If you don't want to read my whole blow-by-blow of Gore's testimony to the House, here's a summary of his ten legislative recommendations.
- An immediate "carbon freeze" that would cap U.S. CO2 emissions at current levels, followed by a program to generate 90% reductions by 2050.
- Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions.
- Put aside a portion of carbon tax revenues to help low-income people make the transition.
- Create a strong international treaty by working toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto" and moving up the start date for Kyoto's successor from 2012 to 2010.
- Implement a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
- Create an "ELECTRANET" -- a smart electricity grid that allows individuals and businesses to feed power back in at prevailing market rates.
- Raise CAFE standards.
- Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs.
- Create "Connie Mae," a carbon-neutral mortgage association, to help defray the upfront costs of energy-efficient building.
- Have the SEC require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting, as a relevant "material risk."
There's a lot to chew over here. My initial reaction is that Gore is going for the whole enchilada. He's pushing the envelope. These are radical proposals.
To me, that indicates almost beyond reasonable doubt that Gore is not running for president.
As a bonus, here's video of Gore's opening statement:
Counting Senate votes on climate and energy
The Climate Post: Has the political climate changed?
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments View as Flat
WWAGD?! Posted 7:16 am
21 Mar 2007
Punt!
Even Gore must realize how weak his arguments have become if all he proposes is to get rid of light bulbs.
I mean seriously, the jig is up.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:19 am
21 Mar 2007
Blood on Your Hands
Gore is really an idiot.
Listen to the self proclaimed guru at your own risk
Bah, your risk ????
OUR risk
This must-do list is ludicrous, short sighted and just plain childish. It will not change the progress of Global Climate Change even slightly.
Y'all had better get out of your dream and into the real world.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 7:51 am
21 Mar 2007
Grow up.
Have either of you got any better suggestions? Zarkov refuses to point out better, less "childish" alternatives to Gore's recommendations, and instead resorts to ad-hominem attacks. And jabailo: what would you suggest? Did you foget to read the parts that were not about light bulbs? Give some stronger arguments - otherwise, I'll listen to Gore.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 7:52 am
21 Mar 2007
Spelling
"Forget." It's been a long day!
Permalink
roundroom Posted 8:22 am
21 Mar 2007
indeed
most of those are good suggestions
but i would have to say it'll be tough to get other countries to sign treaties. Especially if there third world nations.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:23 am
21 Mar 2007
These are very serious proposals...
though I don't quite get the need to throw in the lightbulbs issue- kind of detracts from the whole thing- but impressive nonetheless. Very close to what the best and brightest economists have suggested on the policy side, although economists tend not to favor immediate moratoriums- but that's not a huge detail. I think David is right- how can you wage a presidential campaign on something this sensible? Never been done before to my knowledge.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
ekillian Posted 10:37 am
21 Mar 2007
what don't people get about incandescent bulbs?
Everyone seems to be making fun of Gore's call for getting rid of incandescent lighting. Why? According to http://tinyurl.com/4wqka one quarter of U.S. electricity use is for lighting. If all lighting were incandescent, and was replaced by fluorescent that is 4x the lumens/watt, then we would reduce our electric use by 18%. If that savings (366 TWh per year -- TWh = million megawatt hours) were selectively used to power down coal burning plants, the savings would be 0.363 gigatons of CO2 per year. That's a little bit of an overestimate, since some of our lighting is already fluorescent, but it gives you an idea of the magnitude of what is being talked about.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 11:16 am
21 Mar 2007
LOL, can't you read
>>> Zarkov refuses to point out better, less "childish" alternatives...>>>
I have suggested many NEW technologies that do not leave a footprint. I am continuously ignored.
Why because I am so far ahead of the established ideas, that you can't even see my dust.
Read all posts made by Zarkov
That will answer ALL your questions.
>> ad-hominem remarks >>>
never, I say it as it is.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 11:27 am
21 Mar 2007
lighting
Here's a more detailed source that says lighting uses 22% of US electricity:
National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate
There's no question that it's significant. In terms of total US energy consumption (not just electricity), lighting uses about 8 percent of the total.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:53 pm
21 Mar 2007
Rah, rah carbon tax
The key issue:
Good for Gore!Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Sustainable Bend Posted 3:21 am
22 Mar 2007
CAFE standards
Our CAFE standards are lower than China's. Let's go folks, it's not that hard. Toyota has it figured out, why can't Detroit do it.
Permalink
ekillian Posted 8:33 am
22 Mar 2007
lighting
Thank you Laurence Aurbach for that reference.
On another item, "Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions": People might want to dig up an old monograph by Redefining Progress called "Tax Waste, Not Work".
http://www.rprogress.org/newpubs/1997/twnw_execsum.html
Permalink
SunWave Posted 7:17 am
27 Mar 2007
Lighting: Efficiency, More Light, Less Energy?
What's not to like about efficient lighting?
If our current stock of inefficient lighting represents 22% of all electrical energy consumed in the US, and if the adoption of more efficient technologies with a 2 year payback could cut that bill by 50%, then we could cut carbon emmissions by 11% in this sector in 2 years. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 incentives and many utilities are offering substantial rebates for investing in energy efficiency now.
Often a simple "Change a Light Bulb" investment saving electricity now will yeild dividends for the next 5 to 10 years reducing CO2 in defacto excess of international standards. It puts a $50 dividend for every $5-10 investment back into the pockets of everyone that uses light bulbs or simulated daylight of any kind. Best of all we don't have to agree with anyone except ourselves in order to do it.
It only takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb. See www.18seconds.org to see how much money, energy and carbon are being saved in your area.
See www.sunwavelighting. net for "Changing a Light Bulb and BCH (Boulder Community Hospital.) for a 2 minute look at lighting that is 50 to 75% more efficient on average than the lighting in the typical facility.
See www.truths.treehugger.com for the Convenient Truths video contest finalists. Of particular interest are "Changing a Light Bulb", and "Chicken Enlightens, Human Learns, World Improves". If a hospital can do it and a chicken can teach a human how to do it, anyone can do it.
Go right ahead, keep using inefficient lighting. The extra after-tax spendable money you willingly give to your energy supplier each month could have been yours. Instead, it goes up in smoke.
Australia and others have announced a ban on incandescent light bulbs by the year 2009. Green on Ya, Mates.
Steve Heising
www.sunwavelighting.net
Sunwave Spectrally Enhanced 25 Watt T8 Lamps 1-866-4Sunwave Most light - Least Energy - Win the energy reduction race and green up your bottom line.
Permalink