“In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero.”

This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore’s movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie – including, particularly, Gore himself – paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, “Hey, what about breathing? Don’t we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?”


Al Gore’s Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense

It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it’s the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it. That’s my conclusion after finally sitting down to watch “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Oscar-winning documentary that has turned Al Gore into a rock star (and rock music promoter). Here’s my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that’s harsh criticism. But it’s the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: “In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero.”
This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore’s movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie – including, particularly, Gore himself – paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, “Hey, what about breathing? Don’t we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?”

The answer, is yes, we do. Thus, by including the claim that you can “reduce your carbon emissions to zero” the film’s producers might as well have hung a sign around Gore’s neck that says “I’m an idiot.” Despite the ridiculous claim about zero emissions, Gore’s documentary has become a cultural phenomenon. It won two Academy Awards, for best documentary feature and original song. And Gore has published a popular book by the same title.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there’s no global warming nor am I claiming that carbon dioxide has no effect on the atmosphere. I’ve read the IPCC’s latest report for policymakers. I’ve also read a good bit of what the skeptics have to say. All of it leaves me confused. That said, I have read enough to know that I’m skeptical of how Gore and others point their fingers at carbon dioxide as the culprit responsible for global warming. My skepticism comes via one of the oldest maxims in science: correlation does not prove causation. Yes, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising but that doesn’t necessarily mean that carbon dioxide is solely to blame for global temperature increases.

Furthermore, my skepticism about the science is not my biggest problem with the carbon-dioxide-causes-global-warming argument. Rather, it is this question: Okay, then what?

That is, given that the world economy (and most living beings) depends, one way or another, on emitting carbon dioxide, then how are we going to manage to stay fed, clothed, and transported? If we agree that carbon dioxide is bad, then can the world economy transition to some other no- or low-carbon energy source in a short enough timeframe to satisfy Gore’s contention that we have to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent over the next four decades?

Yes, the U.S. can reduce its energy use and so can other developed countries. But in the developing world, forget it. For instance, over the next five years alone, India will add over 46,000 megawatts of new coal-fired electric power plants while increasing its coal consumption by about 50 percent.

None of this is an argument for taking the issue of global warming lightly. It’s a serious matter. But then so is global poverty. And an essential element in fighting global poverty is – what else? – assuring reliable flows of inexpensive energy to the people who want it and can pay for it. And that’s just what countries like China and India are doing.

Gore’s entire movie is suffused with a feeling of dread, that we should feel guilty about emitting carbon dioxide because we humans are the problem. Even though it is the nature of civilization to consume energy – and lots of it – Gore and his ilk want us to stop cold turkey.

In Gore’s worldview, feeling guilty is an essential first step on the road to salvation. And the greater your guilt about using energy, the greater your virtue. Me, I’ll forgo the virtuous life in favor of continued respiration.

Magazine Finds ‘Eco-Friendly’ Woman to Have the Largest Carbon Footprint
By Paul Detrick | August 15, 2007 - 13:48 ET
Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who's got the lowest carbon footprint of them all? The "eco-conscious" one, says Marie Claire magazine.

An "urban hipster," a "mountain maven" and a "globe-trotter" competed to see who "[was] earth-friendly and whose carbon footprint [was] to blame for drowning polar bears and worse" in the September 2007 issue of Marie Claire.

The article, entitled, "Whose Carbon Footprint is the Smallest," found that globe-trotter "Josie," who "considers herself more eco-conscious than most people," had the largest carbon footprint.

Josie "recently earned a certificate in conservation biology from Columbia University" but "caught travel fever" last year and went to "China, Hong Kong, Germany Washington, Utah, Brazil, Ecuador and Costa Rica."

According to the judge of the competition, author of "The Rough Guide to Climate Change" Robert Henson, "Josie's wanderlust caused her footprint to balloon well above average."

Even the most virtuous of the eco-conscious can catch the travel fever, apparently. One of the contest judges suggested if Josie couldn't curb her travel, "The next best thing is to purchase carbon offsets (you pay a company to do something green-virtuous) to assuage guilt and lighten your eco-load."

In biological processes, it's used for urination and ejaculation.

We don't inhale oxygen and "emit" carbon dioxide.  Emission is a term in physics and engineering. In ecological discussion, they have come up with the term "exhaust emissions" though it has now become common to leave off the word "exhaust."  It would still mean production of Co2 minus the basic biological process.  That's the reason why you don't hear anyone else pointing it out.  You had to use the term in a way it has never been used to so you could sneer. It's a "convenient" time to finally notice the decay of the language.  

That being pointed out, you're right about the impossibility of stopping emissions, or slowing them down.  Which means that we'll have plenty of time to watch the process over the next few centuries and figure out if we're seeing a correlation or causation.  

IMO, if CO2's action in the laboratory weren't measured out totally for absorption, retention and re-emission and re-absorption, and if it weren't measured in conjunction with water vapor, I would think we have a correlation rather than a causation.  There are factors, too.

When you mention guilt, and it's a curious notion  that the one human emotion that should be avoided at all cost is guilt. To see a problem and organize to act on it, is that all motivated by guilt?  It's always quite selective today in the way it's applied, too.  Is charity motivated by guilt?  Is that the reason why we make it a tax write-off, to alleviate our guilt over our guilt?  

Is that what conservatives are all about? feeling guilty about feeling guilty?  Doubling one's super-ego against itself?  Double guilt is not the absence of guilt.  And the people who feel the least guilt are some of the most dangerous, repulsive human beings that there are.  

I really don't see the appeal of guilt here.  If people see a threat and they act on it, and try to organize socially against it, that is not guilt.  

Unfortunately, within the knowledge of acting on a social problem, there might be a certain despair when people realize that their individual efforts are as significant as flea bites.  That isn't from guilt, either.

cornerstone of most religions, so I dunno I'd single out any particular one.

I could point out all sorts of ways Republicans try to make OTHERS "feel guilty", but if you don't already see it, I doubt my explanation would help.

Gets too close to psychoanalysis, which is a fucking bullshit waste of time.   Better to just talk about the merits of the program, ie., exactly how much and what kind of picking up after ourselves is sensible?

good way to meet babes with tight asses who do it bareback, and might want their fur shaved, too.   http://www.treepeople.org/

Not a bad idea to break a sweat, either.   Actually, there are types of clumping bamboo that provide pretty good fences screens in warm climates.

"...part of the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan is made up of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

See, now THAT is genius!!!

are putting a lot more effort into saying such increbibly stupid things. Keep it up. You will be crowned "King of the Stupid" on this board yet.

... at least credit your source, since we know you don't think for yourself Bill

would have to work a bit harder to win it from you. Then again, you would not know that since you are...well...you know...

plagiarist is a given around these parts.

... assume you were referring to yourself being stupid for getting caught plagiarizing more "freeper" BS, right ?

Just because I wasn't expecting that you would do that.  

I wouldn't call it plagiarism, but it is lazy.  And IMHO, just out of respect for your source who did all the work of writing your opinion, you should attribute it, or at least say something like "me too."  

for dimbulbs like ashley and blenderama we really have to spell things out for them.

""I wouldn't call it plagiarism, but it is lazy.""

-- Modified on 8/21/2007 2:09:58 PM

he must be ...

ripping off a chick's joke is gay

And I'll bring back up



-- Modified on 8/27/2007 7:13:00 PM

Oh Billy Barr, what's up with all the name calling? And who ya calling a chick, ya short lil Clinton loving obsessive idolizing stalking douche bag!

xox, Marcella

PS
Hey speaking of Ice cream bring me some ya short lil pecker.

-- Modified on 8/28/2007 7:15:43 PM

you've always had sucha way with words...lol

xoxo