Gore brings climate message to Congress »
Posted by: HealthDoctor 1 year, 5 months ago324 Comments Report this Story
The fight against global warming is getting an extra push from lobbyists and lawmakers in a series of efforts aimed at spurring Congress to take decisive steps to reverse the negative trend of climate change. On Wednesday, former Vice President Al Gore, the most prominent advocate for climate change, is to testify before 3 congressional committees.
Read Full Story at chicagotribune.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 324
-
67%
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
Well, conservatives, here it comes. All of your posturing and your lies and half-truths are going to count for NOTHING. When the businesses start to realize (as they should) that there is MONEY in being green this is all over but the singing.
It is time to take responsibility for what we are doing and move this nation forward into the technological economy.
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 5 months ago
I agree wiht your post but Gore acted like a two year old. Not showing up cuz he thought Republicans would grill him? thats lame. then he does show up and instead they are going to ask him more questions? What-he has to have it his way? Sorry Bkumm I know you love him but this guy is a chooch.
At any rate as I have said before I think humans CAN clean up and they SHOULD. But I draw the line at sacrificing a standard of living. No one said we have to I know but I dont want this thing snowballing and "we end up in tents in the woods" or some damned thing. Just remember any comppany that goes green whill need to invest in green and the capital will come from the consumers. We will pay for it not them.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
I don't 'love him'. I think that he is simply a pretty decent guy doing what he thinks is right. Also, I was unaware that he had refused to appear before a Republican Congress. I find that hard to believe. Do you have a link so that I can check it out?
I also don't want to sacrifice our standard of living and here's the kicker, neither does Al Gore. He thinks and I believe this also, that we can reduce carbon emissions and make the country richer in the process.
If we don't do it, China and India will. It is in their best interest to get off of high priced oil and coal and move to a cleaner and cheaper technology. I think that the US can provide that. Innovation is what we (used to) do.
Reply -
0%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
You draw the line at your standard of living? What, you won't stand for more efficient devices? You can't imagine using fluorescents in place of incandescents? What is your problem?
Most companies that go "green" end up saving money and producing products in more efficient ways. Source point reduction is a far more cost effective way of doing business in the first place.
Besides, your standard of living is not as important as us as a nation being viable far into the future. Had we made the "sacrifices" by voting for Carter rather than Reagan we would have far more efficient devices today and would not have to invest so much blood in the Middle East or perhaps even concern ourselves with the prospect of greenhouse gas emissions. But it was people like yourself, too interested in not "sacrifising", that put us in the situation we find ourselves today.
Reply -
73%
newbob1 year, 5 months ago
Well their would be no point of going in front of the republicans because once a repub. got there mind set it's almost impossible to change it "stay the course" in bush's words. I'm not saying that there aren't republicans that believe in global warming, just they aren't going to change their mind. They hate Gore too much anyway, I really don't know why probably because he's popular.
Reply
-
67%
amazed1 year, 5 months ago
why do you assume that, because we don't buy into the man-made global warming thing lock, stock and barrel, we want to destroy the earth?
How rididculous that is. While there are certainly corporate no-goodniks that are not planning ahead and are NOT using the earth well and are still trying to dump crap illegally, the majority of people and industries are trying to do what they can to keep their little corner of the earth clean. It is good business, it avoids draconian gov't penalties. It makes sense, in all cases.
What most of us object to, are draconian and ridiculously expensive measures imposed to effect incremental increases in emission reductions, or other improvements, especially when touted as necessary for an unproven theory -- and, yes, it's still a theory.
So, all should do what is ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE to reduce their greenhouse (as well as all other) emissions and other ways of polluting.
Reply-
0%
amazed1 year, 5 months ago
e should NOT, however, trash our economy so that China can make even further inroads into manufacturing, on the premise that we MIGHT be able to change the world's climate.
Newsflash! The earth's climate changes all the time anyway, and you cannot extrapolate a 50 -100 year (or even 150 year)data into a trend when the data you are comparing it to spans billions of years. It's a blink of an eye.
Reply -
43%
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
I didn't say that you want to destroy the Earth. I said that it is time to take responsibility for what we are doing.
Yes, it's a theory. Like gravity or evolution. Theories both. If you can look at the data it is pretty conclusive that something is happening to global temperatures. They are rising and the rate of increase is also climbing. Now, there is still some causal argument, but the data is starting to come in on that as well.
What most of US object to is the short-sighted and continuous attacks on human induced climate change. Very few people are suggesting that draconian measures be adopted. Yes, there are some people doing that, but they are in the minority. Many of us think (including Al Gore by the way) that we can reduce or eliminate the CO2 footprint and get rich in the process.
Reply
-
-
0%
Kenoryn1 year, 5 months ago
The argument that the earth's climate has be subject to change its entire life is certainly true, but is not really relevant to the current climate change, except to highlight the CO2-temperature correlation, as the current trend by far exceeds any warming ever in the past, with an unprecedented rate and alarming forecast if you consider the rate of population growth.
Reply-
67%
mcarpentry1 year, 5 months ago
Kenoryn, Why is it documented that in the late 1920's and 1930's the temperatures were warmer than what it is today? The study of the earths temperature is only 100 years old, or as some people are saying we can go back 20,000 years and come up with an answer, which by the way, was anyone documenting this information back then? I seriously doubt this.
Reply -
100%
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
Klaus said:"Those looking to save the environment can do so, said Klaus, by working within existing political frameworks, expending less fossil fuels, and importing less from distant countries."
Take note of his words save the environment. It appears that he recognizes that there is an environmental problem but won't admit it. No doubt it's a political problem between those that stand to loose money if people reduce oil consumption and those that want to save the planet.
Reply
-
-
-
90%
skeek1 year, 5 months ago
Libssuck
I'd really appreciate it, and I'm sure others would too, if you simply provide a link, with perhaps an encapsulating sentence or two rather than CUT&PASTE the whole bloody article in a successive series of posts!
Thank you.
The Czech president?
Your post requires context.
The Czech Republic is a former Soviet sattelite, extremely dependent on heavy industry (ie. major polluters) and, based on economic reasons, a shifting allegiance to the obvious ally across the Atlantic.
Does it have a dog in the race? Without a doubt.
Reply -
69%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
Bkumm:You are supporting Al Gore, who is lying so that he can make money thru his Gorbal Warming scam.....
-
