The Gore-y Details

Al Gore details plan for exclusively carbon-free electricity in U.S. by 2018

Posted at 8:34 AM on 17 Jul 2008

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.

sources: Associated Press, Climate Progress, The Hill
read the whole thing: Text of Gore's speech

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (21 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Ten years

Ten years. Wow. I've always subscribed to the Amory Lovins goal of the 2040's for complete withdrawal. Ten years. That is inspiring.

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.

by christophersj at 9:53 AM on 17 Jul 2008

Effective CO2 Reduction Technology

Like Mr. Gore says within 10 years we must act fast "in order to stave off catastrophic climate change".

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 www.climatecleanup.com we are moving forward and everyone is invited to help.

Peter Lionel Griffiths Founder Climatecleanup.com ...because mankind matters

by peterlionel at 10:03 AM on 17 Jul 2008

Branson

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?

by christophersj at 10:18 AM on 17 Jul 2008

Gore Upbeat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/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.

by jabailo at 1:03 PM on 17 Jul 2008

Media misunderstanding the speech

My point was that his stated goal is being MISSTATED everywhere in the media today. I'm the biggest Gore fan around but his speech purposefully conflated the issues of oil use and his stated goal (replacing current carbon sourced electricity) that had almost nothing to do with oil!

The media are quoting him as saying "get off of all carbon ENERGY in 10 years" and he said no such thing.

by christophersj at 2:44 PM on 17 Jul 2008

Media misstating the speech

Which news sources are conflating carbon free energy and carbon free electricity? Most of the major news sources I have read (NY Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, CNN, AP) have not misstated Gore's words. (Perhaps they updated their original posts)?

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.

by Charles Jackson at 5:10 PM on 17 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

Good examples Charles

You mean besides Grist, Climate Progress, and the NRDC blog, On Earth? Who else has misstated the thesis?

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.

by christophersj at 5:41 PM on 17 Jul 2008

Media coverage of Gore speech

So by "his stated goal is being MISSTATED everywhere in the media today" you mean a few blogs that you haven't even provided the links for? Solid

by Charles Jackson at 5:56 PM on 17 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

Hi Charles Jackson

Hi,

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.

by christophersj at 7:33 PM on 17 Jul 2008

And again Charles

And again Charles, on the front page of this very site,

"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.

by christophersj at 7:51 PM on 17 Jul 2008

Pope denounces 'insatiable consumption'

I thought I would never say this but the Pope has got it right while Gore is a bit off base by just focusing on energy when the real problem is over consumption of all resources.

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?"

by racc at 9:03 PM on 17 Jul 2008

Point well-taken

Thanks. I didn't mean to take you to court, so I apologize for pressing you. I was just curious which news sources you were referring to. I was at the speech today, and I was actually confused as to whether he was calling for 100% carbon free energy or electricity, so I totally understand your point.
And it is an important distinction to make. Thanks again

by Charles Jackson at 9:36 PM on 17 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

No prob

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.

by christophersj at 10:43 PM on 17 Jul 2008

An historic speech.

I think this was an historic speech. The point not only about energy, and climate, but to connect these issues to mainstream social issues - a connection many Americans have yet to make.

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

by bhcarmichael at 7:30 AM on 18 Jul 2008

energy and/or oil

As one of the lucky ducks who attended the speech, I was a little confused after I left as well. At some points it sounded like Gore was advocating getting completely off carbon (including for transportation), and at others he was focused on energy.

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.

by racerx at 9:59 AM on 18 Jul 2008

Ben Carmichael

Ben,

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.

by christophersj at 10:14 AM on 18 Jul 2008

Bad timing??!!!

Apparently part of the reaction to Gore's speech is that it's "bad timing" to talk about carbon-free electricity now because of high gas prices.

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.

by Jon Rynn at 12:41 PM on 18 Jul 2008

Carbon neutrality

That would be possible within the time frame. but not a complete shift to electric transportation. Some fuel will still be needed.

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.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 1:11 PM on 18 Jul 2008

Gore calls for carbon-free fuels

in the speech -- maybe it's unclear if he's talking about carbon-free fuels for everything or just electricity. At any rate, you had a carbon-free electrical system, then it becomes a question of converting the transportation system to electricity, with biomass for the feedstocks making up the rest.

by Jon Rynn at 1:28 PM on 18 Jul 2008

2018 amy not if we don't cut emissions

It's obvious there is a concerted influence to get people's attention off of reducing carbon dioxide emissions - it will all be wind, solar and geothermal sources of electricity in 2018.

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?

Peter Lionel Griffiths Founder Climatecleanup.com ...because mankind matters

by peterlionel at 5:00 PM on 18 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

GO PLAN B GO!

by hapa at 10:30 AM on 19 Jul 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?