in Heaven's angels and Hell's demons made sense, too.
We also ask questions in science, so maybe that's the big difference. But, it's also just another, more different way of looking at the world. Intellectual exercises can't be measured alongside a system of faithful obedience (read: blind following). There's no basis for the comparison. Which is more right than the others? You can't answer that question until you've made some basic assumptions about the world and defined some metrics; both of these add bias.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that we should not derail the thread, but let me first say that making basic assumptions about the world is essential for any basic function, and it is essential enough that it's ridiculous to call it bias. Science assumes only that actions are repeatable. If that assumption is false then I fail to see how any of us could rationally get out of bed in the morning. The fact that our very limbs do what we tell them to rests on this assumption.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
What happens if someone makes a law in the near future requiring everyone to live carbon neutral lifestyles? That's fine for Mr. Gore and his multi-million dollar war chest, but the common citizen working hard just to get by is going to have a hell of a time justifying that car trip to work, or paying a bus fare that's been tripled in order to buy the carbon credits.
If anything comes of carbon credits, I think it can only be at the cost of the individual. Putting in legislation on big business it hard because it's so well connected. It's almost as bad as getting the senate to ratify legislation to limit the terms of senators. This is something that I think we really need, but it's never going to happen.
I don't suggest a conspiracy, but I do suggest that when people in power play for popularity, a lot of innocents get stepped on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This will be solved in the near term by exactly what you said: more money. Sensible implementations of a carbon tax or cap and trade system will require the carbon to be accounted for before it ever reaches the consumer. In some cases it will make economic sense to switch to cleaner methods of production. In some cases it will be cheaper to keep doing it the dirty way and either buying offsets, or paying the tax. No matter what, in the near term the cost of consumer goods would rise for <i>everyone</i>, but as always, this will hit the poor the worst. If you don't think this is how it should be then your quarrel is with the distribution of wealth, and not with global warming or the economic policies to deal with it. Al Gore is just behaving as a rational consumer would if this legislation were already in place.