An Inconvenient Truth About Food, Or: What I Took Away From Al Gore's Slideshow
July 10, 2006 12:00 PM EDT
(Updated: July 30, 2006 06:29 PM EDT)
views: 522
|
rating: 9.7/10
(23 votes)
|
comments: 64
As a movie freak and a political junkie, it was inevitable that I would have to see Davis Guggenheims' latest documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Now like most people if you had asked me if I wanted to go see a documentary about Al Gore giving a PowerPoint presentation – a man reputed to be so dull his secret service codename was "Al Gore" - I might have said (yawn) no thanks, I need to go have a root canal done at an Amway convention. Fortunately I saw the trailer first, and so was intrigued.
The folks at Sundance and Cannes were intrigued too, where they treated Gore like a rock star and gave the film high honors. But the fact that Guggenheim took what sounds at first blush to be the height of boredom and transformed it into a nail-biter is not why you should see it. It's not the medium, it's the message.
By now most people know what the inconvenient truth of the title is. If you haven't heard, one option you have is to wait a few years and you'll know. Simply put, it's this: global warming is real, it's dangerous, and it's our fault. There is no debate (or, what there was is over). Ask some scientists – the reputable ones who publish in peer-reviewed journals, not the ones whose paychecks come from petroleum companies – they ALL agree. And most of them can demonstrate that we will reach a tipping point, a point of no return, in just 10 years. In 50 years, well within my children's lifetimes, the planet will very likely be completely uninhabitable.
But this is not a movie-to-slit-your-wrists-by kind of a message. Though portending horrible and tragic possibilities, the message is one of hope. There is something we can do, and since everything I know revolves around food, I have but the one way to look at it. So here are some food-related things you can do, in that wonderful "be the change you wish to see in the world" kind of way, to stem the tide (quite literally).
• Plant a garden. It doesn't have to be big; in fact it can start as a window box. But plant it with food you will eat.
• Buy locally. Get your food from someplace nearby. Remember that the average food item in this country travels 1400 miles before it gets to your grocery store shelf. That's a lot of gas and diesel being burned, which means a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. See the movie if you don't know why that's bad.
• Keep you fridge clean. It costs more and uses more energy to run a dirty fridge, so clean the coils and the shelves. Also, store food toward the bottom when you can't keep it full.
• Careful with the dishwasher. Use the economy cycle and prop it open to air dry rather than using the heated drying system. You'll save money too.
• Ride your bike to the farmers' market. And everywhere else too, if you can.
• Don't eat fast food. It is designed to be eaten in the car, and Michael Pollan's book The Omnivore's Dilemma will explain to you (among many other things) how a meal at McDonald's uses 3.5 gallons of oil. Think about that next time you read that there have been "billions and billions served."
Perhaps the most important thing you can do right now is see the movie, and take as man people with you as you can. Tell them all to tell everyone else. Then come election season, ask your candidates whether they saw it and if not why not? What are their opinions of the issue and what are they planning to do about it?
Meanwhile, what are you planning to do about it?
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
More by Kurt Michael Friese
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 64
But food is a different issue. I would like to be able to eat the traditional Eskimo diet being 70% fat since they don't have heart disease, cancer, arthritis, diabetes or obesity and the men die in hunting accidents at sea, often over the age of 90. But that's not possiible since I live in Florida.
My second choice would be the American diet of 100 years ago since we had very little heart disease or cancer back then. That is hard, but possible if one can get grass-fed steers and chickens, and the eggs from those chickens. These are good sources of the essential fatty acid Omega-3 which is the preferred source for our cell membranes, 60% of our brain, our artery walls and various other things. Omega-3 is a very superior anti-inflammatory.
Unfortunately, the beef, chickens and eggs in our stores come from grain fed animals and have very little Omega-3. So I supplement with a lot of Omega-3 daily and it has since cleaned out my arteries (angina stopped), restored my memory and had several other notable effects.
What I don't eat is anything from the isles of grocery stores since anything processed by man just loads your body with toxins which degrade your immune system. I also drink only water and never soft drinks or sugar ladened orange juice or etc, etc. I eat only things grown -- vegetable, fruits, meats, eggs and some fish (nothing contaminated with mercury).
There is a lot one can do about food. I agree, let's get rid of the 1400 miles of transport.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Best regards, Ben
Love, light, and blessings~Mama T
and a great big wet raspberry to those who are too blind, stubborn or self-centered to see what's going on all around them.
I have two questions about that.
1. A hoax for what purpose? What point is there in pursuing such ideas, spending thousands, perhaps millions of work hours on something that isn't true? By thousands of very well educated scientists?
2. I can see how someone might be resistant to being pursuaded by Al Gore, but how can you possibly ignore cold hard data? Like Reagan famously said, facts are stubborn things. And as Gore quoted Twain in the movie, "It ain't what you don't know that causes trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Ben, are you SURE it's a hoax? Mr. Gore has mountains of data to prove his point. Where's your pier-reviewed scientific data?
To convince me of something, show me numbers.
Naturally I have a garden and even during my city years grew a few tomato plants on the apartment deck.
Having spent over 15 years directing the operation and maintenance of naval nuclear propulsion plants, I am rather familiar with the environmentalists' use of nuclear power to create an issue of safety and environmental protection out of whole cloth, especially as compared to coal, oil or even natural gas.
The Three Mile Island event was the worst nuclear accident possible. How many people did it kill? Zero! How many people were injured? Zero! How many people suffered serious psychological damage from the media blowing the event all out of proportion with their scare tactics? Many, many! Why? To create a major issue which would bring in lots of money and that is a matter of record.
Did the public lose out through this halting of an entire industry and costing ratepayers and stock holders literally hundreds of millions of dollars conducting witch hunts for super safe reactors? Yes, yes! Did the environmentalists care, no! Have they changed their minds lately inspite of the fact that the nuclear industry has not changed. Yes, again!
This same process has been used in many other cases which I am sure you know.
As for the cold, hard data, there is very little. How about mountains of data Al Gore has? He is a very good salesman and it is the facts that he has not told you that make what he has told mostly irrelevant. Is the climate warming? Yes! Is it due to human behavior? Not really? Has it happened before even more so? Yes! If you think the hockey stick represents facts Click Here
Mark, it is OK to make more efficient cars. Just don't do it by using the coercive power of the government. Let the consumers handlle it. Each time the government has done it has cost us a lot of lives.
It is also OK for companies to reduce their emissions. Under Bush our emissions have been going down. Those countries who signed the Kyoto treaty have on average increased their emissions in the same time frame. Consumer power again works, but government coercion is counter-productive over the long haul.
The Kyoto treaty is an abomination as reflected by the 95-0 vote advising against it in the Senate when Clinton was president. Knowing that, Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification leaving it to Bush. Bush saw the handwriting and being a direct, up front Texan and not clever like Clinton, publicly announced that he would not pursue it. The environmentalists made this a very big issue --- to get funding?? Probably since there was no reason to blame Bush. You figure.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Those of us who see this calamity coming can increase our impact by helping others to see and truly understand how everything flows in circular patterns (or cycles). We can no longer afford to think in linear flow patterns and ignoring the waste and by-product streams that contaminate linear economies. Water flows in a circle as does carbon, nitrogen, and even money. Ancient history has proven this if anyone is intelligent enough to put all the clues together. It turns out that all the societies that believe in the "circle of life" survive to this day while those that ignore the "circle" have failed or will eventually.
food?? that is a critical one, and we CAN do someth abt it - i do grow some of our stuff, but mostly get it from my parents' garden (bigger!)...also buy farmer's market and from a local organic farmstand. we only have one car, and don't drive much. i never used box mixes or prepared food - i know it is just a start, though. great article!
A very well written article. I always appreciate when a problem is presented with practical solutions, and the simple steps you've offered are accessible to most people.
Thank you!
Look, the evidence is in and it's overwhelming. There's virtual unanimity among scientists and climatologists that global warming is a fact and that it's a problem. The only real debate is over how imminent the problem is.
The only folks that are saying global warming isn't a big deal are on the payrolls of companies that are the greatest contributors to the problem.
Ben talks about nuclear power and is either grossly misinformed or lying.He tells us the accident at Three Mile Island harmed nobody. That is false.
Ben also ignores what happened at Chernobyl. Unquestionably, Ben will tell us a Chernobyl can't happen here but who would have thought 19 guys with box cutters could drive the President of the US to cower in a bunker in Nebraska befoe 2001?
The fact is the US nuclear program has had its share of accidents; we've lost Navy personnel at the S1W plant in ID and we've lost subs.
The point is simple: nuclear power has a pretty good safety record in the US.. The problem is that the rare failures can be catastrophic.
Abomination? Really??
This vote was based on the idea that Kyoto would hurt the US economy. While some might call that an abomination, I'd call it a sensible trade-off. It was sensible to force auto makers and other industries to do many things in service of the common good. Countless lives have been saved by forcing automotive manufacturers to install safety devices.
The corporatists among us would have us believe that we should allow ourselves to be governed by the un-regulated might of industry. I say we can and must reject this notion. Requiring seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, airbags, etc. has saved thousands of lives. Frankly not regulating this industry would have been, well, an ABOMINATION!
I apologize for having offended you in any way, Mark. That was most certainly not my intent. My intent was to answer Kurt's question as quickly as I could and then move on to food which appeared to me to be the main thrust of his article. What I had to contribute I believe is critical to everyone's health and I will explain more.
I was increasingly experiencing angina in 2003, started on a regimen of Omega-3 from www.n3inc.com and had a nuclear stress test at the end of that year. My cardilogist advised me come in the next week to have an angiogram since I was in such bad shape. In March of this year, I had a 64 slice CT scan and my cardiologist said that my arteries were in better shape than some 30 year olds. I attribute the cleaning out of my arteries to taking large amounts of Omega-3 daily. My whole family, most of my friends and many acquaintances are on a similar regimen.
Mark, my comment on global warming was meant to convey that I am not doing anything about anthropogenic global warming because after months of study, I was unable to find any real validity in its claims while its detractors appeared to me to be highly credible. I respect that you have apparently come to the opposite opinion.
Once again, Mark, I apologize for having offended you in any way and anyone else who was similarly offended.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Can you be more specific? What makes you think Ben has "so little current knowledge of the topic".
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php
One interesting aspect of solar cycles is that the sun went through a period of sunspot inactivity from about 1645 to 1715. This period of sunspot minima is called the Maunder Minimum. Sunspots were measured during this timeframe, although the more detailed, daily measurements began in 1749. The "Little Ice Age" occurred over parts of Earth during the Maunder Minimum. So the question remains, do solar minimums help to create periods of cooler than normal weather, and do solar maximums help to cause drought over sections of Earth? This question is not easily answered due to the immensely complex interaction between our atmosphere, land and oceans. In addition, there is evidence that some of the major ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from its "average" 23.5 degrees tilt on its axis. The Earth has tilted anywhere from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees on its axis. The number of sunspots alone do not alter the overall solar emissions much at all. However, the increased/decreased magnetic activity which accompanies sunspot maxima/minima directly influences the amount of ultraviolet radiation which moves through the upper atmosphere.
There aren't many sled rides and I doubt if anyone in St. Louis even owns one as we did when we were kids. Winter rubber boots are a thing of the past. We have traded those in or hip leather boots and I don't see too much of those anymore either as they are too hot to wear.
I know I am not a scientist, but in the last twenty years our climate has been changing strangely. I live in Florida and when my friends call me from NY in January to laugh that the climate there isn't much different than here only by ten to 15 degrees I have to take notice.
Take a rewind of the last 50 years and tell me there hasn't been a big change. Common sense can give straight answers buy examining when, how, and why. So those who don't want to believe global warming I can only think you must have just entered our earth.
I am not one who is convinced that this phenomenon is being brought on by the burning of fossil fuels, although I am equally unconvinced that it is not. That leaves me firmly in the camp of those who are convinced that we are undergoing a rather dramatic global climate change, which may or may not be our own fault, and which may or may not be reversible or even slowed by a change of course on our part.
To me, the "may be reversible" part is the part that seems worthy of at least attempting. Whether or not we can actually stop the progression, or even reverse the effects of global climate change are certainly open to debate, in my mind, but it would seem nothing short of grotesquely irresponsible for us to do nothing and expect positive change. We can already see that doing nothing is not bringing about positive change. It's time to do SOMETHING, imo.
Therefore, I have, and have always had a very difficult time understanding why "conservatives," who historically are in favor of economic growth and activity, are so staunchly opposed to the massive economic growth that would undoubtedly occur as a direct result of making drastic shifts in our energy policy paradigms.
Is it the fact that the federal government will have to be aggressively engaged in order to effect real change? They don't seem to harbor any sense of restraint when it comes to the federal government shoveling truckloads of cash down the current energy policy gullet, so that can't be it.
And besides, the most potent decades of economic growth in this country came about as a direct result of massive spending by the federal government, to build critical infrastructures such as electrical and communications grids, highways, etc. Any argument on their part to denounce public spending as some sort of "evil presence" are simply not supported by facts (which, admittedly, has never stopped a "conservative" from harboring their rigid, wrong-minded opinions).
The fact is, if this country were to take an aggressive stance against the burning of fossil fuels, by issuing grants and tax credits to corporations to carry out tests on, and implimentation of various renewable sources of energy, economic and job growth would expand explosively, and once again, this country would become a manufacturing nation with ideas and technologies that the entire world will want.
On top of the economic growth that we would experience from this shift, of course, we would also rid ourselves of the addiction to foreign oil. Of course, George Bush and his cronies would have to find new ways to profit from wars of choice, but as chronic war profiteers, I have every confidence that they'd find a way.
By ridding ourselves of the need for foreign oil, we could remove our military presence from nations where we simply don't belong, and thus rid ourselves of the constant threat of terrorist attacks. Ooops...another profit center for the Bushies would be eliminated...sorry.
To me, there will be no downside from making positive change, yet amazing upside. It's a no-brainer. The "worst" that I could see happening is that we'll revitalize the dead manufacturing sector of our economy, reduce and hopefully eliminate our need for foreign oil and it's negative consequences, we'll produce less harmful toxins, we'll finally have something to export again besides garbage, we'll unite the nation for a single cause for the better, we'll bring about an end of domination by corrupt oil producers, among other benefits.
Nuclear energy, btw, is not what I would consider a viable option any longer, if it ever has been. Not only does it require a massive amount of fossil fuel energy to bring a nuclear plant online, but it takes nearly 18 years of operation for that plant to even break even. The trend for the future is for smaller, localized electrical power generation, not massive behemoths that belch or produce massive amounts of pollution or toxic radioactive waste. Building more nuke plants makes about as much sense as subsidizing the purchase of gas-guzzling Humvees with tax credits.
Caring about the world you leave for your family is a moral value. Pretending that the market alone will take care of the problem has already been proven wrong. Look at the size of the cars we drive.Look at who leads the market place.
Louis presented reasons why some of us don't believe the actions of human beings have had any significant effect on our global climate. If you want you want more go HERE where I have provided a copy of an article by two scientists which refutes Mann's work, the basis for the contention that humans have had a significant effect on our climate. If you want more than that, provide your facts and I will attempt to answer them.
Those on this thread who take the opposite side from Louis and I have mainly spent their time in denial and have not provided any reasons why they believe as they do. Whatever their rationales and justifications are, they remain undisclosed. Instead, they have chosen to deride me in any number of ways.
Have they not actually examined the pros and cons of their beliefs and arrived independently at their conclusion? And if they have, why have they only been willing to condemn the other side and refuse to debate?
Only they know why and I certainly do not.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
That is one of the oddests statements I have seen written. The Kyoto Treaty would have simply shifted energy consumption from petroleum and
Coal to Natural Gas, therefor it is in the best interests of the "Gas" lobby to stoke the flames, so to speak, of the environmental movement.
Which is precisely what ENRON did.
The inconvenient truth about Al Gore, other than his families involvement in Occidental Petroleum was his invovlement with Ken Lay.
Al Gore's Oil Connection
Kyoto and ENRON
What's bizarre about recognizing the food production requires consumption of fossil fuels, and that "factory farms" tend to release massive quantities of greenhouse gasses?
What I find bizarre is someone attempting to discredit Gore's movie (which I'm fairly certain this person has not, and has no intention of seeing) by pointing out that Gore (and the Clinton administration) had ties to an oil company and attempted to help them gain drlling rights in Columbia.
How exactly does this equate to: "Global warming is nonsense that should be ignored, mocked, ridiculed, or all of the above?"
And, I'm still waiting to hear why "conservatives" are so strongly opposed to anything that would undoubtedly spur massive economic growth.
Throw out the theory on global warming altogether, if you want. You can NOT argue that it is in this nation's best interest to continue sucking the teat of foreign oil.
Once you're willing to accept that fact, you must also face and accept the fact that SOMETHING has to be developed that will displace that foreign oil.
Once you've accepted this fact, you've got to explain to yourself why you're so staunchly opposed to progress, technological advancement, and economic expansion. My guess is that, when you've finally moved past your ideological marching orders, you'll find it very difficult indeed to defend your position against economic expansion.
Crazy celeb said "I'm all for putting a stop to global warming. But some of the tips confuse me a bit, especially the one about a trip to McDonald's wasting 3.5 gallons of oil. Could someone shed some light on that one?"
The complete details are in the first section of Michael Pollan's book The Omnivore's Dilemma, but in a nutshell, it refers to the fossil fuels necesary in producing the food, shipping it, packaging it, and then the few drops more he expended in the 5 minutes he spen eating it on the road as it is intended to be eaten.
Oh, and Cark Kent - right on. I'm still waiting to hear what happened to the "conserve" part of "conservative."
Oh, and it's always fun to cite a nuclear meltdown that didn't kill people but what about....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident
I certainly hope that Al Gore is wrong.
I am not a scientist so I have to base my opinion on that of scientists who are expert in their field.
There seem to be two opinions.
I will, as a layman, go with the majority opinion. It is how we decide court cases and elect presidents.
The majority opinion is an overwhelming majority of scientists.
On the off chance that those scientists are wrong the worst that will have happened is that we will have spent a bunch of money and cleaned up the air.
On the chance that they are right and we do nothing - the results could be devastating.
For years some people argued that there was no absolute and definitive proof smoking caused cancer. Many of the folks who decided to continue to smoke until there was 100% proven evidence that smoking will give them cancer are dead.
Clark, there were 95 members of the Senate who voted 95-0 to advise the President not to pursue the Kyoto Treaty for the precise reason that it would cripple our economy. Might you be totally wrong about a massive economic growth?
Please tell us how you came to your conclusion?
You might also look at what the signers of the Kyoto Treaty have done since signing. They have on average increased their emissions. They have also been unable to pass laws effecting the necessary changes for the precise reason that the damage to their economies would be extensive.
Meanwhile, under the Bush administration U.S. emissions have decreased even though we are not a signer. Must be magic. Having been an electric utility executive for a number of years, I can assure you that it was not magic.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but let's take them at face value for a moment. You're saying that without the incentives of Kyoto, without the force of law to make them do it, "U.S. emissions" (do you mean all or from power plants?) have decreased during the Bush administration.
You say it wasn't magic, and so I can infer that it didn't simply happen on its own. Am I therefore to understand that it happened as a result of decisions made by your fellow industry executives around the country? Why did they make such decisions? Making them is a tacit acknowledgement that there is some benefit to lower emmisions. Is it the usual benefit executives look for (ROI for stockholders)? Or do they want a better environment or their grandchildren? Perhaps both? Surely this can't be implying that reducing CO2 emmisions might have some - oh, I don't know - benefit?
Why did they do it? (Assuming as I did from the outset that they actually did)
The inconvenient truth is that they need to lay off the Big Macs...they are two tubs.
You imply that utility execs have never cared about emitting pollutants into the atmosphere and in that you are totally wrong.
You don't have the moral high ground and I would venture to say that compared to you they know more about the hazards of emissions and care more about reducing them. But they can't just sit around and criticize because they must produce the electricity demanded by the public or get a new job in a different industry.
As concerns ROI, there isn't any. The main motivations have always been less pollution and compliance with the law. Where the gain is reasonably clear, we haven't needed laws just our own consciences. Where the gain is not so clear, laws have been needed.
Each year in which I attended national conferences of utility execs, pollution control technology was always a big subject and most utilities were continually striving to do better. Striving means spending a lot of money to figure out what could be done to do better.
Bush was particularly helpful to the industry by allowing plants to make modifications to improve emission performance without tearing down the whole place. Tearing down the whole place and replacing it is rarely a financially viable alternative, so plants were operating with old technology that could not be changed inspite of high emissions. Bush's changes allowed the installation of new technology which had been available for years but could not be used due to the old restrictions.
In addition, new plants built to meet new demand were designed to use natural gas in order to reduce emissions. It is not clear to me that we will be able to supply these plants with natural gas for the longterm but there are many initiatives to address the supply issue. Large imports of LNG will be necesary unless Congress releases some of our own resources for development.
Best regards, Ben
I would hope that food production would continue to comsume a great deal of fossil fuels for years to come and that factory farms would grow and become more and more efficient.
It is in the interest of all of us that food becomes cheaper and more plentiful, especially the least off among us.
It would seem rational to argue whether scooting around in big SUV's is good use of precious fossil fuels, but that it is a no brainer to argue the wise policy of a tractor doing the same.
I think you are mentally merging two ideologies that best be left seperate.
Is it efficent to continue increasing production when so much of each crop is discarded? If a grower is a member of a consortium, parts of his fields will go unharvested when he meets his production quotas. Harvested produce that is too large, too small, too ripe, too green, oddly shaped, or insect damaged is culled out based on marketing standards. Retailers and wholesalers also throw out tons of food because it is either no longer pretty enough to sell or it is of such low quality that it has begun to rot.
Besides all this, advice from corporate lawyers says that all of this discarded food must be destroyed so it can't fall into the hands of hungry individuals or charities who would be more than grateful for the chance to sort the good from the bad and make some use of all this waste.
I agree with you that, especially in the United States, fruits and vegetables lack the quality of taste because consumers prefer presentation, but does the blame not rest with consumer taste?
None the less, it is odd to be speaking of food quality in the context of Global Warming.
As for the fantasy of "corporate lawyers" advising that food be destroyed ... have you heard of the Second Harvest network?
"Corporate lawyers" fully understand the legal and accounting concept of "goodwill", as well as the tax implications of donating to charity. I doubt that any "corporate lawyer" worth their salt would neglect their fiduciary or legal responsibilities by failing to encourage participation in the program.
I am also enjoying the subsequent discussion.
I have a small garden, and buy locally what I can. The corn is about ready, and there is NOTHING like Ohio grown sweet corn. I applaude your enlightening many that food trucked in from far away costs dearly in the long run. It is too bad the processed stuff is so cheap and is all many can afford.
The book is scientific to a degree but easy to read.
I think we need to educate ourself and listen to all views
so we can make decision to change our habits when necessary.
The site stopglobalwarming also has good suggestion on how to save energy, little things we can all do every day that make a difference.
As far as developing local economies you need to read Wendell Berry's books, he has been talking about this for years and not just for the purpose of saving energy, gas etc. but also for economic stability and reliabilty of a food source independent of the large corps.
The economy cannot grow for ever, our natural resources are finite, just like water is.
While I'm contributing, I didn't start this drift off the original subject, but it's related because the American food production and distribution systems do consume more energy than they need to. Besides, there's been no mention yet of the unavoidable energy consumption by homes and businesses because buildings need to be heated or cooled even if there is nobody around to occupy them.
While it is sad that some company may have a misguided policy on food contribution, it is definitly the exception that obscures the rule.
General Mills donates $12 million worth of food to charity annually.
SUPERVALUE donates 8 million lbs of food to Second Harvest Annually.
ConAgra is the nation's leading contributor to Kid's Cafe, an association affiliated with Second Harvest.
Maybe the problem with the "organic produce wholesale coop" bought out by a "national corporation" was the lack of a corporate attorney rather than because of them.
Compared to transporation, the energy consumption of food production barely registers.
A rational energy policy would focus far more on the fuel economy of SUV's than on the use of tractors and combines.
Although it does bear mentioning that it is agriculture in Minnesota that has been rolling the ball of bio-diesel.
As for fuel economy, how many newer vehicles on the road today could get around double the mileage simply by replacing its engine control computer with a EU version? I heard a story from a friend about someone he knew that bought a big car that got mileage figures in the 40's. Unfortunately, it was discovered that the car was built for Europe and when the owner was finally convinced to bring the car in to have the error corrected, the only major component that was replaced was the "engine control computer". After that, its MPG figures dropped into the high teens and low 20's. I can't remember what make or model the car was, but it's probably not important to this conversation.
Quite correct.
I was shocked to learn when I went shopping for Smart Car: fortwo that the US EPA will not accept the engine settings that the German (EPA equivalent) will.
Here is this, very cool, little two seater that gets 70MPG and the EPA requires equipment fitted on that lowers its MPG to 40.
I will also disclaim, that I am not equipped for debate with a volume of research. I have read quite a bit on this subject and I think I make a good effort to take in as many sides of this issue as possible.
In honor of Ben's call for intelligible debate, I would like to just offer opinion and observation.
I find it VERY difficult to subscribe to any point of view that says that our planet is dwindling away in global warming. I have always had problems with this issue, and have not accepted any argument made on it's behalf since.
I do what i can to "conserve". However, I have found that if I took all the advice that we are bombarded with, we have very little time to make any other productive contribution to society. Some of this stuff is just plain silly when it comes to putting into action.
I work in the oil industry. Mostly in the production and exploration part of the industry. I have observed that some of the biggest OPPONENTS or PROTESTORS to what I do, drive SUVs. The BIG kind. That is just the beginning, the list of contradictions can just go on and on. No, that does NOT come from what someone has told me, just something that I have observed, and it makes me wonder.
Another problem I have with the issue of global warming is the polarization on political parties. Just seems to me it is fodder for elections.
Gore makes some good points. But I have to confess, I have never been impressed with him as a leader OR an intellect. Personally, I would not trust the man alone in a room with my kids. I say that to say this, I have always felt like he was lying about something. I find myself asking, just what is it you want Al?
I digress... Why is this issue so divided along "party lines"? The answer I am looking for is not in the answer. Something is not right up in the hen house. If the issue of global warning is something we are to be alarmed about it, why do we need government officials to tell us so.
I do not need our government to tell me how to think. I have not asked for them to think for me. None of us do. We need to start thinking for ourselves.
All of the things that we are TOLD to do to avoid global warming are things we should be doing anyway, if we are to be responsible stewards of our resources. NOT because AL told us our planet was wasting away. Nor should we do it because some Treaty or law has been issued to direct how we should live.
If I adopt any view that we are truly suffering from global warming it will NOT be because of some government policy. It will be because I have educated myself and become convinced it is so. It will be the viewpoint of people of like Ben and Kurt that educate me, not some government policy.
Most of what I read above sounds a lot like the re-hashing of things that we hear on 60 Minutes, CNN, etc.
Make your mind up for yourself. I am not sure I am even there yet, but I am working to make sure that the way I live is based on solid information. NOT the politically slanted and motivated rantings of an ex-Vice President or a politically motivated pundit.
Meanwhile, I am just working to be the best steward of our resources as I can possibly be.
I am most interested in Aquaponics in a recirculating system for the backyard as a positive way to get food without killing children for oil. I am planning a small, handmade ferrocement tank with tilapia and sandbeds for filtration and growing of veggies and greens. This is a highly efficient system detailed in thosands of web postings. Localized Fish and veggies in the backyard or rooftop, anyone? Oh yes, if someone is impaired about the truth, let's not get aggressive, which could obfuscate the real reason we are posting and reading. Onward...
I want to know more about his Fish-and-veggie garden. Not that I would do it myself- I grow wildflowers and herbs, with the occasional hardy onion or garlic thrown into the border - I do have some rather energetic friends.
I buy my fruits and veggies, eggs and cheeses from farmer's market, as much as possible, from the people who grow them. I try to stay away from chains of all kinds- you vote with your money and I vote for Victoria's pasta with everything made fresh there, by the hands of young chefs who care, and I vote for Suzy and Wampus and the vegetarian deli and cheese shop they are opening on Main Street. I buy gifts and cards and the best cookies anywhere from Nancy, at Cookies and Cards because she is nice and it isn't the same old crap. And I do not shop at Walmart, because that would helping to cheat American workers, both their employees and the ones who are losing their jobs to overseas factories where the workers earn pennies and live and work under sometimes horrible conditions. I vote with my money for us, America, all of us.
Also, when you start talking about factory food, from the supermarket or the chain restaurant, there is less nutrition, less real flavor and more garbage- I mean, there is a government-endorsed acceptable level of rat feces for that stuff!
I wanted to address what Crazy celeb asked:
"Couldn't the same be said, for example, about a person who drives to a supermarket, buys an orange that's been imported from Chile, and then leaves and eats it in the car on the way home? I mean, if someone's eating food in the car, it doesn't have anything to do with the food being eaten that's wasting the gas. They're obviously driving somewhere for a reason, and they'd be driving there whether or not they were eating a Big Mac while doing it."
Well, your mostly accurate there, CC, and I think you'll find if you read my other posts here on Gather that I am a somewhat pathological advocate for buying food locally, for a host of reasons. But the part about eating in the car, even Mr. Pollan acknowledges, is a miniscule part of the oil consumption. Most of it comes from the use of petroleum-based chemicals in the production of industrial agriculture, as well as the harvesting, packing, refrigerating and shipping.
But you're dead on about that orange from Chile, very wasteful. Now of course we don't grow oranges here in Iowa, so I buy oranges that come from FL or CA (sometimes Texas). The thing is to try to buy everything FEASIBLE from local sources, and to buy them in season so as to avoid the need for shipping oranges from Chile, Tomatoes from Mexico (which usually taste nasty anyway) or lamb from New Zealand.
Even if you reject every argument made in the film, as some of the commenters here have, there's simply no denying that fresh food tastes best an is better for you, and local food is by definition fresher than, for example, tomatoes picked green in Mexico, then shipped by rail to Chicago, all the way being force-fed (petroleum-based synthetic) ethane gas to "ripen" them. Local food uses less energy to produce and therefore is better for the environment, and there is no better control over the quality of your food than shaking the hand that raised it.
Not to challenge you or anything, but have you used farmed tilapia, the most efficient farmed fish in your cuisine? Do you have any recipes for these delicate panfish types? A study on Samoan fish tradition covered cooking fish in coconut milk, which sounds very interesting to me, given thai food... wonder if that would be too much for small fillets...
" The problem with the theory about global warming is that the models are inaccurate. I've done modeling and can attest to the problems with the unknowns. The computational power required for accurate prediction has not, until recently been available, and still is not generally available. "
As if in answer (well, no "as if," simply in answer):
"Super Computers Make Global Warming Visible
Machine Predicts Rising Temperatures as Escaping Gas Bubbles Up Through the Sea
By BILL BLAKEMORE, ABCNews.com
(Aug. 5) - Whatever climate scientists may currently disagree about (and good scientists are always disagreeing about something) virtually all of them have long since agreed that human activity -- burning fossil fuels -- has been making the global temperature go up. And now they have two very sobering, visual ways to explain how.
Leading climate scientists now generally agree that earth in the coming decades will warm another 2 degrees Fahrenheit no matter what we do.
Leading climate scientists now generally agree that earth in the coming decades will warm another 2 degrees Fahrenheit no matter what we do.
The first is in the basement of a futuristic building in the foothills of the Colorado Rockies and requires a special pass, the other is down on the sea floor off the coast of California, requiring SCUBA gear and a waterproof map.
The gigantic super-computer in the basement of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., is so big you can walk down the aisles inside it, the walls of the sleek black servers at either elbow, wrapped in the constant hum of air coolers and countless trillions of silicon chip operations working day and night to calculate the climate future over the next several decades of the only home we've got: Earth.
"These super computers are getting more and more powerful every year," scientist Jerry Meehl told us as he gave us the tour. "It makes the computers we were using for global warming predictions back in the 1980s look primitive."
Read the whole story at:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/super-computers-make-global-warming/20060804230209990009?cid=2194
NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).
"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California's state capital."
read the whole story at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/
Ben, how much smarter are you and your sources than the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies?
Ya know, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to...
Well, maybe it does.
"Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading"."
So, now NASA and the Royal Society.
You deniers still think yours is the more accurate science?
Read the whole article here:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html