Al Gore has done a great deal to raise awareness of global warming. He failed in his bid to become President of the United States but succeeded in publicising “An Inconvenient Truth” which reached millions of people with its message. Mr Gore succeeded in either creating or adopting a phrase which grasped hold of the imagination and it did not matter too much that his book and his film contained some inaccuracies, or that the title itself portrayed as simple truth what is a complex interweaving of postulations.
The awareness Mr Gore raised by his work was very important – so important that he was awarded the Nobel Prize.
He has now suggested that by the end of the decade the United States should produce all its electricity at home without burning fossil fuels. This would be achieved in effect by taxing fossil fuels out of existence.
Is this something that is environmentally helpful? It would mean a massive increase in nuclear energy, while we have not yet solved the problem of how to safely process nuclear waste. Where will it all go and will not this be the new poisoned chalice for future generations?
It will mean more dams for hydro electric power. Every new dam releases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is locked up in the soil and the vegetation. The release of carbon dioxide from a dam will last as long as the dam lasts, because we have lost a place to sequestrate the carbon created.
Of course all these new nuclear power stations and dams will be made from cement; At the moment cement is responsible for 2% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. If Mr Gore’s scheme is put into being emissions from cenment manufacture will rise.
Just to put cement into context, compare 2% of the world’s carbon emissions from cement with 4% from the United Kingdom.
Mr Gore’s idea will mean lots of new wind turbines – generally benign – and a lot more photovoltaic panels the manufacture of which will create a carbon dioxide spike, but at the end of it all, if Mr Gore’s suggestion is possible, the United States will be emitting a great deal less carbon dioxide than it does now.
I do not think Mr Gore’s suggestion can be achieved within the decade but it might happen by the end of the century.
I think that Mr Gore falls into the trap that most politicians fall into when talking about climate change and greenhouse gas. They try to inspire us all with a “vision” so often unattainable or fraught, if achieved with undesirable and unimagined consequences. It would be better if they left visions to visionaries; after all politicians are supposed to be practical creatures undertaking the art of the possible and when it comes to addressing climate change we need to undertake the art of the possible..
Politicians should concentrate on the easy wins first, the simple step by step achievement of the possible. There are many simple ways of emitting less carbon dioxide and rather than try to run and fall over, we need to learn to crawl and then learn to walk.
Filed under: carbon emissions, climate change, electricity, energy, fuel, global warming, nuclear, nuclear energy, solar, wind turbines | Tagged: al gore, an inconvenient truth, cement manufacture and carbon emissions, flaws in al gore's vision, nobel prize
You seem to associate Gore as the sole source for climate change evidence. Ignore Gore and listen to the Nobel Prize winningt scientists whose careful research and study and analysis of thousands of scientifically peer reviewed papers and research conclude that global warming is happening now and will, if unchecke spiral out of control.
I have referred to plenty of evidence supporting this on these posts (you might want to bother to look at the evidence of scientists, not Gore).
I only refer to Mr Gore in the context of this post – not as an authority, but as a person who created awareness, notwithstanding the fact that there were errors in his film, but the main thrust of his work is accurate, unfortunately.
Look att he science indeed; the first and second laws of thermodynamics would be a goodstarting point for you.
If temperatures keep rising, you ain’t seen nothing yet, in terms of starvation, violence and sheer disaster.
regards
Robert
What a joke. Gore puts out a film that is full of errors and omits evidence that is inconvenient for its producers. He gets a peace prize even though he advocates actions that would lead to starvation in the third world and more war and violence for mankind. He keeps silent on the fact that we have not had any warming for a decade and that the actual data shows that warming and cooling trends normally lead CO2 levels in the atmosphere and as such cannot be caused by CO2. Yet, many people that seem intelligent still accept Gore and his movement as being credible. It is time that the AGW folks started to look at the science and stopped playing political games.
Sorry I linked to the wrong article. http://anamericanidiot.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/global-warming-threatens-earth-obama-saves-planet/
I am all for cleaning the environment but a forced manhattan project-like plan would have serious long-term economic consequences at this time. I also disagree with Mr. Gore about the seriousness of the human role played in global warming. If you were to examine the graphs of historic global average temperatures (my site) you will see that we are in a warming trend that is natural and began long before humans industrialized. I would bet my life that if mankind were to cease to exist tomorrow, in 1000 years global temperatures will be an average of 2.6 degrees higher +/- 1 degree. iN between there will be periods of colder temperatures driven by solar activity. Perhaps soar activity drives all climate change, I do not know. http://anamericanidiot.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/a-lasting-footprint-on-the-middle-class/
Thanks for your thoughts.
Carbon dioxide is an easy gauage of how successful we live with nature becasue we artificially produce so much of it.
Getting these balances are right – I prefer the concept of a balanced state to a holistic state and think we should live in balance with nauture, not inconflcit with it..
Robert I have just watched “The 11th Hour” I agree with the message we humans have to reconsider everything we are doing and learn from nature and work with nature.
I think you comment above about cement is right in that to produce cement carbon dioxide will be emitted however carbon is re-absorbed when concrete dries and also over time dry concrete absorbs CO2. There is too much focus on CO2 and not on other activities of humans that are damaging to the environment. I think it is neccesary to think more holisticly no system in isolation just like nature itself to solve the problems of the worlds environment.
I agree with your prognois; it shouldn’t derpress us, it should steel us.
Thanks for the kind words about the Energy Age.
Robert
Hi Robert
Just came across you book by complete chance, but am enjoying it and fully agree with your principles
I fully believe that the only chance to save the planet is that we must be fully relient on the “matter into energy” principle within the next 10-20 years (max).
But for that to happen it needs basically revolutionary changes at soial and economic level across the globe, which will not happen in the current environment
I have written the first part of my book (”Thus begins the revolution”), if you would like a look please send me an email address to send it (it’s only 6 pages currently)
Thanks for championing this fight.. Cause if we don’t win we are finished as a race.
As Ekhart Tolle aptly puts “We either evolve or we die”
All the best
Mark
Albert
Thanks for your kind words.
I think you’re right – Al Gore being unrealistic does not do any harm and if the US can get to half his target in that timescale it will be a tremendous achievement.
I do agonise over nuclear power. If we are to use it we ought to put much more investment into seeking ways to dispose of the waste safely; perhaps the rocket is not such a bad idea!
Robert
Firstly thanks for a great blog, I’m not an eco-nut, just someone who’s considering installing your solar thermal panels in the not too distant future, and was very surprised and encouraged reading your views on renewable energy. If you can find that time, I’d appreciate it if you could read my recent comment to your 28/03/2008 post ‘Is Your Home Suitable for Solar Panels’.
Considering that the commitment from our politicians has fallen so far short of the urgent action required by the scientists and visionaries, I think it really takes folks like Gore and T Boone Pickens to step in and and focus people’s minds on ambitious near term goals.
We may fall short but we will have progressed the transition to clean energy considerably. You’re most probably right, it may take half a century to achieve, but given past performance it’s more likely that our politicians will fail us without the kind of near term goal Gore is proposing. That said, it’s important to recognise that full extent of the impact of massive investment in a diverse range of alternative energy sources.
Whether it’s solar panels, wind turbines, cement for nuclear power stations, each technology has it’s production CO2 footprint; obviously nuclear power has bigger issues concerning waste disposal, but it would be remiss to discount such an excellent baseload generator.
I must confess I chuckled when our politicians indicated they where scouting for councils that might be happy to host a nuclear waste repository in exchange for a new school, or ‘better’ public transport. As I child I remember reading stories about rockets aimed at the sun, filled with the waste products labelled ‘Too Hot To Handle’. OK maybe that’s too radical, but surely there are far better alternatives than burying the stuff under urban areas!