An Inconvenient Truth

[Ice]

Any of you guys seen it or read the book?

I've always gotten the feeling that most of you guys on the board aren't really big on politics or issues that we deal with.. but it's something that everyone should look into.

Personally I've only read the book, and it was a rude awaking. If you guys haven't heard about it, its basically stating that the world will be screwed if we don't start taking care of our enviroment. Bush and all his oil lovers have really created even more problems with the Global Warming and greenhouse gases. Anyways, most of the issues were a reality I knew was coming, but Al Gore really broke it down on paper.

So basketball aside, does anyone else share the same passion as myself when it comes to all this stuff?

Edit: Heres the trailer if you want a quick summary

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_cl...ttruth/trailer/

 

[deception]

i watched and still stunned. did u know 38, 000 people died in that heatwave that swept europe a few years ago?

 

[bbwSwish]

I also share this passion. We have discussed this several times in my classes and read some articles and things about global warming. Many people don't think it is serious but we seriously need to find a solution quickly. Our time is running out and unless we find alternate power sources or ways to prevent the global warming, we're going to be in a lot of trouble.

 

[Ice]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">i watched and still stunned. did u know 38, 000 people died in that heatwave that swept europe a few years ago?</div>
Yep, we've had a lot of massive natural disasters the past couple years that doesn't get the media it should.

There was a Gulf earthquake just the other day. (On 9/11 actually). So Florida not only has to worry about Hurricanes, we have to deal with Earthquakes in the near future as well.

That tsunami in December '04 killed about 230,000 people.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Our time is running out and unless we find alternate power sources or ways to prevent the global warming, we're going to be in a lot of trouble.</div>
Word. Electric cars are still a positive, but you'll always have those people that feel like a Hummer is the only form of transportation for them.

I landed an internship for the EPA as a Environmental Protection Specialist while I'm getting my degree and I'll hopefully be doing a lot of various hands on things to help the enviroment. It's just such a sad thing if you really get to researching it.

 

[Really Lost One]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Ice:</div><div class="quote_post">Word. Electric cars are still a positive, but you'll always have those people that feel like a Hummer is the only form of transportation for them.</div>
Electric cars are a positive, but they rarely make them anymore. Ever heard about the movie "Who Killed the Electric Cars?"

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Some accuse the major automakers of trying to postpone or prevent the mass production of electric cars. These critics allege that this stems from their being heavily financially invested in today's dominant power technology, the internal combustion engine. At one time during emissions reductions regulations GM produced over 1,100 of their EV1 models, 800 of which were made available through 3-year leases. Upon the expiration of EV1 leases, GM crushed them. The reason for the crushing is not clear, but has variously been attributed to (1) the auto industry's successful challenge to California law requiring zero emission vehicles or (2) a federal regulation requiring GM to produce and maintain spare parts for the few thousands EV1s. A web site tracks crushing of other electric vehicles. A movie on the subject was made in 2005-2006, entitled Who Killed the Electric Car? was released theatrically by Sony Pictures Classics in 2006. The film explores the roles of automobile makers, oil industry, the US government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers, and each of their roles in limiting the deployment and adoption of this technology.

</div>

Link


Global Warming IMO is going to be the Earth's demise. I dont think many people are taking it seriously, and when they do, it may be too late. Have you guys heard that the Artic Ice is melting away at a fast rate? That's something that should get us concerned, but most Americans aren't. I think you can safely put the blame on Bush. Although people may not agree with everything he does, he is still our leader, and should lead by example. If he isn't doing anything to stop global warming, than most Americans probably wont care at all. I just feel that our generation is going to be really screwed. If things continue the way it is going, our kids may not even live the life we are living today

 

[AznxBaller]

I'm taking Environmental Science AP this year in school, so its definitely giving me this kind of information left and right. In addition to climate change, there's tons of other environmental problems that definitely need to be seriously looked at. Things such as population density, resource usage, soil degradation, etc. However, they're actually all linked together if you think about, which was pretty interesting to me. Nope, haven't read this book or watched the movie though.

 

[Really Lost One]

The World has a Ten Year Opportunity to Act on Global Warming

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> A leading U.S. climate researcher says the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

?I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most,? Hansen said Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California?s state capital.

If the world continues with a ?business as usual? scenario, Hansen said temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F) and ?we will be producing a different planet.?

On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.

</div>

Link

Let's just hope more people start to get aware of their surroundings, and start thinking about the future generations. I have always wondered how the world would have been like if John Kerry, or Al Gore would have won the elections. *Sigh* Lets just hope our next president will do a better job

 

[Chutney]

No offense, but you're naive if you simply put all the blame on Bush. The world's been heading slowly down this path since the Industrial Revolution. What you can blame him for, along with countless other leaders, is not taking it seriously enough.

 

[44Thrilla]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brian:</div><div class="quote_post">

Global Warming IMO is going to be the Earth's demise. I dont think many people are taking it seriously, and when they do, it may be too late. Have you guys heard that the Artic Ice is melting away at a fast rate? That's something that should get us concerned, but most Americans aren't. I think you can safely put the blame on Bush. Although people may not agree with everything he does, he is still our leader, and should lead by example. If he isn't doing anything to stop global warming, than most Americans probably wont care at all. I just feel that our generation is going to be really screwed. If things continue the way it is going, our kids may not even live the life we are living today</div>What? How can you blame Bush when global warming was an issue well before he became president? Or how about the fact that he's only in charge of one country, and not the entire Earth?

Sure, he should probably concern himself with global warming a bit more, but he's not to blame for it. I hate Bush more than anybody, but blaming that on him is just ridiculous.

 

[Ice]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brian:</div><div class="quote_post">Electric cars are a positive, but they rarely make them anymore. Ever heard about the movie "Who Killed the Electric Cars?" </div>
I ment Hybrid cars.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think you can safely put the blame on Bush. Although people may not agree with everything he does, he is still our leader, and should lead by example. If he isn't doing anything to stop global warming, than most Americans probably wont care at all. I just feel that our generation is going to be really screwed. If things continue the way it is going, our kids may not even live the life we are living today</div>
Yeah, but Dick and Bush both have ties to the powerful oil companies overseas. It's quite pathetic. They don't give a damn about the enviroment, they actually completely reversed everything Clinton and his administration did to protect it. I'm not saying they've caused Global Warming, bc thats years if not decades of problems that are finally starting to catch up to us - but they have done nothing to protect it.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm taking Environmental Science AP this year in school, so its definitely giving me this kind of information left and right. </div>
I took that in HS as well, study for everything because you'll regret it when you take the final if you don't. I got a 4 which was enough for college credit.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In addition to climate change, there's tons of other environmental problems that definitely need to be seriously looked at. Things such as population density, resource usage, soil degradation, etc. </div>
Yup. Also look at the illegal immigration. I'm not racist one bit but many of them are having large families and little to none get a full education. So whos going to fill the shoes of the high paid, powerful jobs when those people retire. Our generation is nothing like the one ahead of us, and it's going to show. Theres only so many jobs that require no education, and people to collect welfare. Yeah, Walmarts will be more popular than ever, but whats next.

And I just saw that Florida's drop out rate for HS was at 57%. How freaking sad is that, High School is EASY and a complete joke. Theres no reason anyone should even consider dropping out. Seems like no one even cares about education, school, politics, or our future.

The future of this world is completely unknown, and thats scary as hell.

 

[Really Lost One]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 44Thrilla:</div><div class="quote_post">What? How can you blame Bush when global warming was an issue well before he became president? Or how about the fact that he's only in charge of one country, and not the entire Earth?

Sure, he should probably concern himself with global warming a bit more, but he's not to blame for it. I hate Bush more than anybody, but blaming that on him is just ridiculous.</div>
I guess what I meant to say was you can put blame on Bush. I agree that global warming wasn't all due to Bush (stupid statement by me). But I'm just pissed that he isn't doing more to help our environment. Didnt he reject the global warming treaty (I forgot what it was called)? Thing is, our next generation has to deal with so much. Global warming, the war, taxes, etc. It just seems like Bush is ruining America.

 

[bbwSwish]

Many Bush haters are extremists who try to blame every single problem on him. I don't like George W. Bush and I don't think he is a good president but blaming things he can't control on him is pointless. I agree with most of you, he didn't handle the war in Iraq right and I don't think he handled Hurricane Katrina perfectly (but he wasn't the only one to blame) but when it comes to Global Warming, you can't point your finger in his direction.

Global warming is all of our fault as much as it is the Bush administration. We use the fossil fuels and many humans simply could care less about global warming. Bush hasn't focused on global warming a whole lot but he has had a lot of problems to deal with (even if he caused most of those problems). Also, like 44 said, how can you just blame Bush when he just the leader of one country. We need to unite and fight this thing before it's too late and that doesn't just go for world leaders. Ordinary people who live ordinary lives need to pitch in too because nobody can do this on their own.

 

[Ice]

It's not just America either, you can almost point the finger anywhere.

If you look at the development of China the past 5 years their economy has completely skyrocketed. They've become more dependant on fossil fuels as well, which as released even more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.

A big way to stop all of this would be to reduce all of the deforestation (especially with the rainforest). It has completely altered the hydrologic cycle and it's harming the atmosphere more than many people think.

 

[Chutney]

I was talking with a friend a couple days ago about this same topic. He was like people's lifestyles are a certain way and it's pointless to try and make them change. He said preventing global warming would take a major lifestyle change from the majority of the population and there's not enough time or incentive for people, who are naturally self-centered, to make it.

I agreed with him about people being naturally self-centered. However, I said that you could actually use this against them if you really wanted to make a change. Take the gas prices, for example. Nobody willingly stopped driving SUV's, but the increase in gas prices basically forced a lot of people to look for alternatives and, as a result, the sales of "gas guzzlers" has declined significantly. My argument is that if government's were to tax the resources that fueled these damaging lifestyles, it could, unwillingly, spark the type of change that everyone's looking for.

Obviously he disagreed with me, saying that it would be impossible for a state to justify that to the people. And I kind of agreed. But, this was really the only realistic (doesn't just hope) solution I've ever heard. I mean, people always complain about gas prices and the environment at the same time, which is a major contradiction. IMO, society is going to have to decide which is a bigger priority at some point. Just wondering on what y'all thought.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">I was talking with a friend a couple days ago about this same topic. He was like people's lifestyles are a certain way and it's pointless to try and make them change. He said preventing global warming would take a major lifestyle change from the majority of the population and there's not enough time or incentive for people, who are naturally self-centered, to make it.

I agreed with him about people being naturally self-centered. However, I said that you could actually use this against them if you really wanted to make a change. Take the gas prices, for example. Nobody willingly stopped driving SUV's, but the increase in gas prices basically forced a lot of people to look for alternatives and, as a result, the sales of "gas guzzlers" has declined significantly. My argument is that if government's were to tax the resources that fueled these damaging lifestyles, it could, unwillingly, spark the type of change that everyone's looking for.

Obviously he disagreed with me, saying that it would be impossible for a state to justify that to the people. And I kind of agreed. But, this was really the only realistic (doesn't just hope) solution I've ever heard. I mean, people always complain about gas prices and the environment at the same time, which is a major contradiction. IMO, society is going to have to decide which is a bigger priority at some point. Just wondering on what y'all thought.</div>

Honda's/BMW's hydrogen car that is coming up in three or so years might change things to a noticeable degree. You can buy this mechanism that produces all the hydrogen one needs ( e.g. Honda's HES unit).

 

[TheFreshPrince]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">i watched and still stunned. did u know 38, 000 people died in that heatwave that swept europe a few years ago?</div>

yeah i heard about that, to bad the rest of the world didnt

 

[Ice]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">I agreed with him about people being naturally self-centered. However, I said that you could actually use this against them if you really wanted to make a change. Take the gas prices, for example. Nobody willingly stopped driving SUV's, but the increase in gas prices basically forced a lot of people to look for alternatives and, as a result, the sales of "gas guzzlers" has declined significantly. My argument is that if government's were to tax the resources that fueled these damaging lifestyles, it could, unwillingly, spark the type of change that everyone's looking for.

Obviously he disagreed with me, saying that it would be impossible for a state to justify that to the people. And I kind of agreed. But, this was really the only realistic (doesn't just hope) solution I've ever heard. I mean, people always complain about gas prices and the environment at the same time, which is a major contradiction. IMO, society is going to have to decide which is a bigger priority at some point. Just wondering on what y'all thought.</div>
Thats actually very true. I guess the creation of the Prius and all the other Hybrids is a start to that, but some people will never change their habits.

If people just do more of the 'little things' the world could notice a difference.

For example, simply improving the ventilation in your attic can lower the temperature in your entire house and therefore make your AC unit more efficient. By having a fridge in your garage you use even more power because the garage is not cooled by an AC unit, so stick with one for the entire house. And to save energy you can run the laundry with a full load rather than a mini or light load... same thing goes with using a dishwasher with a half load. Not only do you waste hot water, running a half filled dishwasher uses even more energy than a full load. And to clean up or eat, use cloth, not paper towels or napkins... and use reusable containers, not foil or plastic wraps.

I could go on about it.. but people just don't seem to realize how easy it really is to help this problem. Everyone just needs to do a little bit, and it could go a long way.

But I'm glad I'm not the only one here that has a passion for this (our future).

 

[Shapecity]

What's scary are the deadzones popping up along the Oregon-Washington shoreline, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico. The water is so polluted, marine life suffocate.

 

[M Two One]

I've posted the real deal about this subject a few months ago. The majority of my professors laugh at the whole subject because for one - It won't change; and two - the effects are different than believed. Not meaning it isn't something to be concerned of because it can cause serious problems. Global warming however is a myth like global cooling back in 1972 used by actionalists to scare the public into believing and doing something of their wishes to make changes. Good scare tactic though, as it obviously works.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting M Two One:</div><div class="quote_post">I've posted the real deal about this subject a few months ago. The majority of my professors laugh at the whole subject because for one - It won't change; and two - the effects are different than believed. Not meaning it isn't something to be concerned of because it can cause serious problems. Global warming however is a myth like global cooling back in 1972 used by actionalists to scare the public into believing and doing something of their wishes to make changes. Good scare tactic though, as it obviously works.</div>

Scare tactic? I'd like to know why it's more of a farce, than reality. Just wondering (not sarcasm). That's an interesting pov.

 

[dunksworth]

I watched the movie the other day and it's very compelling stuff if you aren't already aware of the severity of the issue. I did find it pretty funny how Gore was riding a car everywhere he went though...

Someone brought up how there's no point stressing out about the situation because no one's going to make lifestyle changes.... I completely disagree with that. You go to places in Europe, you'll see that a lot of cities have an ideal urban form that conveniently allows people to use various modes of transportation. Switzerland, for example, has the best biking trails I've ever seen. It's obvious that the city planners were catering more toward the bikers and pedestrians than people riding cars, that's why many people there don't even own cars. Other cities in Europe also have a public transport system that is far superior to any of the ones we have in North America.

That's when you gotta ask, why don't our city planners have a similar mentality? It's just sad that the fat cats running the oil/car industries have such a huge influence on the government that we probably will never see a major change.... On the other hand though, we can't just blame the gov't for this problem. We all could easily do our part to help the situation. If everyone started using public transport and ride their bikes more often, the gov't will have no other choice but to change their ways.

 

[huevonkiller]

One heard about the Kyoto protocol today, which is kind of upsetting actually. The UN wants to spend 150 billion dollars a year to try to cut on emissions, which will only extend the life of the Earth six extra years by the year 2100. For half that amount one could feed all humans, as well as provide healthcare and eliminate diseases for them. One heard that Gore's movie makes up statistics as well (his comment on the ocean rising 20 ft is dubious, as other experts claim it will only be 1 foot).

 

[deception]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">One heard about the Kyoto protocol today, which is kind of upsetting actually. The UN wants to spend 150 billion dollars a year to try to cut on emissions, which will only extend the life of the Earth six extra years by the year 2100. For half that amount one could feed all humans, as well as provide healthcare and eliminate diseases for them. One heard that Gore's movie makes up statistics as well (his comment on the ocean rising 20 ft is dubious, as other experts claim it will only be 1 foot).</div>


jbb's charlatan intellectual strikes again. did u know that most scientists have reached a consensus- global warming is an empirical reality. and in the spirit of throwing out random numbers- the us spends 4 billion a month in iraq while parts of new orleans remain a ghostown.

and about feeding the power- u would know if u did any research on developmental studies that it isn't cost or scarcity but accesibiility (how to deliver food to the remotest parts of the globe) that keeps us from feeding the power. nonetheless, i look forward to another article from chris hitchens in an attempt to refute my points.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">jbb's charlatan intellectual strikes again. did u know that most scientists have reached a consensus- global warming is an empirical reality. and in the spirit of throwing out random numbers- the us spends 4 billion a month in iraq while parts of new orleans remain a ghostown.

and about feeding the power- u would know if u did any research on developmental studies that it isn't cost or scarcity but accesibiility (how to deliver food to the remotest parts of the globe) that keeps us from feeding the power. nonetheless, i look forward to another article from chris hitchens in an attempt to refute my points.</div>

Well first, you're obnoxious, however, one was reporting the news to you, not an opinion (in the previous post). One said the Kyoto protocol is ridiculous, not that one thinks Global Warming doesn't exist. However, our priorities need to be put in perspective, 150 billion is too much for such a small action. Some other type of plan must be put into effect, the kyoto protocol is ineffective.

One more thing, the "feeding the poor" statement, is just one of the many things one could do with 75 billion dollars a year.

 

[dunksworth]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">jbb's charlatan intellectual strikes again. did u know that most scientists have reached a consensus- global warming is an empirical reality. and in the spirit of throwing out random numbers- the us spends 4 billion a month in iraq while parts of new orleans remain a ghostown.</div>
Not only that, but the US gives over $450 million a month to the Israeli government and military.... and it's naive to think that that money is being used to promote "peace" in the middle east. $150 billion is still a lot of money, but at least it's going to a good cause.


I also want to point out how the gov't/media likes to use word manipulation to lessen the severity of things such as global warming. Notice how they like throwing the term "climate change" instead? Or how they refer to it as global warming "theory"? And they still want to call it a theory despite most scientists (and when i say most, I mean like a 100:1 ratio) stating that it is an obvious fact.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">Not only that, but the US gives over $450 million a month to the Israeli government and military.... and it's naive to think that that money is being used to promote "peace" in the middle east. $150 billion is still a lot of money, but at least it's going to a good cause.</div>

No it's not a good cause... There won't be any noticeable effects and costs much more than the war in Iraq or giving 450 million a month to Israel. If I recall, the US hasn't signed it yet and not every nation is held to the same emission standards (e.g. some nations can still increase their emissions and some only have to maintain their current state).

 

[dunksworth]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">No it's not a good cause... There won't be any noticeable effects and is much more than the war in Iraq or giving 450 million a month to Israel. If I recall, the US hasn't signed it yet and not every nation is held to the same emission standards (e.g. some nations can still increase their emissions and some only have to maintain their current state).</div>
whoa easy there..... I dare you to tell that to the people of New Orleans who lost their homes. Or even the people in Africa who're suffering from the extreme drought.

Global warming has proven to be tied in directly to these issue. There's no way people can say this isn't a concern yet are content with their gov't spending billions on this so called anti-terrorism project.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">whoa easy there..... I dare you to tell that to the people of New Orleans who lost their homes. Or even the people in Africa who're suffering from the extreme drought.

Global warming has proven to be tied in directly to these issue. There's no way people can say this isn't a concern yet are content with their gov't spending billions on this so called anti-terrorism project.</div>

"Easy there" what? We might as well use the 150 billion to directly assist those New Orleans/African natives you're so worried about. Global warming is a problem, but the kyoto protocol does little for the price it requires. Global Warming is not the issue here, but a poorly thought out plan.

 

[dunksworth]

I can understand your stance on the amount of money being spent on global warming..... but I was only referring to your statement that the money being spent is not for a good cause or that there "won't be any noticeable effects".

In no way did I imply that we should spend that much to help out the people of New Orleans/Africa..... but then again, if they're spending so much to help out Israel, why not?

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">I can understand your stance on the amount of money being spent on global warming..... but I was only referring to your statement that the money being spent is not for a good cause or that there "won't be any noticeable effects".

In no way did I imply that we should spend that much to help out the people of New Orleans/Africa..... but then again, if they're spending so much to help out Israel, why not?</div>

If people want to spend millions of dollars on New Orleans, Africa, rough neighborhoods and such, one would not have a problem with that. Global Warming is a good cause to spend money on, only if an intelligent solution can be drafted. The protocol on the table right now is in a horrible infant state. Money would be better used for other matters.