There is a rational response to Gore's challenge. It would be to assemble a select committee comprised of top climate people (like Hansen), top physicists in energy, top engineers in energy systems AND NO POLICY PEOPLE AT ALL! The reason is that there is a bottom line physical reality to what is possible and what isn't. We need to know the real feasibility, not just the aspiration. That should be established before we let any policy wonks into the room.

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

... and when the Japanese have been verified to have been defeated in the Phillipines and the danger of their recapturing the islands has passed, return.

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

If only your comments were not so sad and truthful. On such occasions "truth hurts" like it does when stubbing your toe while walking in the dark, in a place you have lived your entire life and believed you knew so well.

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

Easy for Gore to make that speech, especially when he avoids the biggest challenge of all: a call for all Americans to conserve more.

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/c-word-absen ...

marguerite manteau-rao http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com 'It's All About Green Psychology'

I am not a big Gore fan, I think he takes too much credit for other peoples work.  I liked him in the late 80's when he was humble.

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

I'm an enviro blogger over at On Earth, who attended  Gore's announcement. I live blogged it here.

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