My critique of Inconvenient Truth

[garybeck]

well I finally found 2 hours to sit down and watch this important film.

overall I was very happy with it. it confirmed my admiration for Gore (and hopes that he runs in 08). Finally someone made a movie about the most important subject we face as a planet.

All my "constructive criticism" is within the context of thinking the film was excellent. And basically all of my critiques are on issues that just should have been discussed more, not that they were ignored.

Having said that, a couple things that could have made it a little better:

1) the information, charts, and facts were presented without enough background on where the information was coming from, and how the "consensus" agrees. It would have been nice to see some of the scientists speak for themselves, rather than Al talking about their studies. All the hype about the movie led me to believe that it was going to go into great depth about how global warming is considered scientific fact now, and the consortium studies. It was mentioned in the film, about how a couple studies surveyed the articles published on global warming and they all agreed. I would have liked to see more discussion of the "skeptics" and how their theories are not based on any facts. I already accidently tuned into Michael Savage radio show (yikes!) the other day and heard him saying that the film is not based on any facts and has all kinds of errors in it. I would have liked to see some things built into the film that could serve as an "immunization" for these types of attacks. Like how about having a Republican or two come on there and show how they agree with the science and the facts presented. Expose a skeptic or two, within the film itself...

2) There was not enough about solutions. The graphic showing the gold bars on a scale, versus the entire earth, was misleading, even though Al pointed out afterwards it was a false assumption and that environmental policy actually creates jobs and wealth. But I would haved like to see this discussed more. It's not just that it would create some jobs, it could actually save our economy which is on the brink of disaster, and it could end our dependence on Middle Eastern countries (and end the need to fight wars over oil). I would have loved to see him discuss the new Apollo Alliance - an economic plan that would do just that - which proves renewable energy could create millions of jobs and save our economy.

I was waiting at the end for some instructions on what we can all do to save the planet. I found I had to squint and read tiny writing in the middle of the credits at the end, to learn about compact fluorescent light bulbs and hybrid cars. I wish they would have gotten into biofuels, which in my opinion are a much better solution than hybrids, because they are carbon neutral (while hybrids still put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere). I wish they would have discussed some of the myths about renewable energy - like it's too expensive and we need to do more research. the truth is that we have existing technology NOW that could save our planet.

Don't get me wrong. It's a great film and I think it will be an eye opener for people who have never been presented with the facts, and I'm so glad that is happening. But I think it was lacking focus on solutions, implying that we all have to change, and it might be difficult, but not really saying how or what we have to change. (in my mind this assumption is basically false... we don't need to change our lifestyle significantly, we just need to change our energy and environmental policy). And I would have liked to see some built in "immunizations" from the onslaught of skepticism that will come (is coming) from the corporate liars.

Thank you Al. You have my vote.

Now, just run. Please.

[Erika]

1. It's interesting how the dems are slammed

for lack of solutions while the GOP has all the power.

The GOP needs to be slammed for the lack of solutions.

[garybeck]

3. i'm not slamming Al :)

i'm not slamming Al for lack of solutions. my criticism on this is more on the producer. I know Al knows about the solutions and he would be happy to talk about them. the producer of the film chose not to focus on this.

[LSK]

16. hes not slamming Al

Hes just offering some suggestions.

[Mind_your_head]

2. You've got the crux of the matter RIGHT HERE

But I think it was lacking focus on solutions, implying that we all have to change, and it might be difficult, but not really saying how or what we have to change. (in my mind this assumption is basically false... we don't need to change our lifestyle significantly, we just need to change our energy and environmental policy).

[kestrel91316]

45. Our lifestyle is NOT SUSTAINABLE. We had better change it.

And while we are at it we had better change environmental and energy policy, too.

And we need to do it all PDQ or it will be too late. If it's not, already.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. It should be seen on a double-bill with Who Killed the Electric Car. nt

[garybeck]

8. Electric cars are not the solution.

I have not seen the film, but I can tell you that if we switched to electric cars the increased demand on electric power would not be good for global warming.

It is true that an electric motor is more efficient than an internal combustion engine. However, traditional electric power sources such as coal are extremely inefficient and large contributors of greenhouse gases.

Unless we change our source of energy it matters little if we switch to electic cars. That would only change the location of the pollution from the roads and highways back to the power plants.

[GliderGuider]

12. Nuclear?

If we want to retain the energy base necessary for an industrial civilization of 7 billion people and not fry ourselves in the process, I've come to the reluctant conclusion that James Havelock is right: nuclear power is the only semi-sane option with the capacity to do it. However, I don't believe we have either the time left or the political will to make that leap.

Our civilization is so far up the growth curve (what ecologists who study system resilience call the foreloop of the adaptive cycle) that we have lost a lot of resilience in both our civilization and the ecosphere. This puts us at huge risk from the cascading effects of a collapse anywhere within our global niche. It's impossible to say where the epicenter will be. I've been thinking oil depletion, but it doesn't need to be anything so dramatic. A cascading collapse can start with something small, much as a single rolling rock or sliding snowdrift can trigger an avalanche.

I'm just starting to read up on resilience research and adaptive processes in complex systems. I think it may be the most important area to investigate to gain a system-level understanding of our civilization's strengths and vulnerabilities. I think that focusing on specific technological solutions, whether it's electric cars, biofuels, solar power, nuclear power, coal to liquids or anything else, is to entirely miss the point of what's happening in human civilization and the ecosphere right now.

http://www.resalliance.org/1.php

[garybeck]

20. no, ZERO nuclear power is needed.

I'm not even going to read your post. Nuclear energy simply is NOT NEEDED AT ALL.

Are you aware, there is something called RENEWABLE ENERGY? Solar and wind power (and other renewables) is all we need, period.

It actually would only take 1/5th the state of Arizona to power our entire country with solar.

Don't believe the liars. the truth is right on the DOE's website:

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html#1


ZERO NUCLEAR POWER IS NEEDED. ZERO.

[LSK]

21. the problem is getting that energy from Nevada to say Vermont

Not everywhere is as sunny as Nevada and you cant transport electric 2000 miles.

Im sure there are some problems with Nuclear energy, but why not address those specific problems instead of completely dismissing it as a solution?

[garybeck]

24. nuclear energy is a problem, not a solution

why use nuclear energy if you don't need it? it creates tons of extremely harmful radioactive waste that lasts for generations. uranium mining is bad. nuclear reactors are dangerous.

we simply just DON't NEED IT.

what you are saying about moving the power from Arizona to Vermont is true. but the example I gave was simplistic and would never be tried anyway. the point is, we can create our own power from 100% renewable energy. just take that Arizona example and break it up into 100 smaller solar energy plants and spread them all over the country. Combine it with some wind power, and other renewable energy technologies like ocean thermal, hydro electric, etc... and it is just a NO-BRAINER. Why would you use nuclear when all these other clean and safe technologies are available? There is no reason to use nuclear at all. Whoever is writing that propoganda that it's the "only sane solution" is simply a liar. Don't believe it. It's not true.

[GliderGuider]

32. You really should read my post

While we may disagree about the desirability of nuclear power (and I'm not much of a fan either, I just never say never), there is something in my post about adaptive cycles and resilience you might find interesting.

Do you understand the concept of Energy Returned on Energy Invested, and the implications of powering a global civilization with energy sources that have an EROEI of 10% that of oil? Do you know the EROEI of oil, natural gas and photovoltaics?

I've been researching alternative energy for three years now, and your faith in humanity's ability to substitute oil with renewables and just keep on trucking tells me you haven't crunched the numbers yet.

[garybeck]

35. I did. It's just false.

I have been doing this for 18 years. I've designed thousands of solar energy systems that are in use all over the world today. I have written articles and books about this. I have crunched the numbers. As a matter of fact here's an article I wrote last year which proves what I'm saying, with all the numbers included. Look at item #3 of this newsletter:

http://www.solarbus.org/newsletters/nl1.html

I have read your post. It's just wrong.

Anyone who says "nuclear is the only sane option" is just plain wrong. It's not opinion, it's not optimism. It's wrong. It's a lie. I'm not criticising you, but I am criticising the person you quoted saying that nuclear is the only sane option, because this is a false statement based on lies.

[GliderGuider]

46. PV and wind can't provide either baseload capacity or peak capacity

This automatically limits the amount of such variable capacity that can be tied into the grid. A recent estimate from the UK indicates a maximum of 25%. You still need base load power and peak power. While there is room for renewables in the mix, it's not as large as we'd like it to be.

[garybeck]

50. yes it can.

if you take the total amount of electric power that our country consumes, it can be offset with renewables - there is no question of this. The math is simple. The issues you raise are valid but they can all be mitigated. Energy has to be stored, transported, and transformed so that power can be used by all loads at all times. Hydrogen plays a key role in all this.

[Odin2005]

40. "I'm not even going to read your post" Typical Nucleophobe...

:banghead:

We need BOTH Nuclear AND renewables, BOTH. Not one, notr the other, BOTH!

[garybeck]

42. I did read the post. It is wrong. we do not need nuclear at all, period.

maybe you can tell me what exactly we need it for, considering there is more than enough solar, wind, and other renewable energy for us to supply all our energy needs?

[GliderGuider]

49. Maybe you could clarify what problems you're trying to solve with renewables?

There are two biggies that I can see - global warming and peak oil.

To combat GW you need to displace the consumption of oil, coal and natural gas. Renewables do well at replacing coal and NG in electrical generation (up to some cutoff point, probably round 25% of the grid capacity). Electricity does poorly at substituting for transportation fuel, at least at a global scale.

To mitigate peak oil you need to replace oil. 99% of all transportation today is powered by oil. Electricity does this poorly due to the costs and capacity shortcomings of current battery and fuel cell technology. Hydrogen is a non-starter. Current biofuels compete with food, have a low net energy, and very low agricultural production density.

We will use every means at our disposal to get out of the box, of course. But no matter how I slice it, it looks to me as though conservation and efficiency are our main weapons against both problems. Since efficiency will only take us so far, we are left with conservation - not just doing the same with less, but actually doing less. And Jevons Paradox says the Chinese and Indians win if we do that.

[garybeck]

51. "conservation and efficiency are our main weapons against both problems"

i agree conservation and efficiency are KEY, but I don't think any one thing is our "main weapon." the "master plan" has to be well coordinated. we can't just do one part of it, or we will fail. it involves renewables, effficiency, conservation, all of the above. it can be done. the answers are all there for us and the technology is available today. nuclear is not the answer. the question is just weather or not we have the will to elect leaders who recognize the need to do this.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. That misconception is discussed in WKTEC.

Electric cars is not THE solution, but it is one of many solutions that must encompass an organic whole. It is emblematic of the solution in that it decentralizes the energy industry.

I remember in the 70s oil crisis there were people out there promoting home windmills - they basically looked like the typical midwestern water pump windmills that used to be everywhere. If every suburban house had one, they could go 80% off the grid. If you had an electric car, you could charge it directly from wind power.

The technology exists, and the more it is used the cheaper it will be.

[garybeck]

22. not really.

you're correct, electric cars are not the solution, but they could play a role.

but your example of the windmills is not correct.

the water pump type wind mills do not create electricity. they still exist and they still are used for pumping water.

wind mills used for residential power are readily available but they do not look anything like those water pumps. Here are a few examples:

Air-X (400W)


Bergey XL (1000W)


It's not really true what you say "If every suburban house had one, they could go 80% off the grid. If you had an electric car, you could charge it directly from wind power." If you had en electric car, neither of these wind generators would be able to power it unless you drove a very small amount. It all depends on how much you want to drive. For the average american in a suburban area, an electric car would consume quite a bit of energy. To power 80% of your house and an electric car, you'd need SEVERAL of these wind generators.

[LSK]

17. not true, please go see the film

Plugin electric cars are a great choice for most commuters who have a 20 mile drive to work.

Also there was a thread here a few weeks ago about how our current electrical grid already can sustain plugin cars assuming most people will charge them overnight.

[garybeck]

23. it doesn't matter when they are charged really.

for every killowatt hour that is consumed, coal has to be burned and greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere. it is true, that peak demand during the day is what drives the need for new power plants, which is bad, and that even at night when less power is consumed, the generators can't just shut down, so they are still producing power. But my argument is that any real solution must go to the heart of the problem - the fact that those power plants are burning coal and putting CO2 into the atmosphere. we have to change from dirty energy sources to clean ones.

[LSK]

25. it is a 2 step solution

1. Generate our power using clean energy sources

2. Use that clean energy for transportation needs. Electric cars are part of this solution.

[garybeck]

27. look at it this way.

let's assume we've already switched to renewable energy power plants, so power generation is not the issue. you still want to have cars. what are your choices?

essentially the choice is between electric cars, hydrogen cars, and biofuels cars.

this is a long discussion. essentially all three can and should be used, which will spark competition and innovation. in my mind biofuels cars are the best option because the infrastructure required to provide the fuel comes from farming and growing plants which absorb CO2. It is the only option that is actually Carbon-negative. Driving a biofuel (if the fuel was produced locally) has a net negative affect on Carbon - it actually removes it from the atmosphere as you drive. All the others are at best carbon neutral.

[LSK]

31. assuming we dont use oil based fertilizers to grow the biofuels

[GliderGuider]

38. Let's look at biodiesel for automobiles

* Gallons of biodiesel that can be made from one acre of soybeans: 50
* Gallons of gasoline used by the average American driver in a year: 464
* Drivers in the US: 198 million
* Arable acres needed to make enough biodiesel for all of them: 1.8 billion
* Arable acres in the US: 427 million

That's not even counting the fact that it takes ten times as much energy to produce biodiesel as it does to produce oil.

Biofuels are dangerous from another point of view. During six of the last seven years, the world has consumed more grain than it has grown. Biofuels show every sign of being part of the problem space rather than part of the solution set.

[garybeck]

44. why are you using soybeans as an example? this is a bad example.

other crops produce far more vegetable oil. a study at UNH proves that algae produces far more oil than any land crop and could actually produce enough oil for our entire nation. check it out

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

[GliderGuider]

47. I know about algae and canola

I was using the current source of biodiesel for illustration. Switching to canola will reduce the land requirement to one third - from 1.8 billion acres to 600 million acres. It's still a non-starter.

Algal biodiesel is still in the research stage. I've been reading articles that say it's going to be very hard to get the theoretical yields, and it will be very difficult (expensive) to process. At this point algae is also a non-starter.

[Taverner]

53. There can be

Solar Panels + Electric Car = energy independence

[nashville_brook]

5. the film was made for normal human beings, not corporate liars...

if the film was built around the task of debunking corporate liars, it would prolly be unwatchable -- on the level of watching paint dry.

as to solutions -- maybe they don't exist yet -- but even if they did, wouldn't it seem like a corporate sales video if the film advocated some solutions and not others...

i think it's amazing that this movie exists at all. i'm not prepared to criticize the producer at all. this was an enormous challenge as a mass market motion picture.

having said that, i think your critiques make decent discussion questions -- but i don't think they are valid criticisms of the movie.

[garybeck]

6. solutions do exist

and it wouldn't seem like a corporate sales video unless it was being presented by the manufacturers.

my beef about not slamming the debunkers a little has to do with the fact that many people are still swayed by propoganda. reminder: FOX News is still the #1 news source in the country. I believe anything trutful nowadays needs some of what I call built in "offensive defense" to survive the propoganda attacks.

still a great movie.
peace.

[Mind_your_head]

7. Amen

I hope peeps start noticing who are the 'negative forces within' here....take (physical) notes if you must to keep up.

Peace,
M_Y_H

[nashville_brook]

18. leaving the dialogue open is solid offensive strategy b/c it keeps people talking

remember that Gore had a reputation (undeserved) of being a smarty-panty know-it-all as far as the MSM was concerned. NPR's Bob Mondello said it this way:

"...the Al Gore of the film is a "different" Al Gore than the public is accustomed to hearing: pensive, funny and thoughtful about an issue that he calls a "planetary emergency."

Mondello was apparently countering Gore's MSM image of being 'thoughtless, unfunny and, uh... thoughtless.' (and i used to like Mondello...)

with an open dialogue, the MSM was robbed of their favorite Gore meme -- that he was a know-it-all. in discussing the film, the MSM is now invited to participate in the search for solutions. i agree, there's plenty out there... easy enough for even a network anchor to find. if they were handed the "right answer" i think they would have spent their time trying to find fault, rather than advancing the cause.

i totally agree that we need an "offensive defense," but i just wanted to register that i believe Al and director Davis Guggenheim have taken this idea to heart and presented a Jujitsu Offense. The proof is in the fact that the movie came out in May and we're still talking about. The book and DVD and still best sellers. An Inconvenient Truth is on everyone's Best of 2006 list and is up for an Oscar, meaning we will continue to talk about this for another few months. And... if he decides to run again, he's set-up perfectly to START talking about solutions instead of DEFENDING his position.

i think that rhetorically, this is a masterstroke.

[BeFree]

9. You say:

(in my mind this assumption is basically false... we don't need to change our lifestyle significantly, we just need to change our energy and environmental policy).

You've got it wrong. We do have to change our lifestyles. And we will, because the energy and environmental changes coming are going to cause great pain to those who haven't changed their lifestyles.

The mass consumption of energy and environmental resources are the main cause of GW and without lifestyle changes that mass consumption will continue.

[nashville_brook]

19. good point -- i really like how people are left with a moral imperative

because, regardless of whether there's policy to be changed, if there's not personal BUY-IN from the grassroots, then the policy imperative will likely die on the vine.

you can't watch this movie without taking stock of your own life. a citizen who is already practicing green principles is going to be a much stronger advocate for the policy WHILE reducing their environmental footprint...

and...

one footprint in front of the other... when a critical mass of people of city decide that recycling and composting are preferable to landfilling, things change.

when a critical mass of people in a municipality decide that an hour commute each way to work and back is reduntant and wasteful, that's when we get mass transit and better urban design.

when a critical mass of people in a state decide that it's unfair and counter-productive to grant industry tax breaks while they pollute the air and water, things change...

one footprint in front of the other...

[garybeck]

26. clarification

when I say we don't have to change our lifestyles, let me explain. I mean, we can have the same level of comfort. We can still drive cars. We can still have computers, refrigerators, etc. Do we have to cut down a bit on materialism and massive consumption? Sure. But that is not going to be that big of a deal. If you look at the numbers - we can create the amount of power we currently consume, all with renewable energy. That's my point.

[RestoreGore]

10. Our lifestyles are causing the crisis

How can you possibly state that we don't have to change our lifestyles? How can we continue to spew fossil fuels in the atmosphere at the rapacious rate we are doing so? How can you change policy without changing lifestyle? Changing how we do business and how we relate to this Earth are ESSENTIAL in making progress towards mitigating this crisis. You simply cannot have one without the other.

[garybeck]

28. that's not true

the root of the problem is our choice of energy sources. if you look at the numbers, for example, our electrical energy demand as a nation, it could all be supplied by renewable energy which would not contrubite to global warming at all.

so it really is not our lifestyle causing the problem. It's our energy policy.

[RestoreGore]

52. AND WHAT DO YOU DO IN THE MEANTIME?

And just how EASY is that for the POOR in this world to do now? You tell me where I can get affordable cellulosic ethanol at a pump NOW AND I'LL GO GET IT. But not even that is all that needs to be done, however. MY lifestyle MUST CHANGE in order to lessen my impact on this world period. And that is also something Al Gore has been telling us regarding lessening our carbon footprint in this world regarding the investments we make, the kind of buildings we design to lessen the output of greenhouse gases, even down to what we eat. Deforestation in the Amazon due to slash and burn techniques in order to raise cattle for your Big Mac is hurting our environment. Don't tell me this isn't about lifestyle changes.

[phantom power]

11. It is too late to "solve" climate change.

The change is happening, and it's going to continue, and accelerate. We should really be focusing our attention on predicting the changes and how to survive them.

[GliderGuider]

13. "we don't need to change our lifestyle significantly"

This attitude is part of the problem, and will prevent us from dealing appropriately with what is really going on. What we're seeing with global warming is but one aspect of a multifactorial problematique that encompasses the entire globe. The problematique intimately involves the human species, the civilization it has created and the ecosphere from which we have been drawing resources and into which we have been discharging our wastes.

To focus on just Global Warming, and worse yet, on just the response of the developed world to that one problem, is to miss the other 90% of the problem set. As a species, the only thing that might prevent collapse is not just a change of lifestyle, but a wholesale repudiation of humanity's underlying, driving, core value - the idea that growth is good.

[garybeck]

29. I'm all for reducing waste, energy efficiency, etc. but I stand by my statement

we don't need to change our lifestlyes significanlty.

we do need to change our energy policy.

[GliderGuider]

33. OK, so what do you mean by "we"?

This is a global problem, remember. Will your solutions work for people in South Asia and Africa? Will their lifestyles be unaffected too?

[garybeck]

34. yes, they work for everyone.

the US is the worst perpetrator in the world. if it works here it will work anywhere. and it does.

[GliderGuider]

36. Are you sure Zimababwe can afford the capital cost of converting to electric cars charged by PV?

Where would Canada get the sunlight for PV? For that matter, most of North America suffers from very low wind power density (there's that nasty EROEI again).

[garybeck]

37. i never proposed electric cars run by PV for anyone n/t

[GliderGuider]

39. Can Zimbabwe afford electric cas, no matter how they're charged?

The USA is a very rich society, with a lot of fat that can be trimmed and that money/energy used to support a higher cost of doing business with alternative energies or technologies. Other countries are not no well situated.

Consider a family headed by a lawyer and a university professor, with lots of income. All their income is being used for one thing or another, but if an unexpected expense comes up (like the need to buy an electric car), they have discretionary income that can be reallocated without affecting their overall lifestyle too much. Now consider a family in another neighbourhood headed by a father who works as a janitor and a mother who clerks at a grocery store. They have virtually no discretionary income. Do they have the capital to invest in an electric car?

It's the people on the margins that will suffer as always, not the USA.

[garybeck]

41. I did not recommend electric cars. n/t

[GliderGuider]

48. OK, so what do you recommend for transportation?

Biodiesel does have the advantage of being a drop-in replacement for diesel fuel. But a similar problem crops up (sorry for the pun) as for electricity. People in marginal coutries have a hard time growing enough food to meet their needs right now. Devoting some of their arable land to biofuels means that fewer people will eat. The world has already run short of grain, and algae isn't there yet.

The only outcome that seems likely to me is a gradual reduction in the mobility of people in third-world countries as the the oil depletes. What's your vision for places like Congo and Vietnam?

[LSK]

15. yes, I would like to see more discussion on the economic benefits

Yes, the economic BENEFITS of new industries that will create alternative energy.

America seems so desperate to hold onto old industries and it ignores the fact that economies grow when there is new technology and industries.

[garybeck]

30. Well check this out!

http://www.apolloalliance.org/

[kestrel91316]

43. It's not a detailed scientific documentary. It's a documentary

about Al Gore and his lectures and it's a wake-up call for involvement and hope.

Too much dry scientific detail would have ruined it. I suspect the book to go with it has charts galore for those who are unconvinced. I, for one, already believe GW is a threat. This film just pulled a lot of threads together for me.