What Gore's Nobel Prize might mean for cleaner cars
I'm trying to figure out how Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win (which he shared with UN climate change scientists) last week might affect the green car world. The general theme from the articles I've read on the win over the weekend (the ones that aren't rightwing hit pieces or speculations on a possible Gore 2008 presidential run) seem to agree that the value in Gore's win is that it finally moves the whole global warming/climate change/is it happening debate off to the side. Take this, for example, from today's Chicago Tribune:
Over the last year, views on climate change seem to have transformed faster than the weather itself.
In almost impossibly rapid fashion, a once widely disputed theory has become a mainstream worry. There are waiting lists for hybrid cars.
In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, the prize committee gave much of the credit for that shift to this year's winners...
Humans are affecting the environment, the new widespread conventional wisdom goes, this causes conflict, and people (Gore, scientists, and individuals) now know how to take action to affect it for the better. For those of us who read and write about the environment (and cars, natch) every day, this might not really seem like a big shift, but I get the feeling that there is something changing out there that's larger than what has come before. Certainly, there is a lot of distance yet to cover, but I think Gore's win is a big step forward towards getting our less eco-conscientious brothers and sisters to take a longer look at just what that hybrid premium is worth, whether biodiesel is the way to go, calculating the carbon impact of corn ethanol or - maybe - starting to save up for a Tesla WhiteStar. Or even learning for the first time what the Tesla WhiteStar is.
What does the win mean to you?
UPDATE: Ford exec says Oscar win was more important for hybrid sales. Via Automotive News (subs req'd).
Related:
[Source: Chicago Tribune, YouTobe]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tony Belding 12:29PM (10/14/2007)
I think it's an outrage. I don't think this is going to cause global warming skeptics to lay down and die -- certainly I'm not planning to. If anything, we'll be energized by the sheer absurdity of this turn of events.
When demagogues like Gore are being heard, but voices of reason (like Bjorn Lomborg for example) are not, it just means we have to redouble our efforts. The future of our world is too important to give up on.
Reply
ug 12:44PM (10/14/2007)
You douches should team up with the flat earth society. After all, power in numbers, right?
Reply
susan.kraemer 4:50PM (10/14/2007)
Yeah, they seem to think that if they crucify JUST one man they can shut up the science and make it go away.
But science publications like National Geographic carried global warming stories for a decade before Gores movie bought it to the attention of the mouthbreathers.
If you have old National Geographics consider donating them to schools or libraries.
Reply
Golden Boy 9:41PM (10/14/2007)
This so-called "planetary emergency" that Gore had 8 years to help fix during the 90's? What exactly did he accomplish then? The same "planetary emergency" that Gore writes about in his mansion with heated swimming pool? A few months ago Sen Inhofe challenged Gore to reduce his own carbon footprint to below the avg of 20 Americans combined, and yet Gore refused, instead he fell back on his carbon credits swindle. Let Gore walk the walk while he lectures us, or thinking Americans will continue to ridicule this pathetic little man, regardless of how highly the International Left approves of him.
Reply
GreyFlcn 5:54PM (10/14/2007)
==but voices of reason (like Bjorn Lomborg for example) are not==
Lomborg is not a voice of reason.
He's a voice of academic dishonesty.
He's been cited by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for:
1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results;
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
==But science publications like National Geographic carried global warming stories for a decade before Gores movie bought it to the attention of the mouthbreathers.==
Gore's been at this longer than you know.
http://greyfalcon.net/lindzen.png
Interesting to note, that this was published in "American Tobacco Magazine" in 1989
http://greyfalcon.net/smoking
Reply
GreyFlcn 5:58PM (10/14/2007)
Oops, wrong one.
http://greyfalcon.net/lindzen2.png
Reply
Chris M 5:58PM (10/14/2007)
We seem to be at an impasse, both sides trotting out their experts to bolster their own arguments. I'm not going to argue here which side has the best evidence and arguments (though the evidence is clear), rather, I'll discuss results.
What if, after spending money and effort reducing "greenhouse gasses", we find Al Gore was wrong? Well, we'll have wasted millions of dollars and considerable effort on solving a non-problem, but we'll have also reduced fossil fuel use and improved efficiency - that alone would justify most of the time and money spent.
What if we do nothing, and then later find out the "global warming skeptics" were wrong? Well, we'll be suffering major disasters as sea levels rise and climates shift, trillions in seaside property losses (in spite of billions spent for emergency levees), massive economic disruptions, major refugee problems worldwide, and perhaps even major outbreaks of famine, epidemics and war. Also, we'll still end up having to spend additional millions to reduce greenhouse gasses, just to keep the problems from getting even worse.
Considering those two possible outcomes, prudence dictates precautions be taken. Sorry, Tony, but you and your "What, Me Worry?" crowd are going to be overruled.
Too bad that politics has been injected into what should be a simple scientific debate. Because it was Gore, a liberal democrat that has championed the "do something about global warming" side, some right wing conservative Republicans had a knee-jerk reaction to push the "no need to worry" do-nothing anti-global warming agenda.
Reply
Scatter 6:15PM (10/14/2007)
Politics has to be involved in order for a solution to be found. The scientists can't do it on their own because there's no simple technological fix.
Reply
Tony Belding 12:17AM (10/15/2007)
What if, after spending money and effort reducing "greenhouse gases", we find Al Gore was wrong? Well, we'll have wasted many trillions of dollars and the resources they represent, sacrificed the lives of millions we could have saved if we'd applied those resources more sensibly, and possibly sabotaged our civilization's only chance of getting through the coming crises of peak oil, overpopulation and global industrialization.
I have people telling me I'm anti-science. . . No. Al Gore is anti-science. He is the chosen prophet of the End Times for a FAITH-BASED movement. I lump them in the same boat with creationists.
Reply
Mik_Cal 1:18AM (10/15/2007)
I'm scratching my head...are you Tony Belding and your ilk, climate scientists? You are attacking Al Gore but you seem to attacking an entire profession represented by IPCC and just about every qualified academic who studies this stuff. This is the equivalent of telling materials scientists to use tin instead of silicon in semiconductors...with no qualifications in that matter.
Reply
Der Alte 1:37AM (10/15/2007)
I wouldn't call people concerned about global warming "faith based" and lump them into the same boat as creationists. That statement is absurd, insulting and the height of ignorance. I doubt you'll find a single creationist on the IPCC or a single credible scientist who approaches the subject of global warming on faith. Even leading figures in the skeptic movement are starting to come around and agree that there is something to this global warming thing. To try and paint everyone who thinks there is something to global warming as a fanatic is so absurd, it shows the person making the statement to be the truly ignorant one who really does not know anything about the crap they are spouting off.
That said, I'm no fan of Gore either. While Gore brought profile to the issue, he also firmly polarized the world into two camps on the issue. If Gore tries to make a run for President on the heels of this Nobel Peace Prize win he will have disgraced the award and the work of many scientists by using all this for simple political gain. "An Inconvenient Truth" was too over the top and as we now see, contained several half truths and several untruths in order to try and make its point. I'm not sure the movie has really done all that much to help the problem or bring about changes that would not have happened anyways. It glamorized the issue, and is unfortunately now starting to discredit the issue because of its approach. Making global warming a hollywood craze only distracted people from the real science and blurred the issues at hand. This is especially damaging because the science behind this is very complex. Its not like tonnes of people are going to read through all the IPCC reports.
Is global warming an "end times" issue? To some it is. No credible scientist has said to my knowledge that unchecked global warming will bring about human extinction. Humanity will adapt and survive regardless. Again, just because we survive does not mean life will continue as we are used to. There will be a lot of new realities to adjust to. The work should not be dismissed out of hand, and change is required on humanity's part in order to ensure the environment gets the respect it deserves.
Of course, we are now starting to hear that it may already too late. The latest projections are worse than previous worst case projections. We've sown the seeds, I don't think there is a whole lot of avoiding the consequences no matter what we do. To those ambivalent to change, I would ask them what sort of world they want their children and grandchildren to live in. If we are going to make the world as hospitable as possible for future generations, we will have to make some changes. We cannot treat the earth as a piece of toilet paper as we have for so long. Life on earth has developed over billions of years. It doesn't take a scientist to see that humans have engaged in more damaging activities on the earth in the last 100 years that humans have ever done in all their existence prior. We have to figure out ways to live more sustainably. In the process, we also can't bankrupt ourselves in achieving these aims either. We need to change our mind set about our impact in the world. Change will not be easy, but efforts made now will pay off in future generations.
We cannot ignore our affect on the environment any longer if we want to leave the planet in good shape for future generations. I'm sure we can all agree on at least that.
Reply
Matthew Zacherle 3:11AM (10/15/2007)
I agree with everything Der Alte says. Anyone alive now has a great degree of responsibility to ensure the protection of our way of life. We do treat the world as a proverbial "toilet" for the waste from manufacturing, transportation, resource excavation, and so on. Whether you think global warming is true or not, you have to agree that most everything we put back into the environment after we are done with it is no longer what it was when mother nature created it. And in some cases where it is something mother nature has handled before, we exude it in quantities that surely cannot be healthy for the environment.
So much of what we produce and turn to waste is unnatural and not designed to be broken down by nature. If your body was given something it wasn't meant to break down, how do you think you would react over time after constant exposure. If we were to live efficiently we would only return to the earth what we took from it kind of like an ant colony(who have a greater total biomass than the human race). They can live efficiently, why cant we? And you can't say no because they are not a race that depends on technology. If we are so smart, I'm sure we can find a way to live in a sustainable way.
So what if gore is wrong. What if he is right. Personally I would like to take the precaution and make a change in case he is right. In any case we should change. And our generation has to make it. If we don't, then it's our children and future generations that are going to have to clean up our mess. A clean, healthy planet would be a wonderful place to live. Is there something so wrong with that?
Sure there are more issues than just global warming. But there are a lot more of us that there are problems and I'm sure in time we can all find solutions if we tried. But first we all have to TRY and take the steps (however small they may be).
Reply
Tony Belding 8:48AM (10/15/2007)
Der Alte wrote, "I doubt you'll find a single creationist on the IPCC or a single credible scientist who approaches the subject of global warming on faith."
I didn't say Al Gore and his followers are creationists. I said they are as irrational as creationists. And, Al Gore is not a credible scientist. He's not any kind of scientist, he is a politician and huckster (or is that redundant?).
And I never criticized the IPCC. It seems you feel compelled to attack for things I never wrote. Bjorn Lomborg, in his book, used the IPCC report as the primary source that he based his analysis on. If anyone has attacked the IPCC, it's Al Gore. IPCC says we'll get probably 7 to 23 inches increase in sea level. Al Gore says 20 feet. What does he base that on?
"Even leading figures in the skeptic movement are starting to come around and agree that there is something to this global warming thing."
From his book (I wonder if any of you critics have actually read it?) Bjorn Lomborg agrees that global warming is real. He agrees that it's a global problem. He agrees that it will cost lives and money in the future. He is simply arguing that it's not a "crisis" or "global emergency" that imminently threatens civilization, as Al Gore would paint it. His argument is that we shouldn't automatically pile on the most extreme responses that we can possibly dream up, without regard for cost or consequences.
In other words, we should measure the problem and measure our responses. The fact that such an obvious idea riles people up so much speaks volumes about the current mood of hysteria that Al Gore and his followers have created.
So what if Al Gore is wrong? I personally would prefer not to throw our whole global economy and industry into chaos just on the chance that Gore is right and the IPCC is wrong about this. Who do you really want to put your money on?
A wealthy world will be much better equipped to deal with the consequences of climate change than a world economically hobbled. Meanwhile, most of the extreme proposals to curb greenhouse gases (starting with Kyoto) would have very little actual impact on global warming, at great cost.
Reply
David Every 9:36AM (10/15/2007)
Actually, since almost every major "fact" he reported was shown as wrong or misleading, this just shows how low that Nobel TNT political prize for the least imaginitive thinker has become. He's in the company of "greats" like Arafat and Carter. Poor Nobel is turning over in his dynamite laden grave.
Reply
Ian 10:10AM (10/15/2007)
I find it strange that AG wins a Nobel prize yet in the UK his documentary can now only be shown in class rooms with a teacher overview of 10 major errors he makes.
I give AG an "A" for effort, but a C- for science.
In effect AG has managed to give a public face to the debate. But the debate on whether global warming is largely a natural occurence, or 100% man made will continue for years IMHO.
Doesn't AG own a carbon trading company? (Help me out here). I've always thought this trading a BAD idea, as it allows those spouting emmissions to continue and not make any changes. Didn't Russia recently trade a lot of these to Europe, to allow them to continue to miss their targets? This is NOT a way fwd IMHO.
Reply
GoodCheer 11:00AM (10/15/2007)
Tony Belding: "IPCC says we'll get probably 7 to 23 inches increase in sea level. Al Gore says 20 feet. What does he base that on?"
The IPCC says we'll get probably 7 to 23 inches increase in sea level by the end of the century.
Current models predict that the Greenland ice sheet will melt. There is enough water stored in that ice sheet to raise sea levels ~7m. This will not happen by the end of this century, but as things stand now will happen.
Reply
Jon 11:51AM (10/15/2007)
Just to clean up the debate a little:
1) Bjorn Lomborg admits the reality of human-caused climate change and addresses only its scale and how to best address its effects. He is also no more a scientist than Al Gore is. He's an economist.
2) There is no credited scientific organization that denies the existence of human-caused global climate change. All that have voiced an opinion have ruled that the evidence supports it.
2) There will always be individual scientists who differ on any majority position, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against them (witness creationism). The dissenters may turn out to be right -- science does not deny the possibility. But only a fool would base national *scientific* policy on a few random voices dissenting from an overwhelming consensus to the contrary.
4) One of the most common logical errors is to confuse the messenger with the message. Humans are extremely prone to ad hominum attacks, and so dishonest speakers regularly resort to attacking the messenger, not the message. Keep this in mind when you evaluate criticisms of Gore on one side or Lomborg on the other.
5) Proving one or more facts wrong in an opponent's argument may or may not disprove the entire argument; it depends whether those facts are essential to the argument or merely illustrative or supporting points. Thus, for instance, a UK panel found nine insufficiently supported statements in an "Inconvenient Truth" but found the overall message to be accurate and appropriate for use in UK schools. Clearly they did not consider the inaccuracies to be "Major," as some like to characterize them.
For any rational an unbiased observer with the slightest respect for empiricism, the discussion on whether human-caused global climate change exists or not is over. The questions now are whether to mitigate it and if so how best to do it.
Reply
david@ahlport.com 12:47PM (10/15/2007)
==I find it strange that AG wins a Nobel prize yet in the UK his documentary can now only be shown in class rooms with a teacher overview of 10 major errors 9 differences with the IPCC report he makes.==
I find it strange how badly the press botched that lawsuit coverage. Did they even read the court transcript?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/11/224858/42
Reply
Calguy 12:14PM (10/15/2007)
No one likes to be told that their indulgent ways aren't good for them. Think back to when mama told you to put the candy down and eat some carrots...
However, history tends to prove that a lot of stuff that sounds bad.. usually is.
-Sugar? Not good.
-Smoking? Yeah, bad.
-Drinking? Love it, but we know it's got some problems.
-Cocaine? Party impotence is kind of a bummer.
-Playing with matches? Where there's smoke there's fire.
-Melting glaciers? Hope you can swim REALLY well..
I'm simpifying for the sake of communication. I'm no scientist, but honestly, is what Al Gore and others is saying really such shocking news? Duh. Act like a wasteful, consumptive, pig... and it's pretty likely you'll be sitting in your own slop in a matter of time.
Chances are good that like your mama, Al Gore probably knows what he's talking about. Why not consider, adjust slightly and repsect that everything you want to indulge in is probably kind of more than you need to be happy. Be cool and maybe the world will be cool to you. Thank you Al.
Reply
david@ahlport.com 12:50PM (10/15/2007)
==1) Bjorn Lomborg admits the reality of human-caused climate change and addresses only its scale and how to best address its effects. He is also no more a scientist than Al Gore is. He's an economist.==
No Lomborg isn't an economist either.
He has a degree in political science.
Reply