Interesting to see the perspective of each Disney member when it comes to environmentalism. It's obvious that Jim Henson and Frank Wells are the big proponents of this change but Walt's legacy of conservation is a huge factor in the Disney-Miller family accepting such changes. I doubt they would be as receptive otherwise.

The conference did bring a lot of big names to Disney, and I'm excited as to when most of them will start collaborating with Disney on creative or educational projects.

The Lorax is actually produced by Disney here? Interesting, and I have no doubt they knocked it out of the park with this short.

I'd like to see what an early Gore presidency would look like, and it seems that he could be the frontrunner here instead of Bill Clinton, which would introduce a whole host of butterflies for the country. Fascinating!

So far this Green Conference has essentially further galvanized my future ideas on the theme parks, especially at Disneyland. I thought they were going to naturally go in this direction without it thanks to Henson and Wells, but this drastically increases the chances that it could be made reality. ;)

Interesting. Given how Wells now sees the Earth as his “next mountain” to climb, I wonder if he might let off on pushing for a movie studio park and instead focus on an Animal Kingdom park first.
Unlikely. He seems rather adamant on doing a movie studio park in previous posts and besides, he would take a feasibility assessment and discover that doing a park like OTL Animal Kingdom would be more intensive and costly than something like Disney-MGM, since they would have to hire zoologists, handlers, and other experts to learn how to take care of live animals and the park would be far larger than even EPCOT. They could easily spend the big bucks to beat Universal, WB, and Columbia at their own game but Animal Kingdom is an experiment that Disney can't afford to take right now, especially when DisneySea has similar concerns but with water.

Animal Kingdom will probably come later, but at a time where Disney is flush with cash and can concentrate all of their efforts towards creating a memorable experience without skimping out on anything.
 
I certainly hope Sid Bass sees those investments pay off- perhaps he can be convinced there is money to be made in environmentalism after all.
There are many ways to make money - lithium mining, rare earth production, all the PR necessary to explain why so many private jets flying down to the 'Green summit' don't count (somehow), that sort of thing. As long as the startups are focusing on those sort of things they will do fine. If they try and do something that might actually help the environment... well the things don't look so good.
 
There are many ways to make money - lithium mining, rare earth production, all the PR necessary to explain why so many private jets flying down to the 'Green summit' don't count (somehow), that sort of thing. As long as the startups are focusing on those sort of things they will do fine. If they try and do something that might actually help the environment... well the things don't look so good.
Hah hah, very funny. As nice it might be to pretend that it is possible to address human needs and wants with no environmental impacts whatsoever...particularly for people who are already causing a lot of environmental damage and would like to make any alternative look bad so that they don't have to make any effort to do better...in actual fact environmental improvements come from looking for alternatives to existing practices and processes that are not quite as bad, not from totally eliminating all pollution. Are lithium mining and rare earth production (I won't even address the stupid and tired PR crack) environmentally damaging? Yes, obviously. Are they more environmentally damaging than oil and gas extraction, especially on a global scale? No, because the electric vehicles, renewable energy, and wind turbines they enable measurably reduce emissions compared to even highly efficient fossil fuel plants and gasoline and diesel vehicles.

(Also, most rare earth production is used for things that have nothing in particular to do with "green" technology anyhow; the number one use in the United States is in chemical catalysts, which amounts for a majority of rare earth use overall, while such things as ceramics, electronics, and specialized glasses are also major uses. Magnets for wind turbines and electric vehicle motors might become dominant in the future, but doing so is a long ways off at best in the 1990s)
 
Are lithium mining and rare earth production environmentally damaging? Yes, obviously. Are they more environmentally damaging than oil and gas extraction, especially on a global scale? No,
There speaks a man who has never seen a Chinese rare earths processing plant. And I will maintain the "Do as I say not as I do" attitude of many of the most enthusiastic environmentalists does more harm to their cause than anything their opponent say.

In any event my point was not that these things are a bad idea, just that in the 1990s they really are not going to make money. Do these things because they are the right thing to do (which indeed they are) and not because you will not make money doing it, pretending you will only sours people on the idea.

If you want to actually make a difference in the 1990s then Wells is on the correct track, backing the right candidates and getting governments to change the law and outlaw the cheap-but-polluting options is ultimately the only thing that is going to make a significant difference.
 
outlaw the cheap-but-polluting options is ultimately the only thing that is going to make a significant difference.
I don't think outlawing something is the best option, we tried that back in 1919 and all it really did was increase organized crime. Outlawing gasoline or oil will most likely result in a black market controlled by South American and Soviet/Russian cartels.
 
I don't think outlawing something is the best option, we tried that back in 1919 and all it really did was increase organized crime. Outlawing gasoline or oil will most likely result in a black market controlled by South American and Soviet/Russian cartels.
I mean there’s a difference between fuel that has hopefully been replace with a greener alternative, and someone’s alcohol.
 
There speaks a man who has never seen a Chinese rare earths processing plant.
The Chinese rare earths processing plants are nasty, indeed, but the pollution they produce is largely localized to their immediate area and downstream areas within China rather than creating systemic effects over the entire world that will last for hundreds of years. Not to mention that oil refining and chemical manufacture are themselves pretty nasty and polluting, as a long list of Superfund sites and other pollution incidents in my hometown, Houston, will show, and that most countries have had periods when they had incredibly nasty polluting industries (just look at the Ruhr in the '60s, or the United States, or Japan...) The issue is less with rare earths as such and more with China being a poor country with lax environmental protection standards that just happens to have some of the richest and easiest to exploit rare earths deposits globally.

In any event my point was not that these things are a bad idea, just that in the 1990s they really are not going to make money. Do these things because they are the right thing to do (which indeed they are) and not because you will not make money doing it, pretending you will only sours people on the idea.
Eh, I wouldn't go that far. While you're not going to see solar power replacing coal or anything like that, it's not like there was no market for solar cells, wind turbines, and the like over the course of the decade--indeed, both solar and wind grew exponentially, just from a very low base so not impressively in absolute figures. You're not going to be raking in the cash, but there were definitely companies that were making money in this market. You just have to think small-scale, calculators and off-grid proponents and similar applications rather than huge wind farms or giant solar arrays.

Also, there are some things you could do that might actually make reasonably significant amounts of money, like improving vehicle efficiency or making homes consume less energy, though even that is admittedly a bit doubtful under the conditions of the 1990s and would certainly be enhanced by relevant legislation.
 
Last edited:
I mean there’s a difference between fuel that has hopefully been replace with a greener alternative, and someone’s alcohol.
no not really, you make something that everybody uses illegal will make people want to use it more. This is one of the reasons why cigarettes are still legal and marijuana is slowly, state by state, becoming legal in the US.
 
no not really, you make something that everybody uses illegal will make people want to use it more. This is one of the reasons why cigarettes are still legal and marijuana is slowly, state by state, becoming legal in the US.
Oh, I was thinking they won’t if it will be easily replaced. Hopefully they won’t ban gas till there’s a cheap and safe electric car.
 
no not really, you make something that everybody uses illegal will make people want to use it more. This is one of the reasons why cigarettes are still legal and marijuana is slowly, state by state, becoming legal in the US.
Gasoline is not literally addictive, unlike the substances you mention.

In any case, El Pip obviously did not mean making gasoline and diesel totally illegal, but rather things such as banning certain forms of waste disposal or resource extraction, or regulating higher efficiency for vehicles or buildings, or similar actions. Those things don't ban anything, but they have historically helped reduce the environmental impact of certain types of activity.
 
I don't think outlawing something is the best option, we tried that back in 1919 and all it really did was increase organized crime. Outlawing gasoline or oil will most likely result in a black market controlled by South American and Soviet/Russian cartels.
No need for anything so crude. Do CAFE but with teeth to force manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. Or be brave and put a tax on petrol. Either way short term cars get more efficient and medium term investment in hybrid and electric goes up because people see that gasoline cars are only going to get more expensive to run.

Tax aviation fuel (the biggest barrier has always been US opposition). Emissions limits on power stations that only carbon capture coal or natural gas could meet.

You aren't making anything actually illegal, just really expensive. Though none of this will be wildly popular it is all doable.
 
I think this is starting to stray a little into current politics, personally.
There is that risk.

So to get back to the timeline if Sid Bass loses money on green investments (because the firms are looking at large scale not the realistic 90s options) and he blames Wells for dragging him in, that will lead to troubles for Disney.
 
There is that risk.

So to get back to the timeline if Sid Bass loses money on green investments (because the firms are looking at large scale not the realistic 90s options) and he blames Wells for dragging him in, that will lead to troubles for Disney.
I concur. Well, that or he scales back his investments and mostly keeps doing it for the PR, kind of like BP did for a while.
 
So to get back to the timeline if Sid Bass loses money on green investments (because the firms are looking at large scale not the realistic 90s options) and he blames Wells for dragging him in, that will lead to troubles for Disney.
I can see it now.

(At a public conference.)

Wells: I'm telling you! You have to think in day-by-day increments when it comes to stuff like this!
Bass: Listen here, maggot. I'm sticking to my view, and that's final!
Wells: Is this because you weren't taught as a youngster that you have to wait your turn for success?
Bass: (clearly flustered at how right he is) I... You... It's just...

(The next day.)

BREAKING NEWS: Sid Bass, one of the Disney stock holders, gets flustered at someone else telling him that he's wrong.

And after that, not many companies can be trusted based on the potential cruelty of their executives, which is the world's largest can or worms.

Uh, I assume this is what you were thinking about, correct?
 
I don't think outlawing something is the best option, we tried that back in 1919 and all it really did was increase organized crime. Outlawing gasoline or oil will most likely result in a black market controlled by South American and Soviet/Russian cartels.
I don't know that's true--look at leaded gasoline, which is much more comparable as a product than cigarettes or alcohol. Over the course of 30 years, it's been almost entirely replaced by alternatives globally, and even the last bastions of it are mostly being phased out (unleaded 100 octant avgas certification is an active FAA project). It's not like there's giant mobs of people making illegal "bathtub gas" because there's just been better replacements.
 
I thought that the movie would be butterflied away, and turning it into a Duck Duck Goof special works quite well.

Maybe its slot in the Hanna-Barbera Superstars 10 could be replaced by one of the cancelled movies from OTL?
Just click on the HB section, and you're sure to find it.
Thanks. HB will come up, as will other animation studios, and fairly soon. Not going to go too in depth, but Turner hasn't forgotten them.

I was referring to my hypothetical Worlds of Marvel idea - principally because I'd love to see a Spielberg, Henson and (maybe) Lucas-overseen MCU-like Marvel film universe in the big-budget CGI-age of the 2000s with all the characters to play with (because Marvel probably aren't going to be selling the film rights of their characters left and right).

However, I'm going to bring up something I can't believe I haven't brought up in ages - I met Dougal Dixon once and he said that there'd been a lot of buzz in Hollywood about a movie based on his book After Man: A Zoology of the Future - however, none of it really came to fruition (sad, really).

However, very interestingly, one of the people in Hollywood who expressed interest was none other than Steven Spielberg (another hero of this timeline!) - who wanted it for DreamWorks. Apparently, the planned film never made it to fruition, but Dixon got a check from them for the next twenty years.

However, ITTL, Spielberg's working with Disney - and I have no idea if Henson knew about After Man, but it seems like it'd be right up his alley.
An After Man made-for-TV fauxumentary ala the Disney Does Dinosaurs miniseries seems a possibility. Not sure how you'd make a film of it without some cheesy attempt to add a plot and characters and love interests.

Denliner said:
Speaking of the X-Men, does this still get made ITTL? Hope it does under The Disney Channel/Disney Toontown :)
Yes, around 1987/88 right after the Marvel buy. Look back into the TL.

Obviously the OTL ones are butterflied (most were made in a desperate attempt to keep production rights, IIRC, hence the low budgets), but there may be some interest in some of those titles going forward.

My casting choice for Cap himself is Casper Van Dien.
Sounds like a good option.

One tip about the eventual Lone Ranger movie: don't have the creator sue Clayton Moore, as Jack Wrather learned the hard way (and which pissed off the core fanbase before the movie had begun shooting--there were other reasons Legend of the Lone Ranger failed, but angering the intended fanbase for the movie even before filming had begun was a very bad idea)...
Yea, that was a sad chapter. Still happened iTTL with the 1980 film but Disney should do better there. Stay tuned.


As to the Green Tech Talks, without getting into specifics or spoilers there are definitely possibilities and limitations on what is possible in the 1990s, both in terms of technology and policy/law. Assuming that Gore can beat Bush he also has to wrestle with Congress. Stay tuned there too.

That said, having a Disney Green Tech Conference seemed like an obvious butterfly given the proclivities of both the Chairman and the CCO.
 
You know, the Lorax short gives me an idea - a TV special/anthology film spiritual successor to 1973's Dr. Seuss on the Loose, with Weird Al Yankovic voicing the Cat in the Hat (appropriately succeeding Alan Sherman, who voiced the Cat in the titular 1971 special and in On the Loose shortly before his death), who offers short musical introductions to each of the six (yes, six) segments as well as playfully snarky commentary - I've thought of about 4 thus far: Yertle the Turtle as the first, "Too Many Daves" and "What Was I Scared Of?" from The Sneetches And Other Stories as the second and fifth respectively, with Weird Al as the Cat narrating the former and Christopher Lee narrating the latter, Horton Hatches the Egg as the third (with Jim "The Reverend Horton Heat" Heath voicing the titular elephant), and the last two TBD.
 
You know, the Lorax short gives me an idea - a TV special/anthology film spiritual successor to 1973's Dr. Seuss on the Loose, with Weird Al Yankovic voicing the Cat in the Hat (appropriately succeeding Alan Sherman, who voiced the Cat in the titular 1971 special and in On the Loose shortly before his death), who offers short musical introductions to each of the six (yes, six) segments as well as playfully snarky commentary - I've thought of about 4 thus far: Yertle the Turtle as the first, "Too Many Daves" and "What Was I Scared Of?" from The Sneetches And Other Stories as the second and fifth respectively, with Weird Al as the Cat narrating the former and Christopher Lee narrating the latter, Horton Hatches the Egg as the third (with Jim "The Reverend Horton Heat" Heath voicing the titular elephant), and the last two TBD.
I love all of this.

Maybe the fourth and sixth stories can be adaptations of "Hunches in Bunches" and "Fox in Socks", respectively? Just to cap off the blend of mainstream and obscure.
 
Top