Al Gore on Crises Three

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

Al Gore on Crises Three

crisis1 Al Gore was in Chicago last week, but without his PowerPoint deck. He was part of the Speaker Series, the post-Obama political craze. Gore talked about the role of carbon fuel in the world’s three crises: climate, financial, and security.

Naturally, the crowd was warm to the man who should have been the nation’s 43^rd President, especially his campaign manager’s hometown, where he received 73% of the popular vote, contributing well to his national victory. (No, I haven’t gotten over the 2000 election. Have you?) A few people heckled him, yelling “Liar, Liar!”; out front, PETA had its own protest, arguing that Gore doesn’t go far enough.

Now, there are plenty of unknowns about global warming: we don’t know how quickly climate change is happening, what the ultimate effects will be, or how to reverse the damage. (Manhattan may be underwater, but Buffalo, on the shores of the world’s largest freshwater repository, may rise again!) But we do know that the climate is changing, and change is difficult. The joy that may be felt in Buffalo, Detroit, and Duluth will be offset by decimated industries, forced migration, and new dustbowls. The culprit is carbon, and Gore is right about that.

Because the U.S. is dependent on oil, we are also dependent on people who do not have America’s best interests are heart: the Saudis, Hugo Chavez, Sarah Palin. Iraq was a tasty target for the other 43^rd President’s military fantasies because it has oil, unlike North Korea. Saddam Hussein was no prize, but neither are a lot of other international leaders. And at least a few of those less savory folks are in Africa, which is also rich in oil. We give these people leverage over us because we need cheap oil, so score another point for Gore.

The relationship between carbon and the financial crisis is tougher. Some of the volatility in currency and commodity markets is related; oil is priced in dollars, and most Arab nations have tied the value of their currencies to the dollar. The U.S. automakers are in trouble in part because their fleets were overloaded with gas guzzlers, but those firms have long histories of financial troubles. Most of the financial crisis is due to over-extension in the financial services sector, not commodities. Heck, the Saudis don’t use Western financial services, because Muslims do not pay or receive interest. Sure, there’s been a real-estate bust in Calgary, but oil didn’t contribute to the bust in Sacramento.

Ford and GM both sell hybrids, not that you’d necessarily know that. GM has a great new electric car scheduled for release next year, the Chevy Volt; the mystery is why it isn’t out sooner. Chrysler has been working on electric, hybrid, and hydrogen-powered cars for the last decade, but where are they? Lee Iacocca saved Chrysler during its last bailout by introducing the minivan. If TK could pull out an electric minivan this time around, maybe the company’s situation would be different.

I suspect that Gore tried to tie the financial crisis to carbon because it made for a nice three-point speech. He should have argued that the financial crisis is a contributor to the carbon crisis. Sure, a shuttered Washington Mutual branch uses less power than an open one, but that’s a small factor. Banks and investment companies have no money to fund new ventures right now, so an inventor with a great idea for renewable power generation or better battery technologies would find no easy source of funds to get the product ready for market.

Gore had a great comment: “We’re deceived by what seems to be common sense,” he said. He was talking about how people used to think pollution wasn’t a problem because the sky seemed so vast when it’s thin relative to the total size of the earth and of space. It’s a wise observation about the climate, security, and financial crises, too. All defy easy solutions, but that does not mean that they cannot be solved. With creativity and a willingness to challenge the status quo (a real challenge, not simply yelling “liar, liar” or rioting in the streets), things will change.

Tags: Al Gore, carbon crisis, Chevy Volt, Chicago, climate change, climate crisis, global warming, Green City, Inconvenient Truth, Speaker Series

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm and is filed under Current Events. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

JonCummings
Gore seems to have won his "Inconvenient Truth" argument, with plenty of Republicans jumping on the green bandwagon these days. It seems to me that what we need now is a national conversation about whether the Carbon Tax or Cap-and-Trade is the better solution for a government-imposed lowering of fossil-fuel emissions. Because while Obama is publicly for a form of C&T, there's still a considerable divergence of views on the topic.

The time to have this national conversation, of course, was LAST year, when gas prices were smacking us all in the face and hybrids were flying out of Toyota dealerships. But as with many things that didn't get done (or got done atrociously) during the Bush administration, we're left to pick up the pieces now. I'm actually rooting (just a little) for gas prices to shoot back up, so that those among us who think only in $$$$$$ will get their eyes back on the ball and stop whining about how much more expensive green energy will be.

And BTW, the Volt's not out already because it's nowhere near ready. From what I hear, they're not even close on a workable battery yet. If it comes out on time next year, it will be a shock. (Get it?)

autodidact
The word on the John Batchelor show this weekend was that there are enough Democratic senators who oppose cap and trade that it is effectively dead. And with it goes the funding for many of Obama's programs, which he promised would be "paid for." (i.e. not deficit spending) Of course, his campaign promise of fiscal responsibility should raise loud guffaws in all but the most credulous, regardless of party affiliation.

Some of the most rabid global warming alarmists seem to favor the carbon tax anyway. It is the least offensive to me.

Personally, I favor taxing all those NOT burning sufficient coal (or oil, gas, anything carbon at all) to fend off the next ice age, which is actually overdue, if you look at paleoclimate cycles.

The danger in having a national debate is that possibly respectable scientists who have shown the holes in Gore's cherished climate models will at long last get wide exposure, and the whole global warming religion will suffer mass apostacy. I could quote many of them, but instead I will end with a news item with some food for thought.

In the February 27 Calgary Herald, Ben Quine, the director of space engineering at York University, talks about a Canadian satellite which is designed to help understand the carbon cycle. (The US launched a big satellite -- the Orbiting Carbon Observatory -- earlier this year, but a malfunction destroyed it.) The job of the Canadian satellite, like the OCO, is to "find earth's missing greenhouse gas." D'oh! Missing greenhouse gas?!

Quoting the article again: "The problem is that where carbon dioxide comes from, and where it is sucked out of the atmosphere, remains poorly understood. 'Clearly, if we're going to do something about climate change, we need to understand where CO2 is produced and particularly where it's absorbed.That's much less clear,' Quine said."

So, even assuming that CO2 is a predominant factor in climate change (I'm convinced it is not), if we don't understand where it is produced (human activity is a rather small percentage of total CO2 production) and where it is absorbed (a very important piece of knowledge, no?), then I find it eminently reasonable to question whether we know enough to be trying to regulate it. Not to mention all the other major inputs in computer climate models which are not clearly understood.

Scientists even admit they don't understand the cooling since 2001. They are flummoxed!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/wid/18298287/

We. Just. Don't. Know. (Hint: "We" includes Al Gore.)

autodidact
By the way, Ann, anthropogenic global warming seems to have become the status quo. I'm challenging it, just as you say.

JonCummings
You're also pissing into the wind. I hope you wear a poncho. I love how, every time you launch a challenge to the 99 percent of scientists who wholeheartedly endorse the research on climate change, you make a big show of quoting ONE recent article. I wish I could unload a truck filled with climate-change research on your doorstep every time you do it.

And I'm gonna guess that whoever's pontificating on the John Batchelor show doesn't know much of anything about what Democratic senators are actually going to do. Moderates might yank some of the teeth out of C&T, but they'll probably allow the establishment of a policy that can be expanded later.

autodidact
There are many people who stood up for truth and got pissed on. Winston Churchill, for example. Later, he showered the yellow stuff off and saved his country. Those who oppose carbon legislation now will one day, I believe, be viewed as Semmelweis. Telling the truth, yet scorned. Even a few in the media are starting to catch on now.

Your 99 percent figure is pure manufactured malarkey. "Wholeheartedly endorse" is just beyond the pale. Even if you read the IPCC reports they contain qualifications. In any case, truth is not established on the basis of a vote. It is established on the basis of evidence and logic.

I'll admit I could be wrong. Al Gore can't allow himself that honesty. But again, logic dictates that if you have a complex climate model, and you admit you don't understand all the inputs very well -- the IPCC report admits this, but it is true whether they admit it or not -- you cannot be certain of the conclusion.

It all rests on the models. I am not a climate scientist. There are two areas I would like to explore when I have the time.

Number one, CO2 levels and greenhouse effect are not linear. At some point you reach a saturation, where increasing the CO2 will not cause much additional greenhouse warming. (This is obvious, because in the distant past, when CO2 was twice what it is now, or five times, or ten times, we did not have runaway warming.) What level is the likely saturation point? We may already be near.

Second, I have been told that the models depend on an amplifying effect from water vapor to produce their predictions of extreme temperature rise. All the major models do this, and they assume water vapor is constant. However, I've seen data showing a decadal trend of decreasing relative humidity. If this is so, then the models are out the window. If the models depend on water vapor to amplify their CO2 warming, and if water vapor is not trending as predicted in their models, then the predictions are no good. I don't know if I'm right about this, but it could be the nail in the coffin for the whole notion of regulating CO2.

I don't know, but I mean to find out. And if I'm wrong, I will change.

Funny, Al Gore is always pointing to the North Pole. Yet, Antarctic sea ice is on a multidecadal increase. I guess Al just doesn't get around that much. If you look at the entire globe instead of just the Arctic, sea ice area trends are not precipitously declining. A mild oscillation with perhaps a slight downward tilt. It does not look alarming. This is the kind of information the public needs to see. Truth -- actual measurements. Not computer model fantasies.