Al-ed

Al Gore offers a five-part plan for solving the climate and financial crises 9

Al Gore has a fantastic op-ed in Sunday's New York Times.

There's lots of good stuff, but one thing I was particularly pleased to see is this dismissal of the rush lately toward dirty domestic fuel:

Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn't have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and "clean coal" technology.

But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of "clean coal," too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting "clean coal" technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I'm all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.

This is the right attitude: if and when "clean coal" can be demonstrated at scale, it can factor into our plans for addressing the climate/energy crisis. Until then, we need a plan that works without it.

Here's Gore's five-part plan (quotes direct from the op-ed; my emphasis):

  1. First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
  2. Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used.
  3. Third, we should help America's automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures.
  4. Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting.
  5. Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world's efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.

If all this sounds remarkably similar to what Chip and I said in our op-ed, that's because Gore obsessively follows our work circumstances are converging to make it pretty obvious what needs to be done. Time to get started!

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 5:41 am
    10 Nov 2008

    er...one note Jonny hereYou guys said this:The top three priorities: a smart, truly integrated national electrical grid; expanded urban and long-distance public transit; and block grants to states to kick-start development projects already in the pipeline.
    emphasis most emphatically added.  Sorry, but I just think that trains of various sorts  are necessary in order to electrify the transportation system -- could even be sufficient, but doesn't have to be -- and there's no way to get energy independence without environmental harm without them.  So kudos for you for talking about them, unfortunately not to Gore.

    Permalink

  2. Backcut Posted 6:41 am
    10 Nov 2008

    Still no forest policyfrom any Democratic source. I don't see (and foresee) any change in the Clinton/Bush model.
    Get it together, folks!
    Show us all how you're going to "change" our forests for the better.

    Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

    Permalink

  3. Colin Wright Posted 6:43 am
    10 Nov 2008

    One-note Jonny my ass.You beat me to it, Jon. Yes, let's support PHEV's, but they won't be along fast enough to deal with an estimated 9% oil depletion rate (IEA). (In any case, without transit, it sends the wrong message to the world about the viability of the happy motoring utopia.) And there is a long list of rail projects ready to go, and get people to work.
    I do like the bit about government support for wind/solar/geothermal/smart grid. That raises proprietary questions about which states and companies would benefit most. Better in my view, to nationalize these projects so there is less conflict of interest.
    Finally, on retrofitting, I liked Alan Durning's proposal of how to empower local communities by creating nonprofits which interface between building owners and retrofit-contractors.

    Permalink

  4. jimbeyer Posted 6:46 am
    10 Nov 2008

    Slightly different take....



    Build more nuclear power plants; let coal plant wither on the vine, so no capital losses.
    Push for PHEVs, like Gore said.
    Encourage smart grid development, but on the regional level.  We don't know enough about how this should work best (real-time pricing, peak pricing, etc.) so some regional experimentation is a good thing.


    4.In addition to building retrofits, encourage geothermal heating/cooling for big savings on A/C and heating fuel use.
    5. Encourage solar/wind only as PHEVs are developed.  I think the notion of sending renewable electricity thousands of miles across power lines is not cost-effective, no matter what Sci. American might think.  Oh yeah, encourage bio-methane from CAFOs, waste water treatment plants, and selected biomass.

    Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

    Permalink

  5. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 6:58 am
    10 Nov 2008

    And electric buses too!Backcut, wasn't Clinton good on forests, at least at the end with the "no roads policy?"  I mean, I know he got kicked out of the governership of Arkansas the first time around because he dared to protect Arkansas' forests, then bent over from there on, but I don't really know what he did once he was Prez.

    Permalink

  6. Backcut Posted 7:17 am
    10 Nov 2008

    Clinton forest legacyThe Roadless thing was decidedly a non-issue for forests. There were already protections in place for Roadless Areas that actually had timber in them. (Not to say that roads for mining would be a good thing, or that more roads in general are needed.) The Sierra Nevada Framework was another last second "decree" that banned the cutting of trees all the way down to 12" in diameter in many areas of California. He also signed the "Salvage Rider" and then changed his mind.
    Then, we had to struggle through the Bush years with an unfunded "Healthy Forests" resulting in record fire seasons for 3 out of 8 years.
    Some legacy, eh?
    We won't see any change from Obama, regarding our forests. More of the same death and destruction. (It's already too late for any action before next year's fire season.)
    Science again will take a backseat to emotional partisan political rhetoric. Forest martydom ISN'T essential to battling climate change.

    Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

    Permalink

  7. Backcut Posted 1:33 pm
    10 Nov 2008

    Also, rememberthat Clinton approved the cutting of old growth with ZERO diameter limits. As long as the trees were in "matrix" lands, they could be cut without question. However, despite the Presidential decree, eco's still fought against the Northwest Forest Plan.
    Yep, we keep getting these Presidents with no clue about our forests.

    Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

    Permalink

  8. endependence Posted 10:32 am
    11 Nov 2008

    The myth of breakthrough technologyClean coal = pipe dream or smokestack dream.
    Any established industry that is going to "change the world" with its "breakthrough technology" is blowing smoke up our orifices.
    Check out the endependence blog about this myth.
    http://blog.endependence.info/

    Permalink

  9. Pangolin's avatar

    Pangolin Posted 11:29 am
    11 Nov 2008

    I can't see it from my house; or yours.While Al Gore's plan might do something about climate change it ignores the sentiment of the populace. People want to be able to see changes that they are paying for with their tax moneys.
    A climate plan that included a larger portion of rooftop solar and local conservation methods would cost slightly more for each ton of carbon saved but would gather more political support. If the local HVAC company is hiring to install geothermal heating units and the local solar installer is hiring to install rooftop units people in Peoria are going to notice as well as the people in Newark.
    Rooftop solar will cost more but that cost converts directly to wages and the benefit applies directly to home and business owners who get some measure of control over their power costs. Centralized solar power, while cheaper, retains the negative of utility control over power costs while adding the negative of conversion costs to utility bills. Who wants that?
    Bring the green wave home Al.

    Put the Carbon Back

    Permalink

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.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement