tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263500.post115460914382150037..comments2023-10-02T07:55:24.415-04:00Comments on Words Matter: Al Gore's shell gameJimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01763876658345223153noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263500.post-1155151526373478362006-08-09T15:25:00.000-04:002006-08-09T15:25:00.000-04:00"the fact remains that it doesn’t contribute to gl..."the fact remains that it doesn’t contribute to global warming or the use of coal or oil."<BR/><BR/>This is just patently false. one does not just wave a wand and have the infrastructure appear. The raw materials for a wind farm and its transmission lines have to mined with machines; machines that invariably run on oil. The insulation that wraps the transmission lines is derived from petroleum. The cement required to seat the windmills on requires oil to manufacture and deliver. Ultimately all current and proposed components of alternatives to oil consumption are dependent upon oil for their manufacture to begin with.<BR/><BR/>It all begs the question: just because we can, should we? My own feeling is that the children of the future might actually be better served by just weaning off the industrial mammary altogether. Who actually proved that life is more fulfilling as a post industrial inhabitant compared to pre industrial standards? I've lived off the grid and in a less than permanent structure. It was the most difficult period of my existence. It was also the most rewarding. The drive to preserve as much of our current form of existence may actually end up obliterating the very set of conditions that allowed life to arise in the first place. I think it would be wiser to act to live on fundamentally less, rather than trying to preserve every fraction possible. For that, I say no to wind....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263500.post-1155151497635736732006-08-09T15:24:00.000-04:002006-08-09T15:24:00.000-04:00"the fact remains that it doesn’t contribute to gl..."the fact remains that it doesn’t contribute to global warming or the use of coal or oil."<BR/><BR/>This is just patently false. one does not just wave a wand and have the infrastructure appear. The raw materials for a wind farm and its transmission lines have to mined with machines; machines that invariably run on oil. The insulation that wraps the transmission lines is derived from petroleum. The cement required to seat the windmills on requires oil to manufacture and deliver. Ultimately all current and proposed components of alternatives to oil consumption are dependent upon oil for their manufacture to begin with.<BR/><BR/>It all begs the question: just because we can, should we? My own feeling is that the children of the future might actually be better served by just weaning off the industrial mammary altogether. Who actually proved that life is more fulfilling as a post industrial inhabitant compared to pre industrial standards? I've lived off the grid and in a less than permanent structure. It was the most difficult period of my existence. It was also the most rewarding. The drive to preserve as much of our current form of existence may actually end up obliterating the very set of conditions that allowed life to arise in the first place. I think it would be wiser to act to live on fundamentally less, rather than trying to preserve every fraction possible. For that, I say no to wind....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263500.post-1154997762419952472006-08-07T20:42:00.000-04:002006-08-07T20:42:00.000-04:00Jim (the flatlander),I appreciate your take. You o...Jim (the flatlander),<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your take. You obviously bring a perspective that I wasn't necessarily making reference to.<BR/><BR/>My concern is with Nimby-ism, which is particularly apparent in many of the comments I was referring to.<BR/><BR/>If not in this particular location, then where would you suggest as an alternative? I'm willing to wager that wherever wind farms (or other alternative sources of power) are located, some special interest group is going to rise up oppose them (while continuing to live a life that's totally dependent on fossil fuels).<BR/><BR/>While I'm for scaling back our consumption and ravenous diet of petroleum, I know it isn't going to happen overnight. When gas lines form, people are without oil and kerosene to heat with and people begin having to choose between food and keeping the family warm, no pristine wilderness will be safe from the drill, open pit, or other older models of energy production.<BR/><BR/>Another "daring" prediction, based on recent reports of coal being pushed as an "alternative" (isn't that how we heated 100 years ago for f*cksake?)--nuclear power, coming to a town near you!Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01763876658345223153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263500.post-1154717336824454692006-08-04T14:48:00.000-04:002006-08-04T14:48:00.000-04:00Wow. A lot of directions to be considered here.Fo...Wow. A lot of directions to be considered here.<BR/><BR/>For one, I like how you raise the names of others who have succeeded in popularizing their environmental campaigns, i.e. Rachel Carson, in light of Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth." It reminded me of <A HREF="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131" REL="nofollow">this great article</A> by Jim Hansen, NASA's climate chief, in which he posited:<BR/><BR/>"When I recently met Larry King, he said, "Nobody cares about fifty years from now." Maybe so. But climate change is already evident. And if we stay on the business-as-usual course, disastrous effects are no further from us than we are from the Elvis era. Is it possible for a single book on global warming to convince the public, as Rachel Carson's Silent Spring did for the dangers of DDT? Bill McKibben's excellent book The End of Nature is usually acknowledged as having been the most effective so far, but perhaps what is needed is a range of books dealing with different aspects of the global warming story."<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>"That brings me to Al Gore's book and movie of the same name: An Inconvenient Truth. Both are unconventional, based on a "slide show" that Gore has given more than one thousand times. They are filled with pictures—stunning illustrations, maps, graphs, brief explanations, and stories about people who have important parts in the global warming story or in Al Gore's life. The movie seems to me powerful and the book complements it, adding useful explanations. It is hard to predict how this unusual presentation will be received by the public; but Gore has put together a coherent account of a complex topic that Americans desperately need to understand. The story is scientifically accurate and yet should be understandable to the public, a public that is less and less drawn to science."<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>"Indeed, Gore was prescient. For decades he has maintained that the Earth was teetering in the balance, even when doing so subjected him to ridicule from other politicians and cost him votes. By telling the story of climate change with striking clarity in both his book and movie, Al Gore may have done for global warming what Silent Spring did for pesticides. He will be attacked, but the public will have the information needed to distinguish our long-term well-being from short-term special interests.<BR/><BR/>An Inconvenient Truth is about Gore himself as well as global warming. It shows the man that I met in the 1980s at scientific roundtable discussions, passionate and knowledgeable, true to the message he has delivered for years. It makes one wonder whether the American public has not been deceived by the distorted images of him that have been presented by the press and television. Perhaps the country came close to having the leadership it needed to deal with a grave threat to the planet, but did not realize it."<BR/><BR/>I know you said you haven't seen the movie (I urge you to do so ... if it isn't evident, I think the movie could successfully cross over, as it were). But it's worth noting that the author, Jim Hansen, is the guy who Gore was grilling in the Senate hearing after it was revealed that his testimony had been altered by the political types within the Bush I administration.<BR/><BR/>Yikes. This was a long post ... and I didn't get past Rachel Carson. Jeesh! We'll leave it there.T. Oklahoma Bandwagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038835279750759681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263500.post-1154622988127325482006-08-03T12:36:00.000-04:002006-08-03T12:36:00.000-04:00'Course, "man's lust to consume" is going to destr...'Course, "man's lust to consume" is going to destroy "God's Country" one way or another. The flora and fauna will change with rising temperatures. New neighbors will move in with rising coastal waters. I think it best to harvest the wind, sun, etc. rather than strip down mountains and burn the coal. Who knows? Maybe there's coal in Bigelow Mountain. Let's tear it apart to keep burning dirty fuel.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302163125402760502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9263500.post-1154614065666370042006-08-03T10:07:00.000-04:002006-08-03T10:07:00.000-04:00This guy is classic: "“This is a question of right...This guy is classic: "“This is a question of right and wrong, good and evil,” he said. “God’s country must not be sacrificed to satisfy man’s lust to consume. (This project) will leave the land wounded and scarred forever.”<BR/>Said from his camp at Oquossoc. Which was built from wood. In a clearing made in 'God's Country'. If they weren't all armed to the teeth up there round Rangeley I'd go throw eggs at his house.<BR/><BR/>The crazy thing about all this arguing from all sides is that none of the hot air stops the science. There is what will occur or what is real (everything from homosexuality, through evolution, to climate change) and there is gum flapping. Maybe its about time we arrogant humans of all stripes took stock of our quite real insignificance as both individuals and a species.Wisdom Weaselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18216020315074987565noreply@blogger.com