<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Al Gore details plan for exclusively carbon-free electricity in U.S. by 2018]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by christophersj http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:53:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/1 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #2 by peterlionel http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:03:58 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/2 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 http://www.climatecleanup.com we are moving forward and everyone is invited to help.

]]> 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 http://www.climatecleanup.com we are moving forward and everyone is invited to help.

]]> Comment #3 by christophersj http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:18:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/3 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?

]]> 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?

]]> Comment #4 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:03:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/4 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #5 by christophersj http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:44:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/5 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #6 by Charles Jackson http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:10:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/6 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #7 by christophersj http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/7 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #8 by Charles Jackson http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:56:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/8 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

]]> 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

]]> Comment #9 by christophersj http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:33:36 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/9 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.


]]> 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.


]]> Comment #10 by christophersj http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:51:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/10 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #11 by racc http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:03:04 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/11 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?"


]]> 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?"


]]> Comment #12 by Charles Jackson http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:36:31 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/12 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

]]> 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

]]> Comment #13 by christophersj http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:43:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/13 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.  

]]> 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.  

]]> Comment #14 by bhcarmichael http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:30:43 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/14 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

]]> 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

]]> Comment #15 by racerx http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:59:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/15 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #16 by christophersj http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Fri, 18 Jul 2008 03:14:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/16 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #17 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:41:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/17 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #18 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:11:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/18 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #19 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:28:16 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/19 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.

]]> 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.

]]> Comment #20 by peterlionel http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:00:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/20 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?

]]> 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?

]]> Comment #21 by hapa http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/ Sat, 19 Jul 2008 03:30:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/GoreDC/21 GO PLAN B GO!

]]> GO PLAN B GO!

]]>