Al Gore: huge downer
So I just watched Al Gore's new movie. Conveniently for me, it's playing at the Fox Tower in downtown Portland, which happens to be the nearest major movie theatre to my home. Not so conveniently (inconveniently, dare I say?) for everyone else in the metro area, it's only playing at the Fox Tower. What's the deal with that? Surely people in the suburbs are interested in more than superheroes and supposed ancient religious conspiricies, right?
But anyway, though I could have done with a few less shots of Al Gore purposefully walking through airports and contemplatively typing on his apple laptop, I can confidently call this the best movie I've seen in some time. The term "global warming" has become a bad cliche associated with birkenstocks, dreadlocks, and petitions to legalize marijuana. Most self-respecting people can't utter the words without blushing a bit. But this film should go a long way towards reversing that trend. Everyone needs to see it. I mean that. Especially my right-leaning friends and relatives who read this. I want some people who might otherwise avoid such a film to watch it, then post their opinion here. Debunk it, argue it, I want to hear it. Or at least provide a really good excuse as to why you don't plan to watch the movie. Personally, I left the theatre feeling really badly about myself and my role in the world, but at the same time resolving to do better. Most importantly, I left the theatre more informed than when I entered. How often can a person say that? I'll admit though, the film could have used a bit of self-flagellation or maybe an albino or two. And a car chase.
And, in case anybody is wondering, I am still a bike racer. As of last Friday I'm finally riding outdoors again. I'll be out at Mt. Tabor on Wednesday to let all the locals show me just how slow I've become after six weeks away. I fully expect a great deal of pain to be inflicted upon both me and my ego. It'll be fun.
But anyway, though I could have done with a few less shots of Al Gore purposefully walking through airports and contemplatively typing on his apple laptop, I can confidently call this the best movie I've seen in some time. The term "global warming" has become a bad cliche associated with birkenstocks, dreadlocks, and petitions to legalize marijuana. Most self-respecting people can't utter the words without blushing a bit. But this film should go a long way towards reversing that trend. Everyone needs to see it. I mean that. Especially my right-leaning friends and relatives who read this. I want some people who might otherwise avoid such a film to watch it, then post their opinion here. Debunk it, argue it, I want to hear it. Or at least provide a really good excuse as to why you don't plan to watch the movie. Personally, I left the theatre feeling really badly about myself and my role in the world, but at the same time resolving to do better. Most importantly, I left the theatre more informed than when I entered. How often can a person say that? I'll admit though, the film could have used a bit of self-flagellation or maybe an albino or two. And a car chase.
And, in case anybody is wondering, I am still a bike racer. As of last Friday I'm finally riding outdoors again. I'll be out at Mt. Tabor on Wednesday to let all the locals show me just how slow I've become after six weeks away. I fully expect a great deal of pain to be inflicted upon both me and my ego. It'll be fun.
17 Comments:
I'm "right leaning," but I will concede that the case for global warming is becoming much more convincing.
I would like to see more efforts at conservation and fuel economy. Renewable portfolio standards for utilities might help as well (in addition to raise the cost of electricity). There is clean coal technology that greatly minimizes greenhouse gas emissions. And, we need to purse the ultimate renewable resource - nuclear.
Doug, with all due respect, how much fossil fuel have you consumed flying all over the country (and world) racing your bike? Just curious.
The one thing that i do regret about being a pro cyclist is how wasteful and polluting the sport is:
1. Driving to races (van, trailers, RV's)
2. Race Caravans
3. Flying to races
4. All the non-recyclable wrappers and bottles.
5. All the disposed bike parts.
See you in Reno
Roman
Sadly perhaps, movie or no movie, degrading world or not, red flags or what have you, a vast majority of people won't change their habits or minds until the costs force them to change (and that is regardless of nationality or culture). I know that isn't a very optimistic take on human nature, but that's simple economics.
It doens't take a genius to figure out that SUVs have nothing to do with utility; they're needlessly wasteful and don't do anything a smaller car can't do with some good packing skills, bungee cords and/or rope. Yet it took $3.00/gallon gas to get this nation to slow down buying them.
We'll all be better environmentalist when it is too expensive to act otherwise.
Otherwise, the only way I see for people to have less impact on the earth is for there to be less people...and that's not a very popular viewpoint...very few people like to be told they've had "too many kids", or can only have so many. Again, population will curb only when its too expensive to keep growing population.
Anonymous:
I do see a great deal of unfortunate irony in the fact that bicycle racing contributes to the problem. One could hope that by promoting the sport, more people will get excited about bicycles and begin implementing them into their daily lives. That would be a positive impact, but it would have to happen on a very large scale to offset all of the negative aspects that Roman points out. More realistically, and more tangibly, the example set by Clif Bar and the Tour of California to create carbon-neutral bike races should be followed by all US race promoters. Read here: http://tinyurl.com/omu7e
But thanks for the comments. This is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping to promote with this post.
I don't think it is fair to point your finger at someone else and say they are using more fuel than me, so you are bad. Let those without sin step forward...
$7 a gallon fuel with expensive electricity is a tough solution. It will mess with our economy and the people with lower incomes will suffer.
Neculear power is in our 10 year future. Hybrid engines that run on gas are a band-aid. I think the best near term solution is cleaner diesel and the new engines that run on the stuff. The refinery gets more fuel from the crude and the engine gets more energy from the fuel.
The carbon-neutral policy at Tour of Califorina is great too. I can live by those rules myself.
The dude is a wack job.
Check out this article. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
I would hardly consider nuclear as the "ultimate renewable resource". It creates waste that will have to be dealt with for thousands of years. And what if there is an accident....
If we really want to use renewable energy we need to promote solar energy. Go to Germany and see all the solar pannels on farm houses in small towns, its amazing. If people just started with solar hot water heaters, our country could make a major advance in becoming less reliant on foreign oil.
Do you know how expensive solar energy is? I have no problem with solar per se, but it's not a panacea. Simply put, the capital costs of the panels is way too high for residential use. Wind and biomass are decent options. But, in sum, these renewables can only provide about 25% of our energy needs according to experts.
I say nuclear is the ultimate, because it produces no greenhouse gases and we can generate electricity as needed with very little environmental impact. France deals with nuclear waste efficiently - there is no reason we can't.
I did not mean to say that using more fuel than another person makes them morally better; the SUV comment is merely an example of human behavior. Even if gasoline is cheap, it is still cheaper and more efficient to use less of it. That people are willing to put whatever urge is satisfied by owning a particular vehicle over the costs of doing so simply shows that that people won't become more efficient until being inefficient costs too much.
The point is that there aren't any environmentaly friendly soulutions that will happen unless they are 1. profitable and 2. the alternatives are too costly. Clean coal, solar, whatever, if it isn't cheaper than oil, it won't fly. A vast majority of the people simply don't care about the enviroment enough to change their habits. They won't care enough until it costs them too much (materialy and otherwise) to not care. The people who go out of their way to be enviromentally friendly see enviromental degradation as a cost, people who don't care as much about the environment do not.
Another thing to think about: The carbon-neutral bike race. How this works is the race (or sponsor, in the Tour of CA case, Clif Bar) buys pollution credits. What this does is make fewer pollution credits available to industry. So a utility, say, has to compete for fewer available credits. It is merely shifting resources denying the production of something else (maybe electricity, maybe lawn orniments) to "justify" the pollution an international stage race creates. If you view an international stage race as wasteful, its still to be wasteful even if it buys pollution credits.
BTW, good to see you're back on the bike riding outdoors Doug. Personally, I think there are few greater pleasures.
As to the Canadian Free Press article, it demonstrates little. I doubt anyone reading this is in any position to argue the validity of the facts contained within it (I most certainly am not), but that's hardly the point. The real test is whether a set of assertions stand up to the peer review process, and a "guest column" in a newspaper is not subject to anything of the sort. See this link from the online version of Science:
http://tinyurl.com/5fdqg
Summary: of 928 randomly selected, peer reviewed (that's the key here) articles, even though there's not complete consensus on the details, not one paper disagrees with the basic tenet of human caused climate change. Newspaper articles, even those that quote supposed experts, do not count.
And when I posted the link about ToC being carbon neutral, I have to admit I had little idea what that actually meant. But, looking into it further shows that the program does not actually purchase emission credits, as both RMC and I assumed. Doing so would indeed reduce the number of credits available on the market, thereby making it more expensive for industry to purchase them, and in turn more expensive to pollute, a cost which would ultimately be passed on to consumers. Maybe this would have its own merits, but it's beside the point. The Clif Bar/ToC program simply purchases units of energy produced through renewable sources, then places them on the electrical grid to reduce the need for fossil fuel based sources. If I understand it correctly, this means that the program essentially pre-pays a percentage of everyone's utility bill, but ensures that that particular amount comes from a renewable source.
So then, taken to it's logical extreme, if every US citizen purchased credits equal to the number of kilowatt-hours they used in their home, their electrical bills would be zero and all of the electricity on the grid would have come from renewable sources, assuming that was even possible. Do I understand that correctly? The link below explains the program used, click on the FAQ on the right sidebar. Maybe someone else can come up with a better, more succinct description.
http://tinyurl.com/k9bm3
Regardless, living in Oregon, I can certainly attest to the fact that "renewable" energy sources are not necessarily without their own problems. The entire Northwest is heavily dependent on hydropower, which has completely changed the appearance of the rivers and is the prime cause of the near eradication of the salmon runs. Wind power also causes harm to bird species and can be a visual blight. So, the "carbon credits" program is obviously not perfect. Solving one problem (carbon output), can lead to others.
With that in mind, I would be better off simply staying at home with the lights turned off. So would everyone else who is not performing an essential function. And no one can argue that bike racing is essential. But is that really the answer? People can certainly cut back on non-essential activities and the associated travel, but it seems that there's more to be gained from altering everyday habits and the way that people (myself included) live their everyday lives. Things like: buying more fuel efficient cars, buying smaller houses (does anyone really need 3000+ sq. ft.?), taking mass transit from time to time, choosing to live closer to work and/or transit lines, etc. I hardly know the answers, and I can't claim not to be part of the problem myself, but I'm simply saying it's worth thinking about and making whatever attempt practicable to make some sort of a difference.
But enough of that. I'm going to put on my birkenstocks and go buy some hemp clothing.
or buy a plastic barbie with hemp:
Lake Oswego Barbie:
This modern day homemaker Barbie is available with a Mercedes 4WD SUV, a Prada
handbag and matching Nike Yoga ensemble. She has a master's degree and
double-majored, but has the luxury of being a stay-at-home mom with Ken's generous
salary. She comes with a Percocet prescription and Botox. Starbucks mug and
traffic-jamming Blackberry internet/cell phone device sold separately. Husband Ken
is into fishing, golfing, baseball and is often "working late."
Available at Starbucks.
Salem Barbie:
This recently paroled Barbie comes with a 9mm handgun, switchblade, '78 El Camino
with dark tinted windows, and a meth lab kit. Boyfriend Ken is in jail. This model
is available at most pawn shops, but only after dark and it can only be purchased
with cash - preferably small bills, unless you're a cop, then we don't know what
you're talking about.
Sweet Home Barbie:
This tobacco chewing, brassy-haired Barbie comes with a pair of high-heeled sandals
with one broken heel from the time she chased Beer-Gut Ken out of Auburn Barbie's
trailer. Her ensemble includes low-rise acid-washed jeans, fake fingernails,
strawberry lip gloss and a see-through halter top. Purchase her Mustang convertible
separately and get a Confederate flag bumper sticker absolutely free. Boyfriend Ken
is in treatment.
Available at Army/Navy Surplus.
Pendleton Barbie:
This pale model comes dressed in her own Wrangler jeans 2 sizes too
small, steel-toed cowboy boots, a classic Metallica T-shirt, and a Tweedy Bird
tattoo on her shoulder. She has fake fingernails, a six-pack of Budweiser, and a
Hank Williams, Jr. CD set. She can spit over a distance of 6 feet and kick
mullet-haired Ken's ass when she is drunk.
Also available is the gold-toned cubic zirconium ring that Ken gave her after
another one of his "episodes" with his boss's daughter. Comes with Barbie's Dream
Double-Wide Trailer.
Available at Wal-Mart.
East-Side Portland Barbie:
Pregnant at purchase, this Barbie comes with a stroller and bus pass. Also included
is a G.E.D. and a completely filled out food stamps form. Construction worker Ken
and his '82 Caddy are optional.
Available at Value Village.
Eugene Barbie:
This Barbie is made out of recycled plastic and tofu. She has long
straight brown hair, archless feet, hairy armpits, no make-up, and Birkenstocks with
white socks. She does not want, or need, a Ken doll. If you purchase the optional
Subaru wagon, you will receive a free rainbow flag sticker.
Available at REI.
Ashland Barbie:
This versatile doll can be easily converted from Barbie to Ken by simply adding or
removing snap on parts. This Barbie walks to work and likes to "experiment," but
will never commit. This model is being phased out and is only available from the
manufacturer.
Corvallis Barbie:
This blithe little number comes with a travel coffee mug and optional
scrubs for working at Good Samaritan. She also comes with a Volvo that has a OSU
alum sticker in the back window. The bike rack comes standard.
Other clothing included:
jogging outfit and Beaver t-shirt. Bicycle and HP-worker Ken doll sold separately.
the Barbie post...yeah...uh...huh? Pretty accurate but what is the relevance to this discussion?
Doug said:
So then, taken to it's logical extreme, if every US citizen purchased credits equal to the number of kilowatt-hours they used in their home, their electrical bills would be zero and all of the electricity on the grid would have come from renewable sources, assuming that was even possible. Do I understand that correctly?
Response:
Most "green power" programs offered by electric utilities in the US offer the customer the option to pay a premium for their energy. The funds are used exclusively for the procurement of electricity from renewable sources and it offsets generation from traditional (coal, natural gas, etc.) sources. Since the electrons are fungible, you aren't getting green ones flowing into your house per se, you are simply subsidizing the generation of it.
There isn't enough generation of green power for the US to be completely green. And, the consumer's bills would increase if they purchased all green power because, as stated in other posts, it's still more expensive to produce.
The question was posed as a pure hypothetical to try to get a better grasp of the economics of a program like the one being used at ToC.
This is fundamentally different from choosing the renewable energy program through my utility. I've done that, and it simply means that I'm paying more per kWh. So, as anonymous points out, I'm the one subsidizing the difference between the cost of the "renewable" energy source and the regular energy source, allowing the "renewable" source to be sold on the market and offsetting the need for that much electricity to be produced traditionally. Whether or not those particular electrons end up powering my espresso machine doesn't matter.
The ToC program is a little less clear because one energy source (gasoline), used to power cars and airplanes, is supposed to be offset by production of various other forms used by the electrical grid. But, in reading the website I cited above a little more closely, it becomes clear that my hypothetical situation was wrong. The program does not simply pay for renewable electricity to be placed on the grid. Instead, it helps reduce the cost of renewable energy sources by helping to fund further production of renewable energy production sites. From the NativeEnergy.com site:
"How do you help build a renewable energy project? By purchasing a share of the Renewable Energy Credits that will be generated by it over its lifetime, up front, while it is under development. That way, your purchase helps reduce the renewable project’s up-front costs, and actually helps finance construction of new renewable generators."
Well Doug I'm glad to see you're doing something about the problem.
So what does Betsy run on? Her own methane I'm guessing.
Real change will only come about when the problem of global warming effects the richest people in their gated communities, as was the case with acid rain in the 80's.
Why no discussion of hydrogen cars, whose only emission is water vapor?
Betsy, of course, runs on clean burning and renewable grassoline.
Post a Comment
<< Home