An inconvenient truth: environmental perspective film vs digital

[fgianni]

If you're concerned about the environment to that degree, why not just buy a digital camera that you'll use for the rest of your live and join green peace?

Joining Greenpeace is not such a silly thing to do (altought I don't agree with some of their methods)

A digital camera to use for the rest of your life? If you have even a 5 year old digicam and it breaks down, what are your chances of finding someone that can repair it?

 

[rxmd]

somehow I feel we are starting to split hairs here.

I guess we are... But still it's better than bashing each other into the head with M Leicas!

 

[ywenz]

Joining Greenpeace is not such a silly thing to do (altought I don't agree with some of their methods)

A digital camera to use for the rest of your life? If you have even a 5 year old digicam and it breaks down, what are your chances of finding someone that can repair it?

Then just give up photography and dedicate all your time to the environment.. Since the OP cares about it enough to raise such question..

 

[dll927]

Al Gore is not God, and he probably won't convince many people who aren't already leaning that way. I can't recall ever meeting anyone who was AGAINST the environment, and a lot about our attitudes just darned well depends on when we were raised and grew up. So arguing some of these points may be largely useless.

There have been advances and gains in knowledge in most of the sciences, in medicine, and in a good many other pursuits. They say the best medical care is with a combination of a 30=year experienced Dr. and one just fresh out of medical school - that way you have the best of both worlds.

Thomas Jefferson is reputed to have said that "that government is best which governs least". But that was two centuries ago, and a lot has changed. Did Jefferson ever stand on a street corner and watch all those crazy-looking self-propelled vehicles whiz by? No, he rode a horse. So even "less government" may mean more of it than in TJ's day.

I tend to favor less govenment interference in our lives, too. But the realities of population, scientific advance, and general need sometimes dictate that we have to put with more of some things than we might otherwise choose.

 

[MikeL]

Then just give up photography and dedicate all your time to the environment.. Since the OP cares about it enough to raise such question..

Why all or nothing, isn't there room for shades of grey?

 

[ywenz]

Why all or nothing, isn't there room for shades of grey?

Not for him..

 

[dll927]

Which tends to be exactly the problem. We won't convince Gore that he's full of hot air, and we won't convince the CEO of some power company, either.

I recently read an article stating that the U. S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Coal is basically made of most of the same elements as oil.

Hillary and her sidekick spent their first term running for the second - and their second running for cover. They expected to leave their legacy to Al Gore. It didn't work, and how it happened is beside the point. It still didn't.

 

[Olsen]

Which tends to be exactly the problem. We won't convince Gore that he's full of hot air, and we won't convince the CEO of some power company, either.

I recently read an article stating that the U. S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Coal is basically made of most of the same elements as oil.

Hillary and her sidekick spent their first term running for the second - and their second running for cover. They expected to leave their legacy to Al Gore. It didn't work, and how it happened is beside the point. It still didn't.

Al Gore talked of cutting back US CO2 emissions to the level of that back in 1970. That will not be enough....

This environmental thing is pritty dramatic and due to that, mainly, US will not do anything worthwile, so won't others either. So, it's pritty doomed. I am very pesimistic.

 

[ywenz]

Al Gore talked of cutting back US CO2 emissions to the level of that back in 1970. That will not be enough....

This environmental thing is pritty dramatic and due to that, mainly, US will not do anything worthwile, so won't others either. So, it's pritty doomed. I am very pesimistic.

Maybe the next administration will be different..

 

[Iskra 2]

Al Gore talked of cutting back US CO2 emissions to the level of that back in 1970. That will not be enough....

Are you sure that Al Gore and his financers/handlers/followers are correct? The jury is still out, you know, and asking for more evidence.

This environmental thing is pritty dramatic and due to that, mainly, US will not do anything worthwile, so won't others either. So, it's pritty doomed. I am very pesimistic.

There are probably more important things to worry about.

I worry about population growth, meteorites, water vapor, magenetic field changes, "dimming", paying taxes, outsourcing jobs, antifreeze in toothpaste from China, etc, etc. :bang:

I'm looking forward to the return of two rolls of film from the processor.

Regards. :angel:

 

[fgianni]

Are you sure that Al Gore and his financers/handlers/followers are correct? The jury is still out, you know, and asking for more evidence.

You know, to me here is the heart of the issue, there are several indications that human activity may cause dramatic chenges to the environment, but there is not yet a strong enough proof, so let's assume as you say that the jury is still out, what are the options, and what are the possible consequences?

I see two options:

1) Do nothing, if the indications are wrong we lost nothing, but if they are right we make the planet usuitable for human life, it may not happen during our lifetime but I feel we have a duty towards future generations.

2) Do everything we can to cut back in CO2 emissions, that are the main cause of the greenhouse effect, again if the indications are wrong we may have lost some wealth, but if they are right we may end up saving the planet.

So which is the wisest course of action while the "jury is still out"?

 

[foto_fool]

OK I have kept out of this fracas so far but have a few minutes to kill - Francesco I love your binary aproach 01/10 above! It reminds me of Pascal's Conjecture on the the rationality of belief in God - given the choice of belief or non-belief, belief is mroe rational because when you die, if there is no God you have lost nothing but if there is you have gained everything.

Powerful vested interests want the jury to remain out on whether or not "global warming" (the bumber sticker) is caused by man. But the jury is well in on whether we are in a period of climate change - we are. There are no scenarios envisioned by even the most die-hard global warming deniers that suggest that climate change - on balance - will lead to less suffering in the world. Whether man's activities have "caused" climate change or not is immaterial - if there is any chance that man could do something to slow climate change, we must do that thing.

As a corrollary - the technology developed under the Missle Defense Initiative may not be effective in preventing a ballistic missle attack, but you can bet your a$$ that it can target and intercept a near-earth object. In fact, we kind of are betting our a$$es on it.

 

[fgianni]

OK I have kept out of this fracas so far but have a few minutes to kill - Francesco I love your binary aproach 01/10 above! It reminds me of Pascal's Conjecture on the the rationality of belief in God - given the choice of belief or non-belief, belief is mroe rational because when you die, if there is no God you have lost nothing but if there is you have gained everything.

With one difference, doing nothing or trying to cut back on emissions are two choices open to anyone, but faith is a more elusive issue, if you don't have it, you can't simply say "oh well it is more convenient to have faith so from now on I am a believer" it does not work like that

 

[NickTrop]

You know, to me here is the heart of the issue, there are several indications that human activity may cause dramatic chenges to the environment, but there is not yet a strong enough proof, so let's assume as you say that the jury is still out, what are the options, and what are the possible consequences?

I see two options:

1) Do nothing, if the indications are wrong we lost nothing, but if they are right we make the planet usuitable for human life, it may not happen during our lifetime but I feel we have a duty towards future generations.

2) Do everything we can to cut back in CO2 emissions, that are the main cause of the greenhouse effect, again if the indications are wrong we may have lost some wealth, but if they are right we may end up saving the planet.

So which is the wisest course of action while the "jury is still out"?

Sorry, incorrect.

The consensus of scientific evidence is as follows:

1. It is real
2. It is happening now
3. It is the result of human activity
4. The results will be catastrophic.


Saddly, the puppet of the energy industry, the far-right, has been successful in muddy-ing the waters by giving high-visibility to fringe or "shill" scientists who disagree and financing and fostering the "junk science movement"(tm). It's very sad so many people go down the path of giving credence to the logical fallacy of "muddying the waters" by giving equal weight to shill scientists and orchestrated PR campaigns hyping "junk science"(tm). Or the other logical fallacy, that because they don't like Al Gore this is his issue, and are his scientific proposal.

Both of these are ludicrous logical fallacies, the former is "muddying the waters", the latter is a "to the man" attack but (and this makes me want to scream) despite their transparency (at least to me) folks buy into this crap. It's our planet we're talking about here, people!

Turn off conservative AM hate-jock radio, turn off Fox Noise channel and tune in to the reality of the situation.

 

[350D_user]

Maybe the next administration will be different..

All politicians are the same. Waft money under their nostrils, they'll listen to nothing else.

 

[Sparrow]

Sorry, incorrect.

The consensus of scientific evidence is as follows:

1. It is real
2. It is happening now
3. It is the result of human activity
4. The results will be catastrophic.


Saddly, the puppet of the energy industry, the far-right, has been successful in muddy-ing the waters by giving high-visibility to fringe or "shill" scientists who disagree and financing and fostering the "junk science movement"(tm). It's very sad so many people go down the path of giving credence to the logical fallacy of "muddying the waters" by giving equal weight to shill scientists and orchestrated PR campaigns hyping "junk science"(tm). Or the other logical fallacy, that because they don't like Al Gore this is his issue, and are his scientific proposal.

Both of these are ludicrous logical fallacies, the former is "muddying the waters", the latter is a "to the man" attack but (and this makes me want to scream) despite their transparency (at least to me) folks buy into this crap. It's our planet we're talking about here, people!

Turn off conservative AM hate-jock radio, turn off Fox Noise channel and tune in to the reality of the situation.

So experts agree; that’s a good thing

 

[JoeV]

Save My Lifestyle!

Save My Lifestyle!

Considering that Al Gore's film was distributed to most theatres on film stock, I suspect that his personal film footprint is bigger than mine. So I'll just continue to shoot film and not worry.

As for saving the environment, I think it's our convenient lifestyles that we're actually far more concerned about saving. Myself included. The cold, hard truth is that it would take the elimination of billions of lives in order to significantly reduce the human footprint on the planet. But I don't see any politician running for office on that happy platform!

Also, the next time there's a major environmentalist conference in your town or city, you should ask of those in attendance what form of transportation they used.

 

[FrankS]

Yeah, it's going to be too hard. Let's not bother to do anything.

 

[anselwannab]

People point out the entities that have a vested interest in stopping the re-working of our economy and way of life, but what about the people who are inside the GW industry? GE is a big fan of global warming (see last week's Ecomomist) because they see themselves selling more turbines for windmills.

It just happens that the image of what the world should look like post carbon, fits in a lot with what far-left communal post-religionists see as a perfect world. No global trade, transport is bad; no exotic trips to Bali, airplanes are carbon hogs; big houses out, little houses in; suburbs out with their highway systems, and in with mid-rise cities. But don't bring up nuclear, or anything like bio-fuels that will let us keep our Bourgeoisie lifestyle.

As for power, take some academic, let him play with a supercomputer and viola, he has the keys to the kingdom. If we cut emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 YOU HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYTHING. Your car, where you live, what kind of house you live in, and those things will change what you do for a living and what you study in school.

Pay attention; this is the smartest thing you are going to read today:

Climatologists are the new lawyers, the high priests what is "Holy"; with their hands and finger prints ready to "consult" on everything.

That's not just power, its absolute power; and we all know what that can do. It's actually beyond absolute power. At least with lawyers there are two sides. If you take the wrong side here you are compared to Nazis and thier apologists.

I know what you're thinking. "He's a snake-handling Christian Conservative; Rush listening friend of Karl Rove." And that may be true, but my point is, if GW is true, you have to change everything. No cap and trade, no carbon indulgences for your 10,000sqft mansion in Tennesse or your airplane trip. And that is not what is being sold to the public.

Since I'm feeling generous, I'll even give you the second smartest thing you'll hear today:
I thought we were running out of oil? Like now, the tipping point, and everthing. (Yeah, yeah coal. If we didn't clean out the sulfates, its impact wouldn't be so bad, plus you can't run a car on coal.)

Mark

 

[FrankS]

You're right too Mark. Let's not do anything.