July 18, 2008 8:35 AM
Gore proposes man-on-the-moon effort to make U.S. carbon-free
The U.S. put a man on the moon when space seemed to be the final frontier. Now, Al Gore wants the country to be able to get us to the mall without using carbon-based fuel.
"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels," Gore told a packed auditorium in Washington's historic Constitution Hall. "When you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices."Gore compared the challenge to establishing Social Security and the Interstate highway system, as well as landing a man on the moon - all successes that took more than a single presidency to accomplish and required members of both political parties to overcome their partisanship.
The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group Gore leads, put the 30-year cost of his plan - both government and private - at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion.
To speed up the transition to new energy sources, Gore said the single most important policy change would be to "tax what we burn, not what we earn," advocating a tax on carbon dioxide pollution.
Gore's proposal would represent a significant shift in where the U.S. gets its power. In 2005, coal supplied slightly more than half the nation's 3.7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. Nuclear power accounted for 21 percent, natural gas 15 percent and renewable sources, including wind and solar, about 8.6 percent.
Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for sounding the alarm about climate change and his documentary on the issue, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. In his speech, he did not address what to do about coal, which is responsible for more than a third of the United States' carbon dioxide pollution, the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Coal's share of electricity generation is only expected to grow between now and 2030, according to Energy Department forecasts that assume no new government controls will be put on pollution. Renewable energy resources' share of the power production would grow to 11 percent under that scenario.
Can the U.S. do it? Should the U.S. do it? Are record high oil prices enough to jump-start the country to get serious about finding renewable alternatives?
July 18, 2008
9:09 AM
Sock Ray Blue writes:
Gore keeps coming up with "pie in the sky" ideas, but hasn't a clue how to implement them.
Al, go to the back of the room and be quiet.
July 18, 2008
9:35 AM
Shaggy writes:
"Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”"
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html
Does anyone take this fool serious?
Oh wait yes the left loons do...hehehe
July 18, 2008
10:02 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Say what you will about Gore, his house or his politics, but clean and renewable energy just makes sense. The travesty is that we have not explored this further.
America can (and should) do this. Even if you disagree on global warming, would it not be a great thing to not need oil from a region of the world that largely hates us?
For those of you with cable or a dish, check out CNN's documentary called "We were warned" about a hypothetical oil crisis, that could easily happen. It also details how Brazil became completely energy independant due to its use of sugar cane based ethanol. Well worth watching.
July 18, 2008
11:43 AM
Bob writes:
"The travesty is that we have not explored this further."
Do you mean that more government money hasn't been spent?
The fact is, private money is being invested on a large scale to bring the technology to an affordable position in the marketplace. While this article doesn't go into details it'll give you an idea of what's going on in a bigger context than "government will fix it all"
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2008/07/gallery_intersolar_conference
July 18, 2008
12:38 PM
jay writes:
bob i don't think we should dismantle our long standing, long successful infrastructure of gov't funded r and d just because of the unsubstantiated "feelings" of the Deniers.
same concept applied to embryonic stem cell research.
July 18, 2008
1:02 PM
Sock Ray Blue writes:
Shaggy
With that massive amount of electricity used monthly I can't help but get a picture of Tipper charging up Al like Frankenstein's monster. Do you think I'm on to something?
July 18, 2008
1:04 PM
Sock Ray Blue writes:
Shaggy
With that massive amount of electricity used monthly I can't help but get a picture of Tipper charging up Al like Frankenstein's monster. Do you think I'm on to something?
July 18, 2008
2:23 PM
Anonymous writes:
You freaking right wing idiots go on and on about how evil and bad the dems are. Well check out this article about how your beloved GOP continues to trash our government. Freaking idiots will you ever learn
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/18/10446
July 18, 2008
3:34 PM
Shaggy writes:
hahaha, I love it when the femdems use commondreams or moveon.org to argue their talking points...tooo funny.
Dude, I agree, I think we should eventually go green and renewable. We should be doing anything and everything right now and then phase out dirty Oil and coal.
Wind power and Solar are physically unable to produce the amount of energy we need. It is simple impossible at this point in time.
We should be drilling here and drilling now, we should be building Nuclear plants and build them now.
We should be building wind towers and build them now.
ect ect ect.
We should be doing it for National Security reasons and economic reasons.
We have to get off of foreign Oil and quit pumping billions into the economies who's people would love nothing better than when we do that and alternatives start to make their way into our daily lives we can ween ourselves off of Oil.
But to do it like algore wants is just stupid.
This guy is a clown.
July 18, 2008
4:05 PM
Anonymous writes:
yeah moveon and commondrems w/over 4 million members is just a joke w/ no credibility isnt' moron.
July 18, 2008
5:40 PM
JW writes:
"But to do it like algore wants is just stupid.
This guy is a clown."
Yea. The dude acts like it would take us to the moon or something! As if!
Good god. Just imagine if JFK had been saddled with the partisan idiocy we have running around today.
July 18, 2008
6:13 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Save the Earth Send Al Gore to the Moon writes:
Sending Al Gore to the moon would be a good step in achieving a moron neutral earth.
July 18, 2008
6:30 PM
owl gore writes:
We can do all of this, but we can't secure our borders or enforce immigration laws.
July 19, 2008
7:31 AM
SirRealist writes:
Shaggy, it isn't that wind and solar are "simply not possible", because I'm already doing it, as are others. It's that it's damned expensive to install and maintain. And it really has to be done on a house-by-house basis instead of large scale to be most effective.
But I think what Gore was trying to get at was that getting to the moon took a Herculean effort, and if we put that same energy and commitment into green energy research, we could have the same sort of fantastic result.
And, Owl, the reason we can't secure our borders is because those in power don't want to. Period.
July 19, 2008
3:53 PM
Anonymous writes:
Sure, I always take at face value the call to service by the Nobel winner for ecological soothaying even though his caravan is composed of the worst polluters and gas guzzlers made on earth.
So what if algores carbon footprint is bigger than Shaq's?
July 19, 2008
3:54 PM
LOL writes:
Sure, I always take at face value the call to service by the Nobel winner for ecological soothsaying even though his caravan is composed of the worst polluters and gas guzzlers made on earth.
So what if algores carbon footprint is bigger than Shaq's?
July 19, 2008
5:39 PM
professor writes:
Talk about the devaluation of the Nobel prize. No integrity left there. Pun intended, no integrity-left....
July 19, 2008
7:10 PM
SirRealist writes:
I understand. It does come across as hypocritical, and I'd like to see all the tree-huggers come to understand that how they live is viewed as a big deal.
It's like Kevin Costner made this huge statement some years back about how wasteful Americans are (and we certainly can be), but when I wrote to him and told him that making a movie used certain amounts of various energy sources, making him and his cohorts some of the biggest polluters on the planet, I was told that they provide entertainment for millions, so it's okay.
I'm still working on assimilating the cost/benefits involved.
July 19, 2008
11:11 PM
Wah writes:
Algore a Hypocrite?
You mean liberal tree hugging morons and Democratic do-nothings like Pelosi and Reid celebrate a Hypocrite for his groundbreaking (pun intended) work on climate blips?
Say it aint so!?!
July 20, 2008
8:51 AM
gary writes:
Let's end our reliance on weird-science put out by Al Gore!
Nuff Said!
July 20, 2008
9:51 PM
Bill writes:
Regarding energy independence:
There are the early adopters
These are the guys already using hybrids, electric autos and making their homes energy efficient using solar. Others drive using vegetable oil.
The rest will soon follow as soon as it becomes cheaper and more accessible.
The rest of the market, the mid adopters.
Then of course you have the non adopters.
Hard headed dumbasses who still think global warming doesn't exist. Their grandpa still thinks "if man was supposed to fly, he'd have wings" Bush voters no doubt.
July 21, 2008
8:14 AM
Anonymous writes:
ya know, somehow we have to get out of this mode of putting people into nice, tidy groups Bill .... I voted for Bushy the first time because I had no idea of what a lug he was going to be (and neither did a huge percentage of other conservative voters) .... but my home is roughly half-solar (water and electric), and I'll be adding wind later this fall .... and I drive an American-made hybrid, support several wildlife and conservation groups, and I spend one of my three weeks of vacation every year helping the forest service perform fire-abatement cleanup projects .... and many of my conservative friends and neighbors are at some level doing many of the same types of things, while many of my dem friends and neighbors aren't ... but some are ... hence, stereotyping doesn't work and isn't fair ... I'm sure a lot of people out there would like to be able to put a $30,000 system on their house but can't afford it .... same for a hybrid or electric vehicle .... we'll get there, but it's going to take time and ingenuity
July 21, 2008
8:23 AM
Carter promoted US energy independence; Reagan destroyed it writes:
Thanks to "Ronnie",as in Reagan, we are more energy-dependent on the Middle East than ever before. Jimmy Carter got the ball rolling for alternative energy, then Reagan and the Bushes made sure we'd be dependent on oil for the next 30+ years, and just look where we are today. With Reagan and the Bushes, what we got was gas-hog SUVs and trucks--leaving quite a few of us wondering where all the "earth friendly" talk went.
July 21, 2008
9:52 AM
Anonymous writes:
yeah, thanks 8:23 .... all that finger-pointing, based on dubious assertions, will help get everyone on the page now ... and what, may I ask, are YOU doing to help the situation? ..... I hear lots of people bitching about SUV's and trucks and then find out they own them too
July 21, 2008
12:18 PM
SirRealist writes:
As a bit of extra information 8:23, you might be interested to know that:
"Amount of oil consumed in the United States: 17 mbd. With five percent of the world's people, we burn 27 percent of the world's oil.
Amount of U.S. oil consumption that comes from U.S. production: 7.3 mbd, or 42 percent. We produce fifty percent more oil than Iraq and Kuwait, almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. Nevertheless, we import more than half the oil we use.
Amount of U.S. oil consumption that comes from the Middle East: 2 mbd -- 12 percent, only three percent from Iraq and Kuwait. The rest of our imported oil comes from places like Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Algeria, Ecuador, and England.
Amount of U.S. oil used to run vehicles: 7.3 mbd or 43 percent. (Doubling our vehicle efficiency would therefore reduce our oil consumption by 3.6 mbd -- and we import only 2 mbd from the entire Middle East.)"
From the website - http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn355energyfactsed
July 22, 2008
7:10 AM
owl gore writes:
algore @ speaks to radical left hate group dailykos on the 19th of July, and he expects normal people to listen to him.
July 22, 2008
12:12 PM
Anonymous writes:
The Daily who?
Al who?