I live a few streets down from Al Gore's house. (Note: I do not live in a 10,000+ square foot house).
While they might be renovating it to install solar panels and use 100% renewable energy, it still doesn't address one of the largest environmental concerns: OVERCONSUMPTION.
His house is the Hummer in the car world. No one needs one that big.
Free Ramos and Compean, whose interest do you serve by spewing this bullshit anyway? Do you work for an oil company? Or maybe Phillip Morris? Do you have a love affair with incandescents, or perhaps '72 Camaros?
Did Al Gore steal your high school girlfriend?
I just want to know why it's such a bad idea to work towards building a more sustainable society. You keep talking about fear, when all I see is fact. Why are you so interested in destroying the messenger?
About Al Gore, from that same article that you posted above:
"He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”
Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”"
~~~~~
I guess that's the funny thing about fact. The information is all there, unless you distort the perspective.....
that article was about how al gore has distorted the 'facts'. and the global warming (CO2 is the cause) scientists called him out. quote:
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
but back to your questions:
-the interest i serve is the american people (as a u.s. citizen) and that we don't waste money on things that won't have any effect.
-no, i don't work for an oil company or phillip morris (although i probably have stock in them through mutual funds .. sorry, my bad).
-of the light fixtures in my residence, only one has an incandescent bulb. that is a floor lamp which originally had a compact fluorescent - but it would flicker even when the dimmer was completely on. regrettably, i had to put a 75W type A lamp in it.
-i don't like the '72 camero, but would love to have a '68 camero. but, as a fiscal conservative, i drive a '03 civic, manual transmission. i wanted a hybrid but at the time the $5000 increase did not make sense and i couldn't get a manual transmission. i would still like to get a hybrid some day.
-never went to high school with al gore.
i have no problems with sustainable design or a sustainable society - one of my professors was way into that at my undergrad and to this day i always think of proper sighting, passive solar techniques, using daylight, etc. as that is inherent to what an architect does.
the problem i have is with extreme government regulations and the reduction of freedoms we experience with regard to architecture. in october 2005, new title 24 regulations went into effect in california which basically force compact fluorescent fixtures in residential kitchens. i do it because i'm required by law, but now there's talk about banning incandescents completely? i suppose it would force manufacturers to make a better bulb, but shouldn't that be done through competition in our capitalist system?
the other problem i have is the arrogance that we did this (the rise in temperature) and that we can control it. these are natural cycles: temps go up, they go back down.
i have no problem with sustainable design, just scaremongering.
Free Ramos - I tend to agree with your points. Sustainability and all things "green" are noble, but in a free society that is supposed to have high regard to individual right and civil liberties, how "green" one wants to be should be up to the individual.
Sure, social responsibility, that sure works. Everyone likes to talk about the world we'll leave for our "children." Al Gore is pretty good at spouting that off, while he lives in a massive estate and jets himself all over the world. Where's the social responsibility of the mouthpeice? Sure, we have millions of Al Gore apologists saying his message is sooo important that he's forgiven for his lifestyle, or he uses some Enron style accounting to offset his carbon "footprint." Sorry folks, I just don't have a ton of respect for the policy of Do as I say, not as I do.
I don't have a problem with the message per se. CO2 hasn't been argued to be a good thing. But for all the grandstanding Al Gore is doing here in America, it's making little difference on a global scale, which is at the heart of the social responsibility issue.
For example, in 2006 China built 90 gigawatts of new coal-fired power that will emit approx 590 million tons of CO2/year. Before the end of this decade, some say this year, China will be the #1 polluter in the world. I'd like to see the reception Al would get when he starts telling over 1 billion Chinese they can't raise their standard of living while he himself burns thousands of kilowatt hours in his own home each month. All of N. American and Western Europe could return to a pesant lifestyle with little to no CO2 emissions and still the developing world will dwarf the scales in emissions. But if it makes you fee virtuous to watch a movie and change your lightbulbs, feel free.
So what you're basically saying then, is if Al Gore and China won't change their ways, then why should you? I think my point there, and in this whole thread, is that if we want change to happen, we need to lead by example. Does Al Gore's gigantic house mean that we should disregard everything he says? No, because he makes many good points, and he's a former VP of the free world, so people will listen to him before, say, Dr. Joe Schmoe.
And with regards to "personal freedoms", at what point does social well-being and the greater good trump personal freedoms? Never? We used to have the freedom to use hair spray that had a whole bunch of bad junk in it, but then we stopped using it (forcibly), and we closed the hole in the ozone layer. Isn't this another, albeit much bigger, side of the same coin?
i still think it would be good to interview al gore for archinect. now only if could just get to santonio for the convention.
"mr gore, do you think architecture sucks?"
"it used to more but it is LE$$ now"
WonderK, I did say I don't have a problem with the message. By that I mean people have a right to their opinions and actions to follow what Gore preaches if they wish to.
I myself am Leed AP and find many values in efficient sustainable building practices. I drive a relatively efficient car and more importantly, drive it very little. My house is full of CFL's and the most efficient appliances I can personally afford. I recycle, etc.
What bothers me about the die hard Gore followers is they are very virtuous in regards to themselves and love to preach. While my personal feeling is Gore's luxurious lifestyle reeks of hypocracy and reminds me of those people that have "no war for oil" bumper stickers on their SUV's. The majority of those that follow him aren't nearly as hypocritical but aren't making massive changes to their lifestyles either, outside of maybe buying a hybrid car.
Since you watched that movie what have you done? Minus the rather inexpensive and simple things like changing to CFL light bulbs. Have you sold you vehicle and lived a completely pedestrian lifestyle? (Remember public transit also pollutes.) Did you buy acres of PV panels and get your home off the grid? Or did you quit your job? Remember, construction creates huge waste and releases a lot of CO2 and as an architect you are directly involved.
My guess is none. Not that I have a problem if you have done things like that. I'd love to erect a windmil in my backyard and get off the grid. Then again I can't afford that, and neither am I going to change my lifestyle so I can live without electricity.
My comment about personal freedoms wasn't about hairspray. It's much bigger than that. See, to really make a difference we're gonna need to change our lifestyle, everything. Who's to say that in the name of all things "green" the gov't starts forcing everyone to live in compact, high desity housing? Who's to say they can't start rationing your electricity usage? The people can be sold that it's all for the public good - social responsibility. Granted, that's an extreme, but in that scenario would you still give Gore a pass on his own lifestyle?
We have a pretty good life in the western world. I'll bet even the greenest of green people want to relatively maintain that. Well, China wants to catch up and look what that's doing to the environment.
Jeepers, aqua, you DID give some extreme examples of what might happen.
Possibly bringing issues like the potential impact of CO2 emissions to the forefront via a movie and a famous spokesperson will put the issue in the public debate. And possibly if the public debate becomes loud enough the market will actually respond with solutions that allow us to both have plenty of energy to live not only a non-third world but an outright luxuriously leisurely lifestyle (similar to what we enjoy now) while also not killing the planet.
Personally I have enormous faith in the ability of technology to get us out of problems IF the public awareness of the problem and demand for a solution is large enough.
aqua, first off, my personal freedoms comment was directed at Free Ramos.
Secondly, I am a little confused as to what you are getting at......
Earlier you said, "But for all the grandstanding Al Gore is doing here in America, it's making little difference on a global scale, which is at the heart of the social responsibility issue."
Then you said, "I did say I don't have a problem with the message. By that I mean people have a right to their opinions and actions to follow what Gore preaches if they wish to"
Then finally, "What bothers me about the die hard Gore followers is they are very virtuous in regards to themselves and love to preach."
So you don't have a problem with the message or the messenger, but you have a problem with the way the messenger distributes the message? And the people who receive it and then go off and try to promote a more sustainable lifestyle? Eh?
Listen, I'm not a big fan of hypocrisy either, and I'm trying to buy a more efficient vehicle myself, but there are a lot of ignorant people in the world who won't listen or pay attention, unless you get in their face or do something to provoke them. Should we just not talk about it? Ever? Even posting on archinect only gets to a couple thousand people, if we're lucky.
i am relentlessly trying to teach tina how to be more economical with the resources. you must admit that this country was expanded upon the idea of use, disposibility, and consumerism. the basic tenets of capitalism.
it was few mounths earlier, in turkey, a country surrounded with oil producing countries and pipe lines bringing the crude. 7$ per gallon unleaded.
i wonder if that would create a mass suicidal society or road warrior types going after gas, here?
now that people are getting more aware of this dangerous path through rooks and crooks (right expression?) and other messengers including the tv sets and the media in general, tina finally start to separate the plastic containers from general trash, which she generates at least 10 times more than average turk (i am just using turks as an example because i know how it is there).
WonderK - as you say but there are a lot of ignorant people in the world who won't listen or pay attention, unless you get in their face or do something to provoke them.
That's just my point about the Gore followers being virtuous in their beliefs. Just because someone doesn't buy into the idea of global warming makes them ignorant and those enlightened ones need to get in their face.
When I say that I don't have a problem with the message I'm referring to the no-brainers that nobody wants to breathe the air from the tailpipe of a school bus. My own personal convictions about sustainability comes from my belief that one shouldn't be wasteful. Thus one reason I take issue with Al Gore and his lifestyle, which I think is wasteful. He has a right to live his life as he wishes, but he has put himself out there as an example of this movement so I feel it gives us the right to be critical of him over your average soccer mom driving a suburban, whom I assume you'd want to get in the face of before Mr. Gore.
And yes, I don't like the way the message is distributed. It guilts people and fearmongers. Meanwhile those 590 million tons of CO2 brought online just last year dwarfs the EU Koyoto protocol to reduce 300 million by 2015. I don't only blame the USA, Canada, Western Europe or Japan for pollution or natural destruction. We in fact have done quite a bit of good since the Cuyahoga River was buring in 1969. Sure, theres always more to do, but meanwhile the developing countries are destroying their environments at a rate that a developing America would've never imagined. That's why I say put your money where you mouth is Al Gore and go preach to countries like China and India and Brazil, etc. Get in their face.
Sorry to be long winded. This would be a great discussion over a few drinks at happy hour. What's the next debate? Health care? Ha ha!
i do not know how al gore lives. according to others here, who know how he does, i agree. why couldn't he set a beautiful example by leaving in a 1500-2000 sq. ft home and do as he preaches?
but i don't know if that is realisticly possible. he should make it possible. yhat's his responsibility. there are world leaders and other high profile people who are involved in similar causes like he does and some of them live in 800 sq. ft. dwellings.
what a great sample he would set if he did.
he really should.
the fact he doesn't exposes him to a lot criticism.
i really don't like him but guilliani lives with a roommate and does his own laundry, last i know.
just for that i felt respect for him and i don't know how much of it is a publicity stunt? probably all of it and he and his roommate share 10000sq ft manhattan apt., but it sure made me feel some sympathy for him other than he is an ultra butt plug.
i think somebody like al gore can announce that he and tipper are moving into a modest house with solar panels and that would have huge impact for his cause. i don't know why he is not doing it. stupid mistake on his part.
And with regards to "personal freedoms", at what point does social well-being and the greater good trump personal freedoms? Never?
not never - it happens all the time, and for good reason. seatbelts, motorcycle helmet requirements, building codes, etc. are all to protect us.
and there are speed limit laws, but wouldn't it be for the greater good if speed limits everywhere were reduced to 5 miles per hour? you could almost eliminate all deaths from automobile accidents. but that would be silly. We used to have the freedom to use hair spray that had a whole bunch of bad junk in it, but then we stopped using it (forcibly), and we closed the hole in the ozone layer. Isn't this another, albeit much bigger, side of the same coin?
(get ready to cue the laugh track)
i believe that global temperature change is a natural cycle and that carbon dioxide is not the main cause of warming.
Dr. Earl Pearson, chair of the chemistry department at Middle Tennessee State University, said Friday that carbon dioxide emissions could not possibly be the cause of global climate change.
----
The earth without carbon dioxide would have a temperature of 41.6 degrees, as stated above. Currently, said Pearson, the earth has 370 parts per million of carbon dioxide and a mean temperature of 59.0 degrees. But by Pearson's calculations, as displayed on a spreadsheet, an increase to 390 parts per million would only cause a mean temperature of 59.1 degrees. An increase to 1,000 parts per million, enough to kill human life, would produce a mean temperature of only 60.6 degrees by Pearson's calculations.
the other part of this is that some scientists feel carbon dioxide follows the increase in temperature - it doesn't cause the increase. that theory is explained in channel 4's 'the great global warming swindle'.
so al gore buys carbon offsets to make up for his luxurious lifestyle. where does he buy these carbon offsets? from a company he owns. this is a scam. and al gore has to distort scientific research (20 foot ocean rise vs. 23 inch in IPCC report and the exhaust from a smokestack becomes hurricane katrina) to scare the people who demand the government to reduce carbon emmissions by buying carbon offsets which make al gore wealthier so he can keep living his bloated lifestyle blah blah blah ...
"It is strange and striking that climate change activists have not committed any acts of terrorism. After all, terrorism is for the individual by far the modern world’s most effective form of political action, and climate change is an issue about which people feel just as strongly as about, say, animal rights. This is especially noticeable when you bear in mind the ease of things like blowing up petrol stations, or vandalising SUVs. In cities, SUVs are loathed by everyone except the people who drive them; and in a city the size of London, a few dozen people could in a short space of time make the ownership of these cars effectively impossible, just by running keys down the side of them, at a cost to the owner of several thousand pounds a time. Say fifty people vandalising four cars each every night for a month: six thousand trashed SUVs in a month and the Chelsea tractors would soon be disappearing from our streets. So why don’t these things happen? Is it because the people who feel strongly about climate change are simply too nice, too educated, to do anything of the sort? (But terrorists are often highly educated.) Or is it that even the people who feel most strongly about climate change on some level can’t quite bring themselves to believe in it?"
actually there have been terrorist SUV attacks by ELF ny times link
A week ago, in the middle of the night, 20 new Hummer H2's worth about $50,000 apiece were set aflame and destroyed at a car dealership here, part of a wave of vandalism in which 50 other vehicles had been damaged at the same dealership and others in the suburbs east of Los Angeles.
To many of the 106,000 in this community near the San Gabriel Mountains, the notion of domestic terrorism at their doorsteps was, at the very least, jarring.
''Whether terrorist act or just vandalism, it was an offense against the community,'' West Covina's assistant fire chief, Jerry Johnson, said.
Whoever broke into the Clippinger dealership in the early hours of Aug. 22 left behind a calling card in addition to the damage. Many of the vehicles were spray-painted with the words ''gross polluter'' and ''fat, lazy Americans.'' Some had the letters ''ELF'' spray-painted on them, and the Earth Liberation Front, a militant environmentalist group, later claimed responsibility.
The group, founded in England a decade ago and shunned by mainstream environmentalist groups, also claimed responsibility for a $50 million fire on Aug. 1 that destroyed a construction site for 1,500 apartments near the campus of the University of California at San Diego. A banner left at the site, signed ELF, said, ''You build it -- we burn it.''
but i guess the point of the article is that human-caused global warming has been talked about for well over 15 years now and little has been done. why?
The single item one can point to as an achievement is the Kyoto Treaty of 1997, which is worthless: even if fully implemented, Kyoto would have the effect of postponing the warming which would have been achieved without the treaty for all of six years, from 2094 to 2100. The reason for the inactivity is simple: we don’t want to change. The prosperity brought by unchecked use of fossil fuels, and the concomitant economic growth of the past decade and a bit, are just too comfy-making. No politician is better informed than Al Gore about climate change, or more publicly identified with the necessity for action to combat it; but during his time as vice president, the US exceeded its stated targets for emissions by 15 per cent.
Listen, if you guys don't want to do anything about it, that's fine. It ultimately doesn't bother me. But I will be trying to do something about it. And you can criticize all you want, but I'll probably be busy studying innovations in building methods. So, thanks for the conversation.
Wait... Doesn't that go against the Idea of being Environmental Friendly and Reversing Global Warming? How many Pollutants does a burning H2 release? That times 50? Couldn't that be worse than the actual pollution the H2s would've produced just driving aroudn town?
Seems like keying would've been a better way to go. Or maybe the best is to strip the vehicles and recycle all their parts.
...The prosperity brought by unchecked use of fossil fuels...
I don't understand why it is that other methods of generating power can't also allow for massive prosperity. Technical innovation, freedom of movement, small boutique niche businesses - all these things can spring from sustainable methods as well. Look at all the small-scale biodiesel suppliers, as mentioned on WonderK's car thread. Look at CSA's - Community Supported Agriculture, in which you pay for a share of a local farmer's yield. Look at solar panels allowing homeowners to sell electricity back to their local utility.
Thank you thank you thank you for doing this, DubK. I also can't stand to perpetuate that awful thread that just happens to have Al Gore's name in the title!
It is nice that it is a shared award with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as it demonstrates against any naysayers that this is not just a vanity award.
Yay for Gore. I still adore him for his hilarious quip at the 2006 TED conference, and respect him immensely.
Free Movie/The Challenge
I live a few streets down from Al Gore's house. (Note: I do not live in a 10,000+ square foot house).
While they might be renovating it to install solar panels and use 100% renewable energy, it still doesn't address one of the largest environmental concerns: OVERCONSUMPTION.
His house is the Hummer in the car world. No one needs one that big.
well it is in his best interest to perpetuate the fear ..
Free Ramos and Compean, whose interest do you serve by spewing this bullshit anyway? Do you work for an oil company? Or maybe Phillip Morris? Do you have a love affair with incandescents, or perhaps '72 Camaros?
Did Al Gore steal your high school girlfriend?
I just want to know why it's such a bad idea to work towards building a more sustainable society. You keep talking about fear, when all I see is fact. Why are you so interested in destroying the messenger?
About Al Gore, from that same article that you posted above:
"He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”
Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”"
~~~~~
I guess that's the funny thing about fact. The information is all there, unless you distort the perspective.....
that article was about how al gore has distorted the 'facts'. and the global warming (CO2 is the cause) scientists called him out. quote:
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.but back to your questions:
-the interest i serve is the american people (as a u.s. citizen) and that we don't waste money on things that won't have any effect.
-no, i don't work for an oil company or phillip morris (although i probably have stock in them through mutual funds .. sorry, my bad).
-of the light fixtures in my residence, only one has an incandescent bulb. that is a floor lamp which originally had a compact fluorescent - but it would flicker even when the dimmer was completely on. regrettably, i had to put a 75W type A lamp in it.
-i don't like the '72 camero, but would love to have a '68 camero. but, as a fiscal conservative, i drive a '03 civic, manual transmission. i wanted a hybrid but at the time the $5000 increase did not make sense and i couldn't get a manual transmission. i would still like to get a hybrid some day.
-never went to high school with al gore.
i have no problems with sustainable design or a sustainable society - one of my professors was way into that at my undergrad and to this day i always think of proper sighting, passive solar techniques, using daylight, etc. as that is inherent to what an architect does.
the problem i have is with extreme government regulations and the reduction of freedoms we experience with regard to architecture. in october 2005, new title 24 regulations went into effect in california which basically force compact fluorescent fixtures in residential kitchens. i do it because i'm required by law, but now there's talk about banning incandescents completely? i suppose it would force manufacturers to make a better bulb, but shouldn't that be done through competition in our capitalist system?
the other problem i have is the arrogance that we did this (the rise in temperature) and that we can control it. these are natural cycles: temps go up, they go back down.
i have no problem with sustainable design, just scaremongering.
Free Ramos - I tend to agree with your points. Sustainability and all things "green" are noble, but in a free society that is supposed to have high regard to individual right and civil liberties, how "green" one wants to be should be up to the individual.
what about social responsibilty? isn't this issue entail a wide spectrum that is more than just us?
Sure, social responsibility, that sure works. Everyone likes to talk about the world we'll leave for our "children." Al Gore is pretty good at spouting that off, while he lives in a massive estate and jets himself all over the world. Where's the social responsibility of the mouthpeice? Sure, we have millions of Al Gore apologists saying his message is sooo important that he's forgiven for his lifestyle, or he uses some Enron style accounting to offset his carbon "footprint." Sorry folks, I just don't have a ton of respect for the policy of Do as I say, not as I do.
I don't have a problem with the message per se. CO2 hasn't been argued to be a good thing. But for all the grandstanding Al Gore is doing here in America, it's making little difference on a global scale, which is at the heart of the social responsibility issue.
For example, in 2006 China built 90 gigawatts of new coal-fired power that will emit approx 590 million tons of CO2/year. Before the end of this decade, some say this year, China will be the #1 polluter in the world. I'd like to see the reception Al would get when he starts telling over 1 billion Chinese they can't raise their standard of living while he himself burns thousands of kilowatt hours in his own home each month. All of N. American and Western Europe could return to a pesant lifestyle with little to no CO2 emissions and still the developing world will dwarf the scales in emissions. But if it makes you fee virtuous to watch a movie and change your lightbulbs, feel free.
So what you're basically saying then, is if Al Gore and China won't change their ways, then why should you? I think my point there, and in this whole thread, is that if we want change to happen, we need to lead by example. Does Al Gore's gigantic house mean that we should disregard everything he says? No, because he makes many good points, and he's a former VP of the free world, so people will listen to him before, say, Dr. Joe Schmoe.
And with regards to "personal freedoms", at what point does social well-being and the greater good trump personal freedoms? Never? We used to have the freedom to use hair spray that had a whole bunch of bad junk in it, but then we stopped using it (forcibly), and we closed the hole in the ozone layer. Isn't this another, albeit much bigger, side of the same coin?
i still think it would be good to interview al gore for archinect. now only if could just get to santonio for the convention.
"mr gore, do you think architecture sucks?"
"it used to more but it is LE$$ now"
hehe.
WonderK, I did say I don't have a problem with the message. By that I mean people have a right to their opinions and actions to follow what Gore preaches if they wish to.
I myself am Leed AP and find many values in efficient sustainable building practices. I drive a relatively efficient car and more importantly, drive it very little. My house is full of CFL's and the most efficient appliances I can personally afford. I recycle, etc.
What bothers me about the die hard Gore followers is they are very virtuous in regards to themselves and love to preach. While my personal feeling is Gore's luxurious lifestyle reeks of hypocracy and reminds me of those people that have "no war for oil" bumper stickers on their SUV's. The majority of those that follow him aren't nearly as hypocritical but aren't making massive changes to their lifestyles either, outside of maybe buying a hybrid car.
Since you watched that movie what have you done? Minus the rather inexpensive and simple things like changing to CFL light bulbs. Have you sold you vehicle and lived a completely pedestrian lifestyle? (Remember public transit also pollutes.) Did you buy acres of PV panels and get your home off the grid? Or did you quit your job? Remember, construction creates huge waste and releases a lot of CO2 and as an architect you are directly involved.
My guess is none. Not that I have a problem if you have done things like that. I'd love to erect a windmil in my backyard and get off the grid. Then again I can't afford that, and neither am I going to change my lifestyle so I can live without electricity.
My comment about personal freedoms wasn't about hairspray. It's much bigger than that. See, to really make a difference we're gonna need to change our lifestyle, everything. Who's to say that in the name of all things "green" the gov't starts forcing everyone to live in compact, high desity housing? Who's to say they can't start rationing your electricity usage? The people can be sold that it's all for the public good - social responsibility. Granted, that's an extreme, but in that scenario would you still give Gore a pass on his own lifestyle?
We have a pretty good life in the western world. I'll bet even the greenest of green people want to relatively maintain that. Well, China wants to catch up and look what that's doing to the environment.
Jeepers, aqua, you DID give some extreme examples of what might happen.
Possibly bringing issues like the potential impact of CO2 emissions to the forefront via a movie and a famous spokesperson will put the issue in the public debate. And possibly if the public debate becomes loud enough the market will actually respond with solutions that allow us to both have plenty of energy to live not only a non-third world but an outright luxuriously leisurely lifestyle (similar to what we enjoy now) while also not killing the planet.
Personally I have enormous faith in the ability of technology to get us out of problems IF the public awareness of the problem and demand for a solution is large enough.
aqua, first off, my personal freedoms comment was directed at Free Ramos.
Secondly, I am a little confused as to what you are getting at......
Earlier you said, "But for all the grandstanding Al Gore is doing here in America, it's making little difference on a global scale, which is at the heart of the social responsibility issue."
Then you said, "I did say I don't have a problem with the message. By that I mean people have a right to their opinions and actions to follow what Gore preaches if they wish to"
Then finally, "What bothers me about the die hard Gore followers is they are very virtuous in regards to themselves and love to preach."
So you don't have a problem with the message or the messenger, but you have a problem with the way the messenger distributes the message? And the people who receive it and then go off and try to promote a more sustainable lifestyle? Eh?
Listen, I'm not a big fan of hypocrisy either, and I'm trying to buy a more efficient vehicle myself, but there are a lot of ignorant people in the world who won't listen or pay attention, unless you get in their face or do something to provoke them. Should we just not talk about it? Ever? Even posting on archinect only gets to a couple thousand people, if we're lucky.
how about avarage 45.000 peeps daily.
-sources
hmmm. make that less.
i am relentlessly trying to teach tina how to be more economical with the resources. you must admit that this country was expanded upon the idea of use, disposibility, and consumerism. the basic tenets of capitalism.
it was few mounths earlier, in turkey, a country surrounded with oil producing countries and pipe lines bringing the crude. 7$ per gallon unleaded.
i wonder if that would create a mass suicidal society or road warrior types going after gas, here?
now that people are getting more aware of this dangerous path through rooks and crooks (right expression?) and other messengers including the tv sets and the media in general, tina finally start to separate the plastic containers from general trash, which she generates at least 10 times more than average turk (i am just using turks as an example because i know how it is there).
As seen in the news
something interesting to listen:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/03/20070314_b_main.asp
to read:
http://www.stepitup07.org/
WonderK - as you say but there are a lot of ignorant people in the world who won't listen or pay attention, unless you get in their face or do something to provoke them.
That's just my point about the Gore followers being virtuous in their beliefs. Just because someone doesn't buy into the idea of global warming makes them ignorant and those enlightened ones need to get in their face.
When I say that I don't have a problem with the message I'm referring to the no-brainers that nobody wants to breathe the air from the tailpipe of a school bus. My own personal convictions about sustainability comes from my belief that one shouldn't be wasteful. Thus one reason I take issue with Al Gore and his lifestyle, which I think is wasteful. He has a right to live his life as he wishes, but he has put himself out there as an example of this movement so I feel it gives us the right to be critical of him over your average soccer mom driving a suburban, whom I assume you'd want to get in the face of before Mr. Gore.
And yes, I don't like the way the message is distributed. It guilts people and fearmongers. Meanwhile those 590 million tons of CO2 brought online just last year dwarfs the EU Koyoto protocol to reduce 300 million by 2015. I don't only blame the USA, Canada, Western Europe or Japan for pollution or natural destruction. We in fact have done quite a bit of good since the Cuyahoga River was buring in 1969. Sure, theres always more to do, but meanwhile the developing countries are destroying their environments at a rate that a developing America would've never imagined. That's why I say put your money where you mouth is Al Gore and go preach to countries like China and India and Brazil, etc. Get in their face.
Sorry to be long winded. This would be a great discussion over a few drinks at happy hour. What's the next debate? Health care? Ha ha!
i do not know how al gore lives. according to others here, who know how he does, i agree. why couldn't he set a beautiful example by leaving in a 1500-2000 sq. ft home and do as he preaches?
but i don't know if that is realisticly possible. he should make it possible. yhat's his responsibility. there are world leaders and other high profile people who are involved in similar causes like he does and some of them live in 800 sq. ft. dwellings.
what a great sample he would set if he did.
he really should.
the fact he doesn't exposes him to a lot criticism.
i really don't like him but guilliani lives with a roommate and does his own laundry, last i know.
just for that i felt respect for him and i don't know how much of it is a publicity stunt? probably all of it and he and his roommate share 10000sq ft manhattan apt., but it sure made me feel some sympathy for him other than he is an ultra butt plug.
i think somebody like al gore can announce that he and tipper are moving into a modest house with solar panels and that would have huge impact for his cause. i don't know why he is not doing it. stupid mistake on his part.
leaving=living
(other mistakes are not that curicial as to what i want to say)
not never - it happens all the time, and for good reason. seatbelts, motorcycle helmet requirements, building codes, etc. are all to protect us.
and there are speed limit laws, but wouldn't it be for the greater good if speed limits everywhere were reduced to 5 miles per hour? you could almost eliminate all deaths from automobile accidents. but that would be silly.
We used to have the freedom to use hair spray that had a whole bunch of bad junk in it, but then we stopped using it (forcibly), and we closed the hole in the ozone layer. Isn't this another, albeit much bigger, side of the same coin?
(get ready to cue the laugh track)
i believe that global temperature change is a natural cycle and that carbon dioxide is not the main cause of warming.
http://www.t-g.com/story/1192103.html
Carbon dioxide gets a reprieve from professor
Saturday, March 3, 2007
By John I. Carney
Dr. Earl Pearson, chair of the chemistry department at Middle Tennessee State University, said Friday that carbon dioxide emissions could not possibly be the cause of global climate change.
----
The earth without carbon dioxide would have a temperature of 41.6 degrees, as stated above. Currently, said Pearson, the earth has 370 parts per million of carbon dioxide and a mean temperature of 59.0 degrees. But by Pearson's calculations, as displayed on a spreadsheet, an increase to 390 parts per million would only cause a mean temperature of 59.1 degrees. An increase to 1,000 parts per million, enough to kill human life, would produce a mean temperature of only 60.6 degrees by Pearson's calculations.
the other part of this is that some scientists feel carbon dioxide follows the increase in temperature - it doesn't cause the increase. that theory is explained in channel 4's 'the great global warming swindle'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
so al gore buys carbon offsets to make up for his luxurious lifestyle. where does he buy these carbon offsets? from a company he owns. this is a scam. and al gore has to distort scientific research (20 foot ocean rise vs. 23 inch in IPCC report and the exhaust from a smokestack becomes hurricane katrina) to scare the people who demand the government to reduce carbon emmissions by buying carbon offsets which make al gore wealthier so he can keep living his bloated lifestyle blah blah blah ...
"It is strange and striking that climate change activists have not committed any acts of terrorism. After all, terrorism is for the individual by far the modern world’s most effective form of political action, and climate change is an issue about which people feel just as strongly as about, say, animal rights. This is especially noticeable when you bear in mind the ease of things like blowing up petrol stations, or vandalising SUVs. In cities, SUVs are loathed by everyone except the people who drive them; and in a city the size of London, a few dozen people could in a short space of time make the ownership of these cars effectively impossible, just by running keys down the side of them, at a cost to the owner of several thousand pounds a time. Say fifty people vandalising four cars each every night for a month: six thousand trashed SUVs in a month and the Chelsea tractors would soon be disappearing from our streets. So why don’t these things happen? Is it because the people who feel strongly about climate change are simply too nice, too educated, to do anything of the sort? (But terrorists are often highly educated.) Or is it that even the people who feel most strongly about climate change on some level can’t quite bring themselves to believe in it?"
actually there have been terrorist SUV attacks by ELF
A week ago, in the middle of the night, 20 new Hummer H2's worth about $50,000 apiece were set aflame and destroyed at a car dealership here, part of a wave of vandalism in which 50 other vehicles had been damaged at the same dealership and others in the suburbs east of Los Angeles.ny times link
To many of the 106,000 in this community near the San Gabriel Mountains, the notion of domestic terrorism at their doorsteps was, at the very least, jarring.
''Whether terrorist act or just vandalism, it was an offense against the community,'' West Covina's assistant fire chief, Jerry Johnson, said.
Whoever broke into the Clippinger dealership in the early hours of Aug. 22 left behind a calling card in addition to the damage. Many of the vehicles were spray-painted with the words ''gross polluter'' and ''fat, lazy Americans.'' Some had the letters ''ELF'' spray-painted on them, and the Earth Liberation Front, a militant environmentalist group, later claimed responsibility.
The group, founded in England a decade ago and shunned by mainstream environmentalist groups, also claimed responsibility for a $50 million fire on Aug. 1 that destroyed a construction site for 1,500 apartments near the campus of the University of California at San Diego. A banner left at the site, signed ELF, said, ''You build it -- we burn it.''
but i guess the point of the article is that human-caused global warming has been talked about for well over 15 years now and little has been done. why?
The single item one can point to as an achievement is the Kyoto Treaty of 1997, which is worthless: even if fully implemented, Kyoto would have the effect of postponing the warming which would have been achieved without the treaty for all of six years, from 2094 to 2100. The reason for the inactivity is simple: we don’t want to change. The prosperity brought by unchecked use of fossil fuels, and the concomitant economic growth of the past decade and a bit, are just too comfy-making. No politician is better informed than Al Gore about climate change, or more publicly identified with the necessity for action to combat it; but during his time as vice president, the US exceeded its stated targets for emissions by 15 per cent.Listen, if you guys don't want to do anything about it, that's fine. It ultimately doesn't bother me. But I will be trying to do something about it. And you can criticize all you want, but I'll probably be busy studying innovations in building methods. So, thanks for the conversation.
Wait... Doesn't that go against the Idea of being Environmental Friendly and Reversing Global Warming? How many Pollutants does a burning H2 release? That times 50? Couldn't that be worse than the actual pollution the H2s would've produced just driving aroudn town?
Seems like keying would've been a better way to go. Or maybe the best is to strip the vehicles and recycle all their parts.
for ELF, the end result justifies the means. but going to the extreme gets the news coverage they crave.
every rational person recognizes that ELF is a fringe group of wackos
I don't understand why it is that other methods of generating power can't also allow for massive prosperity. Technical innovation, freedom of movement, small boutique niche businesses - all these things can spring from sustainable methods as well. Look at all the small-scale biodiesel suppliers, as mentioned on WonderK's car thread. Look at CSA's - Community Supported Agriculture, in which you pay for a share of a local farmer's yield. Look at solar panels allowing homeowners to sell electricity back to their local utility.
The market is enormously flexible.
I heart Al Gore!
And I refuse to post on profanity-laced mean-spirited threads, so I decided to put it here instead.
That is all.
Thank you thank you thank you for doing this, DubK. I also can't stand to perpetuate that awful thread that just happens to have Al Gore's name in the title!
It is nice that it is a shared award with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as it demonstrates against any naysayers that this is not just a vanity award.
Yay for Gore. I still adore him for his hilarious quip at the 2006 TED conference, and respect him immensely.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.