Al Gore at TED 18

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   amazingdrx Posted 5:48 am
   09 Apr 2008

   Quickly in numbersAs Al says so eloquently.  We need to move quickly and together in big numbers.
   That is the way internet movements can work.  Get it going like a viral army.  I suggest video that spreads from computer to blog to cell phone.
   Barack's campaign works this way, what can we learn from that?
   Can we muster a million people to march on DC?  Or 10,000 to protest a coal plant?
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

2. 

   maxgladwell Posted 7:14 am
   09 Apr 2008

   Connection to povertyI liked how Gore made the connection between the climate crisis and poverty. It was a great addition to the presentation.
   Max Gladwell
   
   www.MaxGladwell.com
   
   The Nexus of Social Media and Green Living

   Permalink

3. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 7:41 am
   09 Apr 2008

   Great, could be even better.....heh heh, hard to critique Mr. Gore, no?
   His speaking style is getting better, more passionate, certainly no more wooden-ness.  As usual, his description of the problem is most effective.  
   And, in addition to talking about poverty, he was emphatic that this needs to be a global movement -- as hard as that will be.
   I'm glad he's picking up topics like "optimism", an important point amid such warnings.
   But -- I think his "we just need to price carbon" is too simple.  I think his group should produce some graphics, just as fancy as the global warming graphics, that would show what a zero emission city, town, or building would look like.  People need to be able to envision the future.  As he said, there is a spatial hierarchy -- local, regional, global (another important point) -- and they need some good graphics.
   A must see.

   Permalink

4. 

   Colin Wright Posted 10:05 am
   09 Apr 2008

   Just don't criticize the system!I just don't know why he can't bring himself to criticize corporations. (I think it's because he believes in them so much.) So although he criticized the media for the lack of global warming questions in the debates, he's unable to tie that into the corporate ownership of the media. The idea that we need to curtain corporate corruption of government (as Ross Gelbspan emphasizes) seems beyond the pale. As long as corporations are endowed with personhood and free speech rights, their power and money will overwhelm genuine citizens.  Thus, our fate may be already sealed when "our" greatest voice substitutes happy-speech for impartial analysis.

   Permalink

5. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 11:08 am
   09 Apr 2008

   Could Gore follow MLKjr's path......and become more radical as the crisis becomes greater?  I assume most of his funding comes from very wealthy individuals and corporations, so right now he's in the same position as most of the Democratic party -- you can't bite the hand that feeds you.
   But like MLK and RFK, the "objective" situation may bring some evolution that we can't see yet.  After all, he's come quite a way from his VP days.

   Permalink

6. 

   Colin Wright Posted 1:16 pm
   09 Apr 2008

   More from Gore?Interestingly, he did mention the exorbitant cost of the Iraq War, implying it could be diverted to combatting global warming. So that could be a sign of progress for him? (I don't recall him mentioning the war before, but I could be wrong.)
   I thought this talk was much more up-beat than his movie. That could be the result of giving his previous talk 2000 times. But I think I would have "preferred" a little more doom-and-gloom to balance the unrestrained optimism. That could be just me.

   Permalink

7. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 1:47 pm
   09 Apr 2008

   Well, the doom-and-gloom contradicts Gorebecause Gore advocates putting a price on carbon, what the author calls "Scenario A", but if we're in an emergency, "Scenario B", then Today's nascent climate change mitigation measures, including carbon taxes and cap and trade, remain completely within the gradual, linear, conventional wisdom. This level of mitigation does not address the big ice sheet melt as a crucial tipping point. No governments anywhere - not even those governments that have led in acknowledging climate change as a real and serious problem - are even remotely considering mitigation measures of an immediacy and scale needed to try to return atmospheric CO2 emission levels below 350 ppm.
   In other words, governments the world over would have to intervene directly into the economy, diverting trillions into mitigation efforts.  That's not what Gore is advocating -- at least, not now.  But it will be interesting to see what happens when he hits this contradiction -- of course, it would be nice if there were massive global movements that would make his particular change of mind not very important.

   Permalink

8. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 2:06 pm
   09 Apr 2008

   and it contradicts Romm as wellRomm has written extensively about the dangers of going over 350ppm, and he keeps promising to write about what a "World War II" type effort would look like -- I'm all ears (er, eyes)

   Permalink

9. 

   amazingdrx Posted 3:04 pm
   09 Apr 2008

   Yep moreI think so Jon, more is needed.  100 billion per year in subsidy shift to renewables and conservation.  And similar moves in all major national economies around the globe.
   With developing nations benefitting by having the latest smart grid stuff installed with World Bank and other aid institution's help.
   That would look like a WW 2 like effort.  The corporations whose subsidies are shifted out from under them won't like this.  Their political shills will fight it.  
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

10. 

    amazingdrx Posted 3:22 pm
    09 Apr 2008

    Sell 100 billionSell 100 billion in CO2 emission permits?  Would that be possible?  7 billion tons total CO2.  So 12 bucks per ton?
    Then subsidize renwables and conservation with the money?  Sounds feasible.  But don't let hedge funds trade the permits.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

11. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 12:44 am
    10 Apr 2008

    amazingdrx --I think those are great ideas (RFKjr has an article at vanity fair saying oil and coal get $1 trillion in subsidies, I don't know where he gets those numbers), but I want to raise the possibility of trillions of dollars, per year.  That would actually be closer to a WWII type effort.

    Permalink

12. 

    amazingdrx Posted 1:09 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Well JonIt would be trillions per year worldwide and with private funds matching the public money.  100 billion in government subsidy would atract how much in private investment?
    If solar panels and geo heat exchange systems payed off in a few years with the subsidies, they would sell like hotcakes.  As Malachi Constant's (from Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan") financial advisor put it, companies selling these systems would become "Hotcakes Preffered" stocks.
    Profits and market cap would soar, a boom attracting plenty of private capital would be off and running.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

13. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 2:49 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Or, trillions up front......to be repaid by the energy savings, as in Berkeley's solar funding system, in which they provide the money for solar panels for buildings, and the building owners pay back with part (not all) of the savings.

    Permalink

14. 

    mihan Posted 5:18 am
    10 Apr 2008

    that river... the big one...Am I the only one who noticed that he doesn't know where the Mississippi river is?
    But seriously, one of the things I didn't like about An Inconvenient Truth was the overemphasis on change-the-light-bulbs solutions, so this is definitely a step in the right direction.

    Permalink

15. 

    Pompey Road Posted 7:17 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Make the TripWe have not had a president visit East Kentucky sinse Lyndon Johnson. I know Al did not win his bid for president but if he is serious about one nasty form of carbon, coal, he should come down here and show the nation where it comes from and how they are mining it.
    The nation would be so repulsed by MTR and valley fills he could make a big impact on coal and it's contributing to the Co2 problem.
    He could at least stop a practice that is destroying appalachia, save a mountain, a valley and a fresh water stream or two.
    Most people think coal is mined by the underground mining process, they would freak if they could see how it is really mined in East Kentucky and West Virginia.
    
    The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

    Permalink

16. 

    amazingdrx Posted 7:44 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Subsidy diversionNaturally my own senator, Sen Russ Feingold is trying to get this done Jon.  We want 100s of billons per year.
    The senate would not pass a bill that only diverted 13 billion, as Russ writes in an email reply to my support of the PTC for wind:
    "...during debate on H.R. 6, I supported a proposal to repeal nearly $13 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies over ten years and use that money, among other things, to provide multiyear extensions of tax credits for wind and solar projects. I was disappointed the Senate narrowly rejected a motion to include this tax plan in the bill."
    13 billion over 10 years defeated, but narrowly.  So the concept of subsidy diversion is well placed in the legislative spotlight.
    A million eco-peaceful-warrior march sure would help!  Non-violent clog-in for subsidy diversion.  100 billion per year, yah, yah, yah...  but seriously it might work.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

17. 

    amazingdrx Posted 7:52 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Citizens for subsidy diversionMillion green march!  
    Make corporations go off welfare and start to work on renewable energy and conservation.  Take away their cash.  It's the only thing these kids understand.  They only see as far as the next quarterly earnings.
    Drag them kicking and screaming into this energy boom.  For our own good.  they'll get most of the credit and cash as usual, but we will all benefit.  Especially mother earth.
    Let's have a revolution!
    
    
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

18. 

    ericauciel Posted 12:19 am
    19 Apr 2008

    Al Glore is patheticAl Glore has gone terribly awry.
    
    He thought cliamtae change could be tackled by changing some light bulbs.
    
    Now he wants to put a price on carbon.
    
    Belief and optimism
    
    And everybody is cheering.
    Eric

    Permalink