After former vice president Al Gore gave this demagogic speech, I thought that everyone — well, almost everyone — would laugh at what he was proposing.
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.
And that everyone — well, almost everyone — would note that adopting his proposals might not solve any real problems, but would make Al Gore very rich.
I was wrong.
Some people did take it seriously. For instance, the New York Times reporter who wrote this article. The Christian Science Monitor blogger (reporter?) who wrote this piece. And the editorial board of the the Seattle PI, who think that Gore's goal is practical.
Al Gore has challenged the nation to produce 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and carbon-free sources within 10 years. A few months ago, when folks suggested Gore run again for president, he declined, preferring to promote solutions to the national energy and environmental challenges.
We think Gore is on track with a practical approach to global warming -- it's the do-it-now alternative to gloom and doom.
(None of the three noted Gore's financial interests in his proposals.)
Currently, we use coal plants to produce 49 percent of our electricity, natural gas to produce 20 percent, and oil to produce less than 2 percent. To meet Gore's goal, we would have to replace 70 percent of our generating capacity in ten years. And that's not all. Since the places that are good for producing power from the sun and wind are mostly far away from consumers, we would have to build brand new transmission networks. And, because neither of these sources is exactly reliable, we would have to add enormous storage facilities (probably pumped storage).
Is this even possible? Could we do it if we mobilized on a World War II scale, and devoted 50 percent of our GDP to Gore's goal? Maybe, but I have my doubts, even then, even with rationing and far higher taxes. Unless we also instituted martial law. Because, as Gore and the journalists should know, we have lawyers in this country. And a few of those lawyers will sue to block almost any proposal to build new generating capacity. Which will, inevitably, result in delays, regardless of who wins the lawsuits.
If it is possible, is it a good idea? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Gore and the PI editorial board are certain that they do, but give no numbers for either the total costs, or the total benefits. There is no bottom line in the speech, or in the editorial. A bottom line is not necessary in religion, but it is in most other areas. I am not asking for exact figures, but would be satisfied with something as vague as 8 trillion dollars in costs, 10 trillion dollars in benefits (or the reverse). Once we have estimates on costs and benefits, we can argue about minor details, whether, for example, Gore's plan would cost 11 trillion dollars, instead of 8. But without those estimates, we can not evaluate the plan.
Unless, of course, Gore and the PI editorial board have religious reasons for backing his proposal. In which case, they should propose that we change the 1st Amendment so that Congress can establish a religion. If we are going to make environmentalism our state religion, let's do so openly and honestly.
Let me end with this inconvenient fact. According to the most common sets of measurements, the earth has not warmed since 1998 and, if anything, has cooled slightly in the last five years. It has been warmer in the last ten years than in most of the 20th century, but it has not continued warming. To some of us, that pause in warming (reversal?) suggests that demagoguery on this issue is inappropriate, that we have the time to learn the facts and, if necessary, to adjust our policies gradually. (And that we do not have to pay enormous sums to promoters like Gore and his associates.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(There is a serious factual error in the PI editorial. They quote T. Boone Pickens as saying that "we import 70 percent of our energy". I doubt that Pickens said that. We do import about 60 percent of our petroleum, but we import little electricity, and little fuel for electric generating plants. (And we export a significant amount of coal.)
Neither Gore nor the journalists even mention nuclear power. Does Gore want to replace our nuclear power plants, too? If so, then we would have to replace about 90 percent(!) of our generating capacity in ten years. If he doesn't want to replace them, then he should explain to us why he does not mention expanding nuclear power as as part of the solution to global warming.
As always when I discuss global warming, I suggest that you read my disclaimer, if you have not already done so.
You can find more criticism of Gore's proposal here.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 28, 2008 10:49 AM | Email ThisThe electrical power lines are not big enough to transmit the huge amounts of electricity that would be required.
So, this is an impossible task unless the power companies begin today to upgrade their distribution networks.
10 years to drill for oil and get it in production? This electric scheme is a whole lot bigger of a problem than the three years it would really take to drill.
And don't forget T.Boone Pickens is a scammer from the beginning.
Posted by: swatter on July 28, 2008 11:08 AMLousy, stinking, lying, hypocritical 'Rats...
Posted by: Interested Observer on July 28, 2008 11:41 AMWhat's unforgivable about this whole situation with Gore is that Gore win a Nobel medal from a load of hot air based on junk science while a real hero with real accomplishments like Irena Sendler gets the proverbial kick to the curb by that supposedly agust body in Sweden...
Posted by: juandos on July 28, 2008 12:33 PMIf you're Republican, you're pro-business, right?
So, here is VP Gore perceiving a need, putting effort into developing products and process to fill that need (and profiting thereby), and then trying to sell those products and processes.
So, what, exactly are you complaining about? He's either a genius or a snake-oil salesman, and we're not going to know which for another 20 years. If you don't like his pitch, don't buy is product.
But, if you're pro-business, please don't be a hypocrite by bashing a business idea based solely on the name of the person pushing it.
(Oh, and #1 is so far off, technically, it's not even worth commenting...)
Gore proclaims "Today I challenge our nation..." That is not a businessman talking. Can you imagine Steve Jobs making a speech stating "Today I challenge our nation to commit itself to becoming 100% Apple users within the next ten years"? How about the CEO of GM making a commercial "Ask not what Ford can do for you, ask what GM product you can buy." You know he is talking about making laws which will subsidize the stuff he is selling, or heavily tax competing commodities. So, no, this is not an exercise of free market capitalism at all.
Posted by: Steven on July 28, 2008 01:30 PMThe main reason all the enviros and greenies have jumped on the CO2 bandwagon is that they have another agenda and CO2 will help them implement it. This is the same roadmap that was successfully followed with the Spotted Owl. All the "science" that was used to justify setting aside millions of acres of forestland has pretty much been debunked, and almost everyone on both sides agrees that the owl was merely the best way to achieve the goal of limiting logging.
For the global warming crowd, they believe the automobile is killing the planet, or our impact on the planet is too great or rural subdivisions should be banned, or the US uses too much of the worlds energy, etc., etc. They are easy converts to global warming and staunch defenders as they see it as the way to achieve to their desired solution.
That is why these folks defend their position so strongly in the face of substantial contrary data.
He has mis-named himself. He accepts that there is warming, and that it is caused by human created emissions. He refuses to discuss nuclear power or the use of DDT. He states that support of the latter two issues only serves to annoy environmentalists, and divert the debate.
He believes that the notion of pouring good money after bad science as it relates to the typical environmenalist's solutions to warming and such is just plain stupid.
He should re-name himself "The Practical Environmentalist". But of course that would only annoy other environmentalists.
He recently gave an address to the Washington Policy Center, and the video is rotating through Channel 23 (WTV) programming. One of the few slightly conservative presentations in the near wasteland between 21 and 23.
I think the WPC also has some kind of download of Lomborg's talk as well as others who spoke the same day.
Posted by: bart cannon on July 28, 2008 02:34 PMAnd c'mon... even if you're of the belief that there are no human impacts on climate, there are advantages to relying on more local generation of electricity, and more efficient use of energy overall. Blindingly spewing that you're not going to use "green energy" because of those "durn libruls" is great... but improving local air quality, developing local economies, providing resistance to spikes in energy markets, promoting advantages in security and trade, and so forth, should all be things that we'd actually want to do here.
Why can't you just dismiss all of the crackpot ideas (carbon sequestration, CDMs with Chinese firms), and work to promote the good parts of this? Seems like if your interests and those of a devoted (sometimes rabidly so!) base converge, you'd best be served by using this to your advantage. Pickens has the right idea here.
And regarding solid numbers... sure! I could produce numbers that would support my case, just as well as advocates for the other side could produce numbers in the other direction. What we need here, though, are general policies based on what we want to see out of the system. You can debate the dollar worth of "energy independence", of course, but I'm having a hard time that any numbers you could get would be defensible ones, either way.
Posted by: demo kid on July 28, 2008 02:58 PMIn case you are addressing me, I suggest that you should instead read Bjorn Lomborg, and then get back to us with your adjusted opinions.
Posted by: bart cannon on July 28, 2008 03:23 PMIf you are converting these heat sources (i.e. getting rid of the footprint of fossil fuels- at least that is what I think the guy is saying) you need to replace that heat with electricity.
It is those electrical lines which are undersized to carry the bigger burden.
Ever fill out an electrical questionaire prior to bringing electricity to your brand new dream home? I did. If the electrical load isn't so important, why does the power company even ask the question? It is for sizing.
Posted by: swatter on July 28, 2008 03:26 PMBanning increased oil exploration or foolish restrictions on CO2 emissions is not a reasonable energy policy and needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is.
Posted by: RJK on July 28, 2008 03:39 PMGore and the Demowits would have you believe that every coal plant is belching black plumes like in the 1800s...but the reality is "environment" legislators created a situation where we could not update or build new coal plants when needed...so these archaic ones remain. These bad, dirty plants...and there's really only a few...product something like 30 to 50 percent of ALL the Co2.
If everyone acted rationally...of course...then Gore couldn't bilk us for the ransom money.
As for doing anything in 10 years, haven't you all heard of lawyers? Can't do jack in this country even if everybody wants to, because the lawyers make their living off stopping *whatever* happens, regardless of whether it's right.
Posted by: Gary on July 28, 2008 03:51 PMI have in fact read Lomborg, and there are some areas where he and I agree. Devoting energy to improving drinking water supplies in the Third World, for example, should rank above pursuing climate change policies that would only indirectly benefit these countries in vague ways in the very long term.
However, the answer still remains... why not focus on the important aspects of this, the common ground, and work on multiple problems at the same time?
Likewise, if you're supporting Lomborg's perspective, are you supporting it to further actual environmental solutions, or no solutions at all? I'm not exactly seeing a lot of posts on here for the environmental solutions that he prefers...
Posted by: demo kid on July 28, 2008 04:09 PMNot true, on either count. A good number of Republicans don't see the need to impose regulations to actually get the scrubbers on there, and a good number of practical environmentalists see the benefits.
Don't overgeneralize.
Posted by: demo kid on July 28, 2008 04:13 PMAgain, I'd agree with you that "just doing something for the sake of doing something" is not worthwhile. But why don't you stop being the dim bulb in the pack, and start thinking about ways of pivoting and using environmentalists to your advantage? I mean, surely you care about propping up energy markets that funnel money to Russia, Venezuela and Iran, right?
Posted by: demo kid on July 28, 2008 04:19 PM
I wonder when Al is going to sell his three massive energy sucking homes, private jets, and buy himself a condo and a bike.
6 years and the planet is dead according to Al
Cuckoo
Posted by: gs on July 28, 2008 05:53 PMI am not actually a fan of Lomborg's. I disagree with him on many things.
What I do agree with him on is that humanity has limited financial resources. They should be spent where they will get the best bang for the buck.
If we spent a nickel on changing climate the resulting change in climate will be the same as if we spent 70 trillion dollars, but why waste the 70 trillion instead of just adapting to inexorable climate change and a put a few trillion toward clearly useful adaptations such as air conditioners, and central heating. Lomborg contends that more humans die from the cold than from the heat.
And there's plenty of free stuff we can do. Like just drive a little bit less, and wear sweaters. I do it and it's not so bad.
Lomborg pulls a lot of figures out of seeming thin air in his talk. One that seems far fetched, but that he's happy with, is that it would cost $1.2 billion in carbon reduction to save the life of one polar bear. I guess that means that a polar bear is worth $1.2 billion.
Probably as silly as the recent calculations in the Times by "Earth Economics" that the annual value of Puget Sound is $62 billion. As the cost of living near Puget Sound increases, I wonder what the combined U-Haul rental costs will amount to as we all leave.
Which side of the Puget Sound balance sheet does THAT go on?
Again. I suggest that you all seek out a source to see Lomborgs Washington Policy Center address.
It's the Dems and Environmentalists that have been preventing us from developing and expanding our energy sources such as, Nuclear Power, Domestic Oil Production, New Refineries, etc. The monies that go to purchase Oil from foreign regimes is the fault of you and your fellow Liberals. So....Get Real! But, that is asking too much from a Liberal, isn't it?
Q:--you had your time in the limelight; for better or worse; we did things your way;
now--why the heck don't you fade away with class & gentility and let us lead and acheive OUR current things?
you had your chance; game over; take your jacks & go...this undying self-absorbment is bad for a country;
nobody seems to retire anymore; all want face time; is that REALLY for the common nation's good or stroking one's own sad need for attention? America or American Idol? i think the latter; it's pathetic;
This is exactly what Gore's Great Leap Forward will do to this country. It is sheer lunacy to think that plants powered by coal, oil or natural gas can replaced in 10 years. What are these plants to be replaced with? Windmills? I drove through California, Texas and Washington this July and saw hundreds of windmills. I doubt if even half of them were working and those were barely turning. Wind power is undependable and uneconomical. It cannot survive without subsidies.
If T. Boone Pickens is so fired up about windmills why doesn't he build the hugh wind farms he says can supply 20% of our power needs himself, then sit back and rake in the dough. No, Pickens has done the math and knows that this project would have been a financial black hole. So Pickens is now running to Washington seeking a loophole to the unrelenting law of economics that says you must get more out of your business than you put into it in order to survive.
Pickens may be a scammer and a looter but Gore has officially gone off the deep end with this proposal which would amount to mass murder. Green is the new red. Red as in our blood and the communist/socialist totalitarian state that will make it run.
Posted by: Bill K. on July 28, 2008 10:11 PMRepublican failed candidates, and ex-Presidents retire and don't spend their lives trying to undermine the current *elected* administrations.
Posted by: gary on July 29, 2008 06:18 AMThey want to knock the USA down. They want to lower our standard of living. This is the number one reason to vote Republican in December. Because with the current state of the PDO and Solar Minimum, we are going to need a lot of energy to keep warm.
Even if you would like to see a more green transportation infrastructure, we can't get there from here without a rational energy policy for the short and near term
And with Democrats, there is no rational..
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 29, 2008 08:46 AMI think he see's big bucks in Gov subsidies for these windmills.
It's called making money.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 29, 2008 09:11 AMWe went to war without the facts and still have not found the weapons of mass warming.
Posted by: Col Hogan on July 29, 2008 09:56 AMBull. There's a difference between wanting to tear down society, and trying to minimize the risks that we as a society face. Republicans seem so adamant about shoving their heads in the sand about everything, for the glory of God and Mammon. If you had always been in charge, we'd be breathing dirty air, drinking dirty water, eating contaminated food, working for less pay, and enjoying fewer freedoms in society.
@39: demo kid - time to grow up. Become a Republican.
Pfft. I don't think that I'm selfish or soulless enough, or blindly accepting of right-wing propaganda.
Posted by: demo kid on July 29, 2008 12:12 PMNeighbors, you can stop Envirofascism from becoming the biggest threat of the 21st Century. In every corner of public and private life there are extremists hiding in our midst who would sacrifice the Nation's quality of life in their endless quest for power and control. Don't let green dogma and power hungry Envirofascists plunge us into chaos! Stop the Green Menace in its tracks!
Posted by: Acid Brain on July 29, 2008 12:33 PMI see you still are overflowing with your screaming in the dark Liberal BLAB. Your Easy Believing Liberal Blindness in believing in whatever Slop falls out of your Idol's Al Gores mouth definitely proves what a Sucker you are. What a Simpleton, Patsy and easy Mark for every hustle that comes down the pike. For your information, the World has been cooling since 1998. There has been over 30,000 scientists that have put their name against Al Gore and his coalition of Junk Scientists. But, no matter, you have your head in the proverbial Head in the Sand or worse. Yeah....without the Liberals we would all be living in the dirt. It is Capitalism and the Constitution that has given us the Freedoms and the superior lifestyle we enjoy. It is Liberal Big Government with the over regulations, the destruction of our Constitution and Socialism that is the DANGER we face resulting, in the draining of our finances and the taking of our Freedoms. You let the Liberals take total control over this Society and we WILL....be reduced to living in mud huts and walking.
July 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. budget deficit will widen to a record $482 billion next year, the Bush administration projected, constraining the next president's ability to cut taxes or increase spending.
I don't think either Liberal or Conservative ideology has been in the business of doing the electorate any financial favors for some time now Daniel. It's past time we bury these meaningless designations.
Posted by: Acid Brain on July 29, 2008 02:32 PMRealize, that it is the Democratic Congress that does the Spending not, the President. Bush may be a Republican but, that in no way means he's a strong Conservative. He is not Reagan. He should have done a lot more with objections to Congresses runaway pork barrel spending and with the veto pen. The confusion comes about when people think that a Republican is a Conservative Period......Not so. There are various levels of Conservatism as there is with Liberalism. The far Left to the far Right. The Conservative ideology follows Thomas Jefferson's edict "Least Government is Best".
Posted by: Daniel on July 29, 2008 04:43 PMHow about jusmping on a commercial airliner, you might even meet alot of drill here, drill now, Pay less passengers harping at her.
Posted by: gs on July 29, 2008 05:17 PMNo private cars (except for him and the other elite) not air traffic (except for his private jets and the other elite). Only local food at your supermarket. no TV. Welcome to the 1800's.
On and especially no Internet - the elite will control all that you see and hear.
Posted by: CrazyFool on July 29, 2008 10:38 PMnanny state creeping in; micromanagement of our lives; this is how freedom is lost--nips at a time; voter beware; apathetic voter be damned;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on July 30, 2008 02:46 AM