Al Gore still not running, wins Nobel Prize - Page 2

Why not go looking and find out for yourself? I'm sure you can dig up the papers if you look hard enough, but even a cursory search will reveal something like this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1720024.ece

If you can make the case that Earth's temperatures are increasing for the same reasons as Mars', be my guest.

A piss-poor excuse for your own irresponsible behaviour if ever one there was.

I think most left-leaning people just want a win, and will take any decent person who appears to be a winner.

I think people would be a lot more willing to make adjustments if the mainstream media and energy lobby would admit reality.

Also, there are things like massive tax breaks on buying huge cars like Humvees versus the relatively miniscule tax breaks for buying hybrids.

And, of course, there's our destructive reliance on coal:

From Architecture 2030:

Nice try, yt, but they don't have tax rebates for Humvees on Mars, so I shall remain skeptically enlightened.

I really don't understand why he isn't running at this point. He's currently sharing the freaking Noble Peace Prize, An Inconvenient Truth was pretty much a feature length campaign ad in addition to the lecture, and he obviously has some problems with the current political climate if The Assault on Reason is any indicator. All I've heard from people around him is that he hates the state/party dinners and bureaucracy that goes along with politics. He rails about how dangerous the coming crisis is and how we should do everything in our power to correct or course but he can't be bothered to go to a few freaking black tie events and stage a campaign?!

Also, I was pleasantly surprised to read that UC Berkeley's faculty contributed to the research recognized by this award. We're a public institution but you can't throw a dead cat on this campus without hitting a Noble Prize recipient. That's pretty awesome.

Can't do oil--running out and too dirty for the environment.

Can't do coal--plentiful but too dirty for the environment.

Can't do wind--not enough areas to use, too noisy and harmful to local birds.

Can't do solar--too expensive and inefficient.

Can't do nuclear fission--too dangerous.

Can't do nuclear fusion, period.

So what do we do for power, folks? What's going to support six and a half billion people?

I know some want a culling of the popluation to a more...manageable number. I'm not one of them. I want my son to have the flying car I was promised when I was a kid back in the sixties.

So what are we going to do?

So is your argument "doing environmentally sound things is hard, so we shouldn't bother"? I don't think it's the responsibility of this message board to come up with the solutions, but it's foolhardy to say, "Oh, we don't have any answers right now? Well, fuck it. Let's just keep doing what we're doing even though it's obvious we can't do it forever, and it seems to be having serious negative effects."

I've gotta hand it to you, though - I've never seen anyone combine conservatism and nihilism so effectively before.

Incorrect sir. It's on it's way: http://www.iter.org/

I think so too. I think he's realized he can do more good outside of the limitations that public office would put on him. Instead of compromising and advancing a huge platform of issues that would see incremental improvement over the span of a 4/8 year presidency, he's focused on one issue and done everything he can to help it, and done a good job at it at that. That coupled with how disillusioned he still is over the 2000 election (c'mon, you know he still gets drunk and rants about it sometimes), I think we all have to accept that he's not going to run.

And I agree with you that the field is fine the way it is. I'm ready to take one of these candidates to Nov. 2008.

Well, it's not a "horrible" excuse. What is needed is an environmental treaty that all US nations must comply. Having one that is optional just doesn't make sense when you're trying to compete in a global market.

Here's hoping this works out.

I can remember back in high school in 1980 when a couple of scientists said they had developed cold fusion in a testtube. Since then, zip. I've been depressed ever since.

I, on the other hand, believe that it is foolhardy to eliminate any and all possible energy sources based upon possible damaging effects to the environment.

We need to find a balance for our continued existence--energy and environment. Both are vital for our civilization.We're not going back to a planetary agrarian civilization, so what do we do?

Don't wuss out by saying it's 'not the responsiblity of this message board'. This message board is for an exchange of ideas, ones we need desperately. My question was serious--what ideas do the people behind the Climate Change boosters have to offer besides conservatism. Turning down the heat and changing lightbulbs will only go so far. What will we do when push comes to shove and rolling blackouts appear not just in California but across the nation and around the world?

But if you have nothing to contribute to this, that's fine. Just let the rest of us try to develop solutions.

I see global warming being talked about on a different news channel almost every day. The three networks, CNN, Fox News. People know about it. Can those who fight for this issue finally realize that people aren't going to conform their lives for it?

I used to be a big believer in global warming when I was younger. Thought I was gonna become active in it and everything. Then I got lazy and figured out that by the time the planet really gets fucked up, I'll be old and senile and won't care.

And nobody wants a hybrid cause you can't pick women up with it. I don't want one. They look like the head of a penis.

Jesus. I'm rarely this blunt, but you're a fairly sizeable idiot. You actually advocate the "I don't give a shit because it doesn't affect me" argument?

It's really a tragedy that The 11th Hour didn't stay in theaters longer than it did - it's an excellent flick. I wish it would air on TV or something because the entire second hour of the film illustrates the various options and solutions that are waiting to be explored, and there are many.

Wind, solar and water power are all viable alternatives to coal. Nuclear energy, while not ideal, when done safely and efficiently, is leagues better than coal in terms of damage done on a cumulative basis.

And think about it:
if all of the sprawl that has carved up the US in the past 6 years had been built with solar panels,
if you could get a better tax break for installing solar panels (I have investigated it and it's about 20K for my house, so I'm saving up for that),
If more new skyscrapers and commercial development was built green, like the Hearst Tower in NY:


if instead of tax breaks for luxury Hummers you could get a bigger tax break for a hybrid or economy car,
if public transportation became more viable...

Etc etc. ad infinitum. It's NOT hopeless. It's all do-able.

The problem has been and continues to be one thing: the mindf*ck perpetrated by energy interests to hold onto their disproportionate piece of the pie. That's what people in climate sensitive areas are dying for right now. That's what's going to wipe out the diversity of life on earth. That's what's going to kill generations later. Good old fashioned greed.

You spent two posts asking questions for which you did not provide answers and giving reasons why each particular plan of action proposed won't work (some of which yt addressed in her last post, and there are apparently opposing views on their merits).

It took you until the post above to say anything substantive beyond "nothing's going to work!!!" and you still haven't presented any proposed solutions beyond the vague idea that we need to balance energy and environment, a solution, by the way, that is made of "duh." I don't think you're in any position to be self-righteous.

I suspect you would still have a hard time picking up women even if you drove a Mustang with Brad Pitt strapped to the hood.

Get a room.

Likely so, but I'd still buy it.

Look, I believe in global warming, but what can be done at this point to stop it?

You've been waiting to do that, haven't you?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jacob Singer again.

Whatcha gonna do about that, funnyman?

Step one would be learning to read.

I'm pretty sure these are the future for our serious power generation, so I have confidence that we'll figure it out. And by 'we' I mean a worldwide network of scientists and researchers, and hot-pocket makers.

With my original post, I outlined the problem we were facing and asked for suggestions from the crew here. I wanted to hear something constructive beyond the typical rhetoric posted in the Politics forum.

I appreciate what yt posted greatly, but I think that many of the ideas would be fought by environmentalists themselves. Haven't there been wind and hydro-based power system pilot programs that have been stymied by the very same people that say we cannot use coal or nuclear?

For example.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in560595.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060901420.html

I do have an idea that I've heard few mention. There are literally thousands of underground coal fires spewing contaminanants into the air around the world. How about a concerted and focused effort to put these fires out?
That would stop the waste and save a precious resource at the same time. Who would argue with that?

I would think this would be cost-efficient and would buy some more time to allow us to explore and develop new energy sources. Combined with other techniques, it could slow down the inevitable climate change.

Thoughts?

Sure, that's a good idea. And regarding your links, sure there will be kinks with every alternative, but that doesn't mean they're not worth trying.

If you're serious about the subject, I do think you should start by seeking out The 11th Hour. It's a documentary dedicated to ideas about this stuff, and if nothing else, is worth seeing just to argue with it. I loved it.

But in terms of personal contributions to the effort, here are some ideas from StopGlobalWarming.org:

Here are a couple of things I've been doing:
Using a refillable glass bottle and refilling it with filtered water for the car & work;
Using a refillable starbucks cup;
Printing general use documents on the opposite side of old documents;
Driving slower (well, I'm trying...)
Unplugging computers and power strips at night;
Making sure every light not being used is off;
Unplugging chargers when they're not being used;
Composting;
Buying produce at farmer's markets when you can (closer is better because of shipping fuels).

That's all I can think of right now. The thing is, whether we can ultimately figure out how to end the use of fossil fuels, there are small things we can do to at the very least not feel so doomed.

I think we're finally at the "awareness" stage that we've been trying to get to for over a decade. (I'd argue we were pretty close in the early 90s, but for some reason, everyone stopped giving a fuck during the Clinton years. You'd think having Al Gore in power might have done something about it, but it seems like we need an administration that's actively anti-environment for people to take charge on a grassroots level. Funny that.)

Anyway, now we're at the point where people accept it but feel hopeless and nihilistic about it. That's because there's no "magic bullet" solution--but that's not the same thing as saying there's no solution, period. Solving the environmental crisis is a matter of adjusting our lifestyles in a bunch of small ways, rather than doing one or two big things. Given the magnitude of the issue, people feel like turning off the lights or living closer to work or even trying to get "inefficient" solar and wind power going just isn't going to be enough--and it isn't, in and of itself. Our future depends on everyone working together in a lot of small ways, which is the big sticking point. People feel like, if their neighbour's carelessness and selfishness is just going to negate everything they do, there's no point. That's why a more upbeat, positive, and community-minded mentality is going to be essential to the environment, and why we need to stop being shrill and nasty and divisive about this.

And it's also why we need to stop blaming the supposed media conspiracies for hiding the truth. At this point, yes, there are some dicks, both on the ground and in positions of power, who still don't buy global warming, or who just want to make their fortunes and let the rest of the world go screw themselves, but on the whole we've reached a tipping point. Corporations are starting to talk about the money to be made in environmental policies, and the basic facts are unquestionably out there whether you choose to believe them or not. The people who are holding out don't need to be "educated", they need to start seeing environmental practices put to work in a productive fashion. They need to see that that's the way society is headed, and that doing so leads to a positive, productive mindset with a better quality of life. If we could go back to the WWII era mindset where it was about everyone pitching in and sacrificing to help win the war, and then afterwards we were all going to be prosperous and have happy home lives with 2.5 children, that would be really beneficial right now.

In essence, we need to start talking about a brighter future, both as a responsibility and as a gift. Kurt Vonnegut, in his last year or two, mentioned how selfish and short-sighted we seemed to be getting as a society, how no one seemed to want to make a brighter world for their kids or even their own old age--they just wanted to party now and ignore their problems. More than any specific policy, we need to work on reversing that mindset. Most people will respond better to positive reinforcement and the promise of a brighter future than they will threats and doom saying. It's one thing to warn people, it's another to make them believe there's no hope at all.

That said...electric- or otherwise non-oil-powered transport would solve a LOT of problems, and I'm surprised more people aren't making that their top priority.

Ray Patterson kinda sprung to mind reading this thread.

Gore once again says he has no plans to run for president.

The longer I can remain in denial about this, the longer I can stave off depression.

You know, as long as he stays in the will he/won't he spotlight, he provides a great distraction for Fox News to shoot at. Plus, the eventual nominee could still choose him for running mate.

I don't see what Gore stands to gain by running for the presidency. He has already moved into a post-presidential elder statesman role, and "shoulda been President" is integral to his brand.

At this point in his career, actually being the President would be a step backward.

Plus he probably figures he won't win. He's better off staying like he is ...

A chance to implement some of the things he would implement when he ran for president the first time, perhaps.

[Quote]He has already moved into a post-presidential elder statesman role, and "shoulda been President" is integral to his brand.

In terms of what? Not in terms of his goals. I get a feeling loading EPA oversight committees and such with energy lobbyists would come to a halt tout de suite, and that's just the first day.

I'm absolutely sure he won't run. I wouldn't sacrifice myself on the altar of stupid that is the current political/media circus either.

No Democrat will win.

I disagree on both counts, but in typical fashion I'm in the minority in my thinking. In the same way that he was piled on for being "too rich" to win the Nobel Peace prize, so is he being pooh-poohed as the next President in favor of Hilary. To me, he's our best hope for true change. He is unafraid of taking on corporate interests and the right wing slime machine because he has been their b*tch already. He has seen rock bottom and has nothing to lose.

I suppose safe alternative power for many wasn't as important as the freakin' view for a select few , eh?

http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...rpc=22&sp=true

I'm not saying Hillary is any better, but I really think he thought he could win (specially now) he would go for it. He already blew it once, he's more popular with people who would have already voted for him, chances are if he ran again he might do worse. After all, everything was set right for him to win the first time, and he didn't.

Time to move on, Gore has.

Yeah, the Daily Show did a bit on that a month or two ago. It's pretty annoying--though there are some legitimate concerns about bird migration. Nevertheless, it's petty obvious that's not why Ted's against it.

Hey, maybe what we need is for more Democratic easy targets to oppose environmental practices! Then the shrill right-wing gang will start fighting FOR the environment, just to be contrarian.

Bingo.

Wait, what?

He did win the last time he ran. And he's a different person today than he was then. You can't go through something like that and come out the same.

I sometimes wonder if he won the Nobel Peace Prize not because of his work on bringing catastrophic climate change to the fore but because he's really the only one who can save the world from a state of perpetual war and the "armageddon in slow motion" of global climate change.

He could be waiting for the right moment to not flame out too fast.

Wow. How does Al take a bath if he walks on water?

One man (unless he's the Antichrist) cannot save the world from a constant state of war. There are too many leaders in the world, big and small, with ambitions to expand their authority. That is the way of man.

Even Al, with the Biblical level of faith you have in him, cannot change the basic nature of man.

I respect his growth as the face of global warming, but he is no Christ figure.

What I am talking about is not the total redemption of the human race, but someone with the will and the stones to take the US off the path so lovingly laid by Bush and the neocons. Even if Hillary wins the nomination and ultimately the election (which I think is a fantasy - she is the candidate the GOP wants to run against), she would most likely keep the status quo, which would be disastrous for the world.

I really like what Gore does, despite him spreading the Word and acting otherwise (like having a mansion that consume 20 times more electricity than the average household- contradicting what he preaches on both energy and footprint aspects. Sure, it's his ancestral home, but still...), but you shouldn't make him such a Christ-like figure that will save mankind. He deserved recognition for his work, and could most likely be a great president, but I wonder if even in power he could make such an absolute change on his own nation.

He cannot make such an absolute change on his own family, if his son's continuous drug and legal problems are of any indication.

Still, I want Al to be the face of global warming. That way, in ten years, he'll either be the prophet of doom that his followers want him to be or a laughingstock that will make his invention of the internet seem trivial. Both work for me.

I don't give a shit about his family, as that can happen at any family of any status.

He won't be a laughingstock, as that would be saying that there is no global warming. But you can't tell people to make a personal effort if you fly your private jet while you could take a regular flight. The most important thing here is at the political level, the policies that need to be put in place, and that's what worries me. That even him couldn't change it on an effective level, as that would make him at the least unpopular.

I agree with this. If Gore was to become President he would have many other issues to deal with other than just global warming (war, the economy, etc.). As it is right now he can concentrate solely on promoting awareness of an issue he is passionate about without any distractions.

Solar is our best hope for the future, but we need to put a lot of money in to it. We need a Kennedy moon like program but for Solar and energy storage. We are really close to having a cheep working Solar power system. We just need ten scientific breakthroughs, or less.

The real problem with fission is expense and availability of uranium. not it danger.
We can do fusion with helium 3, but same problem as uranium.






I believe we should put as a country say 10 billion a year in solar research and another 10 billion in energy storage. I really do not believe that trying to legalize limits on Co2 emissions is the answer. Simple because the poorest 5+ billion people can't afford it. I have said it in other thread that Poverty is as much the as pollution is. To end the poverty problem we need a energy source not only clean and big enough for everyone, but really cheep to. Say 1/5 to 1/6 as cheap as oil is right now. Maybe even cheaper then 1/6 the price of oil is right now.

I think Energy War which is playing on Sundance right now is better then the 11th Hour. It really put the problem in a good light, and take it out of a environmental problem and put it in a political problem the Right just can't disagree with. Oil is supporting dictatorships which are hostile to the west, and keep us from putting pressure on said dictatorships.

I haven't seen Energy War but will put it on my list. Have you seen The 11th Hour? It names names. It's not fluff. It's a very serious dissection of the problems of global warming, pollution, deforestation, overfishing, etc., etc. And has on-camera thinkers and designers talking about how to fix it. The pieces are all waiting to be picked up. The SOLE roadblock, as you know, is the political might of The Corporations (oh no she didn't!).

And Martin Savage, you're completely right about starting at home. Every single one of us needs to do the same thing.

Let me just clarify: I don't consider Gore Christ-like. But what we're seeing is fear and spinelessness from elected leaders who are afraid for their political futures. We need someone who doesn't give two sh*ts about his political future but wants to roll up his sleeves and do the unpleasant and unpopular work of putting Big Industry on notice. Feinberg isn't running for office. Kucinich doesn't stand a chance. And I don't see any one of the "leading" candidates (with the possible exception of Edwards) being even remotely interested in rocking the boat.

Gore has nothing to lose. That's why I believe he is The One!