Some things I took from the Gore presentation-
the crowd, move on.org, is already with him on this and other issues…when he said that southern Florida could be underwater by our grandchildren’s time, some ppl in the audience clapped in a snarky way. He said…wait a minute, no…then came back with “I think I won Florida!”
So, yes, he can be somewhat wooden, but he also had a few quips along the way before the one hour mark. He was giving a presentation, after all, with charts and graphs and those annoying things called facts.
He also linked the issue of global warming to the tobacco industry’s long campaign to discredit evidence of the harm of smoking, and noted the same lawyers are acting as shills for the energy cos today.
He also said [THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU] that in the FIRST DAYS that BushCo [he didn’t call them that…it was “this administration”] took office, they started “FRENZIED plans to remake Iraq by American occupation.”
This was yet another outright lie by Bush that he was not into “nation building.” Maybe he forgot to check with Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Jebbie, and the other moving hands behind his howdy doody act.
It’s so nice to hear the truth spoken out loud by someone who has held power…and who still holds power but in another way.
But he did, at the one hour mark, really pick up on his rips into the current administration about their spin…forcefully saying that ppl cannot spin away this issue…it’s not politics.
One line of note: “People are getting on to it [as in catching on]. Indeed.” [old school debate, not fire and brimstone populist], but then, he yells out “We’ve had enough of it. [the crowd is with him, standing] …then goes into the White House using “Orwellian language to disguise the true purposes of government in a DEMOCRACY.” [he is pissed, just like the rest of us.]
notes the stuff like clear skies, etc. but goes further to note Bush’s campaign lies, saying Bush had broken solemn promises…so, he’s a “bad husband” breaking his solemn vows to all those mega-church moms who are so faithful while Bush lies about the truth: that he’s in bed with the major energy corps, and does not care about the American people now, much less our grandchildren.
The strongest point, once the realization of how truly necessary govt action is needed NOW just to even undo the Bush banging of the earth is this one, that even CEOs can give a shit about…
and that Gore’s question…will our grandchildren curse us for being so selfish that we would not plan for their future?
And another good moment is when Gore shows the Bush “balance” for global warming as an issue: a scale has bars of gold on one side, and the ENTIRE EARTH on the other…hmmmm…which is more important?
YMMV, but to me, that was inspiring. I rarely say that about anyone who is political…or was…Mandela comes to mind. Global warming IS just as much of an issue requiring courage to face down the rich and powerful as were the troubles Mandela faced. –the issue is much larger, in fact.
Hope Gore wears kevlar.
my one complaint is that the voices for the Groening thing that Gore’s daughter worked on. The man’s voice is okay, but the little girl’s voice is too “oooey gooey sticky cute” they could have at least gone for a female Ralph or Milhouse. 🙂
So, any journalist covering this issue- I don’t give a damn what you think about Gore, because obviously your judgement was severely impaired by drinking in all that beltway sludge that passes for conventional wisdom.
He’s such a much better man, better leader, better person to imagine a future, more compassionate, more reasonable, better able to use carrots, not just sticks than Bush.
If there was a god, Bush would spend a lifetime in purgatory licking the depleted uranium saturated dirt off of the shoes of dead Iraqi civilians.

Posted by: fauxreal | May 24 2006 22:59 utc | 4

So the troubles with Global Warming are human.
That’s my point.
So we have to reduce CO2 to solve human problems.
This type of argument seems equivalent to the one advanced by the anti-growth, anti-globalization crowd. They target political changes: political change is bad because of the human problems it causes. Similarly, environmentalists say we need to restrict CO2 and stop climate change because of the human problems it creates.
Is it a foregone conclusion that the best way to address the associated human problems is greenhouse gas reduction?
If human problems are the motivation, shouldn’t we first commit to address the human problems, and then agree greenhouse gas restriction is the best way to do it?
I don’t buy the “we’re globally f*cked” argument. Who are “we” – rich nations stand to lose property; poor nations will suffer because of lack of infrastructure to deal with a changing environment. There might be disease, but this is inevitable just because of higher population density.

Posted by: Obs | May 25 2006 0:44 utc | 6

Two words:
FUCK GORE.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 25 2006 4:36 utc | 8

Max – what is the timescale for all that happening?
If you bought some beach property and you noticed after 10 years that the water was half the distance it used to be – you could certainly still sell the property? No?
Maybe if insurance companies saw global warming as a hazard, they would lobby the governments of the world to address it. (However, they probably just raise the premiums accordingly.)
A nice disccusion on this topic is at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#more-299

Posted by: Obs | May 25 2006 5:46 utc | 10

@Obs;
I am not a biologis, geologis, or a weather exppert but I have a good understanding of management. Crisis management does not require answering every concievable question but a flexible plan able to adapt to minor to moderate changes in variables. Global warming is happening, why or when are open to discussion which can be left to the experts in the related fields. As an imperial management the role of the political establishment and Pentagon is to look ahead an prepare for foreseeable outcomes. Empires plan for changes in decades not months. If forced to estimate I’d say they are planning 30 to 50 years out. Insurance companys will come around when the phenomenon starts to impact their bottom lines and then the government will be there to bail them out. There is no point in sacrificing profits for something which is not real enough to hurt them yet.
I took a look at the link you posted, interesting discussion but most of the science is over my head. And just like Gore said, like the cigarrette lobby, there are scientist who will deny global warming or blame it on other factors for various motives. But as the facts become clear people will act to protect their interests and the ones who prepared ahead of time will fare much better than those who didn’t.
So the questions is “if you accept that global warming is real then how do you prepare for it”? The actions of the US government can be explained by the little idiom that “when you only have a hammer every problem looks like a nail”. The US sees the current military/technological edge as its only advantage and will leverage it to its benefit.
Max

Posted by: Max Andersen | May 25 2006 6:32 utc | 12

Buying judges:
Firms Donated to Groups That Gave Judges Free Trips

Two organizations that have provided free trips to hundreds of federal judges received large contributions from tobacco, oil and other corporate interests, according to documents released yesterday.
The Montana-based Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) and George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center previously said corporate money does not pay for the judges’ seminars or declined to disclose their donors.
But documents released by the Community Rights Counsel, a nonprofit Washington law firm, show that corporations including Exxon Mobil, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco have contributed tens of thousands of dollars toward these programs.

Posted by: b | May 25 2006 7:12 utc | 14

er… as it solves.

Posted by: Obs | May 25 2006 13:47 utc | 16

Call me a cynic, but I think Al Gore is shilling for the DLC: gotta keep those lefty MoveOn donators from jumping ship while the Dem ship sinks. Rousing speeches by those out of power cost the DLC nothing.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 25 2006 14:24 utc | 18

Because of population growth, even reducing carbon emissions to a constant level will require a decreasing CO2 footprint per person.
Nice to see the contraction and convergence argument in play – let’s go with the country with the biggest per capita CO2 footprints in the world, see if they can reduce to the world mean just for starters, and then see how it goes.
(BTW I’ve reduced my CO2 footprint drastically in the past couple of years. What about you, Obs?)

Posted by: Dismal Science | May 25 2006 14:58 utc | 20

I live in a studio apartment and I walk to work. I do take about 2 airplane flights a year.
I use oil-based heat in the winter time (maybe this will cost less in the future >:\ ). At this point, I wouldn’t volunteer to go without heat half the time or forgo seeing my family. I wouldn’t vote for any politician who advocated such a position.

Posted by: Obs | May 25 2006 15:32 utc | 22

@Gylangirl
“Call me a cynic, but I think Al Gore is shilling for the DLC: gotta keep those lefty MoveOn donators from jumping ship while the Dem ship sinks. Rousing speeches by those out of power cost the DLC nothing.”
You mean to suggest he is rousing discontent with the current administration so that more voters are inclined to vote for the wife of his former boss who runs in the same circles as the present administration and whose policies are in no substantial way different than those of the present administration??? You cynic.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 25 2006 15:47 utc | 24

Obs- rail travel for goods is better than semi trucks. I just heard a talk on this, but an avg of 9% wouldn’t be far off.
The way houses are built, what they are built with, how they get their energy –these are all “new markets” for ppl. The govt. needs to get the oil cos off welfare –they are not the solution to this issue.
I wish I could find the link to a documentary about the Industrial Hemp lobby. The problem with hemp is that it is marijuana before the leaves are harvested, leaving the stalk. The hysteria over marijuana is also part of the problem, because it is possible, according to the hemp lobby, to make a car body that is stronger than current technology — out of hemp. When the car is no longer usable, (or the train car, etc.) it can decompose.
Farmers in KY want to be able to grow industrial hemp because it can also replace the paper industry’s use of wood pulp. Trees are big and can transfer lots of oxygen for carbon.
Simple things like growing something other than massive lawns of grass are things ppl can do. Using florescent bulbs rather than incandescent is another BIG energy saver in homes– our homes use more energy and cause more environmental damage than cars –from the building of them to the use of them.
As far as slow climate change…there is also the issue of the loss of ice at the poles that erodes slowly until a huge sheet of ice breaks off from the rest of the mass. Then it’s like dumping an ice cube the size of, say, Australia into, say, the Atlantic. Water is displaced…where does it go? At that point, there would be a quick change that came about because of a failure to address the issue now, when we know this is a real possiblity.
I read the site you linked, and basically the real climate ppl are saying that, except for maybe two things, which may be a question of terms, Gore has his science right.
Yes, Gore is an evil corporate whore, but at least he’s one that’s talking about THE big issue in our lifetime, and proposing alternative energy solutions. His dad was also a tobacco farmer, as were my relatives, but they switched from tobacco to other cash crops (like soybeans)…things can and do change.
Bush is such a shithead that he could not address the American ppl’s desire to do something to help after 9-11 to ask for sacrifice and a push for new energy policies.
Why do you say that global warming did not cause Katrina, when the issue of the sea’s temps, just like the air temps, definitely have something to do with a storms’ ability to gain or lose strength?
These storms: tornadoes, hurricanes, tsumanis are the equivalent of the earth “sweating.”
Then there is the issue of the temp in the Atlantic ocean and the conveyor that brings more moderate temps to northern Europe. That is another issue that would be a period of slow change that, at a certain point, would make this conveyor stop because of the temp of the waters…and scientists have already noted this change in water temps, too.
The point of the Gore presentation also seems to be an attempt to create a movement similar to the “space race” — but instead of trying to beat the Russians to put someone on the moom, the issue is trying to create energy that doesn’t rely upon wars –that’s self-sufficient and efficient as much as possble.
But, as the South Park writers show, Americans detest ppl who want to do something decent (as in the Prius snobs). Well, I can’t afford a Prius, but if the car manufacturers here used the economy of scale production issue to bring down the price of such vehicles, maybe there wouldn’t be that “snob” issue. If they used hemp instead of metals, that would be something to really create an interest in “new technology.”
anyway, I know it’s not acceptable to be inspired by a politician, but Gore did inspire me because he’s someone who is talking about things that can be done…such as wind farms and solar panels. I read that if every bldg in the US used solar panels on their roofs or as part of their architecture, every bldg in this nation could be energy independent of oil.
maybe you want to look for some of this to disprove my statements. I’ll look for online sources too. The Industrial Hemp Lobby is a doc that’s on my local access tv which also broadcasts Democracy Now!. If you can find a station near you that shows that program, maybe they can locate the doc I mention. Maybe it’s on their rotation, like it is here…but its showtime is never “advertised” in the tv section.

Posted by: fauxreal | May 25 2006 15:50 utc | 26

fauxreal
Yes I would say that the graphs presented by Gore are accurate. I don’t deny global warming.
I do deny that we can motivate people to restrict their carbon intake to the point where we see a real impact on CO2 levels.
You are certainly correct that there is a lot of corporate welfare in the current carbon model. It may be the case that fossil fuels are expensive compared to wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, ethanol, etc. I hope that is the case, because it means an environmentally friendly energy policy is just around the corner – just as soon as we get our accounting right. If this is the case, then a lot can be done immediately.
I read that if every bldg in the US used solar panels on their roofs or as part of their architecture, every bldg in this nation could be energy independent of oil.
I did this calculation recently, and it seems most 2 story residential houses could be energy independent – you are correct. But, solar panels (photovoltaic) are expensive. So, instead of paying money to the utility company, you end up with a bigger mortgage payment. I don’t know if this would be more than what people pay now. However, no politician can advance mandatory photovoltaic paneling for every house and expect to get elected. However, I submit that even if we were to do exactly that massive a campaign – that global warming would continue!
In fact, doing that would decrease demand and make fossil fuel sources more attractive to developing countries.
I agree that Gore is creating a movement. And I think smartly he hasn’t really put forward any specific ideas. But I wonder how popular the movement will be should he ask people to make real sacrifices today.
It seems like the situation is a lot like the current federal debt. A politician running to eliminate the debt (a problem for future generations) by reducing government services or raising taxes gets killed in the polls. No movement overcomes that.
Monolycus My point is that a CAT 4+ hurricane might have hit New Orleans even if we were experiencing global cooling. The result would have still been catastrophic. Global warming does increase the odds. Global warming increases the risk of owning property near the ocean or a river. That is true. Increases in risk means decreasing equity value. I suppose that the change in risk is manageable because it occurs over decades, you suppose it could happen faster. The problem occurs because a lot of the existing and current investment assumed no global warming – and this will continue until it becomes absolutely obvious. Gore is clearly helping in this regard. But people may find sea walls and levees a superior way to address the problem than globally reducing CO2.
The problem with global warming is the same with the Federal debt: today we are fine; we want and have big government and low taxes! Similarly people want beachfront property and the conveniences of industrialization today. The result is increased future total costs.
So how can you sell a tax increase?
How can you sell the inconvenience of a new carbon-free energy infrastructure?
The only way to sell it – is if it actually costs less, and the reduction in costs is apparent to the voter.
I think it will happen – but the motivating factor will be the increase in the cost of fossil fuels from supply shortages.

Posted by: Obs | May 25 2006 17:00 utc | 28

So Gore scores political points and kudos while keeping away from other issues.
Not really

Posted by: b | May 25 2006 17:12 utc | 30

Obs- the article I read was about business structures, not residential ones…that’s a big deal because profits could be invested in such energy forms and bizzes could sell energy…esp. as oil prices increased.
there is also the issue of pricing fossil fuels by calculating their real costs (measured in environmental terms like the carbon trading proposed by industrial nations.)
The current solar technology is so expensive because production isn’t as large…and because it’s not federally subsidized like, say, milk production in America that displaces local industries in developing countries because that makes local milk more expensive than American powdered milk. I would rather subsidize farmers to create wind farms, not powdered milk and the cows and the major energy expenditure it takes to maintain them when they’re not needed.
Noisette, if you bothered to watch the presentation, you would see that Gore also talks about this being a global issue, obviously, and talks about industrial nation, the most consumptive of which is the US had led the way in other situations to deal with worldwide problems. The Bushies try to dictate to the rest of the world, and tell the rest of the world they don’t care what they think if it doesn’t benefit the bush junta.
As far as motivating ppl –where I live, the city govt. is working on this issue…presenting the issue to the public and trying to work out ways to deal with the issues at a local level…simple things like buying from the local farmers, rather than the trucked in food, for instance…as I noted before, where I live there in energy averaging to that if you use alt. energy and your meter runs backwards, you get a break for that.
they talk about the problem of solar panels being too expensive now…how a certain level of income must be achieved before ppl can afford to put solar panels on their homes.
the local habitat for humanity builds straw bale insulated housing for poor people.
what do you all here who type so cynically do where you live?
I don’t give a fuck what Gore’s motives may be, if he is successful in making this a grassroots issue that local communities start to address. Progressive pols are already doing this as much as possible. Gore is giving a stage for things that can and, imo, should be done on a small scale at the local level. At the local level, these pols have been elected time and again here…including green candidates. That doesn’t seem like it will happen at a federal level.
so maybe the paradox of globalism is that it will be worked out locally.
And the retards in the fundie controlled parts of this nation will, once again, be the last ones who “get it.”
there is a moment when a time has come, as in the civil rights movement. If King had listened to everyone who told him to wait, to not upset the status quo…who knows where we would be now. I can imagine that my black next door neighbor wouldn’t be married to her white husband…at least not in most states. King had affairs and consorted with politicians who were corrupt…so who cares what he did. He was a fundie.
with the issue of segregation, the federal govt acted when the force of law and culture was against the segregationists.
but whatever. I’m too naive to pay attention to politics.

Posted by: fauxreal | May 25 2006 17:36 utc | 32

fauxreal,
your own reaction to evidence is up to you. Research FEMA’s nature, and put food, water, meds etc aside for whatever catastrophes you think may occur. Buy food. You will not be sorry if you buy a lot of food; after oil prices rise so do prices of that season’s crops. Climate changes aren’t good for existing plantings either, yet no one visible addresses these worries. Prescriptions, hooch, generators, rifles are among the things that will gain value no matter what happens, given current conditions and decisions made.
If what I expect happens, they’re invaluable, barterable, power conveying, and also liabilities. Use cash if possible for any large food buys to avoid seeing FEMA’s enforcement cut-off of the Executive Order against hoarding. Restaurant supply places may be available, don’t require membership.If there’s a state nearby with loose gun laws, you might get something. I must admit I’m tempted by the crossbows in sporting goods stores and e-bay myself. But buy food. If what I expect to happen June 6th does you’ll be very glad very soon if you do, and I don’t think there’s any circumstance forseeable in the next 5 years where you’ll be sorry. Even burglars won’t take non-fancy food until after a catastrophe.(Eat & replace gradually at end of period.) Cases of vodka 1/2 gallons will never go bad, will always rise in value, and offer a suicide method if ever wanted.

Posted by: plushtown | May 25 2006 18:47 utc | 34

Just wait until the terminator gene jumps to all seeds.

Posted by: pb | May 26 2006 4:53 utc | 36

b –
To answer Krugman’s query:
   Are we … ready for … responsible policies?
Unfortunately, no. Not on a national scale, certainly not on a global one.

Posted by: Obs | May 26 2006 15:09 utc | 38

Yes,
but also no visible leaders are real, because none act in good faith. You know this. Google votescam, bohemian grove, denver airport, peter power, wtc 7, plushtown koala …

Posted by: plushtown | May 26 2006 16:36 utc | 40

I do deny that we can motivate people to restrict their carbon intake to the point where we see a real impact on CO2 levels.
Relying on individual actions is only part of it. Policy instruments exist eg taxation. Aviation fuel is not taxed. It’s literally a free ride for users of the most polluting form of transport on the planet right now. The costs are being/will be increasingly borne by poor people living in economies where bus travel is not even an option for most.
So start taxing avaition fuel and air travel. A lot.
Make the polluters pay.

Posted by: Dismal Science | May 26 2006 18:31 utc | 42

Noisette- as a matter of fact, where I live, taxes and monies received from the govt are even…
it’s the south that takes so much money from the govt and then gripes about paying taxes.
But whatever. Your dismissive remarks about soccer moms and city greens really gets to the heart of things for you, doesn’t it? How sad you are.
I live in a University community where the educational level is the highest in the state, and which is also the most liberal area. It’s not only the highest in the state, but also in the nation, depending on the school division. It’s also the area doing the most to try to deal with sustainable living issues in the area…which, around here, has nothing to do with ethanol.
But no matter. You are so certain in your dismissive remarks that who the fuck wants to try to engage in some sort of actual constructive conversation. While you sit at your computer and discourage any attempt to look at solutions, there are ppl who hold down jobs, go to school, and volunteer to try to help figure out some workable solutions.
If you are insinuating I’m ridiculous a soccer mom or a city green, you’re also wrong. I’ve never been friends with soccer moms, either, because I could never relate to their world, when mine consisted of something entirely different.
One friend of mine, for instance, used to dig out of the dumpsters to feed her two children when her husband turned out to be less than kind. Have you ever lived that way? Do you have any idea what that’s like for someone? I have a friend who busked on the streets in NYC and now works with ppl with mental retardation and other issues and gets paid less than a teacher…this person lives in a studio apt and spends his gas money taking ppl with disabilities to swim in the lake, or to classes to learn motor control. He pays for this out of his fucking pocket because people have less and less money to contribute to service programs for ppl with special needs…who are so severely disabled, for instance that they have to have help to hold a job folding sheets, for instance.
I’m poor, because I’m divorced. I’m divorced because my ex was bipolar and made life unbearable for everyone. Because I live in a state with no alimony. Because I put the lives of those around me first, in part because I have two children with disabilities, you fucktard. I have no family either living near me or alive to help me in any way. I have borrowed money to be able to live where my kids have grown up in large part because of their disabilities. I gave up many opportunties because my first responsibilities are to my children.
But maybe I shouldn’t assume that you were directing your remarks to me. You were probably talking to someone else on this thread you assumed was a soccer mom, like, say, Uncle Scam.
Whatever. Time for me to take a break again. I’m disgusted.

Posted by: fauxreal | May 26 2006 20:16 utc | 44

BTW, a season of county soccer costs $40, includes uniform and ball, and they’d probably waive the fee for any who request it due to financial circumstance.
The parents who show up are not just Moms. There are a lot of Dads and grandparents out there, all cheering for players on both sides, not just for their team, and congratulating good tries even if unsuccessful.
One of the best family outings you can imagine.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 27 2006 17:54 utc | 46

oookay,,,, fyi, i think soccer moms are for the large part moderate/swing voters, at least they used to be. they are worried about terror. that was the overwhelming indicators of poll numbers, that’s why we don’t want to offend them, they vote. personally i think the republicans chose to sort of ‘claim them’ as their own, because it sounds so squeaky clean. first they were clintons, then bush just started saying they loved him. i interpreted noisettes usage to mean the republican version since she juxtaposed it w/the greens.
fucktard i like it, new word. i’ll have to try it on my son. faux is feisty today.

In politics
Soccer moms were considered an important constituency in Bill Clinton’s two presidential wins. Starting, perhaps, with Republican victories in the 1994 Congressional elections, and into the 2000s with the presidential victories of George W. Bush, they have been identified increasingly with the Republican party. However, this correlates more with other demographic characteristics, such as their place in the red state-blue state divide, than with their identification as soccer moms.
In fact, in as much as both parties seek to appeal to her, the model soccer mom in political discourse is a moderate, hopefully persuadable swing voter. She’s assumed to be especially concerned with education policy, health care and tax levels, especially as they impact her own family. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, homeland security has emerged as a concern to the extent that a new term, “security mom,” has come into use.
Political and social conservatism
Since the late 1990s and into the 2000s, the soccer mom has been increasingly associated with political conservatism, with evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity, and with socially conservative concerns such as opposition to obscenities in rock and hip hop music and sex and violence in film, television, and video games. Some “extreme soccer moms” even complain about sad music, claiming that it makes children suicidal. Because of this, many gamers and anime fans often use soccer moms as scapegoats for censorship in the media.
These attributions, however, are in no way universal. A political campaign targeting soccer moms in a liberal environment like Boston or San Francisco is probably talking about a much more secular, socially and politically moderate-to-liberal audience.

Posted by: annie | May 27 2006 22:40 utc | 48

Truthfully, I think Gore is the man to lead the US. At least he understands the problems we face – though I doubt much can be done in the way of reversing Global Warming.

Posted by: Obs | May 28 2006 5:49 utc | 50

Why we drink?
Because it is there you see, and beacuse we have got the money to do so.
Sure the drunkenness causes some problems, what with the fightings and thrashed bottles everywhere. But those are human problems, got nothing to do with the sweet stuff in the bottle. Better solve them as human problems, and do not touch my drink!
No one would support banning liqour, or taxing it, so there is no point in trying. And when I say no one I mean the others. Myself I would be perfectly content with stopping drinking, but the others… You see, they are drunkards. And fools. Can not be reasoned with. And I do not even drink much. Just on holidays. for family reasons.
Besides if we did not drink, someone else would. Because it would be cheaper. Economics is the only thing that drives men, you see. The only way would be if we bought all the liqour and stored it underground, oh what a waste!
What are you saying? That there are places that drink less voluntarily? That we drink the most in the whole wide world? You obviosly have not been paying attention. As I have already told you, it is impossible to make people drink less. Therefore you must be drunk. Now hand me that drink.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | May 28 2006 15:38 utc | 52

askod marvelous! pass the bottle.
life goes on la di da. oh, no need to apologize to me anyway, i alway enjoy a good rant as long as i’m not in the crosshairs. plus, the new word, can’t wait to give it a shout. i know my first victim, just waiting for the right moment.

Posted by: annie | May 28 2006 17:49 utc | 54