English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I noticed that there was nothing said in Al Gore's film about nuclear power as a fuel alternative. Why not??????????

2007-08-22 09:49:15 · 8 answers · asked by DeeDee L 2 in Environment Global Warming

Also he left out the fact that global warming and global cooling are cyclical and will happen throughout history regardless of what we mere humans do. Nice to stop pollution, but it won't stop nature doing what it has been doing for millions of years.

2007-08-22 14:26:36 · update #1

8 answers

The real inconvenient truth is that according to the IPCC reports if we are to have any chance at all of stopping Global Warming we must reduce the output of carbon dioxide world wide to less than one tenth of what it is today.

Turning down the heat in the winter and turning up the thermostat on the air conditioning in the summer will not get you anywhere near the amount of reduction that you will need.

We should consider the possibility that we will not be able to stop global Warming and that possibly we will not be able to slow it down because we cannot get the kinds of reductions in carbon dioxide output that we need.

What should we do if we cannot stop Global Warmiing?

What should we do about the rise in the sea levels?

What should we do about the stronger and more frequent hurricanes?

What should we do about the droughts?


The amount of the reductions that are required are so large that it is not like ly that we will be able to get reductions anywhere close to the size of the reductions in carbon dioxide output that we needto stop Global Warming.

2007-08-22 11:26:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

According to Al Gore, global warming has been caused by humans and their impact on earth. The inconvenient truth is that the earth needs to make a correction and eliminate a huge segment of the population so it can be in balance again.

Unfortunately, contrary to Al Gore reasoning, it turns out that more sulfur dioxide, and similar toxins and greenhouse gases, are spewed into the air in a single day by a volcano than all the cars in the US in a year. More methane gas pollution is produced from the farts of domestic cows and pigs than any other means.

The interests Al Gore caters to stand to make billions by restricting the growth in China, India, and other developing countries in Africa. He's not interested in real solutions. He is interested in spreading panic.

His firm, Generation Investment Management is his money making arm. The film does not mention nuclear power solutions, because Generation Investment Management does not invest in nuclear power technology, or businesses which own nuclear power technology.

The film, Inconvenient Truth, suggests turning down your air conditioning in the summer, and lowering the heat in the winter is going to lessen climate change, and solve the global warming crisis. This is laughable. The real solutions are a complete change in lifestyle, including a change in world politics and world economy. Dealing with sea levels 20 feet higher than they are now takes a global change in resources, that's the real inconvenient truth.

2007-08-22 11:04:27 · answer #2 · answered by AngeloElectro 6 · 2 2

Gore's focus wasn't so much on the solutions as on the roots of the problems.

Add that to the fact that nuclear power, which in this country is clean and safe, is also controversial and fantastically expensive, and it just didn't fit.

2007-08-22 09:54:49 · answer #3 · answered by Kyle M 4 · 2 1

There's an awful lot of things he didn't mention in his film. I guess if he'd have included everything it would have to have been released in installments and we'd be up to An Inconvenient Truth VII by now (I think 7 installments of Gore would be too much for anyone).

2007-08-22 12:48:39 · answer #4 · answered by Trevor 7 · 0 1

I'd guess he didn't want to lose part of his target audience as many environmentalist are not pro nuke. Better to let someone else foist it of on them down the road. Therefore keeping everyone together on global warmitation. Clearly though its the only realistic means to keep the "grid" at the level of output that's needed today. Expensive? Yes largely due to humongous amounts of Enviro Red tape imposed on it in the past. Just trying to get past all the studies and Enviro impact papers makes it cost prohibitive. That will all change wnen everyones CFL's start to get dim and brown out at night.

2007-08-22 10:10:43 · answer #5 · answered by vladoviking 5 · 4 1

The Gore family has millions in gas and oil stocks don't rock the boat

2007-08-26 03:23:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

He also didn't say anything about the environmental benefits of reducing meat consumption. He just didn't want to be too "inconvenient." He didn't want to propose real solutions that people might be uncomfortable with because that would defeat the viral spread of the film and its misinformation.

2007-08-22 09:58:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 3

Besides getting rid of the nuclear waste, the biggest issue I can think of is that nuclear power generation still produces steam which is actually a greater greenhouse gas than CO2. Since most powerplants are already producing ateam as well as carbon emissions, nuclear power (which has a very good track record of safety outside chernobyl and three-mile-island) is most definitely the best alternative our current technology has to offer.

2007-08-22 10:12:57 · answer #8 · answered by ©2009 7 · 1 7

fedest.com, questions and answers