Gore at the Senate Environment Committee

Posted in Environment, Politics by George

I didn’t catch the whole thing, but I’ll list a few of the important points from the meeting today (3/21/2007). I’m not saying all of this is correct, I’m just mentioning this is what Gore is talking about today.

  • Gore does not believe that Nuclear Power is going to be a large part of the global warming solution
  • Gore believes a cap and trade system can be combined with a carbon tax. This is interesting, and I never thought that both problems could be combined together effectively.
  • Gore emphasizes the point that a conversion from our current economy to a “green” economy would not be as painful as many people project. This is because green energy will create jobs and “shift” the economy more than it will hurt it. In fact, he points out that in the long run, the economy may greatly benefit from a green energy conversion.
  • Are sunspots responsible for global warming? No, according to Gore. He mentions that certain areas of the atmosphere would get hotter (I don’t remember which areas, something about the troposphere vs. stratosphere) and that is not the case right now.
  • Senator Thomas (I think?) brought up the fact that “we can’t project the temperature tomorrow, how can we project it so far into the future?” This is the basic idea of weather versus climate (trends vs. deviations). Climate is a totally different animal than weather, and weather or not we can predict short-term weather has very little to do with whether we can predict long-term climate.

I didn’t catch the entire thing, or comment on most of it, but you can check out this liveblogging of the meeting.

Edit: If you want to watch the meeting, click here to or turn on CSPAN3.





9 Responses to “Gore at the Senate Environment Committee”

  1. Shaniqua Says:
    March 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Hehe. Caught a bit of that.

    1. Anyone that hobnobs at Davos, doesn’t represent the common man. Or humanity.

    2. If only we’d have spent money on education, more people may understand the issue. But weapons are a good investment too.

    3. Global warming — in one sense, it’s the great equalizer, if society won’t do it, mother nature lends a hand — on the other hand, 5-6 billion casualties gives those that remain more elbow room. For a while.

  2. Anonymous Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 10:36 am

    The nation needs to look at nuclear energy and debate if we want to go that route. Sure, there are risks but there is danger/risks in using oil and coal too.

  3. George Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Gore seems to think that nuclear power is not the way to go, or at least it is only going to be “a small part” of the solution.

    I’ll agree that it’s not a complete solution by any means, but I think nuclear, at least for the next 20-50 years, could be very useful on a massive scale for power generation, until technology gives us a cleaner way to generate power.

  4. Rob Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    I should do more research and find out why Gore doesn’t think nuclear energy is a viable option.

    What to do with the waste is a serious problem. But importing oil from nations that don’t like us much and the increase in CO2 by oil use aren’t good options either.

    I found the below and the links interesting to read.

    http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Greenpeace_founder_sup...

  5. Shaniqua Says:
    March 25th, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    from: LA Times

    National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is “Planet Gore.” The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.

    Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. …Gannett News Service recently reported that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.

    Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party’s strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

    The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It’s just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.

    The republicans will take care of you.

  6. Shaniqua Says:
    March 25th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    Damn that uncooperative Ctrl-V. Forgot the money shot in the previous quote:

    You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Sen. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.

    In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn’t build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let’s fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!

  7. Seth Cohen Says:
    March 26th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    It isn’t only Republicans who want to talk about nuclear energy as a possible solution to solve part to future energy problems.

    From a link from the wikipedia site From

    But, I agree, it is funny how some far some will go to deny global warming. I got a laugh at this article.

    http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2007/03/22/poli...

    People in Newport Beach (a high percentage Republican majority area) are discussing increasing the height of a sea wall to protect homes on Balboa Island. But they don’t want to say the sea level is rising because of global warming because that will make it to hot a political issue.

    I always get a laugh at people who cite the 1970s Newsweek article on this too.

  8. Kenny Says:
    March 29th, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    While everyone may want to say that conservatives aren’t doing anything and Republicans are not helping, I find it very hypocritical for Al Gore to be using 20 times the average energy a normal American’s house uses. Good Game Al. Don’t believe me? Here’s the link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI... >

  9. George Says:
    March 29th, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    I appreciate the comment, Kenny, but you’re a little late on the news.

    See my articles: “Al Gore’s Energy Usage,” and “Jumps in Logic and Al Gore.”



Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>