An Inconvenient Electric Bill

[Vincent Vega]

Ever been to the Netherlands? They licked that problem a long time ago.

Anyway, don't believe every hyped threat about rising sea levels and accompanying computer animated cartoon that's throw at us. They're just that.

Of course you don't have to care.

Why should you care about the earth in the 2060's, right?

 

[trevster2k]

I would think that as a Canadian you might actually see an upside to global warming. Most of your population lives near your southern border because the upper regions of the Northern hemisphere are climatically extreme for humans right? Imagine the new frontiers that global warming might bring to your country.

Your short sightedness on this topic is remarkable. Visiting Hawaii is a treat, their ecosystem has adapted to such a climate. Climate change is not simply global warming and having warmer weather for people to have fun in the sun. Climatic changes in Canada are already having a negative effect on the Inuit, ice thicknesses on lakes used for highways in the north to connect communities which are inaccessible by roads are thinner and occur for shorter periods of time affecting the ability of these communities to receive supplies, pests like the pine beetle are moving further and further north decimating our forests because it is no longer cold enough to kill their larvae in the winter thus having a negative on the forest industry, oil and gas exploration in the north is facing new challenges in exploring due to the warmer weather as many areas where they work need frozen ground to be able to drive into the bush and search. Some of our water resources are being diminished by melting of glacial ice too. The ground in northern Canada is mush,bog, soft thus frozen land makes it easier for the people of northern Canada. I am not a big fan of seals but some are suggesting lack of sea ice will have a negative impact on the birth of seals as significant numbers may drown if the ice isn't thick enough for females to have their pups.

Canada along with the Nordic European nations and Russia will definitely be among the first to feel the effects of climate change. Drought and water shortages in the coming decades will be effects we will all feel.

 

[BVS]

Ever been to the Netherlands? They licked that problem a long time ago.

Anyway, don't believe every hyped threat about rising sea levels and accompanying computer animated cartoon that's throw at us. They're just that.

This coming from someone who believes the conspiracy theories of the paranoid ultra-right?

 

[INDY500]

Of course you don't have to care.

Why should you care about the earth in the 2060's, right?

Is that what I'm saying? I don't care? No, I'm saying that let's not pretend that life on the planet Earth isn't full of change. Most of it very unexpected. Most of it completely out of our control.

Change, a problem or an opportunity?

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Is that what I'm saying? I don't care? No, I'm saying that let's not pretend that life on the planet Earth isn't full of change. Most of it very unexpected. Most of it completely out of our control.

Change, a problem or an opportunity?

So you care.... You just don't want to do anything about it?

 

[INDY500]

Your short sightedness on this topic is remarkable. Visiting Hawaii is a treat, their ecosystem has adapted to such a climate. Climate change is not simply global warming and having warmer weather for people to have fun in the sun. Climatic changes in Canada are already having a negative effect on the Inuit, ice thicknesses on lakes used for highways in the north to connect communities which are inaccessible by roads are thinner and occur for shorter periods of time affecting the ability of these communities to receive supplies, pests like the pine beetle are moving further and further north decimating our forests because it is no longer cold enough to kill their larvae in the winter thus having a negative on the forest industry, oil and gas exploration in the north is facing new challenges in exploring due to the warmer weather as many areas where they work need frozen ground to be able to drive into the bush and search. Some of our water resources are being diminished by melting of glacial ice too. The ground in northern Canada is mush,bog, soft thus frozen land makes it easier for the people of northern Canada. I am not a big fan of seals but some are suggesting lack of sea ice will have a negative impact on the birth of seals as significant numbers may drown if the ice isn't thick enough for females to have their pups.

Canada along with the Nordic European nations and Russia will definitely be among the first to feel the effects of climate change. Drought and water shortages in the coming decades will be effects we will all feel.

Actually, that's very interesting. Thanks for spending the time to post that information.

Let me assume for a minute that Al Gore is 100% correct. That it's true when he says "the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late."
Canada would have to reduce it's CO(2) emissions by one third to meet it's Kyoto target by 2012. (You can look it up)
Is that possible? And even Kyoto Protocol advocates admit that if fully implemented, it would affect global temps by less than 1/10 of a degree. In fact, we may need 30 Kyotos to make a real difference.
Frankly, I don't think we can afford to fix global-warming at this time even if we had the political will, so in the short run, wouldn't adaptation strategies make more sense, until we have the technology needed?

 

[BVS]

Actually, that's very interesting. Thanks for spending the time to post that information.

Let me assume for a minute that Al Gore is 100% correct. That it's true when he says "the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late."
Canada would have to reduce it's CO(2) emissions by one third to meet it's Kyoto target by 2012. (You can look it up)
Is that possible? And even Kyoto Protocol advocates admit that if fully implemented, it would affect global temps by less than 1/10 of a degree. In fact, we may need 30 Kyotos to make a real difference.
Frankly, I don't think we can afford to fix global-warming at this time even if we had the political will, so in the short run, wouldn't adaptation strategies make more sense, until we have the technology needed?

When Gore said "turn things around before it's too late" did he mean those goals must be met within 10 years? Or steps to make those goals within the next 10 years?

 

[A_Wanderer]

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm

 

[INDY500]

When Gore said "turn things around before it's too late" did he mean those goals must be met within 10 years? Or steps to make those goals within the next 10 years?

Doesn't matter, at this point in time we can't make the changes really necessary, even if we wanted, because of economics.

Unless you want to handcuff our economy, lose jobs and deprive the planets most impoverished citizens a chance to access electricity and other modern technologies.

 

[BVS]

Too bad he hasn't learned anything from his house.

 

[BVS]

Doesn't matter, at this point in time we can't make the changes really necessary, even if we wanted, because of economics.

Unless you want to handcuff our economy, lose jobs and deprive the planets most impoverished citizens a chance to access electricity and other modern technologies.

It does matter, there's a big difference.

And we can make the changes, where are you getting this information that we can't due to economics?

 

[indra]

Did you catch melon's link a page up, indra? 100% of the Gore household's power is green and renewable. Something that was conspicuously absent from the original article.

No I didn't. As I mentioned in my post the thread moved very fast yesterday and not having time to read through it all I just based my post on what was in the initial post.

 

[INDY500]

It does matter, there's a big difference.

And we can make the changes, where are you getting this information that we can't due to economics?

Some guy from Exxon paid me to say it.

 

[BVS]

Some guy from Exxon paid me to say it.

I'm being serious. Are you just making this up or do you have any info?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It looks like Graceland. I wonder if Al gets dressed up in spangly jumpsuits around the house

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

It looks like Graceland. I wonder if Al gets dressed up in spangly jumpsuits around the house

Do you think he shoots the TV if he doesn't like the show?

 

[yolland]

Let me assume for a minute that Al Gore is 100% correct...

...Frankly, I don't think we can afford to fix global-warming at this time even if we had the political will, so in the short run, wouldn't adaptation strategies make more sense, until we have the technology needed?

What do you mean by adaptation strategies, and what's your evidence that they'd be cheaper (especially for developing countries)?

You seem to be talking as if taking steps to reduce global warming would be economically disastrous, whereas allowing its results to continue piling up wouldn't be. Which I could understand if you're in fact certain that global warming is complete nonsense, but if you aren't, I don't understand why you seem to be considering only the economic effects of the former.

 

[trevster2k]

Again it's short sighted to think that by shifting technologies is damaging to the economy. When we shifted from typewriters to computers, we killed the typewriter industry and hurt the paper industry, when we shifted from film to digital cameras, we killed the film camera industry. There were some people who suffered economically but overall people are better off in the long run. There are companies and countries out there that will make billions off new energy technologies whether it be solar panels, innovative water heating methods or improved insulation in homes.

Yes, Canada has failed to reach it's goals because our political system is f**ked right now. They refused to act plus when Alberta's tar sands came online, it really added to our emissions level. And the government is so closely tied to energy companies that they don't have the balls to enact serious legislation. However, it is now a mainstream topic in Canada and the politicians have taken notice that the people in Canada no longer want to be seen as failures regarding green policy. We have laws prohibiting beehive burners in B.C. The company I work for didn't bother getting it replaced because it was cheaper to pay the fines than replace the thing. It has since been replaced but this is the kind of thing that doesn't provide an incentive to business to change. Stage one of Kyoto was never meant to THE solution to climate change, it is the first step to mitigating the effects of human behaviour on the planet. Just as high school diploma doesn't make you a doctor or lawyer but it is the first step in achieving that goal.

Funny how some claim that climate change proponents are using fear to convince people of it's effects while at the same time suggesting the economy will be destroyed if countries move away from traditional fuel sources and conservation of energy. That sounds like a fear tactic to me.

And regardless whether or not the effects of climate change actually happen or not, policies which lead to more efficient and cleaner energy are a good thing, not negative. The argument that we aren't going to be able to give electricity to the poor around the world is ridiculous. With our newfound knowledge in clean energy, we can provide these developing nations with better ways to develop infrastructure without damaging their environments as we have done. In the long run, communities and businesses will save money by using innovative and alternative energy resources. Fixing these problems now is cheaper than trying to fix them later when it is too late.

But God forbid we cause oil profits to shrink, oh no!!

 

[INDY500]

What do you mean by adaptation strategies, and what's your evidence that they'd be cheaper (especially for developing countries)?

You seem to be talking as if taking steps to reduce global warming would be economically disastrous, whereas allowing its results to continue piling up wouldn't be. Which I could understand if you're in fact certain that global warming is complete nonsense, but if you aren't, I don't understand why you seem to be considering only the economic effects of the former.

From a Jonah Goldberg article Feb 09

Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800 percent, by one estimate. How much of that 0.7 degrees can be laid at the feet of that 1,800 percent is unknowable, but let’s stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity and that this warming is in fact indisputably bad (which is hardly obvious).

That’s still an amazing bargain. Life expectancies in the United States increased from about 47 years to about 77 years. Literacy, medicine, leisure and even, in many respects, the environment have improved mightily over the course of the 20th century, at least in the prosperous West.

Given the option of getting another 1,800 percent richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees warmer, I’d take the heat in a heartbeat. Of course, warming might get more expensive for us (and we might get a lot richer than 1,800 percent too). There are tipping points in every sphere of life, and what cost us little in the 20th century could cost us enormously in the 21st — at least that’s what we’re told.

And boy, are we told. We’re (deceitfully) told polar bears are the canaries in the global coal mine. Al Gore even hosts an apocalyptic infomercial on the subject, complete with fancy renderings of New York City underwater.

Skeptics are heckled for calling attention to global warming scare tactics. But the simple fact is that activists need to hype the threat, and not just because that’s what the media demand of them. Their proposed remedies cost so much money — bidding starts at 1 percent of global GDP a year and rises quickly — they have to ratchet up the fear factor just to get the conversation started.


The costs are just too high for too little payoff. Even if the Kyoto Protocol were put into effect tomorrow — a total impossibility — we’d barely affect global warming. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research speculated in Science magazine that “it might take another 30 Kyotos over the next century” to beat back global warming.

Thirty Kyotos! That’s going to be tough considering that China alone plans on building an additional 2,200 coal plants by 2030. Oh, but because China (like India) is exempt from Kyoto as a developing country, the West will just have to reduce its own emissions even more.

A more persuasive cost-benefit analysis hinges not on prophecies of environmental doom but on geopolitics. We buy too much oil from places we shouldn’t, which makes us dependent on nasty regimes and makes those regimes nastier.

Environmentalists like to claim the “energy independence” issue, but it’s not a neat fit. We could be energy independent soon enough with coal and nuclear power. But coal contributes to global warming, and nuclear power is icky. So, instead, we’re going to massively subsidize the government-brewed moonshine called ethanol.

Here again, the benefits barely outweigh the costs. Ethanol requires almost as much energy to make as it provides, and the costs to the environment and the economy may be staggering.

Frankly, I don’t think the trade-off is worth it — yet. The history of capitalism and technology tells us that what starts out expensive and arduous becomes cheap and easy over time.

Lewis and Clark took months to do what a truck carrying Tickle-Me Elmos does every week. Technology 10 years from now could solve global warming at a fraction of today’s costs. What technologies? I don’t know. Maybe fusion. Maybe hydrogen. Maybe we’ll harness the perpetual motion of Sen. Joe Biden’s mouth.

The fact is we can’t afford to fix global warming right now, in part because poor countries want to get rich, too. And rich countries, where the global warming debate is settled, are finding even the first of 30 Kyotos too fiscally onerous. There are no solutions in the realm of the politically possible. So why throw trillions of dollars into “remedies” that even their proponents concede won’t solve the problem?

So why not use our economic strength to develop new energy technologies. Why not work on alternative methods of cooling the Earth (space-mirrors or changing our albedo naturally) other than just drastically reducing CO(2) emissions. And let's direct funds only at those most vulnerable to disease or sea-level changes because, admit it or not, some areas will actually benefit from warming.

Only if the West remains rich and prosperous can we afford to do such things. So no, I don't see increased state control, economic restriction and massive wealth transfers as the cure to the problem. Assuming we actually have a problem of coarse.

 

[BVS]

It looks like you've gotten every piece of your knowledge on the subject from that exact article.

An article written by a man who has absolutely NO scientific background and has spent his whole career spewing ultra right opinions and nothing else.

 

[BVS]

So no, I don't see increased state control, economic restriction and massive wealth transfers as the cure to the problem. Assuming we actually have a problem of coarse.

Can you try and make sense. Who is saying this and where are you getting this from?

 

[Irvine511]

So why not use our economic strength to develop new energy technologies.

because it's more politically expedient (in 2003, at least) to invade Iraq and pretend we're finding WMDs, and then pretending we're brining democracy, and then pretend we're fighting them there so we don't fight them here, when all along -- as has been pointed out to us in long, droning posts -- we're only in Iraq to protect the Saudi Arabian oil fields.

yes, better to keep fucking up the Middle East than develop new energy technologies.

so when are you buying your hybrid?

 

[INDY500]

It looks like you've gotten every piece of your knowledge on the subject from that exact article.

I reckon I can find something better to do than take shit from you.

 

[Irvine511]

I reckon I can find something better to do than take shit from you.

well, would you accept articles on the dangers of eating meat if they were written by Ingrid Newkirk?

 

[BVS]

I reckon I can find something better to do than take shit from you.

No, it's just that every point you've brought up in this discussion came directly from that article almost word for word.

And the only reason I give you "shit" is you keep stating conspiracies and attacks and back up none of it.

I've asked you a few questions, that you haven't been able to answer. If that's giving you shit, than I'm sorry for putting you in a corner.

 

[Angela Harlem]

this thread started off highly amusing. now it's pretifying. and once more i am asking myself 'how do you get to this point; believing what you do????' why? how? why?

 

[Bluer White]

this thread started off highly amusing. now it's petrifying. and once more i am asking myself 'how do you get to this point; believing what you do????' why? how? why?

This thread is 16 pages long. Which viewpoint petrifies you?

 

[Angela Harlem]

geez, where to start. have we had the denial that global warming is a problem yet? the comment that canada should appreciate global warming, cause, you know it snows there and shit, the apparent basing of entire viewpoints on an article, the fighting of common sense... then there's the entire politicising of the issue. i wish everyone could forget fucking al gore for just a minute, but no, we have to look local and argue local. god i can't believe i am referencing paul mccartney... ugh. anyway. in short, what worries me and leaves me utterly dumbfounded is that people firstly deny it's existence and secondly are not in a screaming hurry to fix it. how do you get to complacence on these kinds of things?

 

[randhail]

What I would love to see is politicians stand up and decree that within 10 or 20 years that this country needs to be off or significantly on the way to being off a petroleum based economy. This is a country that was hell bent on being the first on the moon and the goal was achieved within 10 years. Maybe I'm being overly patriotic, optimistic or whatever, but I believe that this country is capable of kicking the oil habit - if we just made it a national priority. We claim to have the best this and that and the best science and ingenuity in the world - lets prove it! or we could just play in the sandbox in the middle east for who knows how long.

 

[DrTeeth]

Ever been to the Netherlands? They licked that problem a long time ago.

Anyway, don't believe every hyped threat about rising sea levels and accompanying computer animated cartoon that's throw at us. They're just that.

Actually, there's a lively debate going on amongst experts in the Netherlands about how to deal with rising sea levels.