Al Gore's modest proposal

And speaking of satire...

When I read Al Gore's latest speech on global warming, my reaction was much like my initial response to that New Yorker cover (see previous post): What am I supposed to make of this?

The call to produce "100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years" is off the charts. To blandly claim that this is both "achievable" and "affordable" is a typical Gore touch--as is the hyperbole about the end of life as we know it if we fail to do as he advises. Gore says, "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." Well, among other things, that depends what you mean by "dramatic"; so far as am I aware, nobody else is saying, "eliminate carbon from the US electricity supply by 2018 or we are doomed."

Gore is right, however, that meeting his target would be "transformative". That is why the inevitable invocation of Kennedy's moon-shot commitment is ill-conceived. Putting a man on the moon within nine years of getting the first American into space was self-evidently a staggering accomplishment. But unlike what Gore is calling for, it did not represent "a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen."

I agree with Gore about some things. I agree with his preference for a carbon tax over other carbon control regimes. And history has been on the side of technology optimists. At today's energy prices, progress on new technologies for conservation and renewables will probably happen much faster than we think. (See this for instance.) But eliminating carbon from electricity within 10 years? Does he even mean it? "I see my role as enlarging the political space in which Senator Obama or Senator McCain can confront this issue as president next year," he says. Translation: I advocate the impossible so that the possible becomes more probable. Fair enough, one might say. But propaganda in a good cause is still propaganda, isn't it?

Comments

I agree completely. Gore is a goof that makes statements just to get media attention. He could not care less about the environment. This is his way of pushing a soft marxism on the US. Read Freiman's blog for the long version.

http://www.myspace.com/gafreiman

Posted by Teasha | July 18, 2008 8:54 AM

What makes you think ten years is unreasonable? A decade is forever to an engineer... Television took what, 20 years to reach ubiquity? Computers and Cable TV easily cut that in half, the Internet and Broadband happened even quicker. Cell phones killed payphones overnight and will soon do the same to home landlines.

Provided we do make the expected breakthroughs fairly soon (be it in solar, hydrogen fuel cells, cold fusion or whatever) I'm guessing Gore's goal will seem conservative.

Posted by ronbailey | July 18, 2008 9:00 AM

@Teasha - Triple posting a link to a myspace page isn't going to do much to spread your talking points.

Posted by ronbailey | July 18, 2008 9:03 AM

Making electricity generation carbon free in 10 years is, I think, do-able. Just build lots of nuclear reactors. At the very least we could build enough to stop producing electricity with oil and natural gas.

Posted by wiredog | July 18, 2008 9:16 AM

"I see my role as enlarging the political space in which Senator Obama or Senator McCain can confront this issue as president next year."

My Translation: I will continue to aggrandize myself by proposing ridiculous objectives that could never be achieved, in order to make myself appear to be visionary to the ever growing community of elite cultural inbreds who think what I am proposing is even remotely plausible, and to make people who actually solve problems in the real world appear to be pedestrian and worthy only of contempt. I will also use my appearance of passionate commitment to saving the planet (which is in no real danger in the first place) in order to exploit the ignorance and arrogance of the cultural elite to divert attention from my acquisition of wealth through holdings in oil, gas, and coal; and my acquisition of political support my crucial support of corn ethanol subsidies which I knew to be environmentally damaging when I supported them.

Posted by James Thurber | July 18, 2008 9:33 AM

Typical Al Gore. Always late to the party, but pretends to be the host.

Posted by Here He Goes Again | July 18, 2008 10:54 AM

Columbus never got to China, but I'm glad he tried.

Posted by Walter Nance | July 18, 2008 11:05 AM

Say what you will about Gore's bloated ego - the man is talking far more sense than anything we get out of people in office or the assholes who typically write articles for the Atlantic or post comments in response. Oil is running out. Before it does and in fact now, we import almost all of what we use. We have 4% of the world's proven supply of oil and yet consume 25%. Almost a trillion dollars leaves our country every year to pay for our oil addiction. How many more men and women will die occupying countries like Iraq to secure the few remaining pools of oil left in the world? Now is the time to take conservation and alternative fuels seriously and stop with cynical bullshit like what's posted above. Republicans laughed at Jimmy Carter and mocked his solar panels on the White House roof. He was right and Republicans were - and are - idiots. I can see a day soon where gas is $50 a gallon and people's reaction will still be, 'lets keep drilling.'

Posted by Nathan | July 18, 2008 11:07 AM

Unfortunately, we confront at least two crises. There is the rising cost of oil, along with the reality that it will run out at some point, and also global warming. If we address global warming by taking one coal fueled power plant off line for each wind powered operation, or array of solar panels or nuclear plant, we could achieve Mr Gore’s goal. But suppose we decide we want electric cars to be part of the solution for the oil issue. Suddenly we need more electricity than we have now.

I think we need to address these issues, probably (unfortunately) on all fronts. I think we could hold off drilling (for now) on the OCS and the ANWR, since the oil doesn’t have some shelf life. We will be using oil for some time into the future, so we may want it even more ten or twenty years from now. Meanwhile, we should pursue biomass ethanol, particularly the byproducts from the, ahem, crap load of corn we grow. The corn cob, stalk, leaves and everything else besides the kernel can be used to produce ethanol. We should encourage cities to grow switchgrass in vacant lots and those plots of land near office buildings. We of course do need additional solar and wind energy, and (unfortunately) nuclear.

One thing no one has talked about is where the capital for all this building we need to do is going to come from. Of course, to the extent someone can make a profit on it, that will pull in private money. I hate to think of the government getting involved, but it probably will, although maybe not enough or in wasteful ways (see Iraq). Who knows if we have enough money to change our oil habits or reduce global warming, much less both. But you can do your part, bike or take a bus to work.

Posted by Ed | July 18, 2008 11:47 AM

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm?renderforprint=1

there is a debate. It is going to happen. will the media cover it?

Posted by RR | July 18, 2008 12:01 PM

Gore is definitely a flawed messenger, and there are plenty of reasons to worry about his putting himself front-and-center on climate change. I'll never forget during the 2000 general election, Gore was stumping in some plains state on a hot day and said something like, "Given how hot it's been this summer, can there be any doubt about global warming?" Since one assumes he's smart enough to know how iffy that is, it was a big disappointment.

And since many Americans see him as a partisan figure, a large slice of the country (some here in these comments) tunes him out by default. Far better to have a scientist like James Hansen leading the charge (perhaps with celebrities in tow to get people's attention). The Hollywood love-fest over "An Inconvenient Truth" couldn't have been better designed to trivialize the issue and turn off a lot of people.

But: since electricity generation is just one part of the emissions problem, and probably the easiest to address, some kind of aggressive goal here should be set given the gravity of the problem.

Posted by Ken B | July 18, 2008 12:10 PM

Does anyone have any reliable information from knowledgeable sources regarding how much oil is out there? And how long it will take to use it all?

There's an open question that nobody seems to be asking. What happens when the oil simply runs out? For a planet run by the stuff, it's amazing nobody seems concerned about figuring out how close to E we are.

Posted by Jeremy | July 18, 2008 12:11 PM

We have been repeatedly warned that we have a climate crisis. The signs are now unmistakable.

Big oil and big coal have been behind our energy policies for the past 7 1/2 years. Look what it has done to us!

It's time for a change to purge ourselves of this toxic path and produce energy from safe, domestic sources of energy. Al Gore is right and those who fail to listen are on a fool's path.

Posted by Ben Ayers | July 18, 2008 12:50 PM

So many arrayed here have a core underlying ideology: the necessity of capitalism reigning. And the presupposition of capitalism is the increasing imperative of expansion. Clive and others cannot see "the global forest" for the "capitalist trees". Perhaps painted over all the soft pedaled ideology here is the belief that mankind [and probably for Clive and Company that would mean especially the G8 and OPEC teams] can handle all the global ecospheric changes with old tried and true 19th to 20th century tools -- a strutting a worship of human science, industry and the application of technique to nature. The nastier discussions of the necessary control of human population growth, the collapse of ecosystems globally, the necessity to stop the exploitation and hyper-destruction of natural earth habitats...these and other very difficult issues, are dodged here with the push of ideological feathers: "soft Marxism" indeed! We have a tendency to toss terms very ahistorically: Marx in fact had no unique view of "nature" as a value in and of itself. He was quite focused on the inner workings of capitalist industry and its impact of human beings. Subduing nature was not clearly understood to portend of any dangers at all.
Gore is far from anti-capitalist! Indeed, he too believes that from a capitalist global base, great reforms must be vitally undertaken and swiftly.
He, along with a huge and growing phalanx of quite objective scientists around the world, understanding that the collapse of ecosystems globally may already be beyond "profit margin" capitalism to manage...much less reverse.
So the Robber Barons of Capitalism need not worry: they have the military power to enforce their will and protect their increasing accumulation of wealth on all levels. Like Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide, they will say that all is well. Few on this board see that capitalism is the most predatory and destructive economic machine on earth and in human history. It will sell anyone missiles and toxic waste as long a the God of Consumption is not delayed. Not even mighty China will survive its antagonistic contradictions.

Posted by Chris Barrett | July 18, 2008 1:01 PM

What we cannot do is continue to spend 700Bn dollars for petroleum annually. Partly because we cannot afford it and partly because our enemies happen to have been born on top of it.

The noted socialist T. Boone Pickens (who helped finance the SwiftBoatVets--very much a Progressive) has a plan to generate 20 % of the US electric with wind turbins and apply Natural Gas (which now is used to make that 20 %) to transportation--a known and easily retrofitted technology. He suggests 5 yrs as a reasonable time to make that shift.

Why does T Boone Pickens hate capitalism?

Posted by JohnMcC | July 18, 2008 1:25 PM

If every state built one nuclear power plant, and one wind farm, and if even a fifth of us put solar collection cells on our roof, we would be just about there. That's ambitious, but doable.
And if it takes 10 years, 12 years, 15 years....so what...I plan on being here 15 years from now either way....and I'd rather it not be hot and desolate.

Posted by John Hawkes | July 18, 2008 2:34 PM

No matter how much Al enlarges the political space, he'll fill it all, with his stunningly self-indulged and self-inflated ego. "I lie to get my picture in the papers" is a far better description of his activities.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | July 18, 2008 3:55 PM

"Does anyone have any reliable information from knowledgeable sources regarding how much oil is out there?"

This site (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/06/proven-world-oil-reserves1238-billion.html) appears to be pretty legitimate. It has links to several sources, including The Economist, and the author claims to teach Economics at U Mich. (I haven't checked the sources because I am lazy). Anyway, it claims that we have 1.238 trillion barrels of known oil reserves; and that at current consumption rates that will be gone in 42 years. This doesn't take into account other reserves that we haven't yet found, or any changes in consumption rates that might happen because of high price or increased efficiency.

Posted by Tel | July 18, 2008 4:06 PM

Clive, Bitching and whining about someone's character is getting old. It's an old media dog's habit. Sure, keeps you employed, yet Washington, LA, Boston, NYC, sinks... DO SOMETHING RISKY. Here's something - cover the LA $ billion climate change plan. Good grief.

Posted by Michael Cote | July 18, 2008 4:10 PM

While Al Gore's target may be overly optimistic, it is important to understand what is happening in the clean energy sector.

High tech companies and investors have been migrating to clean tech in search of better growth opportunities and margins (consumer electronics are by and large a low/no margin business now).

At this point we don't need major breakthroughs, just a relentless focus on reducing unit costs for clean energy products and components. If tech manufacturers can achieve similar results as they did with computing products, by say reducing unit costs 10-20% per year for a decade, the effective costs will drop by a factor of 3 to 10 fold. That's a very big deal, and at that point there will be no reason not to switch.

If the government creates a stimulus by taxing carbon based energy (to reflect real costs and/or reward clean tech), this will only happen faster.

Will be running on 100% clean energy in 10 years? No, but the trend should be very clear by then.

Posted by Brian | July 18, 2008 4:31 PM

Is Al Gore and his Marxian distribution of wealth obsession gonna ruin my chances of getting into Rich Man Heaven?

Oh Dear Money, I mean God, please do the Christian thing and strike that bloated hippie-bot dead!

Posted by Conrad | July 18, 2008 4:47 PM

Barring the threat of some nearly certain catastrophic tipping point within that time period, the goal is just madness even if its is possible. With a 10 year goal, I suspect you are talking a WWII like mobilization -- not space race.

Not only would it require a sudden and dramatic increase the production of solar, wind and nuclear infrastructure (all of which is already backlogged) using commodities that are already priced sky high (because of demand around the world), but it would mean writing off huge portions of existing equipment costing billions and billions of dollars.

Power plants are built to last 30,40,50+ years.

It's like throwing away your SUV with 30,000 miles on it. You know all those coal plants the environmentalists hate? Well most of them are owned by utilities with a guaranteed profit. That basically means customers would be getting charged for those plants -- operating or not.

Just to explain the challenge here, Texas just approved a $5 billion effort to build new transmission out to tap wind resources in the western portion of that state. That effort has been ongoing for years and yet not a single transmission pole is in the ground. In fact, the idea was approved by the Texas Legislature in 2005 and only now are the routes starting to get finalized. More regulatory issues will follow, with plans to get those lines will be up by 2013-2015.

That's pretty much 10 years just for some REGIONAL transmission planning that's all within ONE STATE, meaning it doesn't get into the tricky aspects getting compromises between multiple states and the federal government. Plus the project is minimal compared to the national grid Gore proposes, that would surely be fought tooth and nail by many environmental and citizens groups worried about it crossing parks etc.

The next generation of nuclear plants aren't expected to stat coming online until 2015/16 or 17 and they've all been getting studied for years. That's assuming they are certified by the NRC... a risk since its through a regulatory process never used before... and that there are no major construction delays on these multi-billion projects. (Anyone believe that one?)

Oh and just out of curiosity I took a look on Wikipedia and the Apollo program that Gore cites cost $135 billion in 2005 dollars. The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded and chaired by Gore, has been quoted saying it will cost $1.5-3.0 trillion over 30 years to transform the country to clean energy sources.

Doing it faster won't be cheaper.

Posted by AE | July 18, 2008 4:48 PM

Who the heck cares about his ego? I mean seriously this how we ended up with people voting for George W. Bush over Al Gore because of who they wanted to have a beer with.

If I have to hear one more ill-informed, insecure person start decrying how arrogant Al Gore is I'm going to strangle them.

Is he right or is he wrong? That's all I care about. What the heck does his personality have to do with anything?

He rubs you the wrong way. Too bad. Get over it. We all have to live on this planet together. Now if you substantially disagree with him that's one thing. But the fact that you don't like his personality? Frankly I couldn't care less.

Please explain why this is a bad idea. Not tough. Not hard to accomplish. But a bad idea.

All things worth doing are tough. That's not an excuse not to do them. Nor is the fact that you don't like the person telling you to do them.

Responsibility has disappeared in this country and shooting the messenger has become rampant. We'll never recover if we keep dismissing everyone who is right simply because they're right. That's moronic. And far more arrogant than anything Al Gore could ever say or hope to do.
Quit putting your shortcomings on him.

If you're not willing to listen to him because he offputs you personally, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of arrogance on your part not his.

Posted by John Diclerico | July 18, 2008 9:01 PM

I don't know whether Mr. Crook bothers to read anything but financial news:

Below, I attach a newsclip on James Hansen's recent testimony on why we need to reduce CO2 emissions NOW. Many other climatologists agree.

Maybe Gore's program would only be --say --60% --successful. It would still turn us toward a REDUCTION in CO2 emissions.

It's amazing how "conservatives" always see too many challenges when asked to make ANY actual effort to conserve anything....

I guess they've got to save their money to buy another Hummer.....

"On this anniversary of his first landmark testimony, Hansen once again appeared before Congress today. This afternoon, he told the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Climate Change that the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies should be put on trial for crimes against humanity and nature. He argued that global warming science has been corrupted in the same way that tobacco companies once attempted to blur the links between smoking and cancer, and he called for government investments in alternative energy to help end our dependence. He also asserted that because we haven't done anything yet to curb our emissions, he is certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is already beyond the safe level – we're already at 385 parts per million of carbon dioxide, and it's increasing at a rate of 2ppm a year. The "safe" level, according to Hansen, is 350."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/23/climatechange.carbonemissions2

Posted by Tim Connor | July 19, 2008 1:48 AM

So Conrad, old buddy, I guess you like the kind of Christianity that has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus?

According to him, old sock, there is no Rich Man's Heaven:

"...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

Posted by Tim Connor | July 19, 2008 1:51 AM

Wake up America! Al Gore is about to get into this Presidential race. Obama and Gore have had a deal for at least five years and Obama will step aside at the last moment for Gore.

Al Gore wants to transform America into a mad cult. The temperature of the Earth has dropped since 2001.

Posted by Banjo from Australi | July 19, 2008 3:25 AM

Gore? A “moonshot”? This isn’t going to be pretty!

Posted by C. Smith | July 19, 2008 9:24 AM

Banjo,

Did you notice that the ice caps are still melting?

What planet are you inhabiting?

Posted by Tim Connor | July 19, 2008 1:00 PM

Mr. Crook, did you ever consider the notion that not following Gore's suggestions might be more expensive?

British economists did the math; maybe you should take a look at their work.

And for those who would insult Gore instead of considering his message: I recommend buying low-lying ocean-front property. Please, take your family fortune and invest it in ocean-frontage. You'll be so happy living on your private estates, worrying about how to keep the environmental wackos out, that you won't notice the water rising.

Posted by zic | July 19, 2008 4:17 PM

The opposite of whatever AlGore believes is more likely to be the truth. That is science that can be depended upon.

If you actually care about a serious discussion of climate change, you should tell AlGore to shut up.

Posted by JB | July 19, 2008 4:46 PM

Al Gore should go to China and India. Where most of our pollution and jobs have gone. They have a 50 year plan. Start cleaning the environment 50 years from now.

With all the plans debates and subsidies we have accomplishing nothing. We moved polluting industries to other parts of the globe.

Posted by Alex | July 20, 2008 8:13 PM

Would alternative power be affordable to the nation if the US oil companies didn't own the patents to the technology and controlling the costs of the products? As we speak these "patriotic" oil companies are lobbying against WIND POWER. Pickens didn't perk up in the press just to hear his voice.

Alas, let us all hold our breath for them to exhibit how compassionate and patriotic our bonus bloated American businessmen and oil company policies are ..... in "protecting America" by providing affordable invoices of the alternative power technology they've spent decades pricing out of reach to protect their businesses in "axis of evil nations"

Even car dealers make no secret that 60 percent of the price of elec cars is a royalty paid to the oil company that owns the patent to the battery -- making sure they are not affordable alternatives.

Posted by Begonia Buzzkill | July 22, 2008 12:19 PM

And who's that old wild catter, you know name sounds like a country singer? The one who's got ads up all over about his alternative energy plan, about to be introduced?

The one buying up water rights and building wind farms?

You sure it isn't Gore or one of his green friends?

Shame, shame. Pickin' on Gore only dates you, now. Shows what a dinosaur the conservative movement has become.

Posted by zic | July 22, 2008 3:25 PM

Al Gore has shown me the error of my ways. From now on I'll take definitive steps to reduce my carbon footprint and re-think my role in squandering the earth's precious resources. Yeah, when The High Priest of Ecological Purity starts living in a mud hut and travels everywhere by bicycle and horse-drawn cart. His own Godzilla-like carbon footprint - in light of his enviro-pontificating- is an abomination, and represents the epitome of hypocrasy.

Posted by Kelly Hall | July 22, 2008 3:56 PM

Al Gore has shown me the error of my ways. From now on I'll take definitive steps to reduce my carbon footprint and re-think my role in squandering the earth's precious resources. Yeah, when The High Priest of Ecological Purity starts living in a mud hut and travels everywhere by bicycle and horse-drawn cart. His own Godzilla-like carbon footprint - in light of his enviro-pontificating- is an abomination, and represents the epitome of hypocrasy.

Posted by Kelly Hall | July 22, 2008 4:06 PM

Yes, I agree. America is the "can't do" nation.

Posted by delia ruhe | July 23, 2008 6:57 PM

So Conrad, old buddy, I guess you like the kind of Christianity that has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus?
According to him, old sock, there is no Rich Man's Heaven:

So, Tim Connor, I guess you've never heard of sarcasm?

Posted by Glaivester | August 5, 2008 8:00 PM