Al Gore Wants to Make a Sequel

[europop2005]

In all honesty i felt the first film was more Al Gore talking about Al Gore than the enviroment

 

[the tourist]

I didn't see it, but it probably was.

 

[ntalwar]

Anyway, we'll probably solve global warming as soon as we find out, and successfully employ a substitute for oil.

A big If is required there (for a substitute).


Michael Moore had some great points on Larry King:

KING: You think gas prices are going to keep going up?

MOORE: I would assume so, because we're already at a peak here, where the actual -- the ability to manufacturer and produce oil -- we're at the limit now. And now we're going to be producing less and less each year for the next 10, 15, 20 years. And if there's only, some say, 40, 60 years of oil left that we can get out of the Earth, there's a calamity waiting to happen somewhere down the road. There's no discussion about it. We just lost eight years to try and do something about it.

KING: You're pessimistic.

MOORE: I am pessimistic about this. I just think because it's not part of the national conversation -- the only thing we seem to talk about is it's costing more to get to work. That's a horrible thing. Look, everybody's getting a check this week from Bush. So, they can give it back to Bush's oil buddies at the gas stations.

 

[INDY500]

We have the answer to the energy & food supply, global terrorism and pollution problems.

Use land for food and the atom for power. Al Gore won't make THAT movie.

 

[mystery girl]

We have the answer to the energy & food supply, global terrorism and pollution problems.

Use land for food and the atom for power. Al Gore won't make THAT movie.

That sounds simple enough. But there are debates about whether nuclear power really is "safe". I live in New Zealand, where we won't even touch nuclear power. We rely on hydro-power for most of our electricity.

 

[INDY500]

That sounds simple enough. But there are debates about whether nuclear power really is "safe". I live in New Zealand, where we won't even touch nuclear power. We rely on hydro-power for most of our electricity.

Hydro is great except we don't have anymore rivers on earth to dam. None have been built in the U.S. since the 60's and the last dam built in the world (in China) displaced more than a million people.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You can't implement fission reactors as a long term solution, not only is lead time to slow but the amount of fuel is limited. The safety of nuclear is much better than coal, there is disproportionate criticism and the green movement should be held to account over misrepresentation and fear mongering of the nuclear industry.

Long term solutions demand renewable or sustainable means of energy production. In a magical world a rollout of nuclear fusion reactors by the end of the century would be nice but failing that some sort of carbon capture technology seems the only real way to undo or minimise the damage.

Living standards demand energy and resource use, it is all well and good for us with out laptops, internet, houses/apartments, refrigerators etc. to complain about this but when we take the step of wanting to retard development around the world and deny people things that we already have it becomes a bit unethical.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

excelsior!

wooooooooosh

 

[the iron horse]

More words of wisdom from THE GREAT AL GORE:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506160205.aspx

 

[melon]

You can't implement fission reactors as a long term solution, not only is lead time to slow but the amount of fuel is limited.

That presumes, of course, that nuclear reactors can only be done using uranium-235, which, indeed, is quite rare. However, that ignores the fact that it is, indeed, quite possible to have uranium-238 reactors, which constitutes the vast majority of natural uranium on the planet (99.2745% versus uranium-235, which constitutes 0.72%). With that, it is estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years worth of uranium-238 for nuclear power use. Russia, currently, has the only online uranium-238 reactor, which has been online since 1980. Japan has one too that has been shut down since 1996, but there has been talk of reviving it.

With that, that also doesn't take into account India's research into thorium-based nuclear reactors (as India has large deposits of this element), which, alone, is more plentiful than all the uranium on Earth. We can add, potentially, another 10,000 to five billion years onto the previous tally.

I think there is more than adequate reason to pursue nuclear power as a long-term power solution.

 

[Moser]

Here is a four part lecture about global warming. I've written papers about why anthropogenic global warming is overstated and Professor Bob Carter sums up everything into an enjoyable lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=related

Fact: Al Gore is a hypocrit. You don't need two eyes to see that one.

 

[ntalwar]

I think there is more than adequate reason to pursue nuclear power as a long-term power solution.

"Not in my backyard"-syndrome is an obstacle that prevents nuclear power from gaining widespread acceptance, especially for the fast breeder reactors (which are less safe and realiable).

 

[A_Wanderer]

"Not in my backyard"-syndrome is an obstacle that prevents nuclear power from gaining widespread acceptance, especially for the fast breeder reactors (which are less safe and realiable).

Than what, it's a relative statement.

 

[ntalwar]

Than what, it's a relative statement.

Compared to u-235 reactors.

Wind farms unfortunately also are considered an eyesore by many.

 

[melon]

I've mentioned this before, but there's also a very geopolitical reason to engage this topic, even if one denies global warming:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/o...em&ex=1210305600&en=56fd0b63fd541e7a&ei=5087

The Democratic Recession
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

There are two important recessions going on in the world today. One has gotten enormous attention. It’s the economic recession in America. But it will eventually pass, and the world will not be much worse for the wear. The other has gotten no attention. It’s called “the democratic recession,” and if it isn’t reversed, it will change the world for a long time.

The term “democratic recession” was coined by Larry Diamond, a Stanford University political scientist, in his new book “The Spirit of Democracy.” And the numbers tell the story. At the end of last year, Freedom House, which tracks democratic trends and elections around the globe, noted that 2007 was by far the worst year for freedom in the world since the end of the cold war. Almost four times as many states — 38 — declined in their freedom scores as improved — 10.

What explains this? A big part of this reversal is being driven by the rise of petro-authoritarianism. I’ve long argued that the price of oil and the pace of freedom operate in an inverse correlation — which I call: “The First Law of Petro-Politics.” As the price of oil goes up, the pace of freedom goes down. As the price of oil goes down, the pace of freedom goes up.

“There are 23 countries in the world that derive at least 60 percent of their exports from oil and gas and not a single one is a real democracy,” explains Diamond. “Russia, Venezuela, Iran and Nigeria are the poster children” for this trend, where leaders grab the oil tap to ensconce themselves in power.

But while oil is critical in blunting the democratic wave, it is not the only factor. The decline of U.S. influence and moral authority has also taken a toll. The Bush democracy-building effort in Iraq has been so botched, both by us and Iraqis, that America’s ability and willingness to promote democracy elsewhere has been damaged. The torture scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay also have not helped. “There has been an enormous squandering of American soft power, and hard power, in recent years,” said Diamond, who worked in Iraq as a democracy specialist.

The bad guys know it and are taking advantage. And one place you see that most is in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe has been trying to steal an election, after years of driving his country into a ditch. I would say there is no more disgusting leader in the world today than Mugabe. The only one who rivals him is his neighbor and chief enabler and protector, South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki.

Zimbabwe went to the polls on March 29, and the government released the results only last week. Mugabe apparently decided that he couldn’t claim victory, since there was too much evidence to the contrary. So his government said that the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, had won 47.9 percent of the vote and Mugabe 42.3 percent. But since no one got 50 percent of the vote, under Zimbabwe law, there must now be a runoff.

Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change claim to have won 50.3 percent of the vote and have to decide whether or not to take part in the runoff, which will be violent. Opposition figures have already been targeted by a state-led campaign of attacks and intimidation.

If South Africa’s Mbeki had withdrawn his economic and political support for Mugabe’s government, Mugabe would have had to have resigned a long time ago. But Mbeki feels no loyalty to suffering Zimbabweans. His only loyalty is to his fellow anti-colonial crony, Mugabe. What was that anti-colonial movement for? So an African leader could enslave his people instead of a European one?

What Mugabe has done to his country is one of the most grotesque acts of misgovernance ever. Inflation is so rampant that Zimbabweans have to carry their currency — if they have any —around in bags. Store shelves are bare; farming has virtually collapsed; crime by people just starving for food is rampant; and the electric grid can’t keep the lights on.

What can the U.S. do? In Zimbabwe, we need to work with decent African leaders like Zambia’s Levy Mwanawasa to bring pressure for a peaceful transition. And with our Western allies, we should threaten to take Mugabe’s clique to the International Criminal Court in The Hague — just as we did Serbia’s leaders — if they continue to subvert the election.

But we also need to do everything possible to develop alternatives to oil to weaken the petro-dictators. That’s another reason the John McCain-Hillary Clinton proposal to lift the federal gasoline tax for the summer — so Americans can drive more and keep the price of gasoline up — is not a harmless little giveaway. It’s not the end of civilization, either.

It’s just another little nail in the coffin of democracy around the world.

 

[the tourist]

A big If is required there (for a substitute).

I know this. Sadly.

I guess we could always dump thousands of tons of iron into the ocean.

 

[Butterscotch]

It's ridiculous they won't let aid come in! I have an idea, you know how when people refuse to feed their kids, or refuse them medical care to save their lives, the welfare comes and takes them away? Can we get the UN welfare to take these people away from their government?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Was this meant to be in the thread about the Burma crisis? Somehow I don't get the connection to this thread.