About Me

Name: Average Voter
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Al Gore Answers Some Questions

Posted by Average Voter on Monday, November 02, 2009 3:23:54 PM
   Spiegel Online had a question and answer session with Al Gore, and he is "optimistic".
 
The part of the article I thought entertaining was this exchange:

SPIEGEL: Seventeen years ago you, a young Senator from Tennessee, and Bill Clinton, a young governor from Arkansas, moved into the White House on the promise of change. Clinton played the saxophone and there was a feeling of spring in the air. Why has it been so much tougher for Barack Obama?

Gore: It was hard for us, too. Just remember the resistance to our health care reform bill. Obama's progress on health care has already surpassed what we were able to do on health care. He will get a climate change bill adopted. So I am optimistic. These are still the early days of the Obama presidency. He had a bad summer, but he is having a good fall.
 
   By whos standard are you going by regarding his "good fall"? According to this chart, he's tanking::
 
They go on...

SPIEGEL: Isn't it getting harder and harder to remain an optimist?

Gore: I think there is a realistic basis for optimism. The Internet empowers individuals to play a more active role in the political process, as Obama's campaign has manifested. They felt shut out of the conversation of democracy during the television age, but they are coming back. It is not an accident that virtually every progressive reform movement in the world is now based on the internet. There are more than 1 million, perhaps as many as 2 million grass-roots organizations that have been established worldwide on the issue of the climate crisis, most of them on the Internet.
   And thanks to Al Gore for inventing the internet! Okay, maybe not literally, but he was instrumental in it!
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Could They Make It Worse?

Posted by Average Voter on Monday, November 02, 2009 2:50:05 PM
   After reading this NY Times article on geoengineering, you have to wonder if these scientists are grasping at straws. Depending on which type of geoengineering idea you like, it seems possible these scientists could actually make matters worse regarding the climate.
 
   The first category includes proposals to shoot sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere, creating a cooling haze that mimics the effects of a volcanic eruption, and a similar plan to use thousands of special ships to spew sea salt into the sky, encouraging the formation of clouds. Scientists believe many approaches in this category could cool the Earth rapidly -- but they might produce unacceptable side effects.

"The risks are so high with some of these reflection options," said Tim Lenton, a professor of Earth system science at the University of East Anglia. "We need to do more research, but we need to reserve them for use in case of emergency."

There are also engineering challenges to overcome. Because sulfate doesn't linger in the atmosphere, temperatures would shoot up quickly if injections ended before the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stabilized at a safe level -- meaning that the world would likely have to commit to continue geoengineering for generations.
   
   That sounds like a nightmare; an expensive nightmare.

"The thing that's always frustrated me," said Philip Boyd, a professor of ocean biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand, is that geoengineering "has great press coverage. It has that science fiction component that makes good copy. But there's been precious little or no science done."

David Keith, the University of Calgary scientist, agreed. "The actual number of real, serious science done on this topic is pitifully small," he said.
 
   Until recently, all these ideas were considered science fiction. The fact is, if it comes to the point were we have to use these kind of methods, it is probably to late anyway. Sounds to me like these scientists are looking for some funding. They should first sign the wall.
   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another "Grassroots" Climate Organization

Posted by Average Voter on Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:26:54 PM
   Al Gore is pushing this one.   The Repower America Wall.

The Wall is a place where literally thousands and thousands of people committed to a revolutionary new energy future for our nation and the world are coming together -- to express our hopes, share our resolve, and step up to a leadership role in building a grassroots movement for change like nothing America has ever seen. It's an opportunity for you to be part of the climate movement in a new way, in a way that takes us beyond ourselves.

By asking people from all over the country to share their thoughts and images on the Wall, we are fueling a campaign that brings together the power of national media with the strength and connection of on-the-ground organizing in a way that no one has ever done before. Your voice, and the voices of your friends, neighbors and colleagues, will become the language of our campaign on TV, in print, on billboards, online, and in brand new ways that you will help us invent as we create the Wall.
 
   This actually may be a good idea. Give this thing a couple of months, and we can collect names off the wall so we can keep track of all the enviro-nutters; get names, addresses and other vital info. Or maybe not.
 
   Actually, I think those of us who are more on the side of not being sure about global warming, should start our own wall. The wall should be made out of old growth trees and 55 gallon oil drums. Everyone who comes to the wall will only be admitted if they own an SUV or have at least on vehicle that gets less than 20 miles a gallon. We will have everybody sign ther name with lead based paint.
 
   Maybe I am being a little nutty myself, but how else do you combat these relentless climate-campaigns?
 
   Anyway, if you want to join Mr. Gore and 'Repower America" then click here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Your Old Kitchen Cabinets Are Under Attack

Posted by Average Voter on Sunday, November 01, 2009 10:57:50 AM
   The problem with throwing anything away these days is that the greenies have found away for it to be bad. Even your old worn-out kitchen cabnits that have served you well for 30 years, are going to cause global warming at the landfill.

While it would be satisfying to imagine your discarded kitchen goods recycled into other products, the sad truth is there’s a better than evens chance they’ll end up in landfill.

Though wood is biodegradable and might not create as many long-term landfill problems as other manufactured products, it creates methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide, as it gently rots away.
 
   See, even biodegradable stuff can't be thrown away anymore. There is nothing you can do that will not harm the planet in some way. Obviously we must leave the planet before we kill it. But where ever we go, won't it be the same thing?
 
   There is a scene in the movie The Matrix, that pretty much sums up what the environmental nutters think of the human race:
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Saucing Up The Story

Posted by Average Voter on Sunday, November 01, 2009 10:28:47 AM
   You have to read the news carefully to see the slant, unless of course your reading the SF Chronicle. This artilce is about the military and their planning for possible rising sea levels and droughts.
 
   They start the article by presenting ficticous scenerious:
 
 An island in the Indian Ocean, vital to the U.S. military, disappears as the sea level rises. Rivers critical to India and Pakistan shrink, increasing military tensions in South Asia. Drought, famine and disease forces population shifts and political turmoil in the Middle East.
   U.S. defense and intelligence agencies, viewing these and other potential impacts of global warming, have concluded if they materialize it would become ever more likely global alliances will shift, the need to respond to massive relief efforts will increase and American forces will become entangled in more regional military conflicts.
   It is a bleak picture of national security that backers of a climate bill in Congress hope will draw in reluctant Republicans who have denounced the bill as an energy tax and jobs killer because it would shift the country away from fossil fuels by limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial facilities.
 
   So, it is all laid out nice and neat for you. The military needs to be prepared for all of these possible scenarious and the republicans are to blame if they don't pass the cap and trade bill.
 
   The military, as a matter of protocol, must take into acount all kinds of scenarios. They must be able to respond to all kinds of problems ranging from military coups of friendly countries too yes, even climate change. They must be able to put training excercises together so they can be prepared for just those type of things. But that does not translate into passing bills in congress. If that were the case, we would need to pass legislation to build a defense sheild to protect the Earth from astroids? (Of course, that is now classified)   
 
   Further down in the article they point out the obligatory Republican who shares their climate change fears. Of course, the only one they could find is retired.

Former Republican Sen. John Warner, a longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a close ally of the military, has been touring the country to talk about climate change and national security.

"We are talking about energy insecurity, water and food shortages, and climate-driven social instability," says Warner. "We ignore these threats at the peril of our national security and at great risk to those in uniform."

Among the flash points:

_ Himalayan glaciers are likely to recede, producing fresh water shortages in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of China.

_ Receding Arctic ice could trigger a territorial conflict involving Russia, the United States, Canada and others.

_ Sea level rise in Bangladesh, and drought in other parts of the world could unleash a flood of cross-border "climate refugees" and violence.

_ The Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, an atoll only a few feet above sea level, likely would disappear, taking away a critical U.S. military staging area.

      Then, at the very end of the article, they allow the other side their perspective; two whole paragraphs.

At Wednesday's hearing, retired Army Major General Robert Scales, who said he had "deep reservations" about the science of climate change, worried that if fossil fuels were curtailed it would reduce the availability of diesel and jet fuel "that might reduce our ability to go to war."

On the prospects of global political and military instability from climate change, Scales said, "such unlikely events would cause enormous suffering and social dislocation. But the history record strongly suggests that such devastating humanitarian disasters rarely if ever result in large-scale wars."

      So, just in case you are wondering where the S.F. Chronicle stands on this debate, this article should about clear that up.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »