Comments on: Many Solutions But Just One Choice: Al Gore Launches his New Book

By: Margarita Persico

Margarita Persico — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:24:04 +0000

Maria,
Thanks for sharing this. If we only did our fair share by not consuming 75% to 90% of products contributing to this problem we wouldn’t need to worry about politicians, some scientists misguiding us, or environmentalist spending their time to convince us. Really, there is nothing to convince, the problem is real! We all have the power to reduce our carbon footprint. If we don’t consume these “bad” products, they won’t manufacture/produce what they can’t sell. Eat organic, purchase fresh unpackaged/unfrozen foods, bike, walk, plan better so we don’t have to make more unnecessary trips, don’t use a/c instead install fans and window screens … there is so much we can do, but we have to be willing to do it. And if we can make the effort — as you said, the average person spends 17 years watching television –- to watch less T.V., we would gain so much more time and life, and we can start to take care of the earth and us. Loving our planet is to love our children.

I can’t help but recall driving to Irazu volcano, Costa Rica, several months ago, where I’ve been living. The volcanic land is so fertile, but they were using something that day that smell so bad. It shocked me – fertilizers, I was told. A country that calls itself green, but still even in fertile land uses chemicals was a surprise to me. I had to write about this experience at my web site I blogged: “The road to Irazu Volcano” (www.margaritapersico.com/?p=564)
Gracias,
Margarita Persico

By: Tony Case

Tony Case — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:02:34 +0000

Right on, Maria. Think what a difference it would make if this ignorant, arrogant, fat, over-consuming, bloated nation of ours would wise up & do even HALF of what Gore proposes. Following libertarian_paternalist’s point, apathy & cynicism & ridicule do not constitute intelligent debate, though it’s fascinating (demoralizing?) the extent to which simple-mindedness & name-calling make up what’s laughingly referred to as “political discourse” in this country in these times. (What rational, thinking person can take seriously the point of view of anyone who makes an absurd comment like: “We [humans] ARE CARBON, so until we get rid of humans, there will be ‘footprints’ all over”? This is political debate at its most Foxian, its most Glenn Beckian, indeed.) Gore makes the point in his book, & it’s a point that’s been made many times before, that concern for & care for the environment should not, must not be a political issue. Yes, there are differing ideas about the solutions to these problems, but jeebus, are we not finally at the point that we must all agree there IS a problem?? Naturally, though, because it’s Gore, people will begin tearing down anything he says the minute he opens his mouth, instead of actually listening & learning &, horror of horrors, doing the right thing. In the book, Gore meticulously explains how & why this stuff has gotten politicized: in short, because of pandering politicians, greedy industry & their lobbyists, & a public that is all too happily, blissfully ignorant so long as they have their Suburbans, McMansions & Big Macs. (Would you like fries w/ your global ecological meltdown??)

By: libertarian_paternalist

libertarian_paternalist — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:40:26 +0000

Dtabor,

Not to be contrary, but you’re a nitwit.

Trees most certainly do store carbon, for their lifetimes AND LONGER. CO2 is a molecule of one carbon and two oxygen atoms. Trees breathe it in, capture the C (and use it to build wood), and return the O2 to the atmosphere. Coal = long-dead, compressed and metamorphised organic matter (trees). Burning recombines the carbon with oxygen, bringing back the CO2 that had been sequestered. Damn right it’s a system, one that has been thrown dangerously out of whack by humankind (and that persists because of troglodyte conservatives).

But thanks for making positive suggestions on how to live sustainably and selflessly. I’m sure we all got a lot from your trollish comment.

The deadliest substance on earth is ignorance. Work on remediating yours.

“thanks”

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:30:50 +0000

It should be noted that not only does Al Gore come across as an incredible passionate and informed speaker, he does so while rocking some awesome cowboy boots!

By: Maya

Maya — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:53:16 +0000

Well said Michelle!!!

By: Michelle

Michelle — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:12:52 +0000

I don’t believe I have heard anyone say that we should eliminate our carbon footprint, or I think I would agree with dtabor. I’ve only heard people advocate the reduction of our carbon footprint.
Also, I am happy to hear someone talking about our responsibilities as stewards of our planet. I was watching a youtube video put out by the Nicene Council that made me wonder what kinds of stewards of the planet Earth they were? Perhaps the ostrich kind?
Finally, I am also happy that someone is talking about choice. There are hundreds if not thousands of choices we make everyday. Why not choose organic when you can, efficiency when you can, the planet earth when you can?

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:12:12 +0000

I agree with Maria 100 percent in our world if we all do some lifestyle changes we can change our world. I drive but try to run all errands in 1 trip, change lightbulbs, turn off tv . Its our choice to do the right thing.

By: maria

maria — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:44:51 +0000

dear dtabor,

I am assuming you don’t drive a car? And I’m sure you don’t use any heating or cooling in your home.

We can debate the details and throw sand in faces all you want. But meanwhile, I’ve made my choice and I’m taking action…all my carbon included!

By: dtabor

dtabor — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:08:02 +0000

Not to be contrary – the Nobel prize was given to a “GROUP” that Albert was part of (although media claiming it was only him is not surprising.)
Storing Carbon Dioxide? Not really. It’s a system – trees (plants) are goodness since they “breathe in CO2″ and “exhale” oxygen. But they don’t store it.
And when is media going to get it – carbon footprint. We (humans) ARE CARBON, so until we get rid of humans, there will be “footprints” all over.
CFL (lights) contain the most deadly substance on earth – mercury. Short term thinking says they drastically reduce power consumption, but long term says that there is a lot more toxic substance being mined, refined and having to be recycled (somehow). The same applies to Hybrid cars – materials come from all over the planet (on ships that are one of the worst polluters) and the amount of lead used for batteries exposes a lot more people to this toxic substance.

At least let’s try to get some of the truth (as inconvenient as it might be) for BOTH sides out there. Engineering says that everything needs to be considered in making a rational choice.

Thanks