Naysaying a Naysayer

Wall Street Journal Opinionist, Bret Stephens said yesterday that "Al Gore gave a speech last week "challenging" America to run "on 100% zero-carbon electricity in 10 years" -- though that's just the first step on his road to "ending our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Serious people understand this is absurd. Maybe other people will start drawing the same conclusion about the man proposing it."

Mr. Stephens, who was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (which is "committed to improving the state of the world" and has its own agenda relating to energy production and greenhouse gas reductions) is clearly no expert on innovation, nor does he defend his flimsy position very well.

In any case, the unnamed "serious people" he is referring to must not be the same serous people that Al Gore and others rely on for their scientific, technological, and innovation policy ideas.

Stephans then goes on to state "an inconvenient fact. In 1995, the U.S. got about 2.2% of its net electricity generation from "renewable" sources, according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2000, the last full year of the Clinton administration, that percentage had dropped to 2.1%. By contrast, the combined share of coal, petroleum and natural gas rose to 70% from 68% during the same time frame.

Now the share of renewables is up slightly, to about 2.3% as of 2006 (the latest year for which the EIA provides figures). The EIA thinks the use of renewables (minus hydropower) could rise to 201 billion kilowatt hours per year in 2018 from the current 65 billion. But the EIA also projects total net generation in 2018 to be 4.4 trillion kilowatt hours per year. That would put the total share of renewables at just over four percent of our electricity needs."

What he fails to say is that because of the ravages of global climate change and their potentially lethal effects, that this plan is not only doable, but necessary. And what he does not say is Gore's plan will have to compete against traditional energy production giant's agendas to succeed. The Wall Street Journal would not likely bite the hands that feeds it.

The Gore-y Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore said in a speech today, "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." How about that?

As I have watched Congress go back and forth about what to do about the high price of gas, the economy, and our place in the world theater about climate change, Al Gore summarized it best in his speech by saying "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."

His solution, to enact the equivalent of the 10 year plan that John Kennedy proposed to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. In other words, by 2018, the US will replace its dependency on fossil-fuel and replace it by "producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years."

Think of the economies that will create to retrofit the national electrical grid to accept electricity generated from solar cells as well as wind and geothermic power? Imagine the technological leaps that could be made if Exxon/Mobil, Wal-Mart and others sunk their huge profits in developing inexpensive solar cells and fixing the national grid?

Can We Solve It? Yes We Can!

There is a group called the We Campaign which is focused on sustainable energy policies such as geothermal, wind, and solar energy.

The We Campaign is a project of The Alliance for Climate Protection -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort founded by Nobel laureate and former Vice President Al Gore. Our ultimate aim is to halt global warming. Specifically we are educating people in the US and around the world that the climate crisis is both urgent and solvable.

Of importance to Iowans is that renewables do not include ethanol, but a report released by the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club found that thanks to the growth of wind energy, approximately 5,200 manufacturing jobs could be created in Iowa alone over the next decade. Additional studies have found that thousands more jobs could be created in other states that have suffered industry job losses and that welcome the opportunity to train workers for the new energy economy.

Gore Asks: "What Do You Think About Investing in Education"

"The Future is at Our Door"-- Al Gore on Acting on Global Climate Change

A portion of his Nobel prize speech. It is good that many people are paying attention to his activism.

Gore Wishes Candidates Would Get Hot on Global Warming

From the AP via Guardian Unlimited and Reuters

Al Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize today and urged the United States and China to make the boldest moves on climate change or ``stand accountable before history for their failure to act.''

``We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency - a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here,'' Gore said in his acceptance speech.

Gore shared the Nobel with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for sounding the alarm over global warming and spreading awareness on how to counteract it. the U.N. panel was represented at the ceremony by its leader, Rajendra Pachauri.

``It is time to make peace with the planet,'' Gore said at the gala ceremony in Oslo's city hall, in front of Norway's royalty, leaders and invited guests. ``We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war.''

The former vice president urged China and the U.S. - the world's biggest carbon emitters - to ``make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.''

His remarks came as governments met in Bali, Indonesia, to start work on a new international treaty to reduce climate-damaging carbon dioxide emissions. Gore and Pachauri plan to fly there Wednesday to join the climate talks.

The governments hope to have the new pact, which succeeds the Kyoto accord, in place by 2012, but Gore has said the urgency of the problem means they should aim to come to an agreement by 2010.

Before his speech, Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press that he believes the next U.S. president will shift the country's course on climate change and engage in global efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

``The new president, whichever party wins the election, is likely to have to change the position on this climate crisis,'' Gore said in the interview. ``I do believe the U.S., soon, is to have a more constructive role.''

He said it was not too late for Bush administration to join efforts to draft a new global treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

``I have urged President Bush and his administration to be part of the world community's effort to solve this crisis,'' Gore said. ``I hope they will change their position.''

The Bush administration opposed the Kyoto treaty on climate change, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy and objecting that fast developing nations like China and India were not required to reduce emissions.

The former U.S. vice president, who lost a bid for the White House to George W. Bush in 2000 and has repeatedly said he has no plan to run again in 2008, said he would have pushed climate to the top of the agenda if he had been president.

"Some of the candidates have made speeches which are quite good and proposals that are quite responsible, but overall the issue has not achieved the kind of priority that I think it should have," Gore told Reuters.

"I don't blame the candidates for that, some of them have tried to push it higher on the agenda," he said before collecting the peace prize which he shared with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"That is just the very reason why I have put so much of my time into trying to change the way people think about this crisis in my country and around the world -- so that candidates will hear from citizens that they want this to be the top priority," Gore said in the Norwegian capital.

Asked what would have been different if he had been president, Gore said: "I like to think that I would have been able to push it (climate change) right to the top of the agenda.

"It takes time to talk to people in enough places to create a critical mass of opinion and urgency that will cause us to cross the tipping point beyond which a majority will demand that we solve this crisis," he said.

What's A Guy Got to Do To Get Arrested in This Town?

The ever-peppy fighter for the environment, Mark Kresowik brought this to my attention from Understory.

The Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Al Gore (and the IPCC). No one deserves it more than he does. We’re very happy for him. And we think he should go to jail.

Specifically, he should go to jail on RAN’s November 16-17 Day of Action Against Coal Finance. As reported in Nicholas Kristof’s NYT column on August 16, Al is on record as saying:

“I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers … and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.”

Well, Al, it’s because by the time they’ve rolled out the bulldozers, it’s already too late. That’s why Rainforest Action Network, Coal River Mountain Watch, Appalachian Voices and thousands of supporters are mobilizing to stop Bank of America and Citi from financing coal extraction and the construction of those coal-fired power plants. We at RAN would really like you to come along.

If you, too, think Al should be arrested, go ahead and sign our petition asking him to be arrested with us. I will personally guarantee you that if Al is going in the slammer, I’m coming with him. How about you?

Nobel Oblige

With the news of Al Gore sharing the Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, you have got to know that there is huge political capital to be expended, and the White House wasted no time. Asked if the Nobel win would pressure the Bush administration to adopt an approach ala Gore to tackle climate change, spokesperson Tony Fratto flatly replied: "No." He said that the next step "really the most difficult step, is implementing climate change strategies that are effective and practical." He said such strategies should "allow for continued economic development and for contries to do the work that they need to do to lift people out of poverty. And that's a challenging task

Is this just another wily manuever to get Al Gore to run for the presidency-- another, "Anybody but Hillary" tactic? No, it is the strident stance of a President who has no ability to create a positive lasting legacy (negative, yes--he's got his war and his Supreme Court).

I am sure the pull to bring in Uber-Rock Star Gore is there and I am sure that Gore would be ecstatic to see his commitment to reduced carbon dioxide emissions realized, but as long as all of the Democratic frontrunners are singing his tune, why should he join the fray?

The only person from Tennessee who is silly enough to jump in this mess has been the Republican, Fred Thompson--and he's definitely no Al Gore.

One thing that is for sure, if the Democrats get to make a climate change at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., you know its because they get the Gore-y details.

Gore: In His Own Words

Highlights of his recent speech.

Gore Too Smart to be President?

The Washington Post put out an article the other day entitled "Is It Wise to Be so Smart?" in which they explain that while Al Gore is "still be the smartest guy in the room" and "Gore practically oozes gray matter," --he's probably too smart for us to be our president.

In a back-handed compliment sort of way, Gore has been posited as the anti-Bush. Where Bush is firm in his convictions Gore is "usually smart and sometimes prophetic - but, all too frequently, pedantic"

Said one of the listeners of a speech he made at George Washington University, “It's the biggest problem he's got, people don't want somebody who makes them feel stupid.” The writer seems to say that intelligence in a president is not welcomed--as if Americans want a president who they can feel superior to. As if that that's the American Way!

It's a good thing we have had dummies like Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt in the White House. Who knows what would have happened if we had some high-falutin' smartypants in there during the Civil War or the World Wars?

Maybe the love affair we have with celebrity is a testament to our need to be superior to others--don't most of us feel smarter than Paris, Michael, Lindsey, and Sanjaya? Maybe we need leaders who were previously seen on "Jerry Springer" or "America's Funniest Home Videos."

Or maybe, it is possible that the times we live in call for leaders who have the ability to synthesize information--to note that there is a relationship between increased CO2 emissions and global temperature elevation or that aluminum tubes can be used for more than making WMDs. Maybe we need a leader who seeks honest opinions from his advisors rather than for them to confirm what the president's position already is.

I know I enjoy feeling superior just as much as the next guy, but if the next guy happens to be of the caliber of Al Gore--I don't mind being above average.

Get Gore's Book

Al Gore has written a book that every person on this part of the planet should read. "The Assault on Reason" cements in my mind that Al Gore is one of the great minds of our time and, as I have said before, the only true Rock Star in the US political world. Said differently, he is to the Police as Obama is to the Spice Girls (John Edwards, with his vision, is maybe more like Blake Lewis, American Idol material).

Gore does a great job of taking us all to task for accepting dumbed-down and even false information as truth and relying on faith over measured reason. He does it with a historical eye, and evokes the great thinkers on democracy in doing so. It is a very thought provoking read. Here's an excerpt.

He offers responsible solutions too. But, you gotta read the book.

One can't help but wonder what eight years of an Al Gore presidency would have been like.

Edwards Impacted If Gore Runs

John Edwards has an advantage in the South as long as Al Gore doesn't run.

Washington D.C. (PRWEB) May 17, 2007 -- USAElectionPolls.com studied over 100 state democratic primary polls and identified John Edwards to be the candidate hardest hit if Al Gore runs.

The web site split the polls into states from the south, denoted as "southern states" and those that are not, denoted as "non-southern states". It found that John Edwards was the only candidate with a slightly better following in southern states than in non-southern states.

Then it superimposed the question as to what impact Al Gore has on the polls. So it divided these polls into those with Al Gore mentioned as a candidate and those without. It found that Edwards support dropped by about 75% in the south if Al Gore runs. Without Al Gore, John Edwards is a very formidable candidate but with Al Gore, he seems to perform no better than a second tier candidate.

The analysts at USAElectionPolls.com explains that if Gore runs, Edwards will not win in 2008. And if Gore does not run, Edwards would get a natural boost in the polls from the pollsters leaving Gore's name off the poll. And this natural boost will give the Edwards campaign momentum.

For more information on this study, go to http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/edwards-in-the-south.html

DC Dems Suffering A-Gore-aphobia?

There is nothing so fear inducing to a political party insider than a man who has nothing to lose. Al Gore is the kind of savvy loose cannon that scares the bejebbies out of mainstream political kingmakers. Gore keeps insisting he won't run, but will not shut the door.

What makes it even scarier is that he is forwarding issues that the mainstream has in its sights--global climate change, honest debate on issues, not being entrenched in a war that can't be won. And, by admitting that the old politics don't work for him--he actually speaks for a lot of people and their trust in political parties to do right by them.

I support John Edwards for the office, but I also understand that he is caught in the web of party movers and shakers, as are all of the top-tiered candidates. The game internally is one of using your entitlement and schmoozing with your enemies--a game that Gore found hard to play as a candidate in 2000.

If he chooses to come off the bench and go in the game, I doubt anyone can touch him--Obama is an opening act to the real party rock star. Gore, by shedding the skin of being a Washington insider, while having the experience, is the rarest of power people--the"inconvenient truth" has set him free.

Is There a Climate Change for Gore?

Al Gore's new book, "The Assault on Reason", is about to drop--but what about his plans for the White House?--inquiring minds want to know.

According to CNN "Former Vice President Al Gore has not "ruled out" a presidential bid in 2008, he told Time Magazine in an interview published Thursday.

But Gore also said he has "fallen out of love with politics" and that he can advance his cause in other ways than the presidency."If I do my job right, all the candidates will be talking about the climate crisis," Gore told Time's Eric Pooley. "And I'm not convinced the presidency is the highest and best role I could play. . . It would take a lot to disabuse me of the notion that my highest and best use is to keep building that consensus."

Yet, when pressed on the prospect of a third presidential run, Gore said, "I haven't ruled it out. But I don't think it's likely to happen."

Another Inconvenient Truth?

Former Vice-President Al Gore withdrew from an environmental conference in Miami where he was scheduled to speak with Columbia President Alvaro Uribe. Uribe's government is suspected of aiding right-wing death squads. A lawmaker in Colombia alleged that Uribe let paramilitaries use his own property for meetings and killings while governor in a northern state in the mid-1990s.

According to the AP

"Gore's cancellation came after U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), a Vermont Democrat, froze $55 million in military aid over the scandal. As chairman of the subcommittee that oversees foreign assistance, Leahy is pushing for a tougher line on Colombia, which receives billions of dollars in U.S. aid.

Uribe acknowledged that allegations about his government could hurt chances his Andean country will clinch a free trade agreement with Washington.

But he said he hoped the United States would make "the right decision regarding Colombia."
Uribe was elected in 2002 and re-elected in a 2006 landslide after cutting crime as part of his U.S.-backed crackdown on the rebels.

More than 31,000 members of right-wing paramilitary groups have handed in their guns as part of a peace deal, while Colombia's biggest rebel army, known as the FARC, continues its 43-year-old fight against the government.

Thousands are killed in the conflict every year."