Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gore Launches Ambitious Advocacy Campaign on Climate
Former vice president Al Gore will launch a three-year, $300 million campaign Wednesday aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, a move that ranks as one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history.The Alliance for Climate Protection's "we" campaign will employ online organizing and television advertisements on shows ranging from "American Idol" to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." It highlights the extent to which Americans' growing awareness of global warming has yet to translate into national policy changes, Gore said in an hour-long phone interview last week. He said the campaign, which Gore is helping to fund, was undertaken in large part because of his fear that U.S. lawmakers are unwilling to curb the human-generated emissions linked to climate change.
"This climate crisis is so interwoven with habits and patterns that are so entrenched, the elected officials in both parties are going to be timid about enacting the bold changes that are needed until there is a change in the public's sense of urgency in addressing this crisis," Gore said. "I've tried everything else I know to try. The way to solve this crisis is to change the way the public thinks about it."
Private contributors have already donated or committed half the money needed to fund the entire campaign, he said. While Gore declined to quantify his contribution to the effort, he has devoted all his proceeds from the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," the best-selling companion book, his salary from the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers and several international prizes, such as the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which add up to more than a $2.7 million. Paramount Classics, the documentary's distributor, has pledged 5 percent of the film's profits to the group, and some of the money raised through the 2007 Live Earth concerts will help the campaign, along with Gore's proceeds from an upcoming book on climate change.
While "An Inconvenient Truth" urged viewers to fully inflate their car tires and to install compact fluorescent light bulbs to combat global warming, Gore said he is now focused on ensuring that the United States enacts a national carbon emission cap and ratifies a new global pact on climate change in the next three years.
"The simple algorithm is this: It's important to change the light bulbs, but it's much more important to change the laws," he said. "The options available to civilization worldwide to avert this terribly destructive pattern are beginning to slip away from us. The path for recovery runs right through Washington, D.C."
The new effort comes at a time when the three remaining major party presidential candidates -- Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- have all endorsed federal limits on greenhouse gases, virtually ensuring that the next occupant of the White House will offer a sharp break from President Bush's climate policy.
All three have discussed global warming with Gore in phone calls over the course of the past few months. While McCain backs a more modest plan than that favored by the Democrats -- he supports a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2050, compared with Obama and Clinton's vow of an 80 percent cut during that period -- the presumptive Republican nominee emphasized during a recent stop in Chula Vista, Calif., that he had pushed for a federal cap-and-trade system before either of his opponents came to the Senate.
"Neither have proposed legislation or played any public role during their time in the Senate," McCain said, sidestepping the fact that Clinton and Obama both back climate legislation, up for a Senate vote in June, that he has yet to endorse.
Gore, who backs a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by mid-century, said that while he's "encouraged" that the remaining candidates back mandatory limits on greenhouse gases, they still need to be pushed: "What happens after the election will depend on whether or not we win enough hearts and minds in the country as a whole."
And former Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.), a board member of the two-year-old alliance, said the candidates' commitment to a cap-and-trade system does not negate the fact that the majority of Americans fail to see climate change as a compelling political issue.
"Most Republicans, along with most Democrats, are focused almost exclusively on Iraq, the war against terrorism and the economy," Boehlert said. "That leaves little room for anything else."
In an effort to penetrate Americans' consciousness and change lawmakers' political calculus, the group aims to enlist 10 million volunteers through a combination of network and cable commercials, display ads in magazines ranging from People to Real Simple, and online social networks. By contrast, the civil rights and antiwar movements in the 1960s each boasted about 5 million activists.
Cathy Zoi, the Alliance for Climate Protection's chief executive, said the group will focus on individuals known in the advertising world as "influencers" who talk to a disproportionate number of people in their communities. While some ads will target inside-the-Beltway policymakers, the bulk of their efforts will focus on the general public.
"This is modern organizing," Zoi said, adding that the campaign aims to convince voters that "this is a solvable problem."
In an effort to broaden the campaign's appeal, the alliance has already forged working partnerships with groups including the Girl Scouts and the United Steelworkers of America. One of its early ads will feature the unlikely alliance of clergymen Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton sitting on a couch on Virginia Beach, talking about their commitment to address climate change.
Its first ad, which is narrated by the actor William H. Macy, highlights American's collective responses to historical challenges. "We didn't wait for someone else to storm the beaches of Normandy," Macy intones. "We didn't wait for someone else to guarantee civil rights." The commercial will run several times Wednesday on shows such as "Good Morning America," "Today," "American Idol," "Larry King Live" and "Anderson Cooper 360."
League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski, whose group is supporting the effort, said he's optimistic the "we" campaign will succeed in a way that traditional environmental groups have not. "It heightens both the urgency and the sense we can get the job done with the broad middle that will make the difference," Karpinski said, "while having the resources to communicate in a sophisticated way, in a more expansive fashion than the community has done before."
Without question, the campaign represents one of the most far-reaching public advocacy initiatives in recent years. The American Legacy Foundation, an anti-smoking campaign that arose out of the massive 1998 tobacco settlement, made $100 million in ad buys its first year, but its funding quickly dwindled and it now spends $30 million annually. The Ad Council -- which runs public service announcements ranging from the "Just Say No" anti-drug message to the "Smokey the Bear" commercials -- receives an average of $40 million a year in donated media for the 50 campaigns it operates and only occasionally hits the $100 million annual mark for its campaigns.
The climate alliance's initiative, however, will not go unchallenged by climate change skeptics. Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, a nonprofit funded by the coal industry and its allies, is spending about $35 million this election to bolster support for coal-generated electricity. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank that receives part of its funding from oil and gas companies, recently spent close to $35,000 to run a television ad both in the District and in scattered cities throughout the country attacking Gore, and plans a follow-up campaign. The ad argues that Gore and his allies in Hollywood use plenty of energy but that "Al Gore wants to cut our energy use, putting our jobs and our future in jeopardy."
Myron Ebell, who directs energy and global warming policy for CEI, said the fact that Gore feels compelled to run such an elaborate ad campaign highlights the extent to which his conservation message has failed to resonate with the American public. "He's spending a hundred million dollars to convince the American people to make sacrifices that he and his elite friends are not willing to make," Ebell said, adding that while many Americans may now blame humans for causing climate change, "the American people are not there with other alarmists" when it comes to supporting deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
John Podesta, president of the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, said the fact that independent groups are already advertising on the issue underscores how much more politically relevant climate change is in the 2008 election, especially because Congress is unlikely to send a bill to Bush for signing this year. It is unclear whether the Senate has 60 votes to pass a cap-and-trade bill this summer, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee has yet to produce a companion climate bill.
"This will be played out on the candidate level, but also among an array of parties who have a stake in the outcome," Podesta said. "Without presidential leadership, you're left with a regional division and a partisan division [in Congress] that's likely to produce movement, but not the bold kind of change that's needed. You need a president for that."
Staff researcher Magda Jean-Louis contributed to this report.
© 2008 The Washington Post
68 Comments so far
Show AllWashington and our "leaders" will do nothing to disturb the status quo, so it is a waste of money and resources to try to get them off the dime. There is already enough info available to make the right choices. Effort should be put into having actual preparations, organizations and actionable contingency plans to put into place in the days immediately following the environmental catastrophic events that are nearly upon us. In other words, Noah didn't blow his wad trying to convince everyone to build an ark, he used his resources TO BUILD one. A study of the IPCC ice core charts tells the story and gives a time line. Consider the basic fact that in order to harvest 650ky of cyclic data, the trigger points had to be reached BEFORE the ice caps melted off, or broke and slid into the sea, EACH TIME for 6-7 cycles. We are closer than is generally acknowledged. Steps should be taken to preserve the best of our version of civilization and the knowledge that we have been able to gather about climate change/global transition for whomever is left to face the next one in 110ky, as well as save those who are prepared to act. If you haven't already, consider also the kind of climatic event that is capable of defeating and reversing a temperature/CO2 spike as depicted in the chart. Consider next time you are looking at the runway on takeoff or landing at a major airport, that 1/2 of the mass of the atmosphere is below 18k ft--less than two typical runway lengths (each 10,000ft) above the ground, and, that it's -50 degrees only 4 lengths up.
"Those that have eyes....."
Cheers.
Someone better tell Al that the climate is no longer warming. It's cooling.
Thanks Al for the fear mongering, Bush hasn't provided enough of it. Its not that I am against putting transportation systems that enable people to live and work without having to drive everywhere...you didn't do jack for that when you were in office. While you're at it Al, why don't you go preach to India and China where you outsourced our manufacturing and jobs....you ass.
It is good that Al Gore has finally put his energies to something that needs doing: addressing climate change due to human activity. Tipper and his earlier misadventure, the P.M.R.C., was and is something to be ashamed of. His terms in public life were quite compromised by political necessities. Now he will have to do battle with the paid debunkers and deluded despisers who will be there at every instance, including here (see posts above).
I see the flame-war has begun.
The article above is silly with all its talk about how the next president no matter who will break with W's policies. Get damn real and stop the delusion.
Al might do better running for prez instead of putting fingers in a leaking dam.
Al Gore is not the right person for the job, neither is Barack Obama the right person for the job. See, unlike the rest of us, they are flawed humans who have made mistakes. Never mind that they have changed and are doing what they can. Not us, though. We, the teflon-encrusted embodiments of perfection have all the rights to heap scorn on others who are putting themselves out there at great cost and effort. And, or course, we have done so very much to help fix the problems that our lessers have created.
Pathetic, isn't it?
When will you cave-dwellers learn that there have been many examples in history - Carter being one of them - when a politician/President has changed his stripes way down the road. Carter sucked as a President, and so did Clinton and Gore when it comes to jobs, energy, environmental policy, etc. However, for folks to waste their breath bitching about what Gore should have done is utterly ignorant and childish. The bottom line is that Gore has the right idea on the climate thing and before you go and poo-poo it, think about the implications of business as usual. As for "JSkinner": you are an ass. Go waste your trolling time somewhere else, where people are uneducated and dumbed down enough to think that human industrialization is not the most major cause to global warming. The numbers don't lie my friend, only the people who present them.
And finally, call it "fear mongering" if you want, but it's just science. We ought to listen to it very closely. And we ought to be advocating for trade policies and labor policies that force us to build new jobs out of the new green industrial revolution, so that we don't just greenwash the current deplorable economic model that Bush's America is trying to export all over the world. Wake up!
Hey ~JSKINNER~ climate changes and global warming are two seperate things. Global warming, which is as real as the sun rise every day causes climate change.
Yes, there were many areas of the planet which were cooler than average this year, but there were many areas of the planet which were warmer than ever recorded this year. For one perfect example, the average temp in southen Anarctica was 32 degrees this past month __ which is incredible.
A massive ice shelf there just broke off and it shocked the British scientific team who have been working there for the past ten years. That ice shelf is a VERY important element for our climate and it's been there chilling out for at least five million years.
One does not require a degree in any field of science to see with their own eyes, that glaciers are melting world wide at an alarming rate, that mountain tops world wide are losing their ice and snow packs and Greenland is losing it's ice and the arctic is losing it's ice and lakes there are drying up and the perma frost is melting at an alarming rate.
Is that Arctic perma-frost thaw a troubling fact? If you wish to take two to three minutes of your time and read this link, you may find it's the MOST serious fact and situation humanity faces.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
If you have young children or grand-children and wonder about their hopes for the future, take the time to read that article and then see if you wish to support Al Gore's goals, or listen to the ~Jskinners~.
"And finally, call it "fear mongering" if you want, but it's just science. "
If it was just science then the debate would still be open, and would be regarded as healthy to have dissenters. Dissenters make astute observations, sometimes to the benefit of the original claim. Not to mention one of the "paid debunkers" could actually come up with other causations that become mitigating factors that might actually help the quality of life on this planet.
The people in either camp that say it's fact and not disputable or that it is a hoax and a swindle, do more to harm the actual science behind this than anyone. Let scientists do their job and remove the political pandering. More harm is done inadvertently and through good intentions than through actual malice.
-James
www.thepoliticus.org
I think i know who James may be.
I don't wonder any longer at those who are have nothing here to offer excepting heaping scorn on those that invest themselves, money, and all the energy and organization they have to get the message out that humanity is killing itself. I hear the cynicism buttered with scorn from the mindless chatter of some bathed in intellectual self importance speaking about "Al Gore as not being the person" to do this work! Who else has done more? The fence sitters and grand intellectuals that criticize in this blog with their unimportant, useless, time consuming antagonism of people who are doing their utmost to make change that are positive.
I think these comments are probably the work of corporate interests that do not want the necessary economic changes that would take place with the recognition of global warming, climate change and the necessity to change the values of the West. This creeping cancer of globalization and a world economy based in consumer subversion to life-styles that are unhealthy, self contradictions, unnatural and devised to pit people against themselves, their interests and the natural world.
I'd rather see us move toward geothermal, solar, wind, wave etc with massive incentives (geothermal the gov't could do quickly and without the special interest mess of other industries).
I'd like to see mandates and consumer incentives/tax credits for off grid electrical generation (or grid supplemental) and converting all internal combustion engines to be able to run on hydrogen (as part of a multi-fuel platform).
This would be better than a 'cap'. It would prove that renewables and the hydrogen economy are far more economical and cheaper than the fossil fuels. With such a movement we would have a timeline for heavy tarrifs on foreign energy imports. With a 5-10 year period we would be off of all foreign energy and free of energy monopolies.
Excelllent comments ~IKE~.
What the hell are you talking about Ike. I actually happen to believe the climate is changing, not necessarily warming strictly (some parts warm, others cool)... but shifting enough to cause global problems. There are several key factors for the shift in our ecosystem, deforestation, volcanoes, man... and something i believe is being undervalued - the core temperature of the sun is rising. Why aren't these issues being addressed as fervently as say, oil?
... as for your ad hominem attacks, I would consider myself a realist grounded in logic and science, not a corporate shill nor an alarmist.
-James
www.thepoliticus.org
A quote from the first paragraph struck me---but try filling in the blank where the words "global warming" appeared:
"It (Gore's 3-year, $300 million campaign) highlights the extent to which Americans' growing awareness of (______?_______) has yet to translate into national policy changes."
Isn't that a neat statement of our problem?
I hope we've got 3 years for your weak program to work, Al.
That's healthy skepticism, James, and I thoroughly agree.
Anyway, rhetorically speaking, the statement "climate change is real" is a truism.
Consider the Big Picture, like the fact that ice sheets have advanced over and retreated from Earth's mid-latitudes thousands of times. That's thousands of minor and major ice ages, most of them prior to human existence. Or consider that CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly in Earth's natural history, being at times much lower than at present and at other times much higher, also prior to humans' existence. Until the natural causes of these periodicities are understood there can be no understanding of humans' relative effects. That's just scientific protocol; you need to know the background conditions.
Al Gore is just a politician; another rich white guy with an agenda.
If only he'd agree to debate a skeptical paleoclimatologist, then we could sort out the science from the propaganda.
Well ~JPOSTY~, actually with our planet's present orbit with our sun, we should be in a cooling, mini-ice age cycle. Let's remember amd concede, that it is the highly qualified scientists, who have spent their enite adult lives studying the atmosphere and earth, who have PROVEN beyond any credible or sensible arguments, that since humanity has entered the industrial age, some 200 years ago, that Co2 in our atmosphere has risen dramatically and that has created the Greenhouse effect, which in turn has caused global warming and climate change, ___politics should not be the issue.
Whew, ___ that was a lengthy sentence.
That gigantic Antarctic ice shelf, about the size of New Jersey, which is rapidly and suddenly breakng up, is of great concern to those who study that area of Earth, or our bio-sphere and the only home we have.
The ocean water temp below that ice shelf is the source of a massive cold water river which flows northward in the vast Pacific to the Arctic. That undersea cold water river is as vital to our climate as is the Gulf stream in the Atlantic for several reasons.
One of which is, the cold water keeps the water temp cold where the sea bed methane gas hydrates are stable under COLD water and water PRESSURE. Eleminate either pressure or cold temps and that nethane gas WILL release into our atomosphere with NO warning.
The last time that happened, some five million years ago, ___ due to global warming caused by nature, almost all life on Earth was eradicated within HOURS, leaving some deep sea creatures, worms and bacteria to enjoy life here on Earth.
As to volcanic activity and sun-beams ~Jposty~, those are things that we humans cannot control with our current scientific technology, so to get really serious about them is rather moot issues. ___ We CAN and we MUST however, control greenhouse gases created by humanity. Our current Co2 emmissions from burning fossil fuels and oil __ is equivelant to (17,000) active volcanos,__ that statistic is given by the National Geological Society, who have no political agenda or axes to grind that I'm aware of, even if some of their staff or members may have.
The most serious issue of global warmng is the methane gas deposits in the Arctic, and I suggest any who may doubt that, and who may also care, to read that three minute link I offered. ___ Heck, here it is again.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
The most scary sentence in that article is, "once it starts there is no turning back, NO do-overs, once the methne blooms out, it will play itself out." Got children everyone, you love them? __ Me too, lets start workng on reducing greenhouse gases. ___ No more burritos may help, but stop burning coal and oil is the first best start.
Paramount Classics, the documentary's distributor, has pledged 5 percent of the film's profits to the group
That paltry pledge does NOT deserve mention. It is classic Hollywood self-promotion. And another thing - Hollywood is bound to the military industrial complex much tighter than one might think. Until we shatter the deeply-entrenched culture of racketeering in America - where is the incentive to address climate change?
I like your opinions and comments ~BRONTOBURGER~ , but it will require a MASSIVE world-wide effort, to have geo-thermal, solar, wind, tidal and wave generated power, if we hope to have a prayer of insuring the Arctic methane gas does not "burp" out into the atmosphere.
Will that happen? __ Not likely.
"I hear the cynicism buttered with scorn from the mindless chatter of some bathed in intellectual self importance speaking about "Al Gore as not being the person" to do this work! Who else has done more?"
ike kay,
Agreed. I was being facetious - I thought it was pretty plain. Guess not.
Kem - I'm not saying you are wrong, the scientists are wrong, etc ... I was simply making the point that dissenters and skeptical thought is essential to the scientific process and without it, people start making irrational decisions to address non-problems.
... as for your comment about CO2. The amount of CO2, as jskinner succinctly pointed out has both been significantly higher and lower throughout history without proof of a direct correlation between the event of an ice age or a heating stretch.
... and to say sun beams are out of our hands and thusly not relevant is a bit closed minded. This is a scientific problem, you need to know all the factors and to what degree they effect the overall problem before any attempt at mitigating those factors can be achieved.
Regardless, you have several valid points which most rational people would have to concede. But, be wary of people trying to work the masses into a frenzy, ulterior motives are usually present, hence why i would rather error on the side of skepticism.
-James
www.thepoliticus.org
Oops.___ "Will that happen? Not likely". Is in refernce to a Massive world wide effort to have clean energy.
It is very likely the Arctic methane gas will "burp" out.
The IPCC warned of this tipping point ages ago.
We have passed it. Global sea level change is now inevitable. It will be catastrophic. Millions of people will lose everything, from homes and businesses, to entire countries.
The global weather patterns will shift, rainfall will dramatically increase in some areas, desertification will rampage across others, and millions of climate refugees will need to move... somewhere.
And in all of this chaos, western Civilization will still be arguing about who should be president, and what color of panties will Brittany be wearing today...
"Bush Stands Firm on Environment"
Posted on Mar 30, 2008
By Andy Borowitz
President George W. Bush confirmed today that his gutting of the Endangered Species Act is part of a broader plan to phase out the environment entirely by the time he leaves office in January 2009.
"In addition to cutting taxes, it has been the goal of this administration to cut our wasteful, bloated environment," Mr. Bush said in a speech before the Association of Indiscriminate Applauders in Washington, D.C.
In his speech, Mr. Bush added that the EPA would henceforth be renamed the Environmental Prevention Agency.
The president said that by removing endangered species from the protected list one by one, his administration has been able to phase out the environment gradually "so that hardly anyone will notice it's missing."
But the president warned that "much work remains to be done" if the environment is to be completely phased out by the first quarter of next year and called for the accelerated extinction of all superfluous organisms by the end of fiscal 2008. "It is time for all Americans to take sides," Mr. Bush said. "Are you with us, or are you with the black-tailed prairie dog?"
Mr. Bush's plan also calls for a gradual reduction of air and water, with water most likely to get the ax.
"If it comes down to choosing between air and water, the president will probably scrap water," said Environmental Prevention Agency chief Stephen L. Johnson. "After all, most Iraqis have been without water since 2003, and look how well they're doing."
Elsewhere, after Pope Benedict XVI prayed for peace on Easter Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney requested equal time for war.
Hi ~Jposty~ You also make some good points.
I don't beleive we have any 'credible' means of altering the amount of sunbeams which strike our atmosphere, giant mirrors, etc.
Nor do I think or believe, playing with such is real smart, as was playing with nuclear energy and africanized bees for just two scientific examples.
Certainly Co2 in our atmosphere has varied over the eons. In fact it has varied so dramatically twice, that methane gas "burped" out into the atmosphere and overnight killed all visible life. BTW, did you read that link I offered?
The thousands of ice core samples taken and studied by qualifed scientists, PROVE beyond ANY doubt, that in just the past 200 years, the Co2 levels in our atmosphere have once again risen dramatically and it is not from volcanic activity. It is from burning OIL and FOSSIL fuels.
There are NO other records that show such a 'dramatic' incerease in Co2 levels, except the last two times when almost all life was eradicated here on Earth. There is no sensible argument about that.
Kem- Just read it, pretty good read. I personally don't know much on the methane threat, so i really can't form an opinion one way or another. But, after reading that, I'd like to read more about it. Any other links?
-James
Yes, ~Jposty~ many. Read geologist, Michael J. Benton's book, "The Greatest Mass Extinction Of All Time".
Or more easily, GOOGLE arctic methane gas.
There are several hundred articles on the subject. Some are denyers, usually those are published by "Scientists" paid by governments or oil companies.
That article I offered is written by a very highly respected geologist and it is difficult to discredit his opinions and science, although some do attempt to do so.
What it boils down to, is the neo-cons and those who control the gold, do not want to hear it. __ Hell, no decent person wants to hear doomsday crap, but facts are facts and we either ignore and deny them, or attempt to correct the problem. Any attempts to correct global warming will hurt the profit margins of the oil barons and those who own the coal mines. __ As per usual, it's money talks.
""This climate crisis is so interwoven with habits and patterns that are so entrenched."
Yep, Al Gore would know. I think he's part of the problem. Why does this bum not power his mansions with solar and wind power? Or better yet why not buy a reasonable sized house instead of what would be a castle to someone like me? Since some idiots like to say you created the internet Al, why not embrace it and use it as much as possible to spread your message instead of jet setting all over the world? During the "enlightened" Clinton-Gore administration I saw an explosion of SUVs on the road and bigger and bigger McMansions that's only grown greater since. The US automakers used a loophole to increase profit. Most SUVs are used like automobiles but are classified as trucks thus reducing or eliminating the gas guzzler tax that would be applied otherwise. The big three lowered the prices of SUVs more than $3,000 a piece by gaming the CAFE requirements. This easily could have been changed by the Clinton-Gore administration if they were really concerned with the environment. Where was the foresight to heavily invest in solar and wind power during your vice presidency? I wanted you bums to nationalize the oil industry and raise my gas prices from $0.88 per gallon to at least $1.25 per gallon and take the money and invest in the infrastructure of this country. Where we you Al? spreading DU across the former Yugloslavia? starving children in Iraq? Wherever you were, you definitely were not doing what you needed to be doing.
Al's never going to get anywhere with the ignorant masses because they will likely see nothing but his hypocrisy. And to a slightly less ignorant person like me, his hypocrisy overshadows the validity of his message.
"He's spending a hundred million dollars to convince the American people to make sacrifices that he and his elite friends are not willing to make," Ebell said. That message will resonate with a large percentage of amerikans because once again the politician talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
Hey Al Gore, why not use the $300 million to build a CSP (concentrated solar power) plant? Why not use the $300 million to buy congress members to push for alternative energy? Big business buys government representation. With $300 million you could buy a pretty good bit of influence in Washington. You would know.
Galen,
Brittany's wearing panties today?
SIMONHHH
that's so funny.............nearly as funny as the cia director saying al qaeda is training operatives who 'look western' and could enter the u.s. undetected to conduct terrorist attacks.
Most credible sientists, those with no political agenda and who have studied the methane gas potential disaster, all agree it will happen if we don't attempt to correct global warming. They only may disagree on how long of a time we have before it happens.
Some say perhaps within 10 years, some say 20 to 50 years and some say 100 years. What most by far are now saying is, the Arctic thaw is occuring far more quickly than any had predicted and it may happen at any time, maybe by 2009.
They wear worn levi's, Justin boots and cowboy hats ~CoCo~. I shot two of the sneaky bastards last night. Not sure if I should call it in and claim a reward.
KEM PATRICK
only counts if they are packing 'nukes'................
I'd say it is a worthy effort.
Here is the site of the organization:
http://www.wecansolveit.org/
Ninety percent reduction by 2050 is fine for now. Doing that will require radical conservation (see www.rmi.org) as well as renewable, non-polluting energy sources (www.apolloalliance.org/) and eliminating liquid fuels from the transportation sector. (See www.theaircar.com)
The problem is much larger than its climate and greenhouse gas component. There are *at least* two dozen other components to the overall crisis. See Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update by Dennis Meadows and Collapse by Jared Diamond.
That said, we need a climate-stabilization treaty badly, post Kyoto, so this is a good initiative in my view.
As far as the science, just look at www.greenfacts.org. That is one of the better archives of the science.
It never stops amazing and disgusting me how mind-boggling ignorant and self-centered and apathetic a large portion of the american populace is. And on a per capita basis you are the most wasteful nation of earth. India and China - yea, they are a growing problem as nations, but it is the individual american and the big bad Mafia running the country who are the grim reapers of global warming. Get out of your GDVs (global destruction vehicles - or as you call them SUVs) and quite playing empire (the military uses a sick sick sick amount of oil - and kills a sick sick sick amount of people) and maybe you and all the rest of us might have some chance to survive this mess. Wouldn't it be nice if nature could come up with some way to make everyone with their finger on the trigger or their foot on the gas pedal just keel over?
" as jskinner succinctly pointed out has both been significantly higher and lower throughout history "
one has to be careful about looking too far back in history. Homosapiens have only been around for about 1My. if I'm not mistaken we have ice core records showing that CO2 has never been this high going back about 650,000 years, almost as long as the human species. the anthropic principle is internal to the earth as well as external. we did not exist back when things were hotter because we could not.
"In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it" -- wikipedia
I spent several years (long ago) studying the sun, so I want to nail one argument from ignorance that is too frequently trotted out ...
"A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming." (quote from Wikipedia)
brontoburger March 31st, 2008 1:39 pm, regarding hydrogen, I wonder how you are going to produce it. Splitting water to obtain it is energy-intensive so taking into account the cost of producing hydrogen makes its use much less desirable.
One contributing factor to global warming is the population burden that the earth has to support. Humans will either have to reduce their numbers benignly (one child per family for two or three generations) or let nature do it for them.
Some great comments here, very interesting and appropriate. Except for the few attempts at humor perhaps.
You know, I fear not many bothered to click on and read this three minute read, written by a man who actually knows the score.
Http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
Do or don't bother, __ but you can forget about over-population, whose to blame for global warming, whether Al Gore is a rich hypocrite, rising sea levels, droughts and famine, hot or cold weather, DU contamination, dead bees and polar bears, or anythng else. __Forget it, __ because there is only ONE single MOST IMPORTANT issue for right now. ___ Correct that and then worry and work on the rest of those important issues.
Global warming is causing the Arctic perma-frost to thaw. ___ Locked up for the past 55 million years in that perma-frost is (400 gigatons) of methane gas. When the perma-frost, which is already thawing at an alarming rate, thaws suffeciently, you are going to keel over dead, whether you are driving a SUV, or have your finger on the trigger of a gun. So are your children and your pets and all of the pigs, sheep, goats, cows, rabbits, bees, heterosis and horses. Permanently dead,__ everything! I personally don't know how to say or write it any plainer.
Don't wish to believe or to hear it? __ I don't blame you, __ neither do I. However, since we may have a slim chance to avoid that disaster, I honestly believe we should attempt to correct the problem, which is man induced global warming. If any don't believe that, then they should go blog on an issue of real importance, such as a Hillary/Obama thread, or differen types of eco-friendly urinals.
We "smart" humans can have clean energy and do it world-wide within ten years if we wanted to or had to. If we "HAD" to do it, we could build a bridge, or a railway tunnel from long Island to the White Cliffs of Dover. Well, we HAVE to stop burning coal and oil. We have to and do so soon or we are ALL dead.
As to making hydrogen from sea water? If we had electrical plants which were powered by geo-thermal, or wave energy for example, we could crack sea water at a very affordable cost and use that fuel to power our vehicles. Norway is doing that now. Or, we could use clean energy from wave, solar, wind, or tidal power to charge up electrical powered vehicles, or do both. The technology is already availabel, it's affordable. We humans just aren't doing it, because the oil barons don't want us to do it. That' th ebottom line. Read that link, it won't hurt you.
So, jsskinner, where is your evidence that we are cooling. It isnt happening on a global average. You are listening to Rush and other right wingers for your pseudo-science. This has been happening for decades, and we, as a society had better start caring more about our environment than less, unless we dont give a damn about what we leave our grandchildren. My 95 yr old grandmother is smart enough to see that climate has changed drastically in the last 50 years. She just shakes her head as she sees what used to be a winter wonderland become too dry and warm to provide the snowfall we once enjoyed.
Water will be the next battleground, and our changing climate is going to drive us into real problems with fresh surface and groundwater supplies. But, hey, its ok! Someone will make a buck off of all of this. Hail to the GOP money machine.
FZ March, unfortunately, you have bought into the dogma that says attack someone if you dont agree. The real truth is that Mr. Gore could not be a harbinger of the truth if he were an average joe just making a living. His position of relative wealth allow him the time and privelige to actually study what is happening and make a difference. Why aren't you out there campaigning for a big cause? Because you dont have the time or money to do it. you all should just be fortunate that someone with relatively high power and visibility is willing to slug it out with the GOP and Corporate America, rather than using those ties to further screw all of us in the barrel. We could all benefit from the example of Al Gore and his dedication to a cause. Most of us are only big enough to bitch rather than to work for transformative change. As long as we are willing to listen to the right wing apologists who destroy anyone who dare speak out againg what business and the pursuit of the dollar does to the blue collar and the environment, then we are doomed.
Wake up folks, you are being tooled by your government.
Scream away .. the nightmare has just begun..the spaceship earth is full of excrement piled high everywhere..no one can smell it cause they are so used to shitting where ever they please, for so long.
I simply laugh at the people who say ''it's just the natural cycles of the earth..no worries''..well when you are starving and dying of thirst.. try eating and drinking all the shit contaminated food and water
do you not realize that less than 6% of the water on the earth is potable?.. and we just keep shitting in it day after day after day.. well drink deep my disbelieving friends.. maybe dying from the poisons in it will be a better alternative than surviving after the big crash of civilization,
A starving thirsty person is loyal only to thier stomach
No, mmullen, I've never once listened to Rush Limbaugh.
Here are a couple of references, so please read:
"Climate facts to warm to"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
"Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling"
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Also, KEM PATRICK, I read that energy bulletin and it commits one fatal error: Methane may be more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, but that doesn't make it the #1 greenhouse gas. That distinction belongs to water vapor.
Here's a discussion of that issue:
"Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System"
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Kem... good work -
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
will post your link...
Don't let the trolls affect you. It is safe to assume the carbon-auto industry has hired a few thousand trolls to creep the web. Then there are the troll interns as well, working for free.
.
Al Gore-- committing his own money to try and save the world, the single most influential person in the environmental movement by far, revered around the world for his tireless and intelligent devotion to the environment, yet bashed incessantly here on Common Dreams. Most of the posts here belong on the Rush Limbaugh Forum.
What amount of money protects one from a destabilizing and uninhabitable planet?
Well ~JSKIKNNER~ I have a choice here don't I? Either trust you and your sources, or trust the scientists who say the methane gas is our greatest threat. ___ So do I ignore the ones who fear the methane "burps", or those who say it's not a problem? As you seem to be doing for some reason.
First of all, ___ I never claimed methane gas was the number one "greenhouse" gas. ___ So why do you bring up water vapor, that's not the issue, I don't believe water vaper in the atmosphere is going to kill my kids and my wife's house cat. Then you state the article has one FATAL flaw. Are you serious, or just babbling, or attemptiong to replay the Rush Limbowwww story? Even if you never heard of him, ___ that's precicely what you are doing here.
I wrote, that twice in the past history of the planet, methane gas suddenly bloomed up into the atmosphere, due to global warming caused by nature or excessive volcanic action and it was the cause of killing almost every living animal on the planet. ___ Do you or anyone dispute that? ___ If you do, you are arguing with the thousands of qualified scientists who state it is so, not arguing with me. All I do, is pass along information I trust, as does Al Gore. He's no scientist either, But he's doing a damn good job of spreading the word.
Then I stated, as the article stated, that we humans presently are spewing out as much Co2 into the atmosphere, as would be spewed out by (17,000) active volcanos. ___ Do you dispute that? __If so, you again are arguing with highly qualified scientists who state it is so. We humans have to stop spewing out that much Co2, or the global warming will continue until the Arctic methane gas blooms out into the atmoshere and kills all of us who don't have a million years supply of bottled oxygen handy.
How about addressing the problem of the methane gas, which has been well proven to be the most serious threat to mankind and all other life and it still is the most serious threat? ___ What's your opinion on that issue? ___ Can you tell us it's not a problem and explain why it's not? ___ Can you explain how water vapor is a deadly problem and we'd better do somethng about water vapor? ___
Thank you ~JSKINNER~, please do reply to those questions with some good common sense and I'll certainy listen to you. You might be a lot smarter than the scientists YOU are saying are wrong. ___ I'm not that smart.
To quote Albert Einstein:
"I do not know what weapons will be used in World War Three. But I know World War Four will be fought with stones."
It's time to face facts people. Modern technological society is a grotesque statistical anomaly fueled by petroleum. A catastrophic blip in the history of our species. For the vast majority of our existence we have relied on simple machines, fire and the muscle labor of ourselves or domesticated animals.
Long ago in the prehistory of our species, we encountered a disaster that created a genetic bottleneck and reduced the population of Homo Sapiens to about 10 000 individuals worldwide. Mitochondrial DNA research proved that. We, their descendants, were the lucky(?) winners of a cosmic crap shoot. That time.
Anyone want to bet we will be so lucky again?
Hi ~BILL~ Thank you for posting that link on another site. It may be, that less than 3% of the world's population knows about the methane gas issue.
We have many serious issues, political and otherwise. DU use, a looming depression, global warming and climate change, the stark relization of a bird flu pandemic, the use of nuclear power and the real potential hazards of that, illegal wars started to control oil and protect the American dollar. A posible war with Iran, ad a possible nuclear war someday. Lots of other serious issues and none of them are fun to discuss or to even think about.
Once again, the most serious issue is the (Arctic methane gas). We have to solve the global warming issue to combat that possibility.
Once that is under control, we can work on the other important issues Over population comes first to my mind. The bird flu pandemic or an atomic war would help there. Perhaps there are better alternatives.
Thank you again Bill.
I had a jade plant that was about 15 or 20 years old. This winter I accidentally left it out on the porch and unfortunately it froze in the night. It looked like the plant was only damaged on the ends, but over the weeks I had to keep trimming it back further and further as the stems kept dying. Eventually I had cut it back to an inch above the soil. What remained was a stub about 3 inches in diameter that proceeded to rot. Sadly I put it outside and left it.
I just noticed this morning that tiny green jade leaves are coming up from around the rotted base.
No matter what crazy shit we humans may do to this beautiful planet, I trust that it will recover, though we may no longer be around to enjoy it.
KEM PATRICK - You got it! You do have a choice. Choose to defer judgement while you keep studying the issue. Ask lots of questions. Like, maybe the methane burps weren't the cause of the mass extinctions, but just a symptom of some other conditions or events that were the ultimate cause. After all, there have been many more mass extinctions than there have been methane burps. How do you account for those?
I brought up water vapor as a greenhouse gas because the article you cited specifically argued that "greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide from increased volcanic activity, warmed the earth and seas enough to release massive amounts of methane."
I simply question the logic of this statement, ignoring as it does any mention of the most effective greenhouse gas - water vapor.
Were water vapor levels high or low, and what was the cause of this? And what caused the increased volcanic activity? And is there a connection there? You know, this story is so incomplete I'm not even inclined to call it a theory.
As for humans producing the equivalent of 17,000 volcanoes: Is this a meaningful statement? Don't volcanoes vary widely in their manner and magnitude of eruption? The big number is no doubt meant to impress, but I don't see how such a vague analogy serves to prove anything.
GottaGetOffTheGrid also threw out a big number, saying that the CO2 level hasn't been as high as it is now for 650,000 years. But why pick 650,000? That's less than 15 one-hundred-thousandths of Earth's history. I wouldn't call that significant from the scientific standpoint of climatology. So go to http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/7/4167 and look at figure 4, which shows that CO2 levels have mostly decreased for the last 175 million years.
Since I don't see temperatures or CO2 increasing, I don't expect the methane burps to happen.
KEM,
There have been times when i have grown tired of you...
But, thanks for all your work! Your self-education on climate change, and your willingness to confront the trolls with basic truth and science and logic, is very worthwhile.
And as for the comment that CD always trashes Al Gore - no, it is the trolls who trash Al Gore. Yes, indeed, there are THOUSANDS of paid trolls creeping the internet, and thousands more troll interns. All the noise here is from outside slimers, not from actual Common Dreamers.