Al Gore Chained to a Tree?

Wed, 2007-10-31 09:51Emily Murgatroyd
Emily Murgatroyd's picture

Al Gore Chained to a Tree?

In August Al Gore asked, 'why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them constructing new coal-fired power plants,' and a group called the Rainforest Action Network took it to heart.

They recently invited the former Vice-President to join their November 16th protest against coal, and VP Gore is reported to be considering joining the action. His participation and possible arrest would bring international attention to the issue of coal combustion.

Coal's combustion processes produce the most carbon dioxide of the three fossil fuels, making it one of the main contributors to global warming. Some states are considering a ban on the development of new coal fired plants while Kansas has become the first state to deny a construction permit to such a plant over concerns of C02 emissions.

In Canada, Ontario has promised to shut down all coal fired plants by 2014.

Comments

‘why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them constructing new coal-fired power plants,’

Um, because young people like having electricity?

Just a guess …

Um, Rob, I think they like being alive more, so they should be chained up….

Wind = electricity

Biomass = electricity

Solar = electricity

Tides = electricity

In addition these are also cleaner than coal.

Geothermal = electricity

Hydro = electricity

Nuclear = electricity

Sock feet + carpet + doorknob = electricity

Gerbil + excercise wheel = electricity

AAA battery = electricity

Copper nail + lemon = electricity

True, they’re just as utterly futile as your suggestions, Kevin, but, Hey! No “greenhouse gases”!

But useless, and kind of immature – but, hey, I’ve come to expect it. 

“useless”

I think you’re starting to catch on.

It’s refreshing to find someone who’s willing to admit to their true value to this planet.
I agree, you are useless…

Kevin Grandia, if you’re looking for ‘maturity’ you could do with starting on your ‘journalism’ and providing well researched, well balanced articles of which I’ve seen little evidence from you!

Regarding climate and sources of energy as you well know hydrocarbons provide 80% of mans current energy, the balance is provided by nuclear, wind, solar and hydro.

To move man around the planet on a daily basis petrol (and diesel) has been the No.1 method for 100yrs and is the only viable and efficient method to date. Hybrid vehicles are being forced on manufacturers by political controls, legislation and interference but are regarded by most engineers as ‘white elephants’ and an engineering cul-de-sac.

Namely politicians are forcing business (auto manufacturers) and the civilian population into inefficient (heavy) and half-baked technologies that will cost man overall. We may well be forced into more nuclear and electric drive vehicles but make no mistake this is a costly and misguided perversion of the natural course of engineering with no benefits for climate.

Politicians are now running transport the way they run their finances. With incompetance, ignorance and not to the benefit of the population they purport to represent.

… equals electricty output in quantities even remotely adequate to our needs.

Since we have a limited number of rivers we can dam to create clean hydro-electric power, we are forced to burn things to run generators. The things we burn have to be cheap enough to make electricity affordable. Since you climate change alarmists oppose coal, oil or natural gas as generator fuel, why are you not campaigning for nuclear power plants as a GHG-free source of energy?

Its mostly because they are not. Same goes for Hydro. I remember reading that the contruction (cement production needed), mining, transport, and breeding of the nuclear fuel, all total up to the same carbon emissions as a natural gas powerplant. So while nuclear fission is emission free the other portions of nuclear process are not. However that being said, it is better than Coal. I would go so far as to assume that Hydro dam construction and cement needed for its structure also has a significant carbon emission footprint. Though over its functional life it also tends to generate little carbon. However, dams have other environmental impacts as well including methyl mercury release etc.

By the way to both you and Rob. Wind for example accounts for approximately 20% of electricity production in Denmark, 9% in Spain, and 7% in Germany.

As for solar potential, the amount of solar energy available to the Earth in one minute exceeds global energy demand for a year. Meaning much solar is untapped.

As for tidal power its still in its infancy in prototypes, the world’s first grid-connected turbine, generating 300 kW, started generation on November 13, 2003, in the Kvalsund, south of Hammerfest, Norway, with plans to install a further 19 turbines.

Biomass, being of course biofuels, likely the replacement for fossil fuels, so id hardly call them unable to meet our energy demands because something is going to need to very shortly.

Plus the fact that our current energy “needs” are not really needs. We can most quickly meet our real energy needs by not wasting energy in the first place.

Exactly, VJ. Grandma doesn’t “need” to heat her house this winter. How selfish and decadent can you get?! Who does she think she is? Louis XIV?

You are wasting electricity by spouting your dishonest crap here. I’m not going to waste any more responding to a liar like you, Rob.

Promises, promises …

VJ, everytime someone debates with you about global warming you lose the plot and call them ‘liars’. This isn’t very adult, at least it isn’t when you don’t back up this strong opnion with some facts!

You don’t appear to add anything to the debate (you don’t have any facts) and don’t have a grasp of the real science out there (like most ‘in-denial’ one-eyed-eco-muppets) or a grasp of how to discuss a topic in any depth.

Grow up and stop being such a loser. You’re letting your side down coz God knows they need all the help they can get!

Carl wrote:

“As for solar potential, the amount of solar energy available to the Earth in one minute exceeds global energy demand for a year.”

And yet, amazingly, in spite of this, Global Warming(tm) is caused by some guy driving an SUV.

The Earth’s average surface temperature of 15 °C (288 K) is about 33 °C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. Yet somehow that atmosphere manages to significantly change the temperature of the earth…..or perhaps is it our energy demands are just that small in comparrison to the emount of energy thats hitting the planet. Further its quite amazing how the atmospheric composition can make such a difference to….just look at Venus or Mars for too much or to little greenhouse gases…..seriously Rob I know far more about science than you do, play another game.

So you are saying there are SUVs on Venus?

Who’da thunk it!

“I know far more about science than you do”

Illustrating the axiom that little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Rob is too ignorant to realize how ignorant he is. Rob, don’t imagine that you can persuade anyone to agree with you when you expose your ignorance repeatedly.

According to my old Webster:
jester n. one who jests; a professional fool, originally attached to the court or lord’s manor.
I wonder…is he a fool, or attached to someone’s court?
Perhaps both?

Global warming isn’t just caused by one guy in an SUV, even if he is a moron.
However one guy can do something about it.

“However one guy can do something about it.”

Let’s overlook for a moment the rather foolish hyperbole that humans have changed the weather. What remains is the preposterous notion that you can change it back.

Australia, we are told, emits 1.2% of the world’s total CO2. If a entire western industrial country of over 20 million comitted mass-suicide and utterly ceased to exist, CO2 emissions would presumably decrease by only 1.2%. Now get your calculator and tell me what on 20.5 millionth of 1.2% works out to – assuming your “one guy” immediately killed himself, and had his corpse disposed of in an eco-friendly manner.

The fact is “one guy” couldn’t do anything about your hypothetical apocalypse, nor could 20.5 million “guys”.

Your little slogans are banal, vapid bromides; which is entirely appropriate to the situation.

If Rob “immediately killed himself, and had his corpse disposed of in an eco-friendly manner”, whether there would be a greater than normal reduction in CO2 emissions?
Although he’s only “one guy”, he does seem to rant and rave an excessive amount.

Tom, VJ, Femack, Steve L, etc. Please ignore Rob. He isn’t interested in contributing anything towards achieving a better understanding of the issues. He’s only interested in disparaging non-deniers. You only encourage him.

Hopefully, at some point, in the interests of maintaining a more mature level of discourse, DeSmogBlog will give Rob a warning. And if he persists in his juvenile slander, while contributing nothing of substance, give him the boot.

Tom, what Rob is pointing out to you is that whether you live or die you cannot change climate. This is not a point scoring exercise, this is a fact of science. Mans CO2 forcings (if any) do not amount to a pint of beer in an Olympic sized swimming pool. Stop point scoring and grow up. Do you get the point or not?

Instead of wasting time here, why aren’t you campaigning for more nuclear? Besides, I doubt most of the “alarmists” are against coal, oil, natural gas as long as pollution from those things can be reduced. R&D of sequestration technology requires incentives. Sitting here pretending that certain physical properties of the atmosphere don’t exist doesn’t provide any incentive.

Putting faith in an unproven technology to solve a problem that is driven by human behaviour is wasting time. Sequestration is not proven and may cause new problems or it may simply shift the problem, not solve it. Jevons Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevon%27s_paradox) also demonstrates how using technology to improve efficiency can actually make the problem worse.

The solution to the problem can begin today and it doesn’t require a major sacrifice if the majority of people made “a small step for mankind.” That is, reduce, reuse, and recycle. Stop buying/using disposable products, for example. It’s not much on a personal level, but it is huge on a national level and doesn’t require any government action.

VJ, Steve L, other Losers - Doing nothing is clever. Doing nothing is considerably cheaper than doing something. Doing something involves the futile activity of curbing energy use, curbing car use, huge investments in changing our power sources, huge investments in climate con offset scams/schemes and achieving nothing at the end of it!

I think what Rob is pointing out to you misguided losers is that trying to change something at huge expense and achieving nothing at the end of this task (man cannot change the climate) is an act of ego, futility and stupidity unmatched in human history.

If you wish to run your own business or a country on the same basis as you plan to act on climate change I’ll give you less than 2 weeks to go completly tits-up bankrupt.

[x]

Deploying the age-old “Friday news dump,” President Barack Obama's Interior Department gave the green light on Friday, July 18 to companies to deploy seismic air guns to examine the scope of Atlantic Coast offshore oil-and-gas reserves.

It is the first time in over 30 years that the oil and gas industry is permitted to do geophysical data collection along the Atlantic coast...

read more