Against a backdrop of eight American flags -- ceremoniously arranged
behind
a podium emblazoned with the scales of justice -- Al Gore took the stage
at
the New York University Law School early this afternoon to deliver what
was
billed in press releases as a "major policy address on global warming."
Major it was -- in terms of the media turnout, anyway. There were nearly a half-dozen cameras rolling and most major publications represented.
It was also major in terms of length (over an hour of factually dense commentary, sans visual aids) and gravitas (a more somber, more serious, dare I say more presidential Gore than the one we've seen pumping his fists and cracking jokes as he roars across the country on his climate lecture circuit). And major enough to have elicited rumors, as reported in the Independent yesterday, that the White House is hoping to steal Gore's climate thunder.
As with most policy addresses billed as "major," the rhetorical flourishes were legion. Take, for instance, the way Gore framed the address:
My purpose is not to present a comprehensive and detailed blueprint [of future climate policy] -- for that is a task for democracy as a whole -- but rather to try to shine some light on a pathway through this terra incognita that lies between where we are and where we need to go.
The light-shining theme came up again a few minutes later:
Many Americans are now seeing a bright light shining from the far side of no-man's land that illuminates not sacrifice and danger, but instead a vision of a bright future that is better for our country in every way -- a future with better jobs, a cleaner environment, a more secure nation and a safer world.
Having seen Gore's lecture on climate no less than seven times, I can vouch for the fact that this effulgent optimism is a new theme for the Veep. The whole lecture, in fact, seemed a response to criticisms I've heard repeatedly about Gore's stump speech and the movie that chronicles it, An Inconvenient Truth -- that they are too heavily clouded in doom and gloom, giving inadequate attention to solutions (despite his repeated insistence that the climate crisis presents equal parts danger and opportunity).
With the exception of a mention at the outset of new evidence of rapidly melting polar ice caps, this speech was all about solutions -- with no shortage of wonky details. Much of it we've heard before: The "wedge theory" outlined by Princeton professors Rob Socolow and Steven Pacala, which would solve the climate crisis with existing technologies; the "25x25" proposal from the agriculture community, which would dramatically expand the use of biofuels and renewable energy; the promise of "flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicles," which can run on gasoline, biofuels, and electricity; and a decentralized electricity grid with smaller generators located closer to points of use.
But he also laid out some more specific proposals, including:
- an "immediate freeze" of greenhouse gas emissions, a la the effective "nuclear freeze" of 25 years ago;
- a Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association -- "Connie Mae" (CNMA) -- to help finance zero-energy, zero-emission buildings; and
- elimination of all payroll taxes -- including social security and unemployment compensation -- to be replaced by the revenue from pollution taxes, principally on CO2. "The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same," says Gore, "It would be a revenue-neutral tax swap. But instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage businesses from producing more pollution."
For more details on Gore's vision for climate solutions, tune in to Muckraker this week!
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
alberttheatomsmasher Posted 12:18 pm
18 Sep 2006
In the early days, Oak Ridge was in his district and his constituency was heavily pro-nuke. Young Gore the science wonk backed atomic wonders even more than his father.
This speech is the first MAJOR departure and an acknowledgement that there is no separation between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. THAT IS BIG NEWS.
Maybe eventually he'll acknowledge that nuclear power, or the weapons complex in Oak Ridge, could have contributed as much to his sister's death as tobacco did.
Permalink
micheal sunanda Posted 10:30 am
19 Sep 2006
`Reduce pollution, waste & greenhouse gases heating Earth'
comment micheal sunanda
Al Gore presented a new National Vision, the most clear coherent inspiring overview of Global~warming & greenhouse~gases from man-made tech, natural sources & solutions a democrat has even made? His AIT movie lacked many practical solutions, but implied we must conserve energy, stop wasting & polluting our delicate natural environments or suffer the consequences of more terrible ecospasms. Now he reminds me of James Lovelock the "Gaia theory" guru's new book "The Revenge of Gaia" - but Gore has more balanced solutions, both knowing debates will be argued for years on them. But Al seems aiming for President in '08, maybe? & he'll keep promoting saving nature, energy & our health from vast pollution.
So now Al is very pro-renewable energy sources to reduce our pollution causing climate-crisis ASAP. He's promoting more practical-options for US energy efficient future. I've ever read or heard in 25 years. He omits true costs of the energy options now in favor of a spirited plea to for `positive visions' of conserving energy in renewable ways on large scale. It seems better than pro-conservation Carter programs on national scale. Gore even promotes abolishing US income tax & taxing pollution instead, brilliant. But I believe `climate & oil crisis' will have to hit hard & deep first before we localize, naturalize & power-down like Cuba did in their `long emergency'. Of course Al's pushing `US energy independence' from importing expensive oil from mid-east & Venezuela.
He's promoting small windmills, solar power PV panels, ethanol & bio-diesel fuels for hybrid cars. He mentions `nuclear power' to replace very polluting coal-burning electric power generation, ignoring the toxic nuclear waste & dangers of it. He says Nukes cost a fortune taking years to build & carry risks of atomic bombs & terrorism, while ignoring the `terrorism' issue. He recommends "Carbon saving" & sinking/burying it. That's linked to European & American auto, gas, coal, oil & nuclear industries becoming more energy efficient & less polluting, being "taxed for C02 production". However he omitted most local options of real energy conservation at home & community cooperation. Those are happening more in cities & towns tree-planting & recycling now more voluntary than the Feds who keep paying for war-making "Toxic Texan & Corps" killer mega-profits.
Gore's solutions pushes for energy industry conversion to renewables from polluting, the worst being coal. He suggests building with & retro-fitting energy efficient insulations & "carbon zero/neutral" industries & business. His proposing petro-fuels from vast farming crops of biomass seems wasting needed farm-lands for food, not to burn fueling our mania for long -fast transit. Like Lovelock, he contradicts himself sometimes, on Nukes & farming. We need to stop deforesting our wilderness, but they're publishing books on paper from trees logged from wilderness that's needed for cooling earth.
I don't expect his perfection, with dramatic prose to motivate our awareness & desire to stop wasting. We must become more efficient - recycling massively. Al misses how we recycled during WW2 when `hemp farming for fiber' was legalized for strong rope & clothe in US military. A 1000 options are possible, most are local. I hope Gore knows about organic farming in Cuba & US, instead of farming biofuels & agribiz chemo-farming polluting our waters, soil, food & air. We need state sponsored organic farming & recycling resources.
my Oness press > PRIMAL INSTINCTS
Organic Health Awareness zine #3
on raw & macrobitic foods, Chi-kung, naturaliving & Permaculture living
Permalink
pfoley Posted 4:04 am
25 Jan 2007
12:30 - 2:00 PM
National Academies of Science
500 5th st
Washington, DC 20001
Keck 100 Conference Room
Climate Engineering: Aladdin's Lamp or Pandora's Box?
Scientists and citizens alike are concerned about our ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions and the serious implications of global warming. At this public seminar, panelists will discuss whether climate engineering (a.k.a. geoengineering) offers a potential solution to global warming and whether future research should explore the possibility.
The seminar will provide speakers with 10-15 minutes to present their opinions followed by a moderated question and answer session.
No report or summary will be produced from this seminar.
Featured Speakers Not Yet Confirmed.
Permalink