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

[Eric Canon]

Thank you Chris for doing such an excellent job
with this post from Steven. Government and
legislative action can be an excellent tool for
society to respond to a given situation, and
global warming is certainly a prime candidate for
such a response. 

--- Chris Genly <chgenly at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>