[Grovenet] Roger Ebert (movie reviewer) on Al Gore's AnInconvenient Truth

[Chris Genly]

Steven wrote:

>Well, one thing the movie did was get Ebert to wake up.
>"I did a funny thing when I came home after seeing "An Inconvenient Truth."
>I went around the house turning off the lights. "
>Something I've done for years.
>Here's a quote from a NY Post review.
>"Global warming hasn't noticed that we got the lead out of our gasoline or
>that Stage One smog days in Los Angeles fell from 121 in 1977 to zero in
>2004. All regulations and taxes to date have done nothing. Does this hint
>that pollution isn't the cause? "
>  
>
I find this quote horribly ignorant.  He is quoting cases that were 
legislative success stories.  Yet he goes on to say global warming 
hasn't noticed as if they were connected. 

We didn't get the lead out of gasoline because of global warming.  We 
did it because it was poisoning us.   Recent studies have shown that 
even tiny amounts of lead exposure can result in impulse control and 
anger problems.  So there was even more reason to get the lead out than 
was realized when the legislation was passed. 

Smog is caused by the reaction of combustion products, primarily ozone, 
with air under the influence of sunlight.  Combine this with a thermal 
inversion, that often occurs over cities, and you end up trapping SMOG 
in a small area (small on the scale of weather).   SMOG was making 
people sick.  Especially people with breathing problems like asthma.

Lead and low altitude ozone do not contribute to global warming.  The 
primary culprit is carbon dioxide.  The amount of carbon dioxide 
produced by burning gasoline is huge compared to the amount of ozone 
that was produced with older cars.  The cleanest burning carbon fuels, 
like methane, will result in carbon dioxide and water vapor as a direct 
result of combustion.  It's not like the tiny amount of ozone that was 
produced because of "improper" combustion.  This makes reduction of 
carbon dioxide emissions a much harder problem than SMOG.  SMOG was easy 
to fix in comparison.

Given the success of reducing SMOG, eliminating lead, and the reduction 
of the ozone hole I would say environmental legislation works very 
well.  We have not yet tackled global warming with legislation in this 
country.  And like the ozone hole, many countries are going to have to 
tackle this.

>I find it funny to read movie reviewers turned political pundits. If one guy
>has been wasting energy until June 2006 and the other doesn't want to
>realize expanded uses of energy, maybe we should remind them to stick to
>celluloid.
>  
>
Lights are a very small part of wasting energy.  Turning them off is 
more of a symbolic gesture.  The single most wasteful appliance in the 
household is your refrigerator.  Although refrigerators have become more 
efficient over the years with the green energy campaign, they have a 
long way to go.  People who run off of solar panels have a tight energy 
budget, so they buy refrigerators that are very efficient.  These 
efficient refrigerators show we can make efficient ones.  They are not 
just theoretical.

Turning off lights indicates a raised awareness and that is really 
excellent.  More people need to have their consciousness raised on this 
issue.

I can't call Ebert a political pundit.  He's just a guy that has 
suddenly become aware of a major problem and wants to do something about 
it.  I wouldn't tell him to stick to celluloid.   I hope many others, 
like him, learn more and take a stand.

>I don't think that WashDC is a solution to polution. 
>
There is no way businesses will move away from carbon fuels unless it is 
legislated.  There are pragmatic, technical, and social problems to 
solve here.  It is a massive task and it will take a society that backs 
the transformation.

>So if the movie will
>make more folks turn off their lights and think green, I'll say thank you
>Al. 
>
I hope people will do more than shut off the lights.  Shutting off the 
lights is not going to slow global warming.   If people switch to 
hybrids, or even better electric vehicles, or if car manufacturers start 
selling hydrogen cars and people buy them, that will make a big 
difference.  We also have to stop burning coal, oil and methane.

>Probably the best think he's done since inventing the internet. But if
>it produces dumb legislation with no benefit, well yuk.
>  
>
His crack about the internet was a real blunder.  There is every reason 
to believe legislation will have a direct impact on carbon dioxide 
production.

>If the ozone hole was caused by flurocarbons, and solved by legislation,
>look at the lag time. I wonder what the lag time is in global warming?
>  
>
Good point.  The lag time is much greater.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
>Behalf Of Chris Genly
>Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 5:20 PM
>To: grovenet at rdrop.com
>Subject: [Grovenet] Roger Ebert (movie reviewer) on Al Gore's
>AnInconvenient Truth
>
>
>http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/6
>0517002
>
>Ex-US Vice President Al Gore has a new movie out, about his passion,
>global warming, and what he says is the linkage with man made pollution
>from burning fossil fuels. Ebert has his movie review, although this
>isn't his normal movie review.
>
>
>"In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but
>here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not,
>and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided
>not to."
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>GroveNet mailing list
>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>  
>