Al Gore’s Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense

[Hollow Shells]

It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it’s the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it. That’s my conclusion after finally sitting down to watch “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Oscar-winning documentary that has turned Al Gore into a rock star (and rock music promoter). Here’s my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that’s harsh criticism. But it’s the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: “In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero.”

This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore’s movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie – including, particularly, Gore himself – paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, “Hey, what about breathing? Don’t we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?”

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=581

This persons reasoning is a bit silly. I guess it shows how they think, if you can't stop all pollution, stop none of it. More at link.

[DBoon]

1. typical industry shill

first point - the issue is fossil fuel consumption. Renewable energy sources do not add net CO2 to the atmosphere. This includes any food you might eat (I'm not aware of any food products made from petroleum). The CO2 you exhale is not a problem.

Second, environmental processes CAN absorb a certain amount of excess CO2. We've just completely overwhelmed these. A total reduction in CO2 production down to zero is not necessary.

Third, the amount of reduction required is not so great as to result in rolling back the industrial revolution. Gore's movie made the point that much of the increase is in recent decades, and that different countries with equivalent standards of living produce varying per-capita CO2. The amount of reduction required is consistent with a standard of living we would all recognize as affluent and comfortable.

Lastly, the zero reduction is a NET reduction. You are not reducing your own personal CO2 production to zero, you are buying carbon credits such that there is an overall reduction equivalent to a zero personal CO2 production. You still produce CO2, but you reduce someone else's production as well so your net is zero.

This article's argument is a classic "straw man" fallacy, creating a non-existent opposing position solely to discredit it (and implicitly discrediting legitimate concerns)

[polichick]

2. "It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it’s the nature of liberalism to feel bad"

Perhaps, but it also the nature of human beings to creatively solve problems ~ and this one would've been solved decades ago if the government supported innovative research and technology instead of big oil.

[unpossibles]

3. and it's apparently the nature of conservatism to refuse to address problems until it's too late

I wonder if they are as ignorant as they pretend to be, or if it's just an act to make money by stalling.

[polichick]

4. Could be they're just in denial...

The status quo works for them, so they don't want to know what the real cost is.

(Either that, or they're complete imbeciles! :))