In a speech in Washington, D.C., today, climate activist Al Gore called for the United States to move toward using electricity that comes exclusively from carbon-free sources within 10 years in order to stave off catastrophic climate change. "I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge," he said. "It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now." Gore said that the convergence of high oil prices, worries about energy independence, and the threat of climate crisis have created a new political environment, paving the way for ultra-ambitious energy policies that could finally break the country's addiction to fossil fuels. Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection estimates that such a conversion to clean electricity would cost up to $3 trillion over 30 years, but Gore said building a new round of conventional coal plants would also cost roughly as much. Gore's plan calls for continued reliance on nuclear power at current levels while dramatically increasing power sourced from geothermal, solar, and wind. Meanwhile, some Democrats are quietly dreading fallout from the anticipated conservative backlash to Gore's speech, fearing that a renewed emphasis on climate issues now could turn the debate over short-term energy prices in favor of Republicans.
The Gore-y Details
Al Gore details plan for exclusively carbon-free electricity in U.S. by 2018 21
-
Posted 8:34 AM on 17 Jul 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
Barcelona outcome: White House strategy is plea for more time
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
christophersj Posted 2:53 am
17 Jul 2008
By the way, Gore said "electricity", not "energy". Did he leave the transportation sector out of the equation on purpose? He only spoke of buildings and homes and industry -- at least from the portions I heard by jumping from channel to channel.
My bet is that CSPAN runs this in its entirety tonight.
Permalink
peterlionel Posted 3:03 am
17 Jul 2008
So if the doc tells you that you have diabetes you stop eating sugar - if you smoke and the doc says stop or die, you stop.
In saving the planet from the looming meltdown there are lots of laws being passed, research into new fuels - yet who is actually stopping the CO2 emissions?
Mr. Gore continues to roam the planet sounding the warning. When will he find a solution? His friends need it, like his friend Mr. Branson who's money making spews CO2 out of his fleets of aircraft every day - where's the good news that they have found a solution?
The point is to stop the emissions asap.
Well - my purpose is to actually save humanity from the up-coming disaster and my group have assembled a number of new and unique inventions and technologies that actually destroy CO2 and even utilize it as a fuel. At Power Plants, in cars, ships and aircraft. At any smoke stack.
In all the confusion if somebody really wants to do something about the problem then talk to us at http://www.climatecleanup.com we are moving forward and everyone is invited to help.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 3:18 am
17 Jul 2008
Branson is putting 100% of his Virgin Airlines profits into developing a low carbon jet fuel. I understand that to be 3 billion over 10 years. Are you criticizing him for this?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:03 am
17 Jul 2008
The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.
Funny to see him acknowledging McCain's (equal) leadership in the environment.
He also sounds more upbeat and less preachy (today). I certainly don't mind a cheerleader -- because America, especially the Bush Administration, has put in place most of the machinery to make the Greens Dreams come true. But it was the scientists, financiers, high tech visionaries and marketeers who did most of the work...not the loudmouths.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:44 am
17 Jul 2008
The media are quoting him as saying "get off of all carbon ENERGY in 10 years" and he said no such thing.
Permalink
Charles Jackson Posted 10:10 am
17 Jul 2008
As far as Gore conflating the two issues, I think that may be necessary in some cases. For example, Gore called for plug-in automobiles, which if our electricity is carbon free would also help make the automobiles carbon free. This of course has quite a bit to do with oil.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 10:41 am
17 Jul 2008
Well, looking at the exact sources you mention, you are right, those headlines do get it right. Bravo.
But I heard over the day, at least 5 times , from NPR to CNN to MSNBC, teaser lines and introductory sentences that totally messed it up. That, combined with the big environmental blogs getting it wrong, really made me scratch my head.
I have no idea if the stories you cite changed throughout the day.
And of course one hopes that plug-ins make the two issues into one single issue about electricity. I know I do.
But It has not been evident to me in commentary and postings around the net and on television/radio that the majority understands that Gore made a somewhat confused distinction between "energy" and "electricity".
And I say all of this as a co-advocate.
Permalink
Charles Jackson Posted 10:56 am
17 Jul 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 12:33 pm
17 Jul 2008
Besides the teasers on NPR, CNN, that have passed on into the ether, (geez I didn't know I was going to court) here are some examples for you:
---------------------------------------
PBS NewsHour: Here oil and electricity are being conflated
"Al Gore challenged the nation today to turn to clean sources of power within 10 years. He said the nation should switch from oil and gas to generate electricity, to alternative sources".
http://media.pbs.org/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2008/07/17 ...
-----------------------------------------
and here on the PBS Newshour site:
"Gore Calls for U.S. to Rely on Renewable Energy by 2018"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
-------------------------------------------
Joseph Romm on this site:
"Gore calls for carbon tax, 100 percent renewable energy by 2018"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/17/124755/001
--------------------------------------------
The L.A. Times takes that AP story you mentioned (which is fine) and puts this headline on it:
"Gore sets energy goal for next president to heed"
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gore18-2008jul18,0,3053 ...
---------------------------------------------
On the NRDC's site:
"focused on his proposal to move American to a carbon neutrality by 2018. "
http://www.onearth.org/blog/whats-happening-on-earth/al-g ...
--------------------------------------------
ABC evening news said the headline correctly but then only asked about oil in the body of the story! NOTHING about coal. None of their inquiries were about electricity.
--------------------------------------------
ALL of those examples make me think he means gasoline in cars.
And the fact of the matter is that Gore himself conflated the two issues. That's my main point!
Are you going to tell me that if you polled the public who heard stories about this today that 90% of them wouldn't be confusing the meaning of Gore's prescription to include oil and gasoline?
Both Gore and the media should have used more deliberate language that delineated between electricity and oil/gasoline/transportation. Either that or the clarion call really should have been about ALL energy.
If you need any further explanation of my complaint I would be happy to oblige you, Charles.
You know, its OK to critique our own.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 12:51 pm
17 Jul 2008
"Mr. Gore, how do you feel about 90 percent?
Blogosphere responds reservedly to Gore's call for 100 percent renewable energy in 10 years."
OK I'm done with my examples.
Permalink
racc Posted 2:03 pm
17 Jul 2008
From:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/17/pope.aust ...
Pope Benedict XVI recalled the natural beauty he observed during his 20-hour flight to Sydney, saying he felt "a profound sense of awe," and denounced "insatiable consumption" as threatening to the world's environment.
He delivered his homily in several languages to people representing 70 countries, lamenting "erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world's mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption."
"Some of you come from island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising water levels, others from nations suffering the effects of devastating drought. God's wondrous creation is sometimes experienced as almost hostile to its stewards, even something dangerous. How can what is 'good' appear so threatening?"
Permalink
Charles Jackson Posted 2:36 pm
17 Jul 2008
And it is an important distinction to make. Thanks again
Permalink
christophersj Posted 3:43 pm
17 Jul 2008
No problem.
Your a lucky duck for attending.
I've only seen Gore in person once and that was as an audience member on the "Inconvenient Truth" set. He was great.
Permalink
bhcarmichael Posted 12:30 am
18 Jul 2008
http://tinyurl.com/6pps3r
The call was beyond energy, and meant to say: by addressing climate change we can address a series of social, economic and security issues simultaneously.
Climate is the linchpin, according to Gore.
Best,
Ben
Permalink
racerx Posted 2:59 am
18 Jul 2008
Check the website, though, at http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/287/.
Under the heading "How will this help gasoline prices?", the detail reads:
"There are no quick fixes to the problem of rising gasoline prices. Drilling more will not impact gas prices for years, and will keep us tied to old, dirty fossil fuel technologies - when we can instead move toward an energy system that uses less oil. If we begin planning and building now for a future less reliant on oil, it could help our prices today and will reduce the amount American families spend on gasoline in the future."
Although it takes a little reading between the lines, to me this means he's talking about electricity production.
Even if cars are left out, I think this is an excellent goal, and I think Gore is exactly right to frame this as akin to the moon shot. Gore stated during the speech that the American public doesn't have a long enough attention span to set 40-year goals; this caused some laughter, because it's painfully true.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 3:14 am
18 Jul 2008
That is a nice blog, and I love the NRDC, but even after all of the discussion about this above, and on your site, the article you wrote and provide a link to still says:
" his proposal to move America to carbon neutrality by 2018. "
Can you correct this to say "carbon free electricity"?
I wish you and the NRDC magazine well.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:41 am
18 Jul 2008
If it's considered "bad timing" to introduce these ideas while "gas prices are high", then it will be permanently "bad timing" because gas prices won't be coming down, they'll be going up. Does this mean that it has to be made clear that carbon-free electricity will be less expensive or not more expensive?
The other thing that people should be aware of is that transportation = oil, but transportation does not use electricity -- at least, not yet -- and the rest of the economy uses electricity, but doesn't really use oil. So the two fields are separate.
So I don't see how "high gas prices" can be linked with electricity -- on the other hand, Gore did not therefore directly address how transportation will be carbon-free, did he? Plug-in hybrids are not the whole answer, unless he's talking about electric cars -- but then, he talked about "carbon-free electricity", as has been pointed out, not "carbon-free energy", which then would involve the automobile.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:11 am
18 Jul 2008
It could be a greatly reduced amount mainly supplied by natural gas/biogas though. Rather than liquid fuel from oil or biomass.
In 20 years, no fuel needed anymore. That's possible.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:28 am
18 Jul 2008
Permalink
peterlionel Posted 10:00 am
18 Jul 2008
That's fine if the atmosphere does not melt down in the meantime. Be careful of where the debate gets moved to - the future of mankind is at stake. And watch the people who try to deflect attention - I don't know who they work for, but it sure ain't humanity.
We can actually hit the needed CO2 reduction targets http://climatecleanup.com - can you help?
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:30 am
19 Jul 2008
Permalink