Liberals love Gore's gall. Conservatives hate that he drove a gas-guzzler to the big speech. Politicians grumble over his timing. Climate policy wonks and science geeks admire the inititive, but want something a little more ... feasible ... say, 50 to 90 percent renewable electricity by 2020 with a little natural gas for good measure?
Across the blogosphere, however, certain questions about Gore's plan remain unanswered. What practical measures will we take to get to zero emission electricity in 10 years? Who will lead the charge? From where will the requisite funds come to finance this energy operation? Will Tom Brokaw grill Gore on "Meet the Press" this Sunday? Or will the Goracle leave the details to those in the political trenches and dodge the pragmatic bullet?
The remaining voices:
E.J.Dionne and Michael Gerson of the Washington Post both offered their takes on Gore's plan this morning. Dionne, the can-do liberal, immediately chimed in on behalf of Gore's plan:
It sounds like a typical, idealistic Al Gore idea. But two things about this proposal merit attention. It points a country that uses too much energy down the right path.
Dionne extrapolated Gore's vision to a twist on how Congressional Democrats should battle the political bad will of everclimbing gas prices:
Gore is showing that being environmentally responsible is economically sensible.
Democrats should be concerned about where they are on the gas-price issue right now, and the party's own strategists are worried that its response so far is inadequate.
Gerson approached Gore's speech merely tangentially in this morning's Od-Ed (he began with a riff on ... ahem, polar bears); however, he offered a key observation regarding the political will for consensus building around Gore's plan:
Some Republicans and conservatives are prone to an ideologically motivated skepticism. On AM talk radio, where scientific standards are not particularly high, the attitude seems to be: "If Al Gore is upset about carbon, we must need more of it." Gore's partisan, conspiratorial anger is annoying, yet not particularly relevant to the science of this issue.
This points, however, to a broader problem. Any legislation ambitious enough to cut carbon emissions significantly and encourage new energy technologies will require a broad political and social consensus.
Regardless of the hordes of JFK-moon race analogies floating around the environmental blogosphere, Gore is still a polemic figure to many right-wingers. As Gerson indicates, the political will is going to have to be huge to overcome the Gore backlash from the hyped up speech. How will our elected officials handle that?
Hank Green, a blogger at EcoGeek and self-proclaimed fan of the Goracle, described his apprehension as follows:
I'm an EcoGeek, possibly the biggest EcoGeek you know. So I'm optimistic about these things. I know that there are a lot of technologies out there that, if they spring forth from the lab and into widespread use, could make colossal differences in the way we produce power.
But this is a big pill .. .like, football-sized. The lifespan of a coal-fired power plant is between 30 and 50 years. Power companies build these things with those 30 to 50 years in mind. They aren't going to dismantle them when they're 15 years old without some gigantic form of compensation.
Green's right. There are a lot vested interests already in play that potentially could be offered incentives to move towards clean electricity generation. But that will require a lot of investment, federal or otherwise, with the political will greasing the way. Green ends on a cautiously optimistic note:
... the 10-year deadline seems a little insane. Gore's insistence on it's practicality is somewhat puzzling to me. But I certainly don't mind crazy goals. We spend a heck of a lot of money in this country. It'd be nice to spend it on an effort to strengthen the country at the core...rather than weaken itself by over-extension in an attempt to lock up the last little pockets of oil on the planet.
CNET wore its shock on its sleeve with Neal Dikeman's piece, "Is Al Gore Nuts?" Perhaps so -- that may not be such a bad thing -- but Dikeman does address the valid point that a goal too ambitious is likely to be forgotten:
That statement is about like challenging your 2 year old to finish college by the time she is 12. Not exactly practical, more than a little crazy, and likely to be either ignored, or if you push it, to cause lots of therapy sessions by the time she is 8.
A bar too high will set up an inevitable failure. But, is a failure of say 70 percent renewable electricity by 2020 all that bad? It's much more aggressive than the G8's half-off reduction.
What remains to be seen is how Gore will elaborate on his lofty goals on "Meet the Press." He will have an hour to articulate the steps, the attack plan, the guts behind the vision that will allow us to proceed towards a carbon neutral future.
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Threaded
gmobus Posted 12:42 pm
18 Jul 2008
In fact the next phase would be to let in the ecological economists who actually know enough about both physical reality and economic theory to start to assess economic constraints and requirements. They would be the best folks to develop the overall economic model of what would work.
Last into the room come the policy makers. Once the ground rules are understood, then and only then can we talk about policies to achieve whatever is physically and economically feasible.
Typically, of course, we get the cart in front of the horse by letting policy folk decide what is politically feasible as if that could decide reality.
Now, as I said, this would be the rational approach. My bet would be on policy-decision-as-usual however. I have little confidence anymore that the so-called leadership in this country would do the rational thing; and that means both political parties. I can already hear the pork barrel'ers gleefully figuring out what spin is needed to get a project in their district. Oh yes. Keep the lobyists completely away from the building!
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:11 pm
18 Jul 2008
He is well-connected, he has access to some of the brightest and best informed people in the 'green' world.
Anyone who is willing to bet that he didn't do adequate background work prior to calling for this effort should at least bet well under what they can afford to lose.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:27 pm
18 Jul 2008
This is one time when the policy-decision people may be small time players in the changes coming.
The move from coal/oil/nuclear to renewables is being accomplished by 'guerrilla warriors', not big government/business.
There's no need to build a Hoover Dam, a Turkey Point set of reactors, tear the tops off mountains. This revolution is being fought by small forces putting in a modest wind farm here, a thermal solar plant there, ....
This is not something that takes the huge amount of capital required by the mega-projects of the past. Smaller players can determine if there is money to be made (which there is) and can get on with the transition.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:01 pm
18 Jul 2008
Just like McCain=Bush. They said negotiating with "terrorists" was appeasement, when Obama said let's negotiate with nations like Iran.
So what does the chimp in chief do now? He negotiates with Iran. Pretending it was his idea.
When Gore's plan or something very like it is implemented, you all will pretend you were for it all along. And forget the ridiculous (limboob talking points) statements you are making now. So it goes.
The fact is that the technology, the capital, and the mass production capacity to make this happen all exists right now. As long as the mass delusion that it can't be done rules the media and popular opinion, it won't be done.
Somehow many of us thought that the blog world was further ahead of the curve than the average lobbyist, politician, or mass media producer. I guess we were wrong.
Back to the hopeless battle. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:59 pm
18 Jul 2008
Inspiring ain't it?
No, it's not. MacArthur said "I shall return." That worked, vicious miserable prick he was otherwise.
The only problem with Gore's statement is that he isn't the Democratic nominee for president, where he would have the opportunity to smack all the little pissants who are going to, in that deeply serious and bipartisan way that all deeply serious people do in order to win the even more deeply serious approval from the obese media, make the planet unlivable for humans.
But hey, at least they got their moments on screen.
The 5% Project
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:13 am
19 Jul 2008
It actually makes me think that this one speech will do more than the whole "WE" campaign put together -- unless they push his plan within the WE campaign.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 1:22 am
19 Jul 2008
Evidently, many too many people have eyes to see and ears to hear, but have chosen willfully and selfishly to see what they want to see, to hear what they want to hear. I suppose people in many places have agreed to openly speak only about what they wish to see and hear, and to talk repetitiously and often, as if they are truth-telling.
When these kinds of deceptions occur on a grand scale, as is happening in our time, it becomes easier to understand how perverse leadership gains the support of a single, not-so-great generation, that chooses to march their children down a "primrose path" in pursuit of a fool's errand.
I am at a loss for words to express my dismay and disappointment in these woeful circumstances.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
lamarguerite Posted 2:55 am
19 Jul 2008
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/c-word-absen ...
marguerite manteau-rao
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com
'It's All About Green Psychology'
Permalink
energylover Posted 2:32 am
20 Jul 2008
The was no objectivity on meet the press today. The conversation was a virtual commercial for Gore's opinion.
I saw Bob Metcalf give a talk on Green recently. Bob invented Ethernet, a key foundation to the Internet. Bob is not an Al Gore fan, but Bob has created more change in the internet than most anyone. He perhaps is in the group of 10 or so folks (Al isn't), who could claim to have invented the internet.
Metcalf talked about real policy, science and investment efforts needed to achieve signifincat reductions in emissions. Gore doesn't. Gore says 100% renewable's for electricity in 10 years. We don't need a goal, we need to work on the market and its economics. Al talks about those things, but he is only an observer.
Lets get the pioneers on Meet the press and ignore the advertisements. Gore is only worried about his own needs (i.e. his fat house).
Jim Energylover
www.gadgetsforgreen.com
www.4yourcountry.org
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:15 am
20 Jul 2008
Permalink
bhcarmichael Posted 11:14 pm
20 Jul 2008
My sense is that while Gore's proposal may not be successfully implemented within ten years, I hope he may be successful at doing something else: making climate change a mainstream American concern.
Polls show that while climate change has emerged as Americans number one environmental concern, it still lags behind issues like Medicare and Social Security.
What Gore was proposing was that a solution to climate change will help solve many mainstream American issues: the economy, national security, health.
So much of the coverage has focused narrowly on the goal of 2018. But it seems to me that there's a much larger social motivation driving Gore's announcement.
I've written more about it here.
Thanks,
Ben
Contributor, On Earth magazine
Permalink