Former Vice President Al Gore speaks about energy and the future Thursday at Constitution Hall in Washington. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Al Gore’s ‘moonshot’
By Eoin O'Carroll | 07.17.08
Drawing parallels with America’s successful efforts to land on the moon four decades ago, Al Gore called for America to abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels by 2018, instead relying on wind, solar, and geothermal energy.
Speaking in Washington’s Constitution Hall, the former vice president and Nobel laureate said that “the survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk” if bold action is not taken. A full text and video of the speech is here.
Mr. Gore’s speech is something of a rhetorical departure from his previous ones, in which he emphasized that climate change is a planetary emergency requiring drastic action. This time, he says that the country faces myriad problems, including a faltering economy, high gas and electricity rates, the mortgage crisis, and reliance on foreign oil, as well as extreme weather in the United States.
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.
The way to pay for this, says Gore, is to impose a carbon tax, combined with a sharp reduction in payroll taxes. “We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.”
The Associated Press reports that Gore’s advocacy group, The Alliance for Climate Protection, estimates that the cost transforming America’s energy infrastructure at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. Gore says that it would cost about as much to build coal plants to satisfy the country’s electricity demand.
Gore’s speech was light on details, so talk about base-loads and kilowatt-hours will wait for another day.
But questions are already arising as to whether such a transformation is is politically feasible. The Hill, a daily newspaper that covers the US Congress, reports that some Democrats are finding Gore’s timing to be inconvenient, as Americans seem to be more concerned about rising energy prices.
“I think the American public will be much more receptive to arguments about climate change when gas prices aren’t so critical,” Ohio Rep. Zack Space told the paper.
Adding to this uncertainty are the results of a May Pew survey that showed that only 47 percent of Americans believe that humans are responsible for climate change.
But others have praised Gore’s challenge. Barack Obama did not explicitly endorse the challenge, but he says some very nice things about it:
“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.”
John McCain’s website has not yet posted a statement about Gore’s speech.
Update: The New York Times’s Dot Earth blog reports that a McCain spokesman issued the following statement:
“John McCain has been a leader in the fight against global climate change, working with Democrats on this issue since 2003, but no one has more successfully recruited Americans into this effort than Al Gore. This is a key issue, and John McCain has put solutions over partisanship to pursue meaningful, market-driven cap and trade legislation aimed at drastically reducing harmful carbon emissions.”
The Associated Press quotes McCain saying of Gore’s plan: “If the vice president says it’s doable, I believe it’s doable.”
<< Can we engineer a cooler earth? | MainComments
2. Jim | 07.18.08
Gore’s list is extremely limited: solar, wind and geothermal… and that’s it?
Where’s hydro? Spinning turbines with water is non-carbon.
Where’s nuclear? Nuclear fission is non-carbon too.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_08nuclear
My guess is that hydro (building dams) and nuclear are not politically correct with the green groups, so Gore left them out of the list.
Does Gore really think that we can power America, China and India with three sources of power?
3. Miron | 07.18.08
I think if we repel tax on earnings, up to relatively high number, and instead appropriately for distribution and usage of polluting energy, we will motivate people to build new infrastructure.
In plain terms if you have to pay 50% tax for distributing gasoline, and 0% tax for operating hydrogen station ( and possibly earn federal grant ) you will revolutionize US market of commodities within 5-8 years at the current price of oil.
4. Egon | 07.18.08
About time some political figure lays out a practical plan. Why should the taxpayer bail out banks and give oil companies tax benefits when this sort of funding could easily solve our national problem with energy alternatives and create jobs and put dollars into American pockets not oil cartels. Obama should make Gore as Energy Secretary and he will win presidency on just that point.
5. Arthur Lemay | 07.18.08
Mr. Gore is actually articulating the intent of the Environmentalists to bring an end to carbon based power because some climate alarmists fear “the end of the world” if the climate warms by a couple of degrees in a hundred years.
This is the excuse, the real reason is ideological because they believe man is a despoiler of the earth, and, our capitalist system exploits the use of technology to the benefit of the rich. This is a long standing belief among anarchists, communists, socialists, and the left. Environmentalists have a long history of being anti-human. Their efforts in banning DDT resulted in millions of deaths from malaria, but the real attitude is “there are thirty million fewer people on earth — this is good.”
Actually, the Environmentalists are very successful in using the courts to stop energy development, refineries, and the use of coal, or nuclear. And, actually, they go after any energy sources which are non-renewable, including nuclear which does not emit CO2, except in mining the Uranium-rich deposits.
They ignore the fact that wind and solar use colossal amount of land for windmills and solar collectors. Some people have calculated the 11 largest western states would need to be paved over for the renewable-power farms. So, physics limits the amount of power these farms can produce, since, essentially, what they do is collect natural power (movement of the wind, and energy of sunlight), and convert it to electricity, so, the conversion efficiency is less, much less, than 100%. But it is not possible to produce electrical energy of more wattage than passes through the areas of renewable-energy farms. So, even as conversion efficiencies are improved in the future, we cannot achieve 100%, and even if we did, the farms would still be colossal in size.
But, what about the “green” jobs generated? What about the R&D of new products? Yes, this will indeed generate jobs, but these are not jobs which would exist in the free market, these are jobs which depend on government policies and subsidies which could disappear with the stroke of pen. They are like the WPA jobs in the 1930’s.
And, the Environmentalists dislike these too. They protest about the real estate consumed, the ugliness of the farms, the species displaced, the birds killed by windmills, the noise, the need for repairs and maintenance, and, as these farms grow, their protests and lawsuits to stop construction, especially because of species habitat destruction.
So, where can it possibly end? It will end with recessions, loss of jobs, inability of old people to buy both power to heat and food, paralysis of constructing any power plants, and for what, for a piddling rise in temperature?
And, the global temperatures are cooling, not warming since 1998. But they somehow think that the warming will resume in a few years — but their models did not predict it, but those who believe that natural causes, like the sun’s energy, did correctly predict the cooling. So, their science is wrong, their solution is wrong, and their political motives are heading the world (especially developing countries) for deprivation, hunger and premature deaths.
So, actually, why is leaving a legacy of energy deprivation, loss of employments, and economic stagnation better than a slight increase in temperature?
Well, as far as Mr. Gore is concerned, he will profit by this because of his carbon trading interests and other investments. Does anyone think he is spending $300 million on advertising and propaganda just because he is not expecting a return?
6. usernamelevi | 07.18.08
Does president Gore not know how poor most American are? Most people that can afford these things are the 1/10 of a percent who are the top 10 percent. 30 percent live below the poverty line. Just another rich ******* who isn’t in touch with reality.
7. usernamelevi | 07.18.08
When the day comes that hydrogen and a usable electric car comes around, one that you can drive, fill up with electricity, and drive across country….MAYBE.
8. usernamelevi | 07.18.08
oh and HAHAHAHA…a christian science website. there should be black ku klux klan websites. lmao….eat a **** jesus
9. donny | 07.18.08
It starts with you AL , you hypocritical piece of ****. Please just go away and never come back!
10. Eoin | 07.18.08
Arthur, it’s inaccurate to say that the ban on DDT is responsible for malaria deaths. Such laws were only restrict DDT’s overuse as an agricultural insecticide, not as a disease-control agent.
Both the 1972 law in the United States and the 2001 Stockholm Convention allow the pesticide for use in controlling insect-borne diseases. Approximately 1,000 tons of DDT are still released worldwide with the aim of preventing malaria.
By the time the US ban went into effect, 19 species of mosquitoes thought to transmit malaria were already resistant to DDT. Had DDT’s use not been restricted, there would most likely be many more resistant species today. To the extent that DDT does work today, we largely have these restrictions to thank.
As for the trope that global warming stopped in 1998, that’s not much different from saying that global warming stopped yesterday afternoon because it’s been colder since then. If you look at the long-term trends, you will find that the planet is now experiencing an average global temperature higher than at any other time in the history of human civilization. And in any case, according to NASA, 2005 was the warmest year: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html The year 1998 was after that, then 2002, 2003 and 2004.
11. Mike Higgins | 07.18.08
Eoin, your data on the warmest years is from january, 2006, before a significant mathematical error was discovered by NASA and corrected in August, 2007.
“The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen’s famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.
According to NASA’s newly published data: — The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998; — The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006; — Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and — Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.”
See http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,159624.shtml
12. Eoin | 07.18.08
Mike, 1934 was the hottest year on record for the continental United States, not the whole world. I know that some Americans tend to confuse these two regions, but in fact there is a substantial difference.
Take a look at these graphs from Britain’s Met Office and tell me that they don’t indicate that it’s getting warmer: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUGNS.html
13. Steve | 07.18.08
The moon shot was a program run to the extreme taking every risk possible to get to the goal. The folks involved in the moon program knew that they were one step away from total disaster at every turn. Even the actual landing on the moon came within seconds of failing. That’s the kind of program we want to put in place to solve our energy problems? However, it doesn’t matter since it’s all science fiction anyway. Beam me up Al, I need some Kool-Aid to see the light.
14. Mike Higgins | 07.18.08
The tide is turning rapidly on the myth of man-made global warming. Follow the link below to a list of major developments exposing the lies and the deceit behind man-made global warming. Independent scientists from around the world are expressing their dissent to the IPCC and the handful of government-paid “scientists” that are the source of these myths.
Chief among the global warming alarmists is James Hansen of NASA, who predicted a “tipping point” within 10 years at his famous appearance before Congress in June, 1988, exactly 20 years ago. Readers may be interested to know that the global temperature in June 2008 was actually LOWER twenty years later and no “tipping point” has occurred.
See http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/what-a-difference-20-years-makes/
15. Eoin | 07.18.08
Note: Mike had duplicated comments, with a different link at the end (which is fair, as multiple comments tend to trip our spam filter).
For the sake of readability, I compressed these into one comment with two links.
16. leo | 07.19.08
The way it appears to me is this… We’ve built a society based on non-renewable finite and polluting resources. Even if they were packed with vitamins and minerals and were loved by all members of the biosphere, the fact is we will run out and it is a harsh pollutant. So, Al Gore comes along and says, “Hey let’s get off our ***** and actually do something about it. I’m gonna put a time in place that can be worked towards, 10 years, let’s have a go at it and see if we can..”
The comments here would be hilarious if it weren’t for the fact that y’all are serious… It’ll cost too much money (Let’s get out of Iraq we might have a few extra dollars.) …Gore’s a hypocrite,(I’m sure you’re a hypocrite too, we all are to some degree.) Gore’s just in it for the money (what’s wrong with making some money in ther process?) and this freak goes and says, “Arthur Lemay | 07.18.08 “Their efforts in banning DDT resulted in millions of deaths from malaria,” Wow I cant believe you’re actually pro-DDT… Here’s a word you may want to look up “Interconnectedness”… amazing…!
So, global warming is a fiction and people have no impact on their surroundings…Keep driving cars that get 20mpg and please have lots of babies so they can support the Chinese…. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story
17. Arthur Lemay | 07.19.08
Malaria sub-topic
NPR Article http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944
(exerpt)
All Things Considered
September 15, 2006
The World Health Organization today announced a major policy change. It’s actively backing the controversial pesticide DDT as a way to control malaria. Malaria kills about 1 million people a year, mainly children, and mainly in Africa, despite a decades-long effort to eradicate it.
The WHO previously approved DDT for dealing with malaria, but didn’t actively support it. While DDT repels or kills mosquitoes that carry the malaria parasite, it doesn’t get much good press. In 1962, environmentalist Rachel Carson wrote a book, “Silent Spring”, about how it persists in the environment and affects not just insects but the whole food chain.
As activist Malvina Reynolds once sang, “It kills the bugs in the apple tree, I eat the pie and it’s killing me. DDT on my brain, on my brain.”
In the early 1960s, several developing countries had nearly wiped out malaria. After they stopped using DDT, malaria came raging back and other control methods have had only modest success.
Which is why Arata Kochi, head of the WHO’s antimalaria campaign, has made the move to bring back DDT. His major effort at a news conference Friday in Washington, D.C., was not so much to announce the change, but to deflect potential opposition from environmental groups.
“We are asking these environmental groups to join the fight to save the lives of babies in Africa,” Kochi said. “This is our call to them.”
A number of major environmental groups support the limited use of DDT, such as spraying only inside of houses and huts once or twice a year.
19. leo | 07.19.08
First off, I honestly apoligize for calling Arthur Lemay a freak..
Plutonium kills mosquitoes too…. Just because it may be effective dosen’t mean it should be used. As in the case of violence; holocaust,Darfur,Inquisition, manifest destiny and on and on, it’s very effective, yes but, perhaps not the best long term idea. Lately I’ve been upset by the almost absolute takeover of Chinese products in our market but I bought a pair of shoes and they were made of recycled tires and plastics and organic cotton and hemp and I realized it’s really not about the where of a thing but about the how of a thing. We as a global society should as a matter of course rather than of emergency be creating , living, producing, in a sustainable fashion and we’re not. Therein lies the base of the fact that many environmentalists are seen as “anti-humanity” and I see that as off course as well as is the credo, “Human life is inherently more important than all others” We’re definately more important than mosquitoes but again it comes back to the how’s of things… Consumerism in it’s current manifestation is not sustainable. Burning fossil fuels and overfishing are not sustainable. The sooner we get that the better, especially to those of us who consider themselves pro-human…
20. Smudger007 | 07.24.08
really don’t understand the logic of saying that just because Gore is invested in renewables he can’t advocate them! surely the fact he invests in them shows he believes in them. I have no issue with him making money and we all know he is an advocate so hard for him to make things up that can’t be disputed!
Wave energy should also be included. Most sites for large scale hydro have been identified and used so right not to mention this. set up a renewable infrastruture now and then you can keep upgrading the sites. eg wind turbines used to be 250 kw then 750kw average is probably 1 MW now with 4 MW starting to be brought in across the world. it would be misleading to quote land coverage without taking into account the evolution of the industry….
Having wind/solar and wave will also maximise daily output as they tend to have negative correlation (esp Wind/solar).
good first step in putting a timeline down for moving to renewables.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate – even pointed disagreement – is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Greg | 07.17.08
As good as Mr. Gore’s intentions may be, I can’t get past the conflict of interest between his campaign for alternative energy and the substantial amount of money he stands to make if alternative technologies he is investing in are suddenly in high demand through direct or indirect Federal funding. I recommend someone take a good, solid look at the details of his business dealings, such as http://www.kpcb.com/portfolio/portfolio.php?greentech In this case he promised to donate 100% of his “salary” - but provided no details as to what that meant, or what his non-salary compensation might be. I would think a true environmental Messiah would ensure he gained nothing but satisfaction and the gratitutde of the Nation and World from his good works. It appears Mr. Gore stands to gain a lot more than that.