<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Robert Redford chats about the new green programming on the Sundance Channel]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by sharloch http://www.grist.org/article/redford/ Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:47:58 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/redford/1 Robert Redford

"Everything [Bush] touches turns to shit. Everything. The only thing guarding him must be the Rapture..."

Redford is a great guy, and honest! I wish more actors would speak for the enviroment like he does.

]]> Robert Redford

"Everything [Bush] touches turns to shit. Everything. The only thing guarding him must be the Rapture..."

Redford is a great guy, and honest! I wish more actors would speak for the enviroment like he does.

]]> Comment #2 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/redford/ Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:48:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/redford/2 Andy Warhol on "The Green Channel"

Would it be like, 12 hours of watching a leaf?

]]> Andy Warhol on "The Green Channel"

Would it be like, 12 hours of watching a leaf?

]]> Comment #3 by eqexroxx http://www.grist.org/article/redford/ Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:31:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/redford/3 Redford for President

It seems high time that we elected an actor from the democratic side of things. Redford/Gore 2008.

]]> Redford for President

It seems high time that we elected an actor from the democratic side of things. Redford/Gore 2008.

]]> Comment #4 by dobermanmacleod http://www.grist.org/article/redford/ Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:06:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/redford/4 Has a political tipping point been reached?

Mr Redford declares that a political tipping point has been reached, and as evidence cites "There have been dozens of different climate-related bills introduced in recent months."

The CO2 level in the air is 380ppm, and it rose 2.6ppm last year.  None of those bills would significantly reduce the rate of CO2 increase.  Dr Hanson (NASA) has opinionated the tipping point is 450ppm, while some think it is 550ppm, or even 650ppm.

Mankind burns about 10 million tons of coal a day, and is putting about 70 million tons of CO2 into the air each day.  That is expected to increase dramatically in the next couple decades, while nature ability to remove the CO2 from the air is expected to decline dramatically (30% by 2030).

Frankly, I think Mr Redford is delusional.  Perhaps global warming has been more widely recognized as a threat, but there is no way that the political will exists to power the kind of economic and social revolution necessary to take the draconian steps that would avoid runaway global warming and abrupt climate change.

]]> Has a political tipping point been reached?

Mr Redford declares that a political tipping point has been reached, and as evidence cites "There have been dozens of different climate-related bills introduced in recent months."

The CO2 level in the air is 380ppm, and it rose 2.6ppm last year.  None of those bills would significantly reduce the rate of CO2 increase.  Dr Hanson (NASA) has opinionated the tipping point is 450ppm, while some think it is 550ppm, or even 650ppm.

Mankind burns about 10 million tons of coal a day, and is putting about 70 million tons of CO2 into the air each day.  That is expected to increase dramatically in the next couple decades, while nature ability to remove the CO2 from the air is expected to decline dramatically (30% by 2030).

Frankly, I think Mr Redford is delusional.  Perhaps global warming has been more widely recognized as a threat, but there is no way that the political will exists to power the kind of economic and social revolution necessary to take the draconian steps that would avoid runaway global warming and abrupt climate change.

]]> Comment #5 by Karen Lee Orr http://www.grist.org/article/redford/ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:04:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/redford/5 Who said this?


"So, the solutions are here and they're here right now and I think you'll find one in this new energy bill that's being put forward right now called E-85, and that's ethanol. And ethanol is -- I'm for it because simply it's out of corn and there are other agricultural products that could be used to do the same thing.

It's cheaper. It's cleaner. It's renewable. And you know what it's American because we grow it. We make it. We're not depending on other countries who are unstable to have to beg and borrow for it.

And, as far as I'm concerned the solutions do not have to involve dependence on oil because the solutions are here in front of us. They're here. They're now. They're renewable. They're safe. They're clean. They're economically viable. And also it affects our national security.

And they're going to see ways to avoid having to be trapped by that because these solutions are ready. They're here. They're now. They're homegrown. They can make America proud instead of being dependent on countries that we have no idea which way they're going to bounce, as we can see. So this campaign is going to let the people know that."

The statements above are from a CNN interview.  While they might sound as if they're from George W. Bush, a Midwest politician or an ADM publicist, they're not.

Who made those statements?  Find out here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/17/lkl.01.htm ...


]]> Who said this?


"So, the solutions are here and they're here right now and I think you'll find one in this new energy bill that's being put forward right now called E-85, and that's ethanol. And ethanol is -- I'm for it because simply it's out of corn and there are other agricultural products that could be used to do the same thing.

It's cheaper. It's cleaner. It's renewable. And you know what it's American because we grow it. We make it. We're not depending on other countries who are unstable to have to beg and borrow for it.

And, as far as I'm concerned the solutions do not have to involve dependence on oil because the solutions are here in front of us. They're here. They're now. They're renewable. They're safe. They're clean. They're economically viable. And also it affects our national security.

And they're going to see ways to avoid having to be trapped by that because these solutions are ready. They're here. They're now. They're homegrown. They can make America proud instead of being dependent on countries that we have no idea which way they're going to bounce, as we can see. So this campaign is going to let the people know that."

The statements above are from a CNN interview.  While they might sound as if they're from George W. Bush, a Midwest politician or an ADM publicist, they're not.

Who made those statements?  Find out here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/17/lkl.01.htm ...


]]> Comment #6 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/redford/ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:06:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/redford/6 It is indeed

It is indeed hard to keep these types of shows free from Ethanol / Hydrogen hype....

Hell, we might even get some Sequestration in there for good measure....

_

We need more publication that:
"Hey these new batteries can recharge in under 10 minutes, and drive for hundred and hundreds of miles"

But sadly, that might not come until we get a car on the market that can do that... (Eyes the Zap-X for 2008)


]]> It is indeed

It is indeed hard to keep these types of shows free from Ethanol / Hydrogen hype....

Hell, we might even get some Sequestration in there for good measure....

_

We need more publication that:
"Hey these new batteries can recharge in under 10 minutes, and drive for hundred and hundreds of miles"

But sadly, that might not come until we get a car on the market that can do that... (Eyes the Zap-X for 2008)


]]> Comment #7 by dobermanmacleod http://www.grist.org/article/redford/ Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:20:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/redford/7 Unrealistic

How can anyone think that mankind will cut their greenhouse gas emissions so fast and so severely that runaway global warming and abrupt climate change will be avoided?  We are set to DOUBLE CO2 emission by mid-century, not cut them.  Nature's ability to aborb man's CO2 emissions will HALVE by mid-century.  Methane from melting permafrost and CO2 from forest/peat fires will dramatically increase.  WAKE UP!  You are advocating a weak mitigation strategy, not a solution.

The only solution is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.  Nature already does this but we are overwhelming her ability to cope. I suggest improving nature's ability to absorb CO2 with genetic engineering (perhaps seeding a genetically modified organism into the ocean).

]]> Unrealistic

How can anyone think that mankind will cut their greenhouse gas emissions so fast and so severely that runaway global warming and abrupt climate change will be avoided?  We are set to DOUBLE CO2 emission by mid-century, not cut them.  Nature's ability to aborb man's CO2 emissions will HALVE by mid-century.  Methane from melting permafrost and CO2 from forest/peat fires will dramatically increase.  WAKE UP!  You are advocating a weak mitigation strategy, not a solution.

The only solution is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.  Nature already does this but we are overwhelming her ability to cope. I suggest improving nature's ability to absorb CO2 with genetic engineering (perhaps seeding a genetically modified organism into the ocean).

]]>