| |
|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: RealClimate » Al Gore’s movie. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
RealClimate » Al Gore’s movie
by Decius at 10:57 am EDT, Jun 23, 2006 |
As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, here). There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye -- and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act.
OK, I watched it. Its worth watching. It does a good job of describing a number of troubling developments, and risks, in an accessible way. Unfortunately, the reaction is likely to be rooted in political assumptions. People on the left are likely to be wooed, and the film ends with a positively propagandist song by Melissa Etheridge with information about what you can do to reduce your carbon emissions interspersed with the credits. One wonders which they are more interested in getting the viewer to read. People on the right are likely to assume that its all a bunch of bullshit. This is not helped by a few points in the film that are debatable. People who find one point to disagree with are likely to blow the whole thing off it they are so inclined. The linked article provides some balanced criticisms. I'm concerned that the Katrina implication does go too far, as the question is, at least, debated. Furthmore, I was suprised to hear him praise Chineese cafe standards, as I recall watching a PBS program on Chineese environmentalism that argued that their standards were not directly comparable to American standards and claims that they had lower emmissions were disingenuous (I can't find a good link for that now). The fact is that these things shouldn't motivate you to toss the whole film in the bin. There are significant changes occuring in the environment, and there are real risks associated with them, and if you're not knowledgable about the subject this film offers a digestible starting point for thinking about it. |
| |
RE: RealClimate » Al Gore’s movie
by jlang at 12:01 am EDT, Jun 25, 2006 |
Decius wrote:
Furthmore, I was suprised to hear him praise Chineese cafe standards, as I recall watching a PBS program on Chineese environmentalism that argued that their standards were not directly comparable to American standards and claims that they had lower emmissions were disingenuous (I can't find a good link for that now).
The following is from NewScientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025574.000-kyoto-promises-are-nothing-but-hot-air.html The most alarming failure of greenhouse gas emissions reporting is thought to have occurred in China, the world's second largest emitter. In the late 1990s, when its economy was growing by 10 per cent a year, the Chinese government reported a dramatic fall in CO2 emissions to the UN climate change convention. It declared that, after a long period of steep increases, emissions had fallen from 911 million tonnes of carbon a year in 1996 to 757 million tonnes in 2000, a drop of 17 per cent. China said the fall in emissions was achieved by burning less coal, an assessment it based on a decline in coal production. Some analysts praised the country for using coal more efficiently, but that picture was called into doubt when declared coal production and emissions estimates resumed their fast rise. Estimates for 2004 put China's CO2 emissions above 1200 million tonnes. Most analysts now conclude that the drop in emissions was entirely illusory. It coincided with major changes in the organisation of the Chinese coal industry, which replaced state targets with a market system. "Emissions figures before 1996 were inflated because mine officials had production targets to meet, and declared they had met them when they had not," one analyst told New Scientist. By 2000, this effect had gone, and "subsequent figures for CO2 emissions are probably more accurate as a result." While the Chinese government may not have intentionally misled the international community over its emissions at the time, the incident reveals how easy it could be to fiddle official figures.
|
|
| |
RE: RealClimate » Al Gore’s movie
by noteworthy at 10:39 pm EDT, Jun 25, 2006 |
Decius wrote: I'm concerned that the Katrina implication does go too far, as the question is, at least, debated.
Here's one way to read the Katrina story in the context of the main themes of An Inconvenient Truth. Consider for a moment our inability to produce an adequate response to the kinds of natural and man-made disasters we're beginning to suffer with increasing frequency. Recognize that Katrina is only the tip of the iceberg -- pun intended -- when it comes to the things we are likely to see in the next century, if we do not act now. Even if you consider the best possible response to Katrina, we cannot expect to just let these things happen and deal with the consequences. We must make every effort to avoid the consequences where possible by not enabling the triggers that cause them. I don't think it's necessary to argue that global warming is causing more, and more violent, hurricanes and typhoons, in order to use Katrina as an illustrative example of how hard it is to manage the fallout from a major disaster. Gore makes this point when he asks the audience to contrast the 'refugees' from New Orleans with the millions that would be displaced by a significant and sudden rise in global sea levels. But the events don't lend themselves to too much direct comparison; a well-maintained levee at Lake Pontchartrain would do nothing to hold back a 20 foot rise in sea level. |
|
|
|
