"The Future of Civilization is at Stake": Al Gore Issues Major Energy Challenge
By SilentPatriot Wednesday Jul 16, 2008 5:40pm
Former Vice President Al Gore delivered a major speech Thursday on US energy policy in which he challenged all Americans to confront the crisis head on and wean itself off fossil fuels in the next 10 years.
Download | play
Download | play
Longer version here.
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment.
"Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen."
Senator Obama responds:
“For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as President. It’s a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced, and one that will leave our children a world that is cleaner and safer.”
Full transcript below the fold:
(h/t Bill W)
Ladies and gentlemen:
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment.
The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more – if more should be required – the future of human civilization is at stake. I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.
The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse – much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.
Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world. Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.
And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today. Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me. I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately – without taking the others into
account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective – they almost always make the other crises even worse.Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges – the economic, environmental and national security crises. We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways
that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change. But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels. In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real
solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home? We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses. But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.
That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.
A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power – coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal – have radically changed the economics of energy.
When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.
And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.
You know, the same thing happened with computer chips – also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months – year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row. To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results
with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.
When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.
Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo – the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."
To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.
To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change. I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers
and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless.
Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target. When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.
To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity.
Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.
We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid. At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.
America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.
Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.
In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.
Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become
sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness. It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down.
It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.
If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.
However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.
Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest
politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.
So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge – for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.
This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you – each of you – to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org. We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.
On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.
I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one
small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.

Login or Register to post comments.
boy, its a good thing he didn't "win"!
Can't afford the Tesla. Building an electric car in my garage.
Why just imagine where we would be as a nation today if 5 anti-democratic conservative activist justices hadn't installed a corrupt and criminal big oil regime into power that lied us into an oil rich nation costing us trillions, busting our budget, and further polluting the planet. Why just imagine if Gore could have taken the office he won and built upon the Clinton legacy of record prosperity and peace using our budget surpluses of the time to invest in technologies that could have led us to oil independence. Just another way the Republicans have run America into the ground for their own self-serving agendas at the expense of the nation and her people.
McCain's energy "policy" is nonexistant.
Obama's is "clean coal", corn ethanol and nukular.
We are f*cked.
Our "asking them to step aside" is off the table.
Good thing it isn't Vice President Lieberman running for his turn at POTUS.
I think that Gore may be referring to nuclear power. Remember, KB&R is going to need another government fiasco to milk
once they are forced from Iraq and the Iran war may be too much for even Cheney to get started.
Thank you Mr. President.
"removed or be asked to step aside"
hmmm...the most powerful people in the world are putting everything they have against these efforts.
the most powerful people in the world are us, but we might have to turn the TV off for a second.
Just a few minutes in, but Real President Gore still has a bit of a problem pausing for applause. Ah well. Go get 'em Al!
[listening to the rest now]
Notice how very presidential Al Gore looks but then again he was actual winner in 2000 so...
Global Warming policy is more government control and more taxes. I can accept that there are warming and cooling trends, and that carbon emissions are a contributing factor, but:
1. Government Policy is a disaster. Using food for fuel is just one example.
2. Tax money is already being misused and taxes are already at a high level. There is no urgent need to reward incompetence and corruption.
3. There is no data to suggest that more governmental control over our lives and an implementation of energy policy will produce equitable results for the cost.
4. The only people who need to act now are those that would benefit financially from this boondoggle.
The 2000 election really seemed to be one of mankind's biggest turning points in the space-time continuum, where it would either continue progress from Clinton to Gore, or it would go downhill and dumb down under Bushie.
Give it a day or so - McLame will take credit for all of these ideas and prob the speech too.
And - this is how wars are won - eliminate the need for them. Oh, sorry John, you have the patent on that - my bad.
I say kudos to Al Gore - whether anyone can or will see this or not, he does have sensible answers. Shame we'll no doubt screw them up.
Nice comments from Mr. Obama--too bad he's full of b.s. yet again.
Since when is his all-time favorite energy source, NUCLEAR POWER, renewable?
It's really getting silly having to listen to the lies this guy spews on a daily basis.
Oh, and Barry, your 2nd fave energy source, ETHANOL, ain't cuttin' it. But you wouldn't understand, so we'll just let that one go so you can try and fool the people of Iowa into voting for you.
GORE in '08!
The UN has pointed out that the production of meat causes more global warming than all transportation combined. But does Mr. Gore go vegetarian?
The sun does not shine 24/7. Here in the midwest the wind does not blow like Gore claims. I often see the wind turbines not moving at all. Geothermal is not accesible everywhere.
I am all for investing heavily in solar and wind and having a long-term plan, but the reality is that we need carbon-based energy for the foreseeable future while renewables become more efficient and more cost effective and indeed a valuable addition to our energy toolbox.
Didn't he say that we had 10 years left 10 years ago? Stop the fear mongering. So what if the climate changes? The climate has changed for millions of years. Humans need to stop thinking that nature is static.
Jim @ 15:
Ethanol is a joke. Did Barack really say that nuclear energy is renewable? Good grief.
15 Jim Says: Nice comments from Mr. Obama–too bad he’s full of b.s. yet again.
Since when is his all-time favorite energy source, NUCLEAR POWER, renewable?
It’s really getting silly having to listen to the lies this guy spews on a daily basis.
Oh, and Barry, your 2nd fave energy source, ETHANOL, ain’t cuttin’ it. But you wouldn’t understand, so we’ll just let that one go so you can try and fool the people of Iowa into voting for you.
GORE in ‘08!
=======================================
I really hate to be reminding people of this, BUT HE ISN'T RUNNING IN 08.
re: tuddies
"4. The only people who need to act now are those that would benefit financially from this boondoggle."
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5751
Civilization's last chance
The planet is nearing a tipping point on climate change, and it gets much worse, fast.
By Bill McKibben May 11, 2008
...
There's a number -- a new number -- that makes this point most powerfully. It may now be the most important number on Earth: 350. As in parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
A few weeks ago, our foremost climatologist, NASA's Jim Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several co-authors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm." Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points -- massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them -- that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; and the first of them, judging by last summer's insane melt of Arctic ice, may already be behind us.
Hey Amigos! Contrast and compare the leadership and statesmanship of these folks to our bozo in chief:
Young Turks on the G8 conference
KCThinker @ 17:
Stop the fearmongering yourself. "the reality is that we need carbon-based energy" is not a reality at all, It's nothing more than a fear-based perception combined with a lack of imagination.
We need locally-based renewables that switch automatically to whatever is available; wind, sun, hydro; whatever.
If Sweden can get 20% of their energy from solar when they're dark half the year, surely we can manage with the year-round sunlight we have here.
We just need to quit listening to people who say it can't be done and start doing it.
Gas powered engines had an amazing run for a technology that was never supposed to replace horses or steam, but it's time to move on.
Jim @ 15:
doggiebobo @ 23:
KCThinker @ 17:
I think the plan would be to store the energy collected on the sunny days and use it when it's overcast. Also, it'd be in combination with wind, geothermal and other forms of energy. Finally, obviously the use of the current forms of energy won't be stopping overnight, so it'll be a gradual shift in terms of proportions anyway.
Isn't it amazing that the same faction that declares renewable energy is an unacheivable dream, even though top scientists say its doable, are the same group that promoted SDI. That's right, Star Wars, a missile defense that 90 percent of our nation's top scientists said would never work as billed (and after 30 years, it hasn't) has had billions spent on it. What if we'd spent that money on renewable energy? And I'm still waiting to hear what was talked about in Cheney's Energy Meetings years ago. For all we know, his plan is playing out exactly as planned, but we'll never know. Executive priviledge.
O.K. I want you all think for a minute.
We can debate all day about manmade global warming ect. And know these guys are saying "Climate Change because NASA and other institutions are saying that the Earth is cooling now... At any rate.
Why is Gore focusing on Carbon Dioxide? Monsanto's GMO foods are contaminating the biosphere. Power plants are for Gores carbon tax because they can conspire to block compedators from building newer cleaner plants. The Old big money power plants can also dump HUGE levels of MERCURY in the air. Gore is only concern about C02. The gas that plants breathe. Higher C02 levels make poison ivy grow wild BUT it also makes other PLANT grow as well! Higher C02 levels make plant life THRIVE and plants require less water to grow. Let's say that Gore's carbon tax is just a ploy for the elite to get a global tax. New Regulators will be created to come in your house and look at all of your appliances and tax you and force you to get newer ones.
So let me get this straight.... I have to take off my shoes at the airport and risk getting athletes foot and they go through a new scanner that can se through my clothes, "an electronic strip search", have cops with Assault weapons and check points. and on the other side have these new regulators tax the hell out of me and come in my house? HELL NO!
ALso this carbon tax will not be enforce on China or India and they both have more than 2 billion people aproaching 3. It sounds like a farse to me.
Yea.... It's all hanging in the balance...all of it...And we are just about out of time to fix it while we waste time killing each other over a buck or who we pray to or prefer to have sex with.. or some goddamned cartoon in a magazine someone thinks is a tad insulting... At some point mother nature is going to take a huge dump on our asses big-time... The bee's are vanishing, red algea blooms depleting o2 in the oceans are increasing, we have a pile of plastic accumulating in the middle of the pacific the size of fucking Texas and who knows how deep and it's growing daily.. Reefs and micro sea life is dying off, and that's just the tip of this iceberg...Then there's the atmosphere... And except for Gore, some scientists and all us peons who will end up being the first on the slag heap when the shit really hits the fan.... It seems noone with any real juice gives a rats ass.....
I'd like to be able to speak with a real elitist sometime later, and I ain't talking about Obama... No, I mean a real elitist... The kind of asshole that Thurston Howell III parodied way back when on Gilligans Island.. I'd like to be able down the road, to just ask, 'how that not giving a shit' worked out... Espicially when we're at the point when there's no breathable air, no drinkable water and nothing fucking eatable left on this rock.... I wonder how all that goddamned money and material wealth helps them then???. Maybe they all think they'll get to fly to mars and beat the odds. My guess? Too late, this ain't no sci-fi movie.. Noones gonna get to colonize mars and beat this rap. We either all come together and get serious about this... Or we are ALL fucked... It is that simple.................. JD
Actually his plan looks pretty feasible, though 100% is problematic.
Civilization ........ bwhahahaha what a blinkered myopic joke, I did expect better from him, but then again he is an american.
The obese wasteful suburbia worshipping ignorant masses of the US is at stake, and sooner they are gone or learn to grow up and evolve or get the Darwin treatment the better.
Then again america has no memory or knowledge of anything except the way it lives now (and tries to ram down everyone's throat) , the rest of the real world has been surviving quite nicely for years before oil driven power came along, and many forward looking countries have moved to geo-thermal electric power (which is the only zero foot print, base load, sustainable power going) and they will do just fine.
Unless the US does their typical "turn up with military" to spread democracy and rape the recourse ........ such proud times for the US.
The sooner they come back to reality the better, though I don't think many will.
Mike Smollon @ 26:
Right on. I'm glad that someone besides me still remembers the "secret, behind closed
door meetings of the Energy Task Force", chaired by d.cheney. You are right, since
the D.C. Fed. District Court ruled that such meetings were "national security"(not
executive privilege as you stated), we will probably never, never know what kind of
deals were made amongst the Oil/Gas/Coal companies and this crooked administration.
Mike Smollon @ 26:
MIT did a report saying they could generate the entire power consumption of the US from geo-thermal with the most conservative estimates and much more from what they actually believe.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/future_geothermal.html
Guess which administration led by monkey boy cut the funding dramatically .......
Shan @ 25:
So what is the plan for that change? If water levels rise and temps go up even if it is 100% natural it will have a huge effect on all of us. What are the plans for coastal cities, for large area's with a shrinking water supply, and changes in farming/food distribution and yes even energy consumption?
Digging around in the dirt looking for something to burn is so last millennium. The job creation and economic growth that will be associated with a national energy policy that looks to change the way we live should be exciting for everyone. It's well past time this country got off it's butt and started moving forward again. Of course the fact denial Republicans, and craven Dem's currently in Washington need to be removed before we can get the ball rolling.
Wow with all those flags ehind him it almost looks like he is president....oh right he lost that one......oh well stay green..let keep telling folks in africa that wind and solar will be just as effective as petroleum for getting their countries going!!!
Wow with all those flags Enid him it almost looks like he is president....oh right he lost that one......oh well stay green..let keep telling folks in Africa that wind and solar will be just as effective as petroleum for getting their countries going!!!
KCThinker @ 17:
Considering the amount available and the national grid, I'm going to side with MIT on that one and have to disagree with you .......
Let alone the US life style that wastes so much power is ridiculous, getting it is one thing, pissing it up the wall is another.
Serge @ 35:
Wind turbines are, in my opinion, one of the most reliable alternative sources of energy
available. I assume Africa has either open spaces and or seaside areas where the wind
blows rather constantly, therefore, if that assumption is correct, why not try and wee
them off of oil/gas/coal?
I live in Central Texas, and I belong to my city's "Green Energy Policy"; so am currently
receiving all of my electical power from wind turbines far away in West Texas. I am
paying more for such energy right now, but when signing up, I am locked in at a
standard, constant rate for the next 14 years. How many of you using other energy
sources can say the same?
There was a "God, Americans are stupid moment" around this today. AirAmerica plays a few minutes of CNN news on the hour. I swear this morning I twice heard them report that Al Gore had called for the elimination of electricity use in the United States. They got it right by afternoon that he was calling for non-fossil fuel electricity generation.
Al Gore carries the indelible stench of a loser. Despite 4 years of a catastrophic Bush presidency there was no groundswell of support among Democrats to make Gore the leader of the Party leading up to the 2008 elections. His followers comprise the extreme left. It is a fringe group. The vast overwhelming majority of Dems reject Gore and embrace the moderate, election winning views of Barack Obama.
We might begin symbolically by evacuating Las Vegas and calling in an air strike on the loathsome place -- to register our new reality-based attitude adjustment.
i guess the real question is whether or not he acknowledges publicly that he "doesn't believe jet fuel can melt steel"
isn't it though?
Question; Does Al Gore still fly in his private jet, or does he drive a Hybrid or take AMTRAK?
Mr. Gore , should publically state that he has dumped his private jet.
The American economy and the associated infrastructure is built on the premise that there is plenty of oil available and that the oil is " cheap oil".
This is not so anymore .
This is a major problem and it will take many years to change to the new reality.
There will be a change .
You may have to relocate your residence.
orcas @ 39:
includeing more troops in afganistan? embraceing a warmonger ?
juststopandthink @ 27:
Interesting how since Gore left high public office, he's consistently worked toward trying to make the world a better place.
Does anyone doubt that, by comparison, when the Bushies leave office, they'll join industry lobbying firms and corporate boards, to make sure the world is a more dysfunctional, polluted place?
without china and india cutting out thier polution nothing else matters , and thier cutting down the rain forests ,jungles , and every dam tree that you can make a 2by four out of, time to kiss this planet goodby, dont let the green mold getcha!
L.A. Confidential @ 40:
Made me LOL and spew a few drops of liquid on the keyboard. Perfect lst step
and would make a newsworthy video should Britney/Paris or other not be the top
story of the day.
redwhite&blue @ 47:
I kind of believe that you "nickname" is in error...More appropriately should just be
"Red". Am I correct?
It's tragic that environmentalism's spokesperson is Mr. Gore. He's a lousy hypocrite, a charlatan.
Every time he preaches about environmental degradation, I can only think of his ridiculous energy consumption, his huge house(s), and his frequent (private) flying.
It amazes me that anyone takes him seriously.
Oh well. At least we still have Orion magazine....
I dislike the semantic phrase "Climate Change," it presumes a climatic stability not born out by the written, archaeological, paleological, or geological record. Earth has an unstable climate, same as every other planet in the Solar System, and pretending even just semantically it's always been the way it is is misleading. If the climate today was that of 15,000 years ago, North America down to Ohio would be nothing but glacier, and huge swathes of Eurasia would also be covered in glaciers. Climate is a volatile thing, and Mother Nature and Mr. Natural Selection are never obligated to favor us when they showed no such favor to our ancestors.
That said, Al Gore is right, a minor change in climate could have a catastrophic impact on much of the world, as the whole artifice of 21st Century postindustrial First World civilization is built on the climate remaining consistent. Even a 1 degree change alters too much to avoid a major global catastrophe. Something must be done. I must, however, disagree with Senator Gore that 10 years of scrambling to avoid this catastrophe can avoid the results of what some centuries of pumping carbon have begun to enhance. Anthropogenic-Origin Interglacial Enhancement must be dealt with.
Ok.. maybe this is not exactly on topic, but today, I went to work at the hospital and when I had lunch at the cafeteria there, instead of letting them put the food I ordered on a plastic plate, (with no recycling program there, either.) I handed the server my own plate, that I can use again and again. They looked at me like I was crazy, and I simply said " I can't stand all the waste." Then they looked at me like I was crazier, and then it was like a light bulb went on in their heads. Now, I'm sure I'll be the only one at the hospital who brings his own plate, for a long long time, but maybe just this little action will get people to thinking about the enormous amount of materials (and energy) we waste. I also recently got rid of my car, and bought a decent bicycle..and I must say, it's been the most liberating thing I've done. So my point is, there are things we can all do. Some small, some huge. We only have to want it badly enough.
Still, I just get so sad, to think how different things might have been 8 years ago, if the Supreme Court had not spit in the face of this nation, and appointed this bastard to the White House.
Colin @ 50:
As to Mr. Gore's utility/energy use...for all the facts(and not biased/slanted view),
I suggest you go to www.snopes.com and using the Search button, type in "Al
Gore Energy Use" and get some of the FACTS....you might be surprised.
Colin @ 50:
been listening to a lot of limbaugh and hannity, have you?
Reasonstein @ 13:
The main problem I had with the 2000 Gore campaign was his choice of VP. But it sure didn't force me to vote for Dumbya. But it would really would have sucked to see Loserman anywhere near the White House. Which is why I am hoping McCain picks him as VP, so we can watch them both get stomped in November and be done with them both permanently.
This needs to be done!
No more Oil Oligarchy!
I don't know about you guys, but I just want to pinch the Goracle's big old jowly face when he says "global warming."
doggiebobo @ 23:
Jim @ 15:
Where do you hang out, Redstate? Barack doesn't believe that nuclear is renewable energy and doesn't support its expansion unless we resolve the issue of nuclear waste storage and commit to a safer technology.
www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf
And read the truth about ethanol, which actually is an asset to our energy independence and environment:
www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=81&parentid=25
Next time, check things out before shooting off your opinionated mouth.
Jim @ 58: