The Climate for Change
The inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he -- and we -- must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America's revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of U.S. leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is "unequivocal." To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to recognize the truth, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: The bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum agree that rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive the U.S. economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending billions of dollars on foreign oil. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop "the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources." His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And it came only three years after U.S. domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds -- and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn't have to rely on imports. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale and "clean coal" technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of "clean coal," too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I'm all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here's what we can do -- now: We can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. The cost of this modern grid -- $400 billion over 10 years -- pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America's automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage.
With this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world's efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama's campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
54 Comments so far
Show AllGlobal warming is the #1 international security threat to earth in 2008.
All efforts and resources need to be put into this ONE ISSUE NOW.
Everything else pales in comparison...
regards,
Steve Jones
Global Environmentalist
Mt Shasta, California
USA
http://geocities.com/sapphire2029/sei.html
--------------------------------------------
GO TIDAL (CURRENT) ENERGY!! If North America is serious about energy shortages & reducing dependence on foreign oil & GHG emissions, then by a long shot the most feasible high-density energy source for baseline energy is in the tidal currents sloshing by on all our maritime shores and major river estuaries. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore neglected to mention this energy generation technology in his essay though tidal (current) energy has the following remarkable advantages: it is predictable (i.e. FIRM), it has much higher energy density-potential than wind or solar (e.g. sea water is 832 times as dense as air), there are many excellent tidal current resource sites nearby to grid-hookups and population centres on both maritime coasts (and worldwide), it is non-polluting and has the lowest enviro-footprint relative to other large-generation energy technologies, and the concepts or tidal technologies now emerging worldwide are proven.
All that remains to fully seat this technology is the political will to support it; presently the UK is working most aggressively to develop a tidal industry for electricity and billions in jobs and exports, but so is Korea, New Zealand and others. FYI, JFK was a huge tidal energy proponent and champion of harnessing the Passamaquoddy tides for renewable, FIRM, non-polluting energy.
Check out this industry association: Ocean Renewable Energy Group: oreg.ca for more industry news;
- Sincerely, Michael Maser, Blue Energy International (www.bluenergy.com)
Carol
Is he still living in that huge house that takes a lot of power to run it or what?
He is just as fake as all the other good doers in this world and that is a fact.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL NOW AND FOREVER AS I AM SURE HE WILL!!!
He certainly seems to be eating high on the hog as he whizzes around on his private jets to tell us and the whole world what the solutions to our human problems are, act locally? Not.
Quibbles: with the first part of the Gore plan:
He left out offshore wind for the East Coast, especially from Maine to Virginia. All the power we can use, category 7 (highest potential) winds. Off the Pacific coast isn't bad either.
Second part:
He left out a massive power storage system. Pumped hydro is the old standby, pumping air into wells is possible.
Third part:
Not just hybrids, but all-electrics with interchangeable battery packs. So if you want to drive down the Northeast Corridor in one day, you just do it with zero gasoline at $1.00/gallon equivalent, swapping battery packs every rest stop.
P.S. off-peak doesn't work that well for hybrids. Everyone wants a full charge in case they have to drive to the hospital, or even pick up a takeout meal at midnight. Off-peak might work for spare battery packs.
Fourth part:
The price of passive solar heat/hot water is dropping. Add that to the retrofit list.
Fifth part:
Good, now let's get specific now, before the global cooling movement gets shafted at the next summit. Add to the agenda, "find ways to quickly cool the Arctic to reduce the runaway methane release now in progress".
Al Gore's and other's message on the climate crisis needs to get into the media interviewer's heads. They don't ask politicians about the threat of environmental disaster when they interview them. We are still at the 'first they ignore you...' step in the process of political change.
Maybe we could have a Boycott Industrialism for the Climate' day, and, for a day, unplug our homes from the grid, while parking our cars and not shopping, to send a unified symbol to the powers that be. If we could shut down even 5% of the electrical grid, maybe interviewers would remember to include the climate in their recitations of the many problems we face these days.
Brian
The plug-in hybrids are a pretty good idea. But really, why do we need personal vehicles for everyday transport that weigh 30 times the weight of the average occupant? The very engineering of automobiles as we know them today is not efficient when you consider that for many city trips, the average speed sustainable by a car in the congested roadways (which is another problem in itself costing billions/yr to the economy) can also be easily achieved and maintained on a bicycle. So if we are not gaining much in terms of speed, then why all of the extra bulk which translates to more solid materials/natural resources, why all the extra space which translates to more physical space in cities allocated strictly for driving and parking at the opportunity cost of other economic activities, why all the extra weight and superfluous engine equipment which translates to more energy just to get all that extra weight to move? Let us leave the plug-in hybrid technologies for freight, larger load transport and for leisure/vacation vehicles. For everyday use in urban environments, focus on investing in startups that are looking into human-powered technologies that supplement the simple, efficient design of the bicycle. The good news on this front is that we already have a workable technology right now that can be easily made more practical for more people by simply investing time and miniscule (in comparison) sums of money into making the roads safer for bicycles/smaller HP-hybrid vehicles and by investing in modifications that make them easier to use in tough terrain and more comfortable in more extreme weather conditions. Its a cheaper, cleaner and more efficient use of our limited resources and space! I'm sure we could create plug-in hybrids for bicycle-type vehicles. Set it to a resistance mode for your ride home... get a work out, charge the battery and then plug it in when you get home.
I think this is an excellent point and for that matter we could invest in high tech bi-way systems (advanced systems for bicycle transportation) instead of highway systems. America spends billions of dollars on health related problems that are often a byproduct of our sedentary lifestyles. Americans that bike to work and shopping instead of driving would be healthier and happier. This kind of life invigorating infrastructure could turn around much of the damage that sedentary lifestyles lead to. You can actually carry on conversations while biking, creating a more connected social lifestyle as well. The pluses go on and on. Al Gore is a little too addicted to our lifestyles status quo and how to make that outrageous reality, viable. We will actually need dramatic changes way beyond what he is visualizing to create a sustainable human system on this planet earth.
This is an important and well-done post. I'm glad someone is saying what needs to be said.
Thanks Smileysattva,
Don't get me wrong, you silly concubines are more special.
This planet is ready to flip inside out and become a star, and the tax dollars that we send down the evaporating tube are the one way ticket to a fiery inferno.
You Hagee church monsters who make money by provoking wars, (Sorry John, about that artery that checks you out, on or about March 29, 2009)
DO not get me wrong?
John Hagee is going to drop dead during an acceptance speech.
Aloha Richard Kobzey -
Is that your real name? Are you OK? When you start talking about committing MURDER I worry about you. Perhaps it's a good thing because it gives others a legal reason to intervene and ask "are you a danger to yourself or others?" I suspect you are more at risk yourself than others are at risk due to your behavior, but ... that's only based on my understanding of human nature, not your personal behaviors and intentions. Do you have friends and family members with whom you have daily contact and with whom you can talk about your fears and dreams? If not then it means you need to change your life in order to find others who can offer support and love. Are you a regular member of a church? Do you join in groups at your church. if you have one, to work on problems like world hunger, disease, and poverty? I urge you to look for others you can be open with about all your concerns, and to follow their suggestions if they think you are in danger and need support. Pray and meditate about all your proposed actions before you actually implement them.
My belief is that God loves all of us, and gave us ways to help ourselves.
I just said a prayer for you.
I hope you'll post more here.
I'll visit again to check on you.
With sincere aloha,
kokuaguy in honolulu
I know- what do you suppose what type of education this person has, or that maybe his spouse beats and denigrades him as his parents did.
Ok, I've said this before but I'll say this again as the way the electorate allows our agricultural ways of the past 50 years has indeed caused more climate mayhem and Gore also allowed it via NAFTA and Clinton giving in to agri-business especially on corn.
Corn is indeed the biggest culprit of them all. It is indeed very energy intensive and sucks up more water and petroleum. Half my earnings come from corn but I do admit that even that is going to change as corn proves to be more costly. Am I ashamed that it takes 7 barrels of oil to produce 8 barrels of corn ethanol? ABSOLUTELY. Am I ashamed to see corn being misused for producing corn feed made with petro-chemicals to shove down the throats of cows and chicken instead of allowing them to roam and feed off grass which would make a huge difference in both the environment, resource usage and even health. YES I AM ! For the last two years, I have happily shifted away from letting corn production be my main source of earning revenue. Two years ago, 80% of my earnings came from corn and that was the peak. I have seen shifted away from corn and now it's down to 45%. This Nebraskan apologizes for the health, environmental, and resource suffering and damage done to others in this country and on the planet for allowing corn production to spiral out of control. Interestingly, when I turn to environmentally and health-friendly farming practices, my earnings are not only somewhat better but I notice stability and a little more happiness.
AMERICA, LET'S STOP THE CORN MADNESS ONCE AND FOR ALL !!
Thank you for this post ~beamed me right back to reality.
Not a problem. Always happy to shed plenty of light on helping to solve the problems ahead of us. Take care. :)
Telling people what to eat... is being a purist? Think about it. Forbidding someone to discriminate against another individual because of the color of their skin or their sex is no more 'purist' or "telling someone what they can or cannot do" than is telling someone who they may or may not eat.
Animal agriculture and food choice is a much bigger problem (and something all 6.7 billion of us do mutiple times every day) than what your mode of transport might be.
Saving our planet is simple maths:
Global human population Oct 2008: 6.7 BILLION
Projected human population 2042: 9 BILLION
Land animals killed to feed humans: 53 BILLION PER YEAR
Number of those killed who are chickens: 51 BILLION PER YEAR
Number of planets needed by 2030 to sustain our wasteful, cruel and unhealthy meat/dairy addiction - 2
I spoke to 36 grade 5 students recently... not one had ever seen or met a 'broiler' chicken despite some 51 BILLION of them on our planet. These animals (and I haven't included sea creatures) aren't living on air. Vegan is a benchmark reduce til you get there.
Thank you Patty~another beam into reality.
Anyone who doubts that we are in a new world, please get a paper copy of the IPCC ice core data chart (of CO2/temp deviation from mean), that is the shank of "An Inconvenient Truth", the movie and book. Study the chart and try to find the 800 pound gorilla that is sitting right in the middle of it. Take it to a stock broker, engineer or math major if you can't read a graph.
Then pray that Jim Hansen, Al Gore and the IPCC have the ear of our new President.
Rec reading: "Under a Green Sky", "Bridge at the Edge of the World".
Ah- are you talking about page 38 - I think it is of the 4th assessment> Pretty good, yes and the continental data looks good as well. You know noaa.gov has some very good maps showing the continents warming before the oceans. This was then made into a moving exhibit that came to our grounds summer before last. The model could be changed to reflect data from hundreds of thousands of years ago to the future projections.
Well I have been trying to get ahold of this graph for some time and even wrote Science as this is how it is sourced in Als book. Unfortunately, our library happens to be missing the Federov article the gals at Science think it is from. I grew a bit impatient on ipcc.ch just now in trying to find it.
I would be so grateful if you would either post a link or send it to me at blackpearlxy@comcast.net
Thank you.
Actually, the 800 pound gorilla in the IPCC ice core chart happens to also be 800 years old! What Al Gore fails to mention (even though he is fully aware of this fact, as is Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and all the other AWG scaremongers) is that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is a lagging relationship, not leading. That is, the ice core record tells us that temperature rises first, and then CO2, and the average time delay is 800 years. This is but one of many scientific errors Al Gore makes in "Inconvenient Truth." I pray rather, that Obama will give ear to all voices on both sides of the AGW debate, and not pay much attention to Al Gore, whose scientific credentials are exposed by his profoundly erroneous film. By the way, I am an engineer. I can read graphs.
If the carbon is lagging, what is driving the temperature, Mr Intelligent, I have a few advanced degrees of my own buster. Sounds like you need to watch this:
Have a look at this video- and please comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPNWRti8CfY&eurl=http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/8989-play-our-new-gamesh...
and maybe this: http://www.amazon.com/Greenhouse-200-Year-Story-Global-Warming/dp/0802713467
Sioux Rose
I'd like to see a 10% "solution" also implemented, where people are inspired to consciously cut back comsumption by 10%. If in winter the thermostat is set at a cozy 72, set it to 68; and in summer, instead of a cool 68, set it to 75. Eat less. Buy less. USE and APPRECIATE what you already have more. While we have a retail-based economy, many people have accumulated much they barely use. Recycle (thrift/consignment) shops are sprouting up as there's seldom the need to buy brand new, and if Americans cleaned out their closets and sent the surplus to lands that really do need things, it would be a a karmic brownie point.
It always bothers me that conservation isn't taught. How many people drive to places less than a mile away? Drive from one side of a mall to another, and leave the damned engine running when they stop to have a conversation? At Disney there are countless tour buses that run all day (AC) in the parking lot, their fumes poisoning the air. Multiply that by the thousands, thousands idling in traffic, and so forth. 10% reduction... the IN thing to do.
Conservation eh...
I just seen on the news Obama getting out of his stretch limo and boarding his private plane.
Yeah, the more things change the more they stay the same.
Stretch limo? Whose plane? The day after the election I saw Obama personally drive his hybrid to a friend's house so he could use their gym. I guess the Secret Service has now nixed that plan.
Yer right, Coyote! Clinton said it's all about the economy...and he wasn't wrong...but, today, it's all about the lifestyle!!! Turn off yer lights, get outa yer car and then, maybe, you can have a place at the table. And, while yer at it, join a locally-produced food coop. Yer gonna need it.
As Mao said, the worse things get, the better they get.
America has become nothing but a consumer nation, beholding to one and all. Talk about a tiger without teeth! Maybe we ought to join the EU and discover what solidarity is all about. Time for us to realize the "empire" is a mere fiction.
You want "security"? Turn to yer neighbor and plant a garden!
There is no way to peace...Peace IS the way.
BHO's time is probably worth a million a minute. If that helps him get things done, it's a solid payback.
SR, I used to teach elementary school classes about the "Three R's - Reduce, Reuse and Recycle". I always asked every class every time, which of these three were most important. 90% of the time, kids said recycle. The other 10% said reuse. Not once did I have a student tell me that reduce was the most important, which of course it is. This was always a great teaching moment for me as I could use many examples to lead them to realize that REDUCE is actually the most important out of the three. Most of the students I taught were elementary school kids, ages 6-12; I can only hope that they remember this message and that we begin promoting it again! Thanks for your post!
The most significant way of all to reduce is to not breed.
You should come over to my state and check out the way people laugh and sneer at others who are frugal. People spend like there's no tomorrow and up until 2005, if you brought up the ideas of conservation, reusing, recycling, and alternative sources of renewable energy, you were labelled "unpatriotic". In the end, it's all easier said than done.
The only way to address global warming permanently is to reverse population growth and extreme concentration of money-power.
" reverse population growth "
How do you propose to do that in "third world" areas where the upward trends are worst?
This is an important question that was answered long ago in Brazil by an early womens' rights pioneer, who said something like 'play, but do not multiply'; in other words, 'use birth control'. Education about the sources and results of population explosion needs to take place.
Also, we can look to model regions, where reproduction has stabilized before the classic demographic transition phase of rich, over-polluting regions, Here Kerela, India may well lead the way. with declining child per family rates, lowering infant mortality rates combined with increasing literacy and education levels all happening at once, while occurring before enormous wealth of a few leads to environmental destruction. Indeed, Kerela fought against industrial-scale foreign trawling off their coast, a sign of understanding environmental limits, international exploitation and good stewardship.
A key finding in study of leading regions has been that empowerment of women leads to better conditions for children, as well as reduced fertility.
Brian
"This is an important question that was answered long ago in Brazil by an early womens' rights pioneer, who said something like 'play, but do not multiply'; in other words, 'use birth control'. "
I think this only addresses a part of the problem. What about areas where the culture supports the idea that having many chilfren is the key to one's own support in old age?
When I read the comments here, I often feel like I'm listening to the freshman girl in my African-American lit class in college who claimed that you had a to be a purist in your cause to be able to be taken seriously on an issue. Such as, you must be a vegan before you can talk about animal cruelty or the effect of eating meat on the planet. to be a feminist, you must disavow all things having to do with men. To be against sweatshops, you can never shop at another store like Old Navy, Target, etc, etc ever again (economic circumstances of people who didn't live off Daddy's credit card never really occured to her).
For God's sakes, people, nobody is perfect, but if we wait for all of us to be perfectly green, vegan, planet-friendly, environmentally-friendly, indigenous-people-friendly, source of trust fund-friendly, ad nauseum, we're all going to die in global climate change catastrophe (or hit by a bus) before we can actually solve the problem. Al Gore is not a perfect man, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. Can we please get past the messenger and focus on the message, which is we need to get our shit together and stop pointing fingers at what the other guys aren't doing so we can save the fucking planet?! Get over your self-righteous selves already and do something productive!
Your last paragraph deserves a sincere reply. But your question as to why we can't just "get over" our collective phobias, fixations, etc hits the nail on the head. Maybe our egos don't let us get past the messenger. Maybe we all have a bit of a messiah complex and want to be "the one". You're right. If we wait for perfection in everyone, we'll all die.
For sure, Gore isn't "perfect". But he's done a helluva lot more toward advancing awareness than most others.
I believe the attitude you're alluding to..."my way or the hiway"...is one reason that, when the crunch comes, we aren't going to be able to hang together. Hope I'm wrong, but I wonder.
I believe that Al Gore has done much good in bringing awareness to millions, yet he can be a more effective leader, and be taken more seriously on issues like global climate change, energy independence, etc.
if he would divest from his portfolio any stocks of petroleum companies...
He could lead the way, by investing in wind, solar, etc. and making a public display of how he is an environmentally concerned investor, to encourage others to so the same.
I agree that championing single-issue politics (i.e. veganism) is alienating of others who don't share your value system... However, I don't think the myopic opinions of a college freshman regarding feminism or dietary choices is what we are talking about here... I believe human rights and environmental rights and environmental rights are all interconnected and inalienable...
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of someone championing environmental causes, yet is personally profiting from the environmental destruction of the humans, animals, and ecosystems elsewhere due to oil exploration and extraction and production.
Since all of these issues are interconnected, each of us can make choices within our own lifestyle and means that have a positive effect on our own lives, family, community, and environment.... I believe in Voluntary Simplicity... I don't purchase sweatshop products because of the human, animal, and environmental exploitation that is caused by them... and the outsourcing of local jobs to the free-trade zones or prisons around the world... I live in a city, and I gave up my car and now commute to work by bicycle... I grow much of my own food, and support locally owned shops...
I have found that living by example is the only effective way to bring about change in our lives... it cuts through the rhetoric, sidesteps the need to justify one's hypocrisy, and restores autonomy and responsibility to one's own life...
I think it is righteous to live with integrity, but self-righteous to assume that others aren't doing anything about the state of the world just because they are mentioning difficult truths...
Be the change you want to see in the world...
i agree with you wholeheartedly, but try telling that to nearly 7 billion people...
Not all 7 billion people are energy guzzlers. Do your homework sir and quit punishing the entire class for one student's misbehavior.
Nathan: You're correct. Not all 7 or so billion people on earth are NOT energy guzzlers. It (conveniently) escapes the attention of most Americans and their political (and spitirtual) leaders that the USA comprises but 5% of the world's population, yet manages to consume more than 30% of the energy and resources of the planet. I'm sure you've heard that, if all the peoples of the world were to live a lifestyle like Americans, the resources of 5 planet earths would be needed to support them. The empire is dying...maybe it's about time!
END MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL ! http://www.wisecountyissues.com
This is from the 4th paragraph:
"Economists across the spectrum agree that rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive the U.S. economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending billions of dollars on foreign oil. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil."
I find it interesting that Al Gore Jr's investment portfolio still includes a huge share in Occidental Petroleum, the same company that has been displacing the indigenous U'Wa people from their sovereign land in Colombia, bulldozing women and children to their deaths... and when brought to his attention during the 2000 election, refused to divest from Oxy, or even comment on it during his campaign.
He cautions against our consumption of foreign oil, yet his family trust from the days of Al Gore Sr's cozy relationship with Oxy continually profits from the exploration and extraction of foreign oil. Perhaps he wants to implement this carbon tax so we can "share the wealth" of his own carbon footprint...
I suggest he take his own advice and divest from Oxy, and reinvest those millions into our own domestic alt energy economy...
Speaking of waking up does that include Obama too? Given his marriage to coal, bio, and nuclear, you might want to direct you comments to the next decider, Al.
Hopefully President Obama will appoint Al Gore to a high level position in his administration. This one man has done more SO much to raise awareness of this crucial issue that threatens ALL of us and the planet we call home.
Al Gore's leadership is needed!
And no mention by the Goracle of meat eating's role in Climate Change as the Un has reported.
Another wishy washy article.
I agree. He needs to address the meat eating aspects of it. He seems to skirt around that issue always. Unlike what some think, I don't feel one has to preach to the choir, so to speak, to get this point across effectively.
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
--Albert Einstein, American physicist
Al Gore obviously enjoys his meat-based meals and consequently refuses to address the massive impact of livestock production on the environment. It's very disappointing.
Yes, it's very obvious he's far from a vegan. What is more disappointing, as you pointed out, is that he never addresses the impact animal agrobusiness has on global warming, pollution, habitat destruction, et al. I now don't really take him seriously much these days. I'm still waiting.....waiting...and waiting.....
I will never give up meat. Humans must have meat to live. I don't believe meat eating affects the environment. I'm sorry folks, but veganism will never be the norm for humanity.
Click this link to see a 4 minute slide show of who is who in the world of vegetarians, is Clint Eastwood one? Find out.
Click here for Famous Vegetarians Slideshow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UIhtKIxGZI
Except that on every forum where meat-eating is listed as a step towards alleviating climate change, people freak out about being told what to eat. Either way people will yell at him about it, so who cares whether or not he mentioned that point? I don't think it makes the article "wishy-washy".
Good Point.
Not eating meat or less of it is something everyone can do on their own.
I am working on it myself, Addiction to meat, But if Gore or the government told me what to eat, I don't think I would like it and might resent all his other good ideas....
Building a new Energy system is something that takes Government action.
Once that starts to happen and more jobs are created more of the individual things we can do will become easier and self evident. Maybe a Kind of a social movement with synchronicity.
We'll See.
PU-leeeese.
First, American capitalism won't allow for it, period.
Sure, Madison Avenue has co-opted the term "Green" and all that jive, but its only to reposition its clients to appease voters and consumers.
This argument that the US can do something to "reverse climate change" is hilarious. The US is totally inept, and to even think the most evil group of humans to ever occupy the planet (namely Americans) can and will take a hit in their pocketbooks in order to reverse anything --especially when it routinely abuses its own citizens--is absurd.
I agree that the climate is changing, big time. But, the earth will take care of itself and humans will survive just fine--its not going to burst into flames overnight, folks.
Channeling our energy to real problems that can elevate all of humanity (such as feeding everyone and providing healthcare) will be more productive than something so far-fetched as changing a planets atmosphere.
Firstly, Al Gore...you are amazing and I would love for you to have a place in President Obama's administration. I have been saying this to my friends throughout the entire campaign, and I'm sure that I wasn't the only one. Kennedy's boldness in coming forward and saying that Americans would land a man on the moon in ten years is EXACTLY what President Obama needs to do. When George W. Bush's administration threatened to cut NASA funding if they did not return to work on the space shuttle, he was taking away a brilliant opportunity to work towards a solution to the climate problem. Hopefully, under an Obama administration, NASA can return to taking extremely swift action to solving the climate crisis.
And to Moonpie....you are so completely wrong. The world may not burst into flames, but human beings will not be able to survive the rapid change in our habitat. Evolution takes millions of years and we don't have that to adapt to the kind of change. You're naive if you really think that the Earth will take care of itself while human beings are still around. Once humanity is wiped out completely...the Earth will heal itself. However, the more damage we inflict on it the less likely it is that we'll all survive.
Human beings are extremely arrogant and have no real understanding of the power of the universe. We are small nothings in the grand scheme of things and our planet and our lives could be over in an instant. If you truly believe that human beings are THAT powerful, you're going to be surprised at how quickly the population starts shrinking if global warming isn't addressed.
We have harnessed a really small element of control on THIS PLANET ONLY. We control the societies and the systems that exist on this planet, but we have no real power in the universe. If for some reason the sun exploded tomorrow...this would be over. There is nothing that we could do at all. To not respect the powers that we do not have control over is a very sad truth about the real problems of humanity.