An Inconvenient Truth-Opinion Page

(No spoilers in this post, just my opinions.)

I saw the movie today.  The movie was not THAT bad.  From the perspective of a *FORMER* liberal (now a libertarian), I can say that much.  I admit that I don't know too much about the issue (global warming).

From my knowledge though, I saw and heard some things said in the movie that I thought to be only partial truths, and a lot of semi-important to important ommissions, particularly in sections of the movie dealing with politics and American international policy.

I won't go any further for the time being, to give those who wish to see it without spoilers the chance to do so.  I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts who DID go to see it, though. 

a *FORMER* liberal (now a libertarian)

lol

Don't bother with that movie, let me lay it down in simple terms.
Global Warming is happening, and it is being caused by human activity.  Fossil Fuels have raised the world's temperature about 1 degree Celsius and will continue to do so as their use continues. Should the world's temperature continue to rise, not only will it get hotter, but sea levels will rise as ice caps melt and animal and plant species will die.
The US has a huge number of automobiles, many of them not terribly low-emission or gas-efficient.  The US has the highest energy consumption in the world, and is likely the biggest contributor to climate change.
Should we decide that we don't want to suffer the consequences of global warming, the US, and humanity as a whole needs to pursue cleaner, more "green" and energy-effecient technologies and practices.
The "costs" of the transition to cleaner technology will be expensive, but they will eventually pay for themselves in terms of effeciency and ecological impact.

The choice is yours, keep money in your pocket or have a healthy planet.

>>3
From a libertarian's perspective, I think we should raise gas taxes.  This would seem to be a great solution.  Reasons for this measure:

1.  Global Warming
2.  Higher Gas Prices would encourage buying more efficient vehicles
3.  Income taxes shouldn't pay for roads anyways.  Roads should be payed for on an as-used basis.  Some people use the roads more than others.  Obviously, the more gasoline you are consuming, the more you are using the roads. 

What if we stopped funding roads with tax dollars (probly comes from income or property taxes..?) and replaced it entirely with funding from gas taxes.  (Of course, gas taxes would have to be raised to do this.) 

It makes sense though, from all political perspectives.  Libertarians should like it because roads would then be payed for on an as-used basis, as opposed to how it is now, where everyone has to pay for them, and some people get little use out of them, while others get lots of use. 

Conservatives should like it for the same reasons as libertarians. 

Liberals should like it because it would encourage people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and overall, would probably have a positive impact on the environment. 

I am poster 4... something I forgot to add... of course, since your income/property or whatever taxes goes into roads didn't have funding being taken for roads, these taxes could be lowered quite a bit. 

>>4+>>5 Bump for making sense. It's not perfect but it sounds perfectly reasonable. In Stockholm we have commuting tolls that put an automatic payment on cars going in and out of town. It's good for the environment and the infrastructure, it'll pay for itself and more soon but naturally the socialists implemented it without thinking once, which is very undemocratic.

I thin kthe government should preserve justice by telling the public the reality of things to come, but not raise taxes as taxes are a form of slavery and should only be used when absolutely necessary.

There are many effective working alternatives to fossil fuel. They're not used cause oil companies want to make money. Start a biodiesel company and offer it cheaper than normal diesel. Profit to be made.

>>7
I sympathize with you on the "taxes are slavery" line of thinking.  But, you do want roads, don't you?  Right now they are paid for through taxes paid to the government, a portion of which pays for roads, and a portion of which is paid for in gas taxes. 

As a libertarian or maybe a conservative (you seem like one or the other), you should like this idea because it is a more free society.  The taxes you are forced to pay would be lower.  However, you would pay for the roads through your usage of gasoline since the more gasoline you are buying, the more you are using the roads. 

>>4 Going to make a new topic for this, since it is unrelated to the original post & the movie. 

>>11
How is this movie related to Weeaboo in ANY way? I swear, there must be Weeabots around......

>>12
      What is Weeaboo anyways

japanophile

The UK MET office which provides the most accurate weather forecasting service on th planet has stated we will have a 2c rise no matter what. We have to date had a 0.6c rise, the extra 1.4c rise has a decade 'lag' time. If we continue polluting now we wont see the effects for a decade, but also if we stop polluting now we wont see the effects for a decade. The MET office predicts a rise of up to 6c this century but anything above 2c is in our court.

2c rise on the average 13.88c global temperature(was around that pre industrialization for many 1000s of years, currently at 14.6) would be shit, a 6c rise would be 'we're fucked'.