Is Gore waging an "all-out assault on all forms of fossil fuels" and will it hurt our economy?
I'm sure that by now, all of us are familiar with Al Gore and his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". You probably also know that automakers, scientists and politicians are busy in Washington making decisions on what steps, if any, to take to combat global warming and the greenhouse gases that are emitted from our exhaust pipes, factories and the like. While reading over some of the statements and testimony in the hearings, something really caught my eye. According to Ralph Hall, a Republican from Texas, the suggested cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases amount to an "all-out assault on all forms of fossil fuels" that could eliminate jobs and hurt the economy. That sounds pretty serious, and I was wondering if any of our readers would like to comment on that. I have some opinions of my own, and perhaps I will write an editorial about it in the next few days if you readers are interested. Let me know, and let us all know what you personally think.[Source: The New York Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Fred Anderson 11:03AM (3/22/2007)
all out assault? the oil company has how many lobbiests and politicians? and many varied advertisements about how "green" they are. who killed the electric car? one guy stands up tall enough to be heard and he is threatening western civilization!
Reply
Earl 8:21PM (3/21/2007)
I would imagine that a Republican congressman from Texas is up to his ears in funding from Big Oil. He's bought and paid for by Exxon, so it's just natural he's going to defend them.
Reply
Tim 8:38PM (3/21/2007)
If you’re NOT an Ecofascist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-fascism and you have an open mind, you will want hear both sides of a “global warming” story so you make up your own mind. Take a look at this movie titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on YouTube. http://youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
According to the Ice Core data, Co2 increases AFTER temperature increases and therefore increased Co2 is a RESULT of warming, not a cause! Warmer oceans release Co2. Climate change is caused by solar activity, not cow farts or fossil fuels as Al “Green” Gore or other militant leftists would have us believe. There is a lot of very good info in this video.
The “Global Warming” hoax is the socialist's grab at money and power. It's politics, not science. They need us to surrender our money, power and freedoms to gov’t so they can “protect” us from ourselves. Oh, the nanny state, comrade.
Reply
Scatter 8:55PM (3/21/2007)
That programme was junk science of the worst kind. It should not be held up as a balanced alternative view to anthropogenic climate change. Serious analysis of the core "science" behind it can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled and
http://www.news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece and
http://www.comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2359057.ece
Sorry people, it ain't a conspiracy!
Reply
frank78 9:19PM (3/21/2007)
I will be checking out that video you recommended. Human caused global warming is certainly a subject that I think still has room for debate. Both sides do a pretty good job with their arguments.
I keep an open mind still.
People routinely point out the motivation by Big Oil or the coal industry to discredit human caused global warming- it's rather easy to point out their obvious motivation for that. It's also easy to point a finger at a very wealthy, powerful industry and call them the bad guy; the enemy. However, one thing that probably doesn't enter most people's concsciousness is the motivation of people who are promoting human caused global warming, calling it undeniable. The motivation could be either:
A) simply accepting what has been repeated to them over and over again as being true. Then deciding to spread the word on what they have heard, because if it's all over the news- it must be true.
OR
B) because human global warming (whether it's truth or fallacy) and governmental action to force rules is a nice way to attack big business, while trying to enforce and embolden socialist ideas and principle.
My personal take is that the govt does nothing well- especially when it comes to trying to regulate business or the economy. Market forces (can anyone say even higher record gas prices this summer?) and public sentiment will be overall more effective at changing the energy and auto industry than proposals by politicians in Washington. Toyota and Honda are doing well for a reason.
Reply
Sam 9:19PM (3/21/2007)
Wow, the comment above is sad. Why would you believe the views of 3% of scientists over 97% who dispute the characterizations in the video you linked to? Why do you think it's "lefties" doing a money-grab with global warming alarmism, when the real money lies with the right? Oil companies, King Coal and the auto manufacturers are strongly intent on maintaining the status quo, and have billions more at stake than anyone advocating for Global Warming action on the left. Despite all that self-interest, more and more of them are coming around to the truth. Why would BP, Shell, Duke Energy, American Electric, Honda and on and on call for immediate action on global warming if they didn't believe the science? Do any of the global warming deniers have an answer for that? Of course not.
Back to the point of the post, I don't think the US runs any risk of taking steps that would be an all-out assault on fossil fuels or ruin our economy (politically impossible to take steps that drastic, first of all). A carbon tax, including a gas tax is supported by mainstream economists from all parts of the spectrum, and is obviously not destroying the European economy. Further, it's not a regressive tax, as poor people are more likely to use mass transit. Give it 5 years to start rising, and raise the tax, slowly at first, and you give everyone plenty of time to buy replacement vehicles that get better mileage, and the auto OEMs plenty of time to design and build cars with better mileage. Completely sensible.
Reply
frank78 9:35PM (3/21/2007)
Oh yeah, I wanted to expand on something I brought up above- market forces. I don't know about everyone else, but I have had a huge power bill the last few months. I'm already a conserver in many ways and it has been a mild winter where I live, so I was very surprised. I keep on trying to find ways to conserve energy, as are other people who are being hit hard in the wallet by higher energy costs.
The same will happen this summer when gas prices are over $3 in every state. You will see car dealerships selling hybrids like crazy. Once diesels have come back to the US within 2 years, they'll begin start selling very well too. For us fans of green auto tech this is excellent.
I expect to see a few more people riding bikes for short trips around the city. I live in a sprawled out city, so if it happens here it will happen almost anywhere. Even bus ridership has been up where I live- even over the last 6 months.
Not sure if anyone else ever notices this, but there are more scooters on the road nowadays too.
That's market forces driving behavioral changes.
It will continue. Once solar power at the consumer level is close to or as cheap as traditional power (less than 10 years) we'll see alot more of them being bought too.
There is good reason to be skeptical of govt enforced energy laws because of the dynamic of political power.
Reply
bmart14 9:38PM (3/21/2007)
Human vanity is a driving force behind the man-made global warming religion. A religion is has become to those zealots who believe completely in the power man has over nature. Though the inconsistencies in their beliefs are stark. On the one hand we are no better than protozoa but by our driving SUV, we are melting the ice caps. They brush aside that Greenland was once lush way before man invented the Suburban or the light bulb. Nature is a complicated system. Trying to gain mastery over the chaos is foolish. There are many instances of the unintended consequences of good intentions. Just as volcanoes can cool the planet with one eruption, so can the Sun during a period of increased activity cause changes to the planet beyond our capabilities.
Is the Earth warming? The evidence seems to say yes. Is this normal? More than likely yes. Are we the MAIN cause? Common sense would say no, but that doesn't pay for government grants or make you into a prophet. In the end, it's a power grab by those wanting to control your freedom. If the market demands conservation or a new energy source, it will happen. Government intervention will only slow our natural progress down while taking away our freedoms.
Reply
Greeny 10:13PM (3/21/2007)
I believe that global warming is a problem, and I also believe that taking steps to help reduce global warming pollution would hurt the economy but only temporarily. But I'm not worried about that. What I am worried about is that oil is not a renewable resource. It WILL run out sometime. And if our infrastructure still relies on oil when we run out, then that is the final ingredient for complete chaos. Everything would just shut down.
I think most of us fail to realize just how dependent our lives are on oil. When it runs out, it'll be just like the power going off in your home: You never really know how much you need it, until you don't have it anymore.
So maybe taking an "all-out assault on all forms of fossil fuels" isn't such a bad idea.
Reply
rnode 10:28PM (3/21/2007)
With all due respect to the scientific expertise of Tim and bmart14, I'd prefer to listen the community of scientists working in the field of climatology. In overwhelming numbers, qualified individuals on this topic would disagree with the YouTube video you reference and your own conclusions on Global Warming.
But, perhaps you two spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Reply
meddeviceengineer 12:45AM (3/22/2007)
Its been 80F in March here when its normally 65F.
The fire season started 2 months early this year in
Southern California.
Our goal is to cut our use of carbon based fuel by 80%
Its the only ethical thing to do.
Reply
ch02ce 11:48PM (3/21/2007)
I cannot believe some of you are still debating global warming on a scientific level, especially using Youtube videos to prove a point. (Not to mention why are you on the Green Autoblog)
Anyways, of course job loss will occur, unquestionably. However, these jobs will be made up in new sectors of the economy. The change away from fossil fuels will create new industries. It would be unreasonable to assume that every oil and gas worker who loses a job just goes on welfare.
Reply
Geoff 11:51PM (3/21/2007)
What do you think of people who tell you that you're an idiot and you don't know how to do your job? Especially if you're an expert and have spent 10+ years getting your qualifications?
That's pretty much what most global warming 'skeptics' are saying to people have who spent their life studying weather / climatology / etc. Most of you skeptics haven't read a journal paper (ever) or even know how a cloud forms. Your opinions are totally worthless - but you broadcast them loud and clear - as if shouting the loudest might make it correct. One can only hope karma comes around and someone with no idea tells you that you don't know how to do your job today.
So, before totally trashing the lifetime work of many (many) eminent scientists, I suggest you actually go and read some journal papers on C02 and it's role in the atmosphere. Or at least read the IPCC summary report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf). Perhaps even think about the CFCs and the ozone hole. CFCs emitted by humans -> ozone hole grows and then CFCs restricted -> ozone hole shrinks - if you think that humans can't effect the world climate.
Reply
frank78 12:12AM (3/22/2007)
Whether humans do play a role in global warming or not (we're probably just exacerbating a normal warming that would have been going on if we never existed), the main thing is whether or not the govt should be the ones to make these types of decisions for us.
High energy prices will do plenty to tilt the scales of our behavior. As will new technology like the kind we read about on this blog and other sources. Once people see how being energy efficient can save them money in a clear cut manner, their behavior will change.
Our economy is set to prosper greatly from the oncoming green technology storm. I fear that govt interference into this arena will hurt the economy instead and do no more for the environment than market forces will do on their own.
Reply
oobflyer 1:28AM (3/22/2007)
Those in the oil industry have plenty of time to plan a career change, but they better start now. As far as the comments from dittohead Tim - wow. I bet you also believe the Earth is 6000 year old, eh?
Reply
Jackie Stevens 10:38AM (4/05/2007)
Al Gore's message is that unless we stop burning fossil fuels, we will face irrevocable environmental destruction. He desn't come out and say it because he doesn't want to create hopelessness, but he means that the planet will no longer support life as we know it unless we change now. So the arguments from some of the Texas Congressmen ring particularly hollow. Basically-- if we try to save the planet, our economy may suffer.
I can't believe that the global warming debate has extended so long. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased 36% since the industrial revolution. This is an undisputed fact. Carbon dioxide is known to trap heat in the atmosphere causing temperatures to rise. This is also an undisputed fact which scientists have been aware of for over a hundred years.
Nine of the ten hottest years on record have occurred this decade. The Greenland ice cap is melting at a rate three times faster than it was just five years ago. The Larson B ice shelf (1,268 square miles) collapsed in 2002. Yet we are still debating?
Reply
Mush 11:44AM (3/22/2007)
Are you kidding me?! Even the most mild of global warming prognostications spell a significant increase in human hardship across the globe, whether it be from desertification, more violent weather (more often), rising sea levels, or shifting agricultural belts.
Economic costs necessary for global warming prevention are a drop in the bucket compared to costs incurred by global warming disasters. Agriculture in California is worth $25 billion annually- this value won't simply be shifted to Oregon or Washington as favorable growing conditions move north. The economic damage from Katrina is expected to exceed $150 billion.
These are just two examples- agroindustry in one region of the world and one storm. Add up the economic costs worldwide and soon you're not just talking hundreds of billions of dollars, you're talking about real money!
Regardless of the amount of political will there is to shift the status quo toward alternative solutions and pay for global warming prevention upfront, its clear that an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure.
Reply
Lucien Takar 2:28AM (3/22/2007)
Change may hurt or hinder the economy now, but we have to look to the future, the big picture. The fight against Global Warming is a fight for the future. Make sacrifices now and reap the benefits in the future. I may pay a little more now for all the recycled products I use and keeping my electric cost down in my own home requires extra effort about being conscious of what I'm doing, but the purpose for all of that is to ensure a healthy and stable life for the future I have, and everyone else has, on this planet.
And where some aspects of Global Warming are natural, it's the unnatural aspect we can help to fight. When everyone uses a little less electricity, drives a little less, and tells all their friends and family to use a little less, that little add up to a lot.
Reply
2961883 1:16PM (3/22/2007)
I don't think we can say "that could eliminate jobs and hurt the economy" as an excuse. One day there will be no more fossil fuel. If we use biodiesel or ethanol, we can actually create more jobs.
Reply
Mike 3:24AM (3/22/2007)
Sweden has had good success at lowering CO2 emissions and growing their economy at the same time. So I guess it all depends on how we go about it.
Reply