Global Warming is the New Evolution
Posted in Environment, Politics by George
The Federal Way School district in Seattle, WA temporarily banned the showing of An Inconvenient Truth to students. Due to a complaint by a man named Frosty Hardison (who believes global warming is related to Jesus Christ’s second coming) and a small group of parents, the film was not shown to a seventh grade science class. The teacher who was going to show the film was reprimanded. Fortunately, the school lifted the ban on the film, and now requires that a contrasting viewpoint be presented as well, which I think is reasonable. But back to Frosty:
“You will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation — the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet — for global warming,” [Frosty Hardison] wrote in an e-mail to the Federal Way School Board.
Mr. Frosty Hardison criticizes the film because he claims it is anti-American. His complaint, to some extent, implies that he believes criticism of the USA is not appropriate for American schools. Sadly, this concept is self-contradictory. The USA would be nothing without the freedom to express ideas, whether they are pro or anti-American. I’m sure everyone has heard the following:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If you believe in America, in the freedoms we have, such as speech, the press, association, and the like, you have to believe in allowing anti-American speech, regardless of whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or annoyed. Does Mr. Hardison know what it means to be an American?
As for presenting a contrasting viewpoint to the film, I think that is a good idea. It always means more when you decide on what you believe on your own, rather than just learning what someone else has to say about it. Sifting through evidence is an important skill for these students.
Finding a legitimate contrasting viewpoint might be difficult, however, because the contrasting viewpoints to AIT seem to be written by people with conflicting interests. Richard Lindzen, probably the most prominent climate change skeptic, is a great example of that. Perhaps they’ll find something good somewhere… although climate change skeptics are disappearing rapidly these days.
January 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I haven’t seen Gore’s film but want to. I just haven’t gotten around to seeing it. I am a novice when it comes to the energy problem but I am trying to learn.
One critism I have heard (but don’t know how valid it is since I haven’t seen the film) is that those who see it come to the conclusion that we need to get off our dependence on oil. I think most rational people will agree to that. At least off our dependence to middle east oil.
Conservation is the best way to go. But we still need energy sources no matter how much we conserve. The problem I have heard is that people who see this film think alternative energy is the way to go.
I have heard that using hydogen for cars will take a ton of energy and ethanol produces more greenhouse gas than oil if you include the energy needed to produce ethanonal. Coal is the worst and I think most people who see this film would probably agree.
It looks like nuclear energy might be the only solution possible. The problem with nuclear energy is what to do with the spent fuel. But if you look at the amount of spent fuel that oil, ethanol, coal (and apparently coal production releases lots of uranium too) produce, it might be the best of bad alternatives.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Thanks for the comment, Luke. I’ll agree with you that the first criticism that you mention isn’t really a criticism at all. If the film convinces individuals that we need to transition from oil to a more sustainable energy source, it’s doing a good job.
As for hydrogen, ethanol, etcetera; it seems like there is not going to be one energy solution that solves all of the problems out there. More likely, we’re going to have to do our best to combine the energy sources we have in the cleanest and most efficient mix possible as we transition to purely green energy (what you refer to as “alternative energy”).
Nuclear energy is certainly one of the ways we can wean ourselves off of dirtier energy like coal. Yes, the drawbacks are nuclear waste, but as you mentioned, this drawback might be better than what we get from our current main energy sources.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Map of fossil fuel pollution
Red is most poluted.
California and the Ohio Valley had the most fossil-fuel-emitted carbon dioxide, while the Colorado region had the least. The scientists expected pollution from California and other western coastal states to drift east, but they found that the Rocky Mountains appeared to provide a barrier for the movement of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.
Air in the Mountain West, including Colorado, Idaho and New Mexico, was the cleanest, with about 370 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Air in the Eastern United States, which includes Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New York, contained an additional 2.7 parts per million of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel sources. Air in Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia had nearly twice as much additional carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, 4.3 parts per million.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
link to story
January 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
http://today.uci.edu/news/images/carbon_display_he...
here is the map
February 1st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
UC Berkeley receives $500 million for energy research
British Petroleum today announced that it is giving UC Berkeley $500 million to “develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment.”
The university will partner with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois, but will take the lead in the newly-created Energy Biosciences Institute. The EBI will “initially focus its research on biotechnology to produce biofuels — that is, turning plants and plant materials, including corn, field waste, switchgrass and alage, into transportation fuiels,” university officials said in a news release.
London-based BP, the world’s largest oil company, will pay the $500 million over a 10 year period. The state of California is expected to give an additional $40 million for the project.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Thanks for the comment. The more money being poured into energy research, in my opinion, the better!
Here is the link, for those interested:
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_032115808.h...