Al Gore is a long, long-retired politician with about as much actual influence as, say, Angelina Jolie.
You know that, right?
I also think you’re persisting in arguing one class of “solutions” - ones that have a clear point of control, where a relatively small and unpopular group of controllers (like Parliament or the EPA) can exert a controlling influence - as models for another class - those that have widely distributed causes not subject to “choke point” control or fixes.
Auto pollution in 1970, and Thames pollution in the 1700s, are examples of the first. AGW is very much an example of the latter.
I know that, the point is that the experience of many that do deal with many contrarians or deniers is that politics is used a short-cut to denigrate the efforts of one of the most capable proponents of change. His politics are indeed a big part of the reason why contrarians like Anthony Watts (Republican) also prefer to turn Gore into a perpetual straw man.
BTW please read it again, Al Gore was not brought into this by me, it was the Chief, and once again the reasons why is that Gore is used a punching bag is that besides showing that contrarians are running out of ideas some contrarians do continue to dog whistle the arch conservatives that still look at the politics of their opponents and not the science.
This is missing that the biggest chunk of the problem is coming now from power plants and vehicles and ships. You bet that the polluters that own those power plants and the fuel they use have a lot of congress people in their pockets.
I admire Gore’s position but I don’t think of him as all that much of a “force for good” - at least, no more than I think Angelina Jolie is changing global adoption practices. He’s neither a meaningful leader nor a hindrance, just a lightning rod.
Ah. Yes. True.
And those power plants, vehicles, and especially ships are being used to…?
I keep being accused of being cryptic, so I’ll finish the thought. If not one more container ship of consumer goods or raw materials for them crossed the Pacific… what would be the global effect on carbon emissions?
Oy vey! And I’m the one that is supposed to have reading issues!
Read it again, what I posted is a reply to the ones that use Gore as a straw man, indeed I complained against bringing him into discussions like this one because (as I quoted Skeptical Science already) Gore has neither the blame nor is he an important voice when science is what we should look at.
The point stands anyhow, BTW in the past the main reason for the acid rain in the USA was by pollution coming from power plants. The biggest part of the change can be regulated indeed.
As for the ships at sea it seems that it was found that they are using a lot of the dirtiest fuel available and the calculation was that it almost makes useless the efforts for individuals to use hybrids or electric cars. The encouraging news is that there are shipping companies that are looking at ways to be less polluting.
As usual IMHO this points once again to the efforts that are needed. Governments should get together to enforce new rules and regulations so the changes can be accelerated.
I understood that we were on much the same side; maybe I could have stated it better. Your English is many times better than my whatever your natal language is - I can say that because I only fumble along at the pidgin level in a few other languages - but your overall sentence construction sometimes takes careful parsing. My/our problem, not yours, but do be patient when we misunderstand.
Power plants were easy to regulate, again, because they are huge and few and stationary and pretty much indispensable; a solution could be applied and enforced.
Ships are a bit of a problem in that regard because there are so many, and because of the endless maze of maritime law, flagging, enforcement issues… and because they are mobile, not only physically but because there’s always one more tiny nation willing to flag them for pay.
However… my point is entirely at right angles to that answer. What if the real problem is not the pollution from ships, or even greatly reducing it, but the cascade of problems they represent by even existing/operating?
The issue is indeed to find ways to decouple that equation that goes like ‘more progress or consumption = more pollution.’
Just as China and India are finding out that pollution is hindering progress, we also have to realize now that polluting the air will lead to less land for the world to use (one of the more likely results of global warming), many regions and countries are demonstrating nowadays that dealing with the issue does not mean that we must stop progressing.
Having spoken with a Catholic priest about this, the Catholic Church apparently disagrees. The priest told me it was part of his duty to get involved in politics. as he is supposed to try and affect the world. If the priest should get involved, surely the Pope should, as well.
I guess there is a possibility of seeming to put politics above God that would be a problem, but I don’t think he’s in any danger of crossing that line. Like it or not, the Bible doesn’t mandate people believe in unfettered capitalism.
What Mr Gore is “doing” is what all the rest of us do: Live well without sacrificing for the sake of a smaller carbon footprint.
When you take a private jet instead of a commercial plane first class instead of a commercial plane coach instead of a bus…when you stay at a first class hotel instead of couch surf…when you have a larger house than a tent…on an on…you essentially live larger than is required. In doing so, you create a large carbon footprint. There is a commensurate increase in the carbon cost for however much money you spend in a lifestyle.
This is not a criticism of Mr Gore, and you seem to repeatedly misunderstand that. It’s a comment that we are all Mr Gore when it comes to hypocrisy and AGW. We all live as well as we personally can pending resolution of the larger problem. But that living well IS the problem.
I hold that one cannot live well, rail about AGW, and not be hypocritical.
I think we’re largely in agreement here, but I object to the dichotomy between “living well” and “living to ameliorate our contribution to a global crisis.” It’s always presented as if we have to live very small, frugal lives to contribute to the solution, and put simply, I disagree.
I think there is a direction at something of a tangent to this axis on which those of us who “live well” can continue to live quite comfortable, fulfilled lives; those who are in various states of deprivation can improve their living standards; and we can make a truly significant turn towards reducing global human impact on climate.
“Living well” and “Living with an absolutely unending stream of consumer goods” are not synonymous, and taking a hammer to the latter does not mean the former goes in the dumpster.
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant: “Solving pollution of the Thames solves a proximate harm and yields proximate personal gain. This is not an example which should give you much encouragement for solving AGW, and it is not an example of the tragedy of the commons.”
You are making exactly the point I keep making:
“Something” effective (to the extent it’s possible to do much of anything at all, at this point) will be done about AGW when, and only when, the pain event is proximate. In your analogy, when the stink is at hand.
Polar bears looking for an ice floe make a nice photo. They don’t put an AGW concern at hand any more than the sad face of a starving child puts world hunger at hand for a westerner.
What we need are proximate harms, immediately felt. We need Sandy’s and we need them to not be followed by a couple total mellow NA hurricane seasons. We need specifically predicted droughts and specifically predicted floods; not just post-event claims retrospectively applied.
A general retrospective land grab of assorted untoward weather is not gonna do it. But have at it with the warnings; eventually another horrible weather event is going to happen, and you will be able to say, “I told you so” until (like Galveston) it becomes only a memory. The tough thing about AGW AOGCM-based predictions is that we are just horrible at predicting what actually happens, so we just get finished saying “told you so” with Sandy and dammit if the very next NA hurricane year isn’t one of the most quiescent on record…
Whether or not that’s “really” his role, popes have been rolling that way since Paul, so.
[QUOTE=BigT]
I guess there is a possibility of seeming to put politics above God that would be a problem, but I don’t think he’s in any danger of crossing that line.
[/QUOTE]
Some of his predecessors set that particular bar pree-ttee high, too. The Avignon papacy comes to mind. The cadaver synod too.
The “stink” was metaphorical, the point was that the stink I’m talking about is the pressure for the politicians (that are supposed to represent us) to do the right thing; the reality is that just about half of the Republicans nowadays do want the government to do something, (Independents and Democrats are more supportive of this) but it is clear that most moderated republicans are not aware of what their representatives are doing nowadays, hence the need for many Republicans to press their congress critters, a pressure that has to include also the point of not supporting them or voting for them until those politicians drop their nonsense.
That’s the same argument that I’m a hypocrite if I claim I care about homeless people because I am not personally letting every homeless person live in my house.
I can champion for changes to fight AGW without championing giving up my current way of life. Hypocrisy would only be if I told someone else they had to give up their way of life that was like mine.
And I don’t agree with you that we can’t “live well” with 9 billion people. We can’t with current technology, but there’s so much stuff that’s just on the horizon. I also reject the idea that someone rich like Al Gore is the “live well” level. Currently, “live well” would be the much more modest way of life of most of Sweden.
So if I reject your premises, how can be a hypocrite for acting like someone who rejects your premises?
I accept Ghandi’s premise: I must be the change I want to see in the world.
If I hold that AGW is a real danger, I do not have the privilege of contributing more than my individual share to the global CO2 footprint.
Currently, the only reason the global impact is not substantially more severe is that most people are poor. So if I hold that the poor should be lifted up, I hold that the global footprint should be raised, not lowered. And to the extent that I do not personally lower my own footprint to whatever the average footprint needs to be to avoid AGW, I am being hypocritical. Such a position means that I expect others to so lower their footprint that I can live better.
At a more practical level, as the world’s population increases over the coming decades, and as we lift the developing world into a richer lifestyle, it’s highly unlikely the green energy grid will be able to keep up with the demand for energy. To the extent that I profess a concern for the problem of CO2 but live a lifestyle which contributes more than my share of it, I am being hypocritical.
More like unwilling to seek solutions and just repeating the problem. It is not being hypocritical, that is just looking to justify setting all to a self fulfilled profecy.
It is a fearmongering idea that denies what it has happen many times in the past once government and industry work together. Using more power and looking at a better lifestile does not equal more emissions automatically.
Let’s say, for a hypothetical, that we don’t have the technology to go clean. To meet the CO2 levels that are desirable, we would have to start going around impounding cars and rationing power use per day. Surprisingly, this solution would probably not find massive favor with the masses, politicians would waffle about what the solution should be, and they would kick the can down the road hoping that technological innovation saves us before the world goes to hell.
Is that a problem with capitalism or with democracy?
Let’s say, for an alternate hypothetical, that the technology exists but is not competitive with dirty options. Politicians can force this technology to be installed into power plants, cars, etc. and use tariffs, etc. to try and minimize any attempt by the market to use cheaper, dirty alternatives from rogue nations. But, as a consequence, the American and European economies are sunk into financing all this technology, minimizing their trade circles, and rendering themselves non-competitive as compared to the rogue nations. The economy stagnates and, potentially, all for no benefit as the rogue nations now have complete market ownership of dirty technologies and are pumping out CO2 just as gleefully as hogs in a mud puddle.
Again, this isn’t likely to be a very popular option with the electorate. One would expect the politicians to hem and haw, do nothing, and kick the can down the road hoping that technology will advance before everything goes to hell.
Again is this a problem with capitalism or with democracy?
Or, is it not really a problem of either? Maybe the human state is that we’re fundamentally confident in our ability to deal with issues so we wait until the issue is actually lowering our quality of life more strongly than the solution would, and we’re not going to do a damn thing until that moment to implement the solution. Without a minimized quality of life, we just aren’t fussed enough.
I suppose that could be summed up as a problem with democracy but really I’d say that the real problem is reality. Representative democracy and capitalism aren’t holding us back from “doing what we should.” They’re just both forces for reality and practicality. They don’t allow you to avoid real world issues. Where there are genuine, real-world issues with the limits of technology, the existence of rogue nations, the need to keep the populace fed and satisfied every year, etc. you can’t just go “Woohoo!” and run around like an idiot with a magical ban stick. You have to actually sit down, do a bunch of research and planning, enter into deals with other nations, invest in green technologies, try to find unobtrusive ways to make power usage more efficient (e.g., by promoting more efficient lightbulbs or by upgrading the power grid). And that all takes time and simply can’t be rushed, because reality rules in the real world.
