Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Generational Challenge to Repower America
Ladies and gentlemen:
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more -- if more should be required -- the future of human civilization is at stake.
I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.
The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse -- much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.
Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.
Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.
And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.
Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me.
I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately -- without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.
Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges -- the economic, environmental and national security crises.
We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.
But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.
The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.
In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: 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. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.
What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?
We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.
And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.
But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.
That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.
This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans -- in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.
A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal -- have radically changed the economics of energy.
When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.
And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.
You know, the same thing happened with computer chips -- also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months -- year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row.
To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.
To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.
When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.
Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo -- the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."
To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.
To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change.
I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.
What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.
When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.
To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.
We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.
At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.
America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.
Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.
In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.
Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.
It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.
If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.
However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.
Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.
We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.
So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge -- for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.
This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org. We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.
On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.
I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.
We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.
77 Comments so far
Show AllI for one would thank Mr. Gore for his efforts to demonstrate that this is a serious problem -- perhaps the most serious of all the many problems facing current civilization. But despite his efforts, the truth remains inconvenient. People are still trying to acquire and use military power, stash ill-gotten gains in numbered secret banking accounts, using the power of computers to design new, ever-more-complicated financial scams, and in general, behave like people.
Our best hope is that things get bad enough and make enough people uncomfortable to create a social crisis and motivate people to action before they get bad enough to be beyond repair. That's a pretty small window of opportunity even if it does open.
How inspiring! It makes me want to cry when I think about where we could have been today if Al Gore had been president the last 7 1/2 years. Of course we can do this, we must, for our children and grandchildren.
If the oil companies had any sense at all, they would lead the way. Isn't diversification the buzz word? Wake up and smell the coffee already!
Yeah, cool speech Al.
How about when you were the veep. Never heard that from you then. 10 years, huh? If we had started when Bill and you were in charge we would have been done by now.
But I guess it was politically "inconvenient".
Al Gore will join Jimmy Carter for being known for the great things he did AFTER he was out of office.
chameleon2-that's the price paid for being the veep. Token soundbites and no executive power.
for all of gore's leadership on this issue, you notice that he doesn't have much to say about the levels of consumption that are the hallmark of western civilization. the idea of real change in the way we live is not addressed to any serious degree. no one wants to be the bearer of unwelcome news/ideas. to his credit, gore was not deterred by the absence of enthusiastic support in the earlier years of his findings on climate change. but he needs to continue to open his eyes to the deeper levels of the issue. a lifestyle that depends upon the grossly unequal distribution of the world's resources has simply got to change. "doing more with less," or "less is more" should become our nation's mantra, it's goal, it's passion.
Amazing. 100% renewable electricity generation is a very interesting approach. Just the possibility that we will become energy efficient is depressing the price of oil!
chameleon2 July 18th, 2008 1:10 pm: "Yeah, cool speech Al. How about when you were the veep. Never heard that from you then. 10 years, huh? "
Good point. Cynthia Mckinney, who is running for office, is talking the way Gore does, now that he is not.
@Recycle1 - "that's the price paid for being the veep. Token soundbites and no executive power."
Tell that to Cheney.
Its the person who makes the job, not the duty statement.
And Jimmy Carter IS known for what he did when he was in office. He was 20 years ahead of Gore, but all his work was shredded by the criminal Regan.
Al Gore for vice president -- AGAIN!!!
yes chameleion2 and Mr. Gore possibly had a chance to fix the laws on mining and use of Federal land use for cattle. In all fairness to Mr. Gore I think Clinton was a micro-manager and Gore really had little power.
Dispelling illusions and awakening is hard to do from inside a Big Box Church. So many people have been trained to believe what they are told and to do what they are told and to ignore what they see and hear for themselves. Dispelling illusions and awakening is what that jealous god, Shaytan Bozorg, fears the most. Perhaps it is time for mankind to rekindle worship of the God that gives warmth and light and wind and rain and flowers and food - the sun - with altars to solar and wind and hydropower.
Here's that speech:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3945&id=13269-2794502-dJy6_Jx&t=3
Some recent peer-reviewed journals on energy options:
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_55/iss_4/38_1.shtml
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;315/5813/781
You may not have access to all the articles unless you are at a university.
Thank you, Mr. Gore, for your enlightened views on this urgent cause! There really are some amazing people working on incredible technologies already (not just solar/wind/geothermal/etc), and I for one, am doing what I can to support their efforts. Dr. Steven Greer has established the Orion Project which is dedicated to creating energy systems which are completely sustainable, entirely non-polluting, and virtually infinite. Zero point energy systems have been around for one hundred years, but inventors have had their technologies purchased and locked away by powerful and greedy people who envisioned their golden goose, OIL, becoming instantly obsolete. Take a look at the Orion Project. Satya
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/
Also notice that the word 'corporation' doesn't appear in this piece. Many of the problems he describes come from the drive for short-term profits and the way corporate money controls our politics.
The really funny part about Gore doing none of this when he was VP is that he'd pulled the same scam just before then. Gore ran for President in 1988 as a southern conservative good ol boy. Super Tuesday was invented by southern governors just to aid his campaign. And he got clobbered just like lieberman and the other conservative DLC types that run openly as conservatives (instead of lying and pretending to be a progressive).
So, Al Gore rehabilitated himself by writing a book on the environment. He pretended to be an environmentalist and made himself popular enough to get the VP job. He campaigned in 1992 in this way. Then after getting in office, the Clinton\Gore administration abandoned every bit of that and did what the money wanted. Without a word of opposition from Gore.
Gore then continued on in the same vein of only promising what the money wanted when he ran again for President in 2000. The general disgust of 8 years of Clinton\Gore and watching Gore promise more of the same in 2000 is what led to the revolt of the base of the Democratic Party and the support for the Nader campaign.
Now he's back full cycle to writing books and making speeches and videos. But, given his track record, the very good question is would he do this if elected or would he just do what the money wants just like he did his whole political career.
In general, I just love the constant excuses from the Democrats about why they never do anything decent when they are in power. The Dem-lovers just never seem to run out of them.
But the key point is realizing that if they would actually do something decent when in power, you wouldn't be listening to all the excuses.
There is a difference between Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.
Of course, there's the point mentioned above that Carter actually tried to do things to solve these problems in office, while Gore never did (as Senator or VP).
The other is that once the left office, Carter just rolled up his sleeves and started doing things that make a difference. Gore just goes around lecturing everyone.
Al Gore was talking about climate change when he was VP. No one listened then either. They were too busy making jokes about his robotic demeanor and comparing him to the previous VP.
Samson, how do you presume to know that Gore did not oppose Clinton's lack of environmental reforms?
Do you think that with Bill as President and Hillary as first lady there was any shred of authority left for Al Gore?
The Vice President constitutionally only has two roles: 1. To take over the Presidency if necessary. 2. To break Senate ties. Anything else is bestowed at the whim of the President.
Beautiful, brilliant, flawless speech by this visionary man and the solitary hope for the world.
It was quite obvious that the Gore Clinton relationship was shattered, as Gore didn't even want Clinton to campaign for him.
How also do you presume to know that Gore is pretending to be an environmentalist? If it were true, that is a whole lot of "pretending". Also, how would Gore feel about the consequences of actually helping the environment by all of his tireless pretending.
What have you and the other Gore bashers done for the environment since you all feel that he is so inadequate?
JaneM July 18th, 2008 1:04 pm: "It makes me want to cry when I think about where we could have been today if Al Gore had been president the last 7 1/2 years."
Do you really think he'd be such an activist if he were President? Really? No c'mon now, really?
The necessity of big changes must fall upon the economic system. The obstructionist interests of corporations must be pushed aside. No one in politics can deliver on this. Only the creation of a new constitution can meet the challenge, but this time it must not be drawn up by an elite cabal of property owners with no mandate, and it must be subjected to a popular plebiscite. The spirit of Daniel Shays will rise again!
Well the idiot contingent strikes again. I don't care what you think of Al Gore's past. We've all heard those arguments a million times before. For once why don't you constructively discuss the proposal Al Gore has put forth. Instead of always criticizing, why don't you try and be productive for once.
The root causes of our multiple current crises are not identified by Gore, although I believe he knows them well. The deep-seated corruption of those in power across the globe, and the decisions they have made over the course of decades/centuries, have led the world to the brink of catastrophe. A lack of understanding of this core will always lead to insufficient and superficial solutions, and leave us wondering why with all our efforts, things "keep going awry". Without acknowledging or addressing this, there can be no real solutions to global warming or the many other crises.
The ruling elites have no desire to lose their pervasive, corrupting influence. Injustice, wars and chaos for the many is their stock-in-trade. Secrecy and subterfuge are their hallmarks. Superficial democracy controlled by covert organized crime is the only way they see of effective governance. Illegal drugs and deadly weapons are their lifeblood. The Shock Doctrine extents well beyond economics, as Norman Finkelstein has noted about the history and actions of Israel in its post WWII incarnation.
As just one example, look at Sibel Edmonds' assertions about the Israel-Turkey organized crime ring that controls the European heroine trade, and the alleged link to the American-Turkish Council. How much of their raw materials are coming out of post-Taliban Afghanistan? How hard could it be for NATO troops to intercept convoys of trucks, weighed down by hundreds of tons of opium poppies, driving through a desert? Do they ever do it? How many main roads can there be exiting Afghanistan?
Yet none of these interrelated facts/relationships are ever discussed in the MSM or polite company. Global warming = more global chaos = conditions favorable for ill-gotten profits (shock doctrine). A courageous multinational Truth and Reconciliation Commission, no holds barred and made up of educated and aware citizens, would be the first step towards addressing the global crises... Emphasis on "No Holds Barred".
You are right wilmoor.
America didn't like Al Gore's serious, carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders demeanor.
People love to talk about the "new" Al Gore as if the old one wasn't very environmental.
What really happened is he had some Hollywood handlers polish his personality and make him funnier.
Al Gore understood it all when he looked at those carbon charts decades ago. He was just one man up against the whole unscientific, uniformed, corrupt system. People really didn't listen to him until they were hit over the head with the changing climate. Heck, what am I saying. They still don't listen to him for the most part.
@pw: "For once why don't you constructively discuss the proposal Al Gore has put forth. Instead of always criticizing, why don't you try and be productive for once."
I'll bite. We HAVE heard this proposal before. It was 30 years ago, when Carter was in the White House. He challenged the US to do just the same thing (with the only difference that Jimmy did not give us the 10-year time limit). Where was Gore then? This is NOT an original idea; Gore is figuring he can get some mileage out of it.
If Gore was the second coming, why not offer from his personal fortune an X-Prize? And not wishing to sound like a repug, why does he not take his McMansion off the grid?
I'll agree with Samson. Gore is all talk. If he had any real integrity, he'd take his lecture circuit to China.
As for me doing something constructive? I've been implementing Jimmy's ideas for nearly 30 years. At least I don't lecture "Do as I say, not as I do".
Algore's nothing but a BIG FAT LOSER. Gore supported the Permanent Normal "Free" Trade with China Deal, NAFTA, the DEA bombing out the hemp farms in South Dakota when those hemp farms could have been used to help America ween its dependence away from foreign oil and prevent global warming, allowing Big Auto to "voluntarily" repair its fuel inefficiency, and virtually staying silent on the defeat of the Kyoto Protocol. I'm sorry but Gore's only task is all about writing doom and gloom all the while joining the sellout gangs !
Pappy Yokum,
Good post. i would add that i think the tendency for all of us to keep looking at isolated "issues" as if they were isolated, prevents us from looking at the broader context in which each "issue" exists, to see the "root causes".
Your point i think is also emphasized by Samson's note that the word "corporation" never appears in Gore's talk.
i think Gore does a generally better job than most "big voices" in our society at broadening the context, but at this point there is no way he is going to start calling out the "root cause" of the systemic power structure that enables our species' decision-making to continue to be so grossly distorted. i would tend to agree with you that he likely does understand these root causes.
************************************************************************
Two other things worth noting: the word "nuclear" never appears in the talk either. Gore should be denouncing any move to nuclear power, but he is not. This leaves the door wide open in the public policy "debate" dominated by corporate interests to offer their "clean" nuclear "solutions" to our climate troubles.
And, as part of his proposal, along with needed investment in solar and wind power and a call for conservation, Gore is also promoting the absurd idea that we can burn coal "cleanly", and somehow be sure that we can "sequester" the carbon in the Earth's crust so that it never enters the atmosphere. This process does not exist, and any effort to bring it into play in the short term is playing with fire! We have no way to be sure that we can securely "sequester" carbon from fossil fuels essentially forever. Given the ways in which other vast human technological endeavors work, is there any reason for us to trust that such a vast endeavor will work with no miscalculations? What do we do when our "sequestered" carbon is found to be leaking into the atmosphere? There is no need for us to go there - we can meet our needs with renewable sources and conservation.
This was a great speech by Al Gore. But as I read it, I also thought, where were you in the 90s?
Lowering CAFE standards, opposing the Kyoto Treaty, bombing and starving Iraqi civilians, and bombing Yugoslavia, both countries with depleted uranium. Oh, yeah, that's right.
But the starry-eyed Democrats in the crowd continue to look beyond the facts and dream their beautiful dreams!
Here's a real statement by a Green while he was actually running for office, not years after he was in office.
http://www.whitneyforgov.org/articles/EnergyPolicy.htm
If you study Gore's record as Senator and VP, you will understand why some of us refuse to call him a serious environmentalist. He received only a 64% from the League of Conservation Voters (a D grade?) All that means is we shouldn't be holding him up as some kind of environmental hero - he didn't walk the walk. It doesn't mean he hasn't changed. He has some good ideas and feels free to speak out now that he isn't beholden to the same corporations as he once was. Still, having studied him and his record, I'm seriously suspicious.
Just before the great environmentalist David Brower died (Past President of Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth) he voted for Ralph Nader (year 2000). He did that because Al Gore had betrayed the environmental movement, refused to sign a global warming initiative with other world leaders - in fact, leaders and environmentalists stood up and walked out on him for his refusal. It was the headlines. At the time Gore said, "They asked too much from the US." It's frustrating and alarming to see how the media can turn a traitor into a hero. All you need is money and power to whitewash your history.
Many of you here are either too young to remember or you weren't interested in politics at the time. Why do you think there was a "Battle in Seattle" in the 90s? It was Gore and Clinton's success passing NAFTA, a treaty that has had the greatest impact on world pollution, more than just about any other policy or treaty. Don't you remember all the talk about corporations moving to countries with lax environmental laws? NAFTA made this possible.
Gore also was happy to sign the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which put more media power into fewer hands. He said it was "Good for the country." Gore was one of the original DLC-ers. DLC is the right wing of the Dem Party.
In the Senate and as VP, Gore was a champion of nuclear power. After his book came out, I said to myself, this is weird, he sabotaged Kyoto talks on global warming and now he's selling a book on ... global warming? hmmm, I thought he might be trying to sell nuclear power - but in a sneaky way. I remembered a speech he gave to some nuclear power officials in Washington State. They gave him a standing ovation. He has always been pro-nuclear. Lo and behold, there have been 10 times the normal permit submissions for nuclear power plants since the book came out. Pay close attention to these so called leaders, they use their great wealth and the media to brainwash and trick the population.
Too many people believe what they're told: He wrote a book, so he must be a real environmentalist. End of research.
imagine yourself born on earth many thousands of years ago...that is the way we need to, will be forced to, live again, if it will ever again even be possible, if we haven't already doomed ourselves...everything you need taken care of by the natural processes of sun, wind and water and the natural, regional growth of vegetation and the myriad creatures...no property ownership, no electricity, no fossil fuels, no manufacturing, no cars, no corporations, no jobs, no schools, just you and your relations and the myriad animals and vegetables that grow here...humans do not know or care enough to responsibly manage the molecular alteration of their environment, and must recognize this and give it all up...simply speaking, every single thing you think of when you think about what your life is and how it's lived must change...revert...otherwise, there are no solutions...the molecular changes we are making are irreversible, at least within a timeframe relevant to the human lifespan...as a side note, many of the methods of communication, surveillance, seduction and punishment used to control your person, thoughts and feelings are delivered via electricity...that might make it more palatable to consider it gone...
"Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly."
Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Al Gore, it is exactly the "distinguished senior business leaders" who dragged us kicking and screaming into their capitalist dungeon for mass torture in the face of all evidence from social democracies in Europe and East Asia, SOCIALIST CUBA, et al, plus past experience in the USA, namely the New Deal, the Progressive Movement, to the Enlightenment founding of the nation.
All the evidence told us to throw off the shackles of capitalism and send HIM THE CAPITASLIST, not we the people, to the dungeon to wallow in his own kaka, but YOU are citing HIM, YOU are entertaining HIM, still? Still? Still? C'mon, Al Gore, show us some backbone, and start ostracizing the capitalist from the society as he very well deserves, with some SOCIAL PRESSURE, ehh? Ready? Set? GO!!!!
Calling Al Gore an environmental reformist and global leader is akin to calling Johnny Bomb Bomb McCain a war hero (which he is not). For the reasons pointed out in the above posts on this thread, Al Gore came to consciousness about the environment too late, but sure as hell made a lot of money through his intimiate ties with Big Business (among the major global polluters) while he was a Senator and Veep. I agree with other posters here. Gore needs to target corporations before he pontificates and lectures all of us.
"Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis"
Al Gore, wake up! This is 2008! Today the Pentagon views CRISIS as OPPORTUNITY. Don't you get it? A nation of 100 million blind taxslaves and their 200 million dependents are the fuel for the Pentagon's exploitation engine. YOU have to acknowledge the Pentagon's tax/spend CRISIS EXPLOITATION RACKET to see the dreadful predicament this planet is in today. And then focus the scrutiny on the culprits. Stop citing them and entertaining them!
Is all this talk about where we were in the 90s and why didn't Gore do something earlier a way to avoid talking about real action? It's certainly much easier to talk about what he did or didn't do when than it is to talk about how we live this very day, and how we are going to impliment his ideas personally and hound our elected officials to represent us.
chameleon2, jlocke123, and perhaps others,
please reread the article and you will understand that tecnological and economic conditions are different now than they were in even the recent past.
@John F Butterfield
I've read, and reread Gore's speech, and he still sounds like a shill for the burgeoning green industry, in which millions of useless consumer green-gadgets will be foisted on a know-nothing public.
The first message ANY legitimate environmentalist spreads is REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE. Emphasis on REDUCE.
No, Gore's message is about meeting and exceeding energy demands, using new-growth industries. It's capitalism at its worst.
John Butterfield, here is an article about a report in 1952 which pointed out that the US would need a different source of energy by the 70s and recommended solar power. The US ruling class chose nuclear, instead.
http://www.gses.it/pub/perlin-mexico2000.php
In the 70s, we ran out of easy to get oil in the US, and Carter put solar panels on the White House. Reagan pulled them down.
In the 90s, Clinton/Gore came into the White House............. Oh, nothing happened.
Your theory that we only now have developed ways to use alternative energy is seriously flawed.
RE: WTF July 18th, 2008 4:43 pm
I couldn't agree with you more!
"What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years?"
Al Gore, if you want a paradigm shift in energy production in the USA you first must reign in the racketeers or they will hijack, whack, destroy the program. YOU are the politican. YOU reign them in. YOU get the legislation through the Congress that reigns them in. YOU BUST THE TRUSTS. NOW, START. TODAY. GO!!!
CAGE THE CAPITALIST BEAST NOW!
CAGE THE CAPITALIST BEAST NOW!
CAGE THE CAPITALIST BEAST NOW!
John F. Butterfield : "chameleon2, jlocke123, and perhaps others, please reread the article and you will understand that tecnological and economic conditions are different now than they were in even the recent past."
John F. Butterfield, I agree it is a pretty speech and Gore has long been interested in this topic. Could I refer you, nevertheless, to the Hagel-Byrd resolution. If I recall correctly, every single solitary living breathing voting Democratic Party member in the US senate voted to kill the Kyoto treaty, which the US and the world had painstakingly put forward as the response to climate change.
That is why that I am just a little amused by Gore's speaking engagements. He gets the lion's share of media attention, while Cynthia Mckinney, who is trying to get elected so she can actually do something about global warming in the ten or so years we have left, is ignored.
When I saw the hologram images of Mr. Gore at the "Live Earth" concerts held 'round the World a year or so ago, I said to myself that globalization had come to am important point in its development: the very first non-campaign for Secretary General of the United Nations !!!
Now I have no doubt whatsoever. Mr. Gore is the right person at the necessary moment. Hopefully, the people who nominate and vote for the next Secretary General will realize that he will be able to influence policy more from that post than anyone else on the Planet at a time when concerted international actions are crucial.
Here's my solitary popular vote from Chiloé Island to begin a real campaign from the international grassroots !!!
Richard Dodge
"... other things worth noting: the word "nuclear" never appears in the talk either. Gore should be denouncing any move to nuclear power, but he is not. This leaves the door wide open in the public policy "debate" dominated by corporate interests to offer their "clean" nuclear "solutions" to our climate troubles."
You missed it... he didn't actually say the word "nuclear", but he referred to it when he said:
"Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years."
Part of that 100 percent he referred to *IS* nuclear... he just spun that into the "truly clean carbon-free sources" category. Of course nuclear is anything BUT "clean"... but because it does not add to the carbon problem, it only takes a little spinning to make you believe that he isn't including nuclear into the mix. In fact, he admitted so in an interview after the speech according to a NYT article:
"He said he envisioned nuclear power retaining its current share of domestic electricity generation, about 20 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gore.html
Now... there's the second spin. He believes nuclear should retain its 20 percent share. Don't make the mistake of reading that statistic to mean that he believes that nuclear generation should remain fixed at the current level of generation, just that it should remain fixed at the *proportion* of generation... and since he sees demand growing, that of course means that nuclear generation will be growing to maintain the 20 percent proportion.
It's easy to lie with statistics. Gore has always been an advocate of nuclear generation. Don't believe otherwise.
#
chameleon2 July 18th, 2008 1:10 pm
Yeah, cool speech Al.
How about when you were the veep. Never heard that from you then. 10 years, huh? If we had started when Bill and you were in charge we would have been done by now.
But I guess it was politically "inconvenient".
It is people like chameleon2 who will be major stumbling blocks to any progress in stopping the destruction of this planet. Not part of the solution? Then you are a major part of the damned problem. Get a firm grasp on your ears and see if you can pull your head out of your asses!
Regardless of when Gore woke up to the problem, he has done a find job of at least pointing out the alarming point that the the Emperor is stark raving naked/mad/stupid. "Good bye from the biggest polluters on the planet."
Very good, Al Gore.
BUT: Where were you, when you were Veep, at the Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, actually signed by Bush the Elder in 1992?
The COPs during the Clinton years - Berlin 95, Geneva 96, Kyoto 97, Buenos Aires 98, Bonn 99 and The Hague 2000 would have benefited a lot from such powerful words uttered by someone who represented the US. The very US that didn't sign Kyoto, right?
The results of all these climate change conferences would have looked different, wouldn't they, if you had said all that while you were still part of the administration!
Al Gore is a disgusting shill for nuclear power. Please don't print him on Common Dreams and contribute to his influence.
He wants 1/5 of our energy needs to be met with nuclear power. No thanks.
"Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse."
Two wars that you supported Mr. Gore. (for those who might claim that Gore didn't support Iraq War part 2, go back and read the speeches he gave in the months leading up to the war and you'll see that he only opposed the war planning and lack of a coalition) And let's not forget that in the early 90's he was the most vocal advocate of the Iraq War part 1, which even Bush Sn. admitted was about access to oil.
"the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years" is not even possible, and even if it were would require a massive energy expenditure to convert our infrastructure (and all related infrastructures such as shipping) to achieve. But go ahead and sell that fantasy to those you can't do math, Mr. Gore.
is this the tea party of paid mad hatters?
NASA places false sats on it's website about "the hottest years on record".
(actually meant 1930's vs 1990's)
The warming trend is the false blip, the earth is on a sunspot uptick, yet it is cooler this year then many on record. 80 degrees in the midwest summer.
Several nations are using advanced weather modification projects, so what's the real temp there, kenneth?
Green products(!), new cars, infrastructure replacement ... think of all the jobs! (and rushed mistakes, and corruption, and greed, and massive consumption pollution, and brand new laws, citations, fines, taxes, imprisonment ...)
yeah, go mad hatters. you really are the root of the problem.
@second and first: "The warming trend is the false blip, the earth is on a sunspot uptick, yet it is cooler this year then many on record. 80 degrees in the midwest summer."
Your complete lack of understanding science data is so outstanding to be almost Bush-like. For a scientific discussion (some of the words and acronyms may be too hard for you to pronounce) debunking the current skeptic bandwagon of a warming sun (and 11-year sunspot cycles, etc), read:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
You should also try to understand the difference between climate and weather. When you have figured it out, get back to us.
Al Gore has to practice what he preaches before he regains credibility for me. I look sideways at people that say do as I tell you, not what I do.
adroc: Yes, Gore could have done many things if he'd actually took office in 2001. (Remember, he won the popular vote.) The one thing I know he would have done was required automakers to increase gas mileage of new cars. By now cars could be averaging 40 MPG and NOT ONE DROP of foreign oil would need to be imported. In reality we got gas-guzzling vehicles with poorer MPG than 20 years ago. Then, GM stops producing the EV-2 and tools up for the Hummer II. Very forward-thinking, huh? Look at GM's problems today... Greed, stupidity and now $4.50 a gallon gas from oil countries who love our money and hate our guts. And, oh yeah, we wouldn't be fighting in Iraq, either.
MONKEY WRENCH!!!