Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

[Wavelength]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

Dusk Raven (and by extension Drazus) have it absolutely right. Even if Global Warming ISN'T chiefly caused by humans (the preponderance of scientific evidence asserts that it's there; the intelligent cynics are the ones who argue that it's almost entirely natural), the worst we can do by cutting down emissions is to clean up our air from smog. That's not such a bad thing!

But perhaps a better term, as some have suggested, would be Global Weirding. It's not just temperatures getting hotter globally, but it's average temperatures rising, which increase the sea level by slight amounts and cause all kinds of weird weather patterns, weather those patterns are related to hot, cold, or neither.

I like the idea of Carbon Credits, and although I'm not crazy about the way environmentalists like to get their message across, in the end I think they've got the right idea. It's a lot better to err on the side of caution, than to turn around 40 years from now and realize that our Earth has turned into flooded wastelands.

[Sampson]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

Dusk Raven (and by extension Drazus) have it absolutely right. Even if Global Warming ISN'T chiefly caused by humans (the preponderance of scientific evidence asserts that it's there; the intelligent cynics are the ones who argue that it's almost entirely natural), the worst we can do by cutting down emissions is to clean up our air from smog. That's not such a bad thing!

Is this a joke?

Why do you think global warming is so strongly opposed? Limiting carbon emissions puts a tremendous strain on industry, and by extension, the economy.

[thetruecoolness]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

So the environment be damned, long live the dollar, eh. I think there are lots of things we could do to cut back on our pollution that would have a very small impact on the economy. Does anyone really need a Hummer, is there some reason a vehicle must get 5 mpg (or less in some cases)? Let alone all the stuff Toecutter presented on the viability of electric cars, and the effect that would have on cutting pollution, while also, at least temporarily, stimulating the economy. I personally would give up some of my luxuries for a chance to breathe truly fresh air again, so I think you might be missing some of the intrinsic value in having cleaner air/water/etc (which does have a dollar amount when you consider what's spent on cleaning of buildings, health care for those affected by it, etc). So maybe it doesn't cause global warming, but it does cause pollution, and makes breathing more difficult over the long run and causes chronic breathing problems in many.

Just because it doesn't cost as much doesn't mean you should do it.

As for global warming, whether it exists or not is certainly up for debate as I'm not sure we have enough data to really tell what average temperature fluctuation is, especially over long periods. But if we just assume it's the way it's always been that doesn't really help either. So calling it a bunch of baloney is great and all but where is his evidence it isn't happening (also it's meant to be a very small continuous increase over time of the average temperatures, not drastic changes).

I think he's just ****** that his 'Weather' Channel isn't just showing the weather all the time anymore.

[Wavelength]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

Is this a joke?

Why do you think global warming is so strongly opposed? Limiting carbon emissions puts a tremendous strain on industry, and by extension, the economy.

Sorry, but that's utter bull****. There's a lot of creativity that can be tapped through technology but also through big business. Cutting carbon emissions could mean cutting back on production, or it could mean keeping production constant while increasing investment in green-friendly technologies and equipment. In my book, that would stimulate the economy more than a $600 refund ever will.

If we'd been concerned about global warming and/or simple pollution 30 years ago, or had simply used some common sense in the international security realm, we would have invested in renewable energy sources 30 years ago, and our economy would be MUCH stronger today. Solar panels may only be ~14% efficient, but once you've got them built, it's nearly free energy. I'm not trying to prove I'm a visionary or anything--this is obvious 20/20 hindsight. The solution is so damn obvious. But now history is repeating itself, and a bunch of greedy groups are trying to deny it, and a lot of morons are buying it, hook-line-and-sinker.

[DarkwingChuck]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

Is this a joke?

Why do you think global warming is so strongly opposed? Limiting carbon emissions puts a tremendous strain on industry, and by extension, the economy.

It's another of those situations where people want to avoid the effort and strain of fixing the problem but it just gets worse until they absolutely have to fix it and still go through all that effort and strain ten times worse. But sure why do today what you can put off until it's too late?

[Dusk Raven]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

Dusk Raven (and by extension Drazus) have it absolutely right.

It's a logic statement called Pascal's Wager. The actual wager itself (being religious in nature) has come under criticism because of its blunt theological assumptions, but for the most part the basic idea stands.

Is this a joke?

Why do you think global warming is so strongly opposed? Limiting carbon emissions puts a tremendous strain on industry, and by extension, the economy.

I keep forgetting I can't give people negative rep anymore.

[Sampson]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

So the environment be damned, long live the dollar, eh. I think there are lots of things we could do to cut back on our pollution that would have a very small impact on the economy. Does anyone really need a Hummer, is there some reason a vehicle must get 5 mpg (or less in some cases)? Let alone all the stuff Toecutter presented on the viability of electric cars, and the effect that would have on cutting pollution, while also, at least temporarily, stimulating the economy. I personally would give up some of my luxuries for a chance to breathe truly fresh air again, so I think you might be missing some of the intrinsic value in having cleaner air/water/etc (which does have a dollar amount when you consider what's spent on cleaning of buildings, health care for those affected by it, etc). So maybe it doesn't cause global warming, but it does cause pollution, and makes breathing more difficult over the long run and causes chronic breathing problems in many.

I'm not trying to--in any way--say that cutting back on pollution is a bad thing. However; Wavelength and Dusk Raven seem to hold this idea that cutting back on pollution will have no side effects except cutting back on pollution. That is the most naive, short-sighted viewpoint I've read all day.

Sorry, but that's utter bull****. There's a lot of creativity that can be tapped through technology but also through big business. Cutting carbon emissions could mean cutting back on production, or it could mean keeping production constant while increasing investment in green-friendly technologies and equipment. In my book, that would stimulate the economy more than a $600 refund ever will.

Well, the $600 refund is another debate altogether (Personally I feel it works to stimulate China's economy more than anything else).

But no, it's not "utter bull****". If reducing CO2 emissions was so good for the economy and industry--Big Business would've already done it. There is a reason why big corporations have lobbying firms to stop pollution, and I'll give you a hint: it's not because they intrinsically enjoy polluting.

By capping emissions you are putting a strain on industry, it's that simple. If tomorrow they just came out and said "all cars must get 80mpg in five years" it would cost the auto industry billions upon billions of dollars in R+D. I guess you could argue that, in the long run, it would have a positive effect. But many of these companies are already teetering on economic failure as is.

If carbon emissions are really causing global warming--fine, reduce them. But if they aren't, there's no reason to, and don't pretend like it would have no side effects.

I keep forgetting I can't give people negative rep anymore.

And I wish I could flame.

[JPS]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

it's not because they intrinsically enjoy polluting.

A lot of companies dont really care about polluting either, why? Because the next generation will have to deal with it, which is how we're ending up where we're at now.

[Dusk Raven]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

However; Wavelength and Dusk Raven seem to hold this idea that cutting back on pollution will have no side effects except cutting back on pollution. That is the most naive, short-sighted viewpoint I've read all day.

I don't hold that, but the side effects seem limited to rich humans.

But no, it's not "utter bull****". If reducing CO2 emissions was so good for the economy and industry--Big Business would've already done it.

Big Business does what is good and easy for them in the short run. And cutting emissions might just change their profit margin slightly.

By capping emissions you are putting a strain on industry, it's that simple. If tomorrow they just came out and said "all cars must get 80mpg in five years" it would cost the auto industry billions upon billions of dollars in R+D. I guess you could argue that, in the long run, it would have a positive effect. But many of these companies are already teetering on economic failure as is.

Somehow I don't think Toyata or Ford or any of the other huge car companies are going to fail very soon. And if they did, there's a dozen other car companies out there.

If carbon emissions are really causing global warming--fine, reduce them. But if they aren't, there's no reason to, and don't pretend like it would have no side effects.

You have heard of smog, right? Some areas are infested with it (Los Angeles, I think). Acid rain? Have you heard of that? If we don't know about the economy, you don't know everything that industrial pollutants do. It's not like CO2 does just one thing, and there's a lot of other chemicals that are put in the air, too.

[Seraph]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel



Why would anyone disagree with this man? He's awesome.

[Valkysas]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

Somehow I don't think Toyata or Ford or any of the other huge car companies are going to fail very soon. And if they did, there's a dozen other car companies out there.

I'm sure that would be very comforting to the thousands of people who would lose their jobs due to the companies folding.

[Dusk Raven]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

I'm sure that would be very comforting to the thousands of people who would lose their jobs due to the companies folding.

Oh.

Are they likely to go out of business over cutting emissions?

[JPS]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

Depends on if they can cut emissions

The cost of cutting emissions all depends on how a car is built, import and domestic cars are built completely different, and depending on how theyre built, could cost a company billions of dollars.

Cutting emissions will also have to be a global agreement, not just the U.S., and if the U.S. agrees to cut emissions too much, some japanese manufacturers may back out of manufacturing cars in the U.S. if they cant afford to go green.

[thetruecoolness]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

Depends on if they can cut emissions

The cost of cutting emissions all depends on how a car is built, import and domestic cars are built completely different, and depending on how theyre built, could cost a company billions of dollars.

Cutting emissions will also have to be a global agreement, not just the U.S., and if the U.S. agrees to cut emissions too much, some japanese manufacturers may back out of manufacturing cars in the U.S. if they cant afford to go green.

Yet it was the Japanese car companies, not the American ones, leading the pack in Hybrids (Toyota, Honda). Admittedly not a complete solution, but I've heard rumors that Toyota is working on a 100 mpg Prius (which wouldn't be too hard to achieve if they put a better battery/electric engine on it, since it already gets 46mpg, and probably quite a bit more if you drive like you're supposed to: stay under 65, no jack rabbit starts, don't accelerate towards a red light, etc). And guess what, the Prius is one of the hottest cars on the market (admittedly a little expensive, I know all about that). Especially with Gas prices going up, being environmentally friendly will be profitable, at least in the short run, but even in the long run because Hybrids are even more complicated than the standard car, meaning you'll likely have to go to the dealer or a better mechanic to get maintenance.

Also I'm pretty sure most other countries have met at least minimal success in introducing alternate fuel, and lower emission cars, but then again most of them actually have decent public transportation as well, whereas in most of America you're forced to have a car, since people don't care about bike riders, and most public transportation in American cities is pretty abysmal. Of course we also love our suburban lifestyle and have the space to be able to pull it off (I'm not a big city guy myself, so yes I'm part of the problem in that respect, though I chose to get a car with better gas mileage given how far I drive every day [70 miles round trip, though in a month that will be 6 as I move into the city], also to cut on how much I spend in gas a week).

So I think having highly strict government mandates may not be the way to go, I think there should be something to force companies to consider and take some action on the externalities of their high pollution footprint. Though things are certainly better than the industrial revolution when all of this started, they can continue to improve at I would say minimal cost to industry when you consider the external good lower pollution gives.

[Sampson]

Re: Al Gore sued by Weather Channel

My argument is simply that forcibly cutting CO2 emissions would have some negative impact on industry. To what extent is entirely debatable and probably varies heavily from expert to expert (based on their personal biases and political leanings).

Reducing global warming is a major project that will impact virtually every human living in an industrialized nation. To try and believe that it will only impact rich shareholders who have money to burn is idiotic.