CARROLL: Gore's nutty idea
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated July 22, 2008 at 6:09 p.m.
Al Gore
He's a former vice president of the United States, Nobel Prize winner and best-selling author, so the lavish news coverage of Al Gore's latest brainstorm was inevitable. Less understandable is why an idea so irresponsible - in economic terms, in fact, just this side of deranged - attracted so little ridicule.
Gore proposed last week that the United States "commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years."
Not just all new electricity, mind you, which would be challenging enough. But all existing electricity, too.
This would of course require utilities to mothball hundreds of existing power plants as they launched a crash construction program of solar plants, wind farms and transmission lines costing hundreds of billions and perhaps trillions of dollars. (To put this in perspective, T. Boone Pickens, another fellow who's caught the wind-power bug, claims on his Web site, "Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20 percent of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.")
Gore would subject 300 million people to an experiment in which baseload power that is needed 24 hours a day to keep the economy - and our livelihoods - humming is replaced willy nilly by power sources still susceptible to natural disruption (such as lack of wind or lingering cloud cover), that cost more (at least in the case of solar) and are far less plentiful in some regions than others (Colorado is lucky at least in that regard).
He'd inflict monumental utility price hikes on consumers who'd pay for both the shutdown of old plants and construction of the new - with who knows what economic fallout.
With such a short timetable, we'd have to shred this nation's federal system of utility regulation in favor of national directives, presumably from Congress or a muscle-flexing Environmental Protection Agency charged with regulating greenhouse gases. Not since World War II have we seen anything remotely comparable in terms of central planning.
Stanley Lewandowski, the general manager of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, is one of the few utility officials willing to suggest that the prophet of global warming is strutting about like an emperor without his clothes. "Al Gore's statement of obtaining 100 percent of our power from renewables in 10 years has as much a chance of happening as the sun shining 24 hours a day," Lewandowski quipped. "It's nonsense."
Yet revealing. The idea reflects a shocking indifference to the possible fragility of an economy subjected to a force-fed "transformative" (Gore's word) experience. History rarely is kind to such ambitions, with the most catastrophic example occurring 50 years ago in China. That's when Mao Zedong launched his Great Leap Forward - the hare-brained effort to transform that nation into an industrial power within a few years by, among other things, dotting the landscape with backyard furnaces to make steel.
Why would we assume that our economy is immune to the shock of a grand scheme to remake its industrial energy base in a few short years? Politically, of course, our society is far more immune to radical ideas than China's was under its great tyrant. Gore's dream to the contrary, most of our fossil fuel plants aren't going to disappear any time soon.
"Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions," Gore worried during last week's speech.
For bold solutions? No. But for nutty ones: Let's dearly hope so.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
July 22, 2008
1:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Patd265 writes:
Yeah .... right, must be nutty. Let's just do nothing. We are obviously on the right course. We certainly don't need those crazies like Gore or Pickens telling us we need change. This is, after all, the greatest country in the world right? Of course it is. Well ..., if you have never been anywhere else that is. But then most Americans never will so how would they know they live in one of the most backward countries in the world. Here's what I think is scary. Idiots like Caroll who have access to media and can write total crap like this article.
July 22, 2008
1:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
Vincent, is your degree in Economics or Science? Could be useful to know. Second, would love to have read what you wrote, were you alive? not sure, the day after Pres. J. F. Kennedy encouraged a nation just bested by the Soviet Union into space to be the first to put a man on the moon. How much money was spent in adjusted dollars to meet that accomplishment that is still paying off in countless ways ever since the initial investment was made? Huh? How much? The benefits have proven to be so large as to not meet with a valid estimation. Meanwhile, a silly little nation in South America known as Brazil already committed itself to be weaned off foreign oil in 10 years.
Brilliant editorial writers like yourself are the biggest problem in America. You're the same writers that spew forth your dogma about how we need to drill and drill and find more oil and so on at the cost of hundred and hundreds of billions of dollars. Oh, but fine those hundreds of billions pay off how? Once the oil is gone, the oil is gone. If giant western solar and wind farms were constructed for the same billions, they'd still be operating and generating FREE power for 100 years. Moreover, the energy is FREE. Oil to my knowledge has been free in this world only for it's first few years of discovery. Now it's so expensive we are paying more than $130 a barrel for it. Well, as far as I know, the sun isn't going to start charging us anytime soon for trapping the energy it sends us for FREE and using more of it for our benefit. You and your kind are simply ludicrous. How bold you are to step up and lambaste former Vice President Gore for his brilliant suggestions. Unfortunately, you are WRONG. Time for you and your kind to go cry at home and let the rest of the world move on without you. Your silly comments and factually irrelevant notions are all nothing more than lobbying efforts for an industry gone mad. Time for people to take back the control of our destinies. Free energy from the sun and we ought to be collecting every joule of it and storing it for the long run.
I for one am tired of your negativity. You and your cronies are irrelevant.
July 22, 2008
1:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
WakeUp_08 writes:
Carrol::
So you don't think that energy independence, national security, the rebuilding of our infrastructure, the creation of jobs, and the very air we breath and water we drink is worth the investment?
Why don't you go crawl back under that rock your corporate sugar daddy is paying for. The rest of us have a nation to rebuild.
July 22, 2008
1:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
eternalsquire writes:
Check out my blog! http://eternalsquire.livejournal.com/
I am continually amazed by Al Gore's pronouncements. He appears to be the current high priest for Gaeanism, the newest fashion of idol worship.
Gaeanism is the worship of the Earth and all of the things therein and they way they interact with each other as a divinity. Make no mistake, this is idolatry, the placing of ultimate esteem and value in the created rather than in the Creator, albeit on a grander scale. And there's always negative results based on idolatry - all leading to the cheapening of the value of human life.
The Jewish people were the the very first to discover the inherent dignity and right to life of any single human being, as compared to the pagan societies about them wherein the immolation of live infants upon altars of gold and marble were the social norm of the day. That is why the Jewish Sages say: that to destroy a human life is the same as destroying the entire world. And it is through by virtue of that initial achievement of empathy toward humanity that they were the first to choose God.
And that is why we can validly interpret the maxim to say that any one human life, no matter how lowly or insignificant or powerless, has greater value than the Earth and all things upon it.
That is not to say that we should not start worshiping human life. It is to say, however, that we need to recognize that God has poured into every single human being more of Himself than he has all other things which are not human put together.
And it is also not to say that we should completely and recklessly disregard the consequences of what Pope Benedict has recently condemned as is our "insatiable consumption" of our world's bounty on an massive and unsustainable scale. But it is to say that we do need to make some hard decisions: but not to save the Earth for itself. That's idolatry speaking. Instead, the hard decisions need to be made so that we can best preserve the beauty of God's world and allow as many generations and numbers of His children that he sends to to this Earth equal access to its bounty.
It seems to me that Al Gore misses this point. He indulges too much in his own Al-Gore-ithms for creating a better world. He needs to not ask anything of us that will surrender our own unique political rights as people who are part of diverse cultures who have their own answers that are correct for local conditions.
The Eternal Squire
July 22, 2008
2:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbs writes:
My, we have an intelligent group responding here. How about we talk about the issues, rather than calling people names? Rejecting "negativity" doesn't change the facts. Unless you are prepared to kick in a few million dollars of your own to buy some solar generators, maybe it's time for a math lesson here.
First, though, question for all of you who believe this guy is nuts: do you use any fossil fuels? Are your homes totally dependent on renewable resources? Do you drive vehicles that use gasoline? And are you, personally, prepared to pay the cost to stop that within the next 10 years in your own life?
Well folks, pay up or shut up. Show us how it's done. If you can't then how do you expect 300 million others to do it instead?
July 22, 2008
2:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
EldonBraun writes:
You neglected to mention that there is no need to scrap existing power plants, just convert them. They already run on steam, which can be generated by alternative fuels, solar towers or nuclear energy.
Al Gore probably didn't mention the latter because of the bad rep of nuclear power since the Chernobyl disaster. However, France generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear plants (plus another 10 percent with hydroelectric). There has never been an accident at a French nuclear plant. France even exports 18 percent of its electrical production to other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_...
So don't say it can't be done.
July 22, 2008
2:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
bryantp writes:
Amazing. Of course, if we decide to do it and it took 12 years, we'd be....better off than now.
July 22, 2008
2:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
nuclear writes:
How about what we already have in use - nuclear powered reactors? Just build more of them and in bigger models. Blast all wasted fuel into space, aimed at the sun. This is a capability we are currently capable of doing. Nuclear power could also serve as the base-source-power to be conveyed through hydro-fuel-cell electromechanical technology to operate our cars, buses and freight movers. Just fill up with hydrogen fuel and watch pure water come out of the exhaust.
July 22, 2008
2:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
WakeUp_08 writes:
jbs -
we all are going to pay up, even you, with our taxes. That's how the "common wealth" in a democracy is maintained. And unlike the neocons of the world, I'd rather the deeds to our commonwealth stay in the hands of our government, where we the people can vote out the CEO each 4 years if he isn't doing what this country needs.
Our system is far from perfect, if there is one redeeming quality of our current administration, its that it at least stands as a monumental reminder of this fact. But as fallible as it can be, at least it hasn't fallen so far that it's people are no longer able to hit the reset button.
July 22, 2008
2:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
tomsj writes:
>>You and your cronies are irrelevant.
YES! The question is, can we ignore you fast enough to save this planet.
July 22, 2008
2:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Coso writes:
Al Gore gets it. Mr. Carroll doesn't.
We have a choice. Drill for more oil, squeeze oil out of shale, and try to find some of that precious stuff in to oil sands, disregarding the additional CO2 headed to the atmosphere. Burn lots of coal and natural gas. Temporary power with lots of downsides.
Or we can look to the sun, the wind, and other permanent sources of energy that don't produce as much greenhouse gases.
We can choose to let a few 70-year old oil executives rake in a few more billion dollars, or we can give our 20-year olds a future that has fewer climate extremes and rising oceans. We can keep driving our SUVs at 80 mph, or we can find alternative forms of transport that won't change the climate we have grown used to over the past 10,000 years.
Which future do you choose, Mr. Carroll?
July 22, 2008
2:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
WakeUp_08 writes:
nuclear may be a potential solution, but it definitely has it's downsides. I've often wondered myself if disposing of waste by shooting it to the sun was a feasible solution. One thing I do think of is the potential disaster a rocket falling back to earth with tons of radioactive waste could pose for us. Not to mention that creating more radioactive materials in a time when radical factions exist that are hell bent on obtaining such materials to cause harm to us also seems less than prudent.
July 22, 2008
2:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
junkmail7777 writes:
How can you be so uniformed and get media space the way you do. Why does your editor pay you. You are truely a lost cause...an honest to goodness dolt.
Water power, just so you know, trumps wind and solar about 2 to 1 on a power to cost ratio. I'm talking about ocean swell technology for one. Here's there link:
http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com...
and then there's the Huddson river water mills that harvest the river power without so much as a dam. The Misssippie River could power this entire country with off the shelf technology TODAY save for the time it would take to intall the UNDER WATER MILLS that look exactly like wind mills but harness the water power which is more reliable and about 1,000 times as dense as wind power. Power SURROUNDS us, we just need to tap into in, idiot!
Do some research before you write another stupid article.
Junkmail7777
July 22, 2008
2:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
trasmus writes:
Patty265.Have you ever been anywhere else? Here is what I think is scary. You might actually believe your own rhetoric.
StevieWonder. Gore having brilliant suggestions? Probably the same brilliance displayed as awarding him a peace medal for writing about ecology. I still can't find the connection but I'm sure they must be growing really powerful stuff in those Swedish saunas. That is the most factually irrelevant analogy I have ever seen. Maybe if you focus your attention on how we are going to take control of our destinies you might see the small details that any change will wrack on our lives, economy, travel, you name it. Just changing one infrastructure to accommodate any one of the various choices will entail tremendous cost and time. And obstruction. Any idea that any of the monopolistic power structures entrenched in America will give up their power and wealth to further the common man is smoking something even more powerful than those Swedes or Gore.
The eternal squirrel wants to bring another cloud of smoke into the equation. If we could just contact this guy who is sending all these children to our planet maybe we could convince him to send a little oil along with each child or at least have him talk with all these people who object and obstruct the continued evolution of mankind. We have met the enemy and he is us. Lol What in god's name has the Catholic Church done for us lately? ooo ooo ooo ooo Yeh. It almost looked like the pope would actually confirm what he had previously written but rocking the boat made him backtrack. All these powerful people not leading by example.
Something has to give somewhere but everyone is too selfish or greedy. And the beat goes on.
July 22, 2008
2:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbs writes:
Hmm ... I didn't realize socialism was quite that strong, WakeUp and crew. I thought there was a little more common sense than that. I'm still wondering where you think all these trillions of dollars will be coming from. Are you prepared to give up all personal possessions? That's about what it will take. But then again, that's what you're basically proposing anyway; getting all power into the hands of government instead of private individuals.
The alternatives are there. I'm still wondering if any of you geniuses are running any of them. Get off the grid and run on solar/wind power yourself. Then you can talk.
July 22, 2008
2:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
robert_e writes:
Gore talks about bipartisanship all the time. Here's some bipartisanship. Develop alternative energy resources as fast as possible and drill everywhere we have oil as fast as possible, create legislation to encourage the construction of more oil refineries as soon as possible, and if you want to really cut carbon emissions, support starting a crash program to start building nuclear power plants as fast as possible. You and liberals and democrats could have let nuclear power proceed 20 years ago, and almost all of our domestic electricity could now have been nuclear. Where do you think the electrical energy to produce the hydrogen or electricity fueling non-petrol cars is going to come from if it doesn't come from nuclear? Cinderalla's Godmother? Coal? Oil? Solar, wind, thermal and other ideas can't produce that much anytime soon no matter how much money you pour into it and we have trillions invested in machines like trucks, ships, trains, etc that we can't replace overnight. Talk about working together is cheap. Get real and you might have some serious support even if you aren't particularly credible. I don't want to hear fairly tales about renewable energy being the only way to go or something that we can run this country on in 10 years. Do it all, and let us stop sending our money to overseas countries propped up by oil wealth, which they use against us. Spend the money here in the US developing ALL resources here in the US.
July 22, 2008
2:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
trasmus writes:
Shooting nuclear waste into the sun just might equate to putting to much co2 into the atmosphere. Now that is one thing I would hate to find out after the fact. lol
July 22, 2008
2:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
GodBlessAmerica writes:
I, for one, agree with Mr. Carroll. I get so sick of these bleeding-heart, tree-hugging idiots who want to save something for future generations. Not me, I'm too smart for that. Yes, it's true, spread over ten years we could probably afford the trillions of dollars it would cost to revamp our broken energy infrastructure, but think of all the other things we could buy with that money, like another few years of war in Iraq. We absolutely must spend every last penny we have fighting evil, in all its many forms, wherever it exists.
Besides, who knows more about our energy problems than big oil companies? They say they need to open up new off-shore drilling sites, and I applaud that; If there was oil in my head, I'd drill into that pot of black gold right now.
Besides, it doesn't really matter, it's far too late to make any real changes anyway. We should just accept things as they are and hope for the best. Unchecked corporate power made this country great, so let the good times roll!
July 22, 2008
2:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
trasmus writes:
One question I never see addressed. Never. Who is going to convince the billions of Chinese and Indians and the millions of Russians just to mention a few that immediately come to mind. That they need to also help clean up the atmosphere and their polluted countries. Do you think they are planning on cutting motor vehicle emissions? Do you think they will stop burning coal? Do you think they have green centers in their grocery stores? I vote we send old Patty to check it out cause you know they must be soooooo more advanced down this ecology road than we are. Or is everyone planning on buying those carbon set asides like good old boy Gore. When we run out of green here can we sell some green areas of other planets to make up for it? lol
July 22, 2008
3:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Coloman writes:
WOW! If passion were intelligence, we might have something here. Unfortunately, no connection has ever been demonstrated. As a matter of fact, passion more often has tended to crowd out intelligence. And Vince, you've sure triggered a few examples of this.
I'd been wondering how in the world Al Gore ever came so close to being elected president. Now it's becoming clear. There are way more folks out there who buy his snake oil than I'd ever imagined. I had thought they were for him just because they were good Democrats, or maybe they preferred his looks, or something a little more sane.
Na-a-h. I wasn't too bright myself.
Nice work, Vince... seriously. Your point has been proven beautifully. Gore's idea IS nutty, and it's matched by the logic of those who were so quick to support him and slam you.
Don't let it get you down. SOMEBODY has to keep blowing the whistle on these foul ideas.
July 22, 2008
3:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmaza writes:
Wow what a Luddite.
July 22, 2008
3:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
"He's a former vice president of the United States, Nobel Prize winner and best-selling author" That would be Gore. (Pretty nice resume.)
"Stanley Lewandowski, the general manager of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, is one of the few utility officials willing to suggest that the prophet of global warming is strutting about like an emperor without his clothes." (Wonder what awards that guy has won, and why he is "one of the few". What exactly does a manager of a rural electrical association do, anyway?)
Vincent Carroll, the man who's opinion I just read is editor of the editorial pages. (WOW, impressive, the editorial editor. That's a mouthful.)
Hmmmmm....
Tough choice who to listen to.
July 22, 2008
3:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Expat writes:
Thank you Mr. Carrol. All this time I was confused. I thought that the tumor in my head should be treated. See, I have this (according to some 'experts') malignant tumor the size of a baseball growing in my head.
One doctor gave me a bunch of things I should do to start changing my life. He didn't guarantee that they would all be effective, but he offered suggestions. His philosophy was that we should try anything that might help. I asked if any of these 'treatments' would cut into my leisure time.... God knows I don't ant to be inconvenienced...
The other doctor was much more sober. He said I was going to die and that I shouldn't complaining. I definitely shouldn't change my life, in any way. In fact he suggested, since I'm not long for the world I should go out and rape and pillage my neighbors cause, who cares anyway?
Some people say it's nothing to worry about. Or even if there were, that it's too far along to help.
And my kids? Screw those ungrateful bastards. "Future Generations"...lol What a joke!
July 22, 2008
4:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
WilSpeaking writes:
Vincent, at first I thought you and your expert were a couple of dim bulbs, but then I realized that maybe he just got one by you! You see the sun _does_ shine 24 hours a day, just not on you and your limited viewpoint, in other words; the sun does not get “turned off” when it is dark where you are.
So many things others were saying made a great deal of sense. I thought the comparison to the U.S. Space Exploration effort were spot-on as there were similar fears of the negative impact to our economy, we landed men on the moon in less than the planned ten years and the positive pay-off from that continues even though our country now seems to be flagging in that area. The idea of our nation becoming energy independent from oil and the trouble spots that oil is sourced from I find exhilarating. The examples of converting existing power generation plants to alternative energy sources makes good sense as of course does pointing out that any improvement at all is better than what we have now. I just hope it is not “too little, too late”. Someone else pointed out that we need a mixed blend of energy sources and I have to agree as no one source can do it all efficiently and if we depend on only one source we risk a Single Point of Failure that could bring own everything. Kind of like what depending on oil is doing today. I did think that flat-earth guy a little weird though...
Speaking only of my family, we have reduced our energy expenditures more than a third from what they were just a few years ago, we are in the planning stages of adding solar to reduce our electricity bill further and if we could ween ourselves off that gas guzzling car I could tell both the middle east and big oil that they have become irrelevant and to go $#@! themselves. That would be a great day indeed.
By the way, no I am not an Al Gore fan, he did not invent the Internet and I have never voted for him.
July 22, 2008
5:05 a.m.
gratefulweb writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
July 22, 2008
5:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyTheSaint writes:
Yeah, Vincent. That nutty Gore. Just like that nutty Kennedy at the beginning of the '60s talking about putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Look how that turned out.
You've become increasingly boring to read (when I do, which is less frequently than ever now) because you goose-step so fervently to the right-wing manifesto that you never, and I mean NEVER, surprise me with an opinion anymore. Never. Kinda like watching that clown Limbaugh. At least Ann Coulter's so far off her rocker you never know which of her two feet she's gonna cram in her mouth.
But you? Predictable, predictable, predictable. Yawnnnnnnnnn.
And I'm a Republican. Can't imagine how others feel about you.
July 22, 2008
5:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
scoutie22 writes:
Mr. Carroll has a valid perspective. As do many of the contributors on this blog. The real challenge here is the polarity and tone of the debate. One of the reasons I characterize myself as a "recovering" environmentalist is due to this silliness. Al Gore suggesting that we could remove our dependency on fossil fuels within 10 years isn't remotely comparable to Kennedy's drive for the moon. I am all in favor of rallying cries, but they need to recognize reality, scale and respect the intellect of those who question their validity (without resorting to SUV slurs and depictions of Cheney as the devil incarnate). We need to progressively adapt to making more use of renewable energy - it's obvious. I for one would prefer not to have my transportation and heating costs spike every time the wind blows in the Caribbean or the neocons allude to regime change. (I ride my bike when it's practical, turn off my lights, but accept the consumptive reality that my current choices provide) I also dream of a world for my children in which they are not forced to cover themselves from head to toe with SPF 400 and where their opportunity to experience nature isn't limited to raccoons tipping over our garbage cans. To ensure we have some hope at maintaining the quality of life we have worked so hard to create we have to adjust, but we have to do so by uniting and not dividing. The primary disagreement that drove me from years of participation on the boards of environmental groups was terms like "save the planet". The planet, folks, will be just fine. We're the ones that need to be saved. Despite our current dominance, we're one of the most fragile organisms to ever inhabit this rock. And I guess, that's really my point. A little humility people. And a healthy dose of respect for the perspective of others.
July 22, 2008
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
fcatalina writes:
We are going to spend trillions on enrgy in the coming decades anyway. Add in the costs of wars we fight because of our dependence on oil and the cost is astronomical. What is so crazy about investing that money here at home to develop and advance the science of harnessing the energy around us?
Conservatives often point to the size of the investment in pronouncing that it is prohibitive. What they fail to recognize is the potential magnitude of the return on the investment. Creating and developing these new technologies will create jobs like crazy. This could become a new growth sector in the economy where those who have lost the manufacturing jobs of past years can find new work. As we develop technologies that efficiently harness free renewable energy, the world will come to us to purchase these new cost-effective technologies. There is a reason T. Boone Pickens is interested in developing wind technology, and it is not because the initial investment is small. It is because the reward will be enormous, whether you care about globel warming or not.
Focusing on the "ten years" part of Gore's vision misses the point. The point is to start investing heavily in the future now. If it takes thirty years so be it. We're going to spend the money anyway. Let's spend it in a way that we reap rewards and benefits in the future. If we choose to stay on the current path, we will continue shipping our wealth, and our soldiers, overseas for decades to come.
July 22, 2008
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lemmingsfollowidiots writes:
It is obvious that the vile that comes out of the Greenies mouth is an attempt to cover up the HUGE EGO of those without faith. For all you HATERS I truly wonder how sorry your life must be to actually believe YOU have such an ability to impact anything let alone the climate.
Your ignorance is overly apparent in your lack of understanding of the economy and for that matter all the "conservation" ideas you have no clue about. Wind generators must have constant "carbon" source back ups for those days the wind is only found spewing out of your mouth. Solar is the same lest your arrogance can survive without any power, food, water and air on those days no sun is available.
It has always amazed me that you "crazies" are the first to call others names and the last to actually put forth a viable plan. But since you live in never land you have no clue what is really at stake to create an action plan, execute it and ensure that is viable. You'd rather make your ego feel good by spouting off your views without solutions and feel you actually contributed something of value.
The real smart ones are those that cannot see anyone else's point of view. Maybe just maybe a combination of ALL available energy sources is the solution without putting us back into the Stone Age.
I am also so tired of hearing about the big bad oil companies and their greedy people. For you non-educated morons normal people work for these oil companies, normal people's retirement fund is with these oil companies and people like Al Gore have been feed millions from these companies. You all look at everything in such simplistic terms and never realize that EVERYTHING is connected to EVERYTHING. The Ying and Yang of life.
This bible thumbing Republican oil consuming gun toting white man is at the front lines of your so called environmental solutions. Everyday I install, service and sell water conservation products. In my garage I am in the final stages of building my very own hydrogen generator for my car. I for one would like to know WHAT ARE YOU DOING beside talking tough? As usual the self righteous and self-centered think they are the be all end all yet they do nothing, but call other people names. Go crunch an granola bar and turn you tv off 5 minutes earlier tonight so you can feel good about yourself.
Thanks for the GREAT story-keep them coming. Don't let the Lemmings lead you over the cliff.
July 22, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
Thank you scoutie for your tone. That there is no humility or respect for others in Washington is why the approval rating there is nearly zero. 300 million of us, and no statesmen left. Yikes.
Now for the math: The Pickens plan calls for acquisition of a plot of land 10 miles wide by 20 miles long, and installation of 20 1.5 million dollar turbines on each for a total of 4000. After hooking them up for another $3billion, the power is free, as the wind in Texas will surely always blow. The all-in cost was shown to be $12 billion in 10 years to produce power for 1 million homes.
The issues are that there are 300 million of us, and not so many in the windy center. So even if the costs of connection were not unreasonable, and no one in the flyover states minded aboveground transmission towers and lines to the coastal consumers, there are still 299 million of us left. And that would require $3.6 trillion, or $12,000 per home. The government doesn't have that much cash, but they could raise your taxes by $1200 per year for 10 years to get this done. It seems a better choice than the $20,000 for solar.
Tis certainly refreshing for someone to vote for this with his own money.
July 22, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Patd265 - what planet are you from? You claim the US is "one of the most backward countries in the world"? Have aliens inhabited your body?
SteveM - you "are irrelevant." Going to the moon was a reachable goal. 100% reliance on wind and sun power is not.
WakeUp_08 - you obviously buy into the silly notion. Where do we get power in the middle of the night when there's no wind?
And the beat goes on.
Nuclear energy isn't an option because the same people who want 100% sun and wind power don't want nuclear energy.
July 22, 2008
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
ericfla writes:
I look forward to the day that we achieve Al Gore's dream. While he makes pronouncements from his Tennessee hilltop carbon generator we can all sit around in our mud huts, not having to worry about going to work,spending our time in the worship of snaildarters and spottd owls.
July 22, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
bill123 writes:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU NUTS _--
The question I have is why the Democrats always say " it is either or" we either go all for "re-newables" or we stay with oil/gas ? Why does McCain's voice get drowned out and most Republicans when we say "hey - we need to do it all " We need to research and perfect re-newables Wind.. Solar... etc... and whatever new tech. comes along... but in the mean-time we need to drill more and use the energy sources we have in the U.S.A. There is no need to wreck the economy and our standard of living for an experiment. We can and should begin weaning ourselves into the new ensergy sources but keep hydrocarbons coming for the forseable futre... Is that too logical ?
As for Algore - follow the money... he has made MILLIONS (good for him) pimping this green crap - and he will make millions more (what companiy does he work for ? check it out. So to me whatever he says is the same as when Lee Ioccoca was selling us Dodge cars.. T.Boone Pickens - same thing - he is going to make millions as well - he is pimping his huge land holdings in the Texas Panhandle for Wind and Sending the water out of there and into Dallas..
THINK PEOPLE THINK
July 22, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
Nukes are part of the solution but we import 96% of our uranium. Gore owns carbon trading firms and he is more interested in making money on carbon trading. It is just not happening fast enough for him!
The answer is american coal which we have lots of, it's cheap and plentiful. The 31,000+ scientists who signed the the anti hoax petition are correct. Gore's ideas are wacky and will ruin the economy of this country.
July 22, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
ffdwd writes:
Al Gore has severe delusions of grandeur issues. The "father of the internet" has consistently stretched the truth and made up facts to support his theories and rhetoric. George Stephanopoulos wrote in his book "All to Human" about how Clinton and staffers were consistently dealing with Gores overly crazy ideas. They finally started giving him tasks to keep him busy and out of their hair. All Gore supporters should read it given it was written by a democratic insider and shows the real person. I think he would help his own cause if he toned down the inaccuracies and delivered a message without the fireworks.
July 22, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverinfidel writes:
Gore is quite possibly the biggest hypocrite on earth. I will believe in this crisis when those who preach it begin to live like its a crisis. He is no better than a televangelist who gets caught with a bunch of hookers and coke. He's an irrelevant, bloviating fat p.o.s.
To everyone who wants to this kind of sea change, then live it. Talk is cheap. Get off the grid, give up your standard of living and "be the change you want to see in the world" or some other vomit-inducing bumper sticker you all pretend to live by. Those who pretend to be green are simply warmed over collectivists who have found a new way to confiscate your money. The goal is always the same. The cost of energy will force many new realities in the coming decades. Nothing is changing because of goons like Algore.
July 22, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Maryellen writes:
We're going to pay one way or the other...we might as well have something sustainable rather than something that will only get more scarce and costly.
"In 2007, the oil industry recorded revenues of approximately $1.9 trillion, of which 78% was accounted for by the five major integrated oil companies. Profits for the industry totaled over $155 billion,"
(http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organi...)
That was for 2007, when oil was a modest $70-$100 per barrel. What do you think the revenue for 2008 will be? How does this affect the economy?
To dismiss Gore's idea is foolish and political.
July 22, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
sanderbear writes:
Gore has laid out a broad vision. Maybe 10 years is not realistic, but would it have been better for Gore to say that we should gradually (ho hum) transform our nation's energy policy? Should Gore have proposed that over the next 100 years we should make this change? Gore has done an incredible job of turning the nation's attention to this issue. Remember that even 10 years ago, you didn't hear talk about renewable energy, global warming, carbon footprints, etc. He may have his flaws -- and the right-wing machine has invented or exaggerated many others -- but Gore is doing the right thing by looking at the big picture, and hoping that our political leadership and populace gradually move to his way of thinking, as they have on the issue of global warming.
July 22, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
An_Engineer writes:
Mr. Carroll is correct in his assertion that Gore's ideas are "nuts".
Anyone, including the individuals who have posted responses here, who thinks the U.S. can replace all of its electrical generation capacity in 10 years needs to go back to school and try to learn some basic knowledge they missed the first time...
The U.S. electrical generation capacity as it stands right now is the equivalent of 1,000 one gigawatt {that is 1,000 MW} power plants. It would be a major feat, both politically and monetarily, to replace 50 of those 1,000 power plants with solar and wind generation facilities in the next 10 years.
Then, once you have patted yourself on the back over that accomplishment, you could start working on replacing the other 95 percent of our electricity needs.
Whether you choose to believe it or not, when it comes to energy, you can’t get something for nothing. Solar and wind would seem to be “free,” except that the amount of real estate you must cover with windmills and solar collectors to make much of a difference is staggering. They certainly work well in some limited applications, but are nowhere near a large-scale replacement for fossil fuels.
To dismantle the U.S. ability to generate adequate amounts of electricity to power our economy based on an unproven theory is madness. However, if people such as Gore want to live with conditions in the 1700’s or 1800’s, then go ahead and disconnect yourself from the electrical grid and try it out. But leave the rest of us with some sense alone...
July 22, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
a_watcher writes:
That this is an effective editorial is testified to by the early morning brigade of commenters who obviously were directed to it by an outside source.
July 22, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Libertarian writes:
I would no more listen to Al Gore on Global Warming than I would Halliburton on defense. He's a profiteer. Plain and simple.
PatD: Yes, let's do something. Let's throw oil on a fire. Let's poke our own eyes out. Let's make no sense. AS LONG AS WE DO SOMETHING!
Pathetic.
July 22, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
vimbo writes:
My, my, but the DNC/MoveOn.Org's little seminar kooks are out in force this morning. As evidenced by his well-documented personal energy consumption and his de facto position as propagandist-in-chief for the Green Church of It's All America's Fault, Gore's penchant for hypocrisy is boundless. Now that he's stepped off the edge into socialist economic dementia, poor Vince gets pummelled for noticing.
July 22, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Gore is an idiot. He was born an idiot. He will die an idiot.
Idiots voted for him -- both in politics and for the Nobel prize.
If you believe anything that comes out of his mouth YOU are an idiot.
July 22, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Waaaaa! We may have to make the sacrifice folks. I'm no fan of higher taxes and fees to accomplish self sustainability in the US, but the realities are fairly clear. We have got to do something. How many more billions and trillions can we afford to spend on wars protecting oil on foreign soil. I don't think Gore is realistic in his time table unless corporations make some huge financial sacrifices to achieve this, but the American worker cannot afford to do it on their own either. We need the corporations to help because they have the material, technological and financial resources to do it. It will take sacrifice from every sector of the economy. The battle over who is going to pay for what should be over. It is going to take everyones contribution.
July 22, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Easyliving1 writes:
The sun shines 24 hours per day.
The earth travels around the sun whilst the earth is also rotating, therefore it's not always light in any one particular area for 24 hours.
Nevertheless, the sun shine 24 hours per day.
July 22, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
No one is stopping you clowns from moving forward with solar, wind, ocean or any other form of power. Get to it. Get the investment capital and go. T. Boone will be more than happy to make his next fortune helping you.
But here's the part a communist will never understand. Governments don't have any money. The get all there money from the labors of their citizens. Those citizens can only do so much labor. If you take all that labor the economy collapses and you have no country. Well you won't need any energy if that happens.
It is completely irresponsible to risk the future of an entire country with no remedy.
Patd265 you are a hypocrite. How do I know that to be true? If you really believed what you said you would move to a country that is not so "backward". May I suggest Cuba, great healthcare there, or possibly you could go and help Hugo. Hugo give you a hug.
July 22, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Easyliving1 writes:
The sun shines 24 hours per day.
Because the earth travels around the sun whilst rotating, the sun is not always shining on a particular area 24 hours per day.
Nevertheless, the sun shines 24 hours per day.
July 22, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
AmateurAngler writes:
T. Boone Pickens on wind turbines:
"There are no turbines on my ranch, because I think they are ugly."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145851
July 22, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
tomhave writes:
Gore's idea is not so much about the reality of achieving it. It is about expanding our thinking to envision it. When Kennedy talked about getting to the moon. It did not matter so much that we ever actually got there or that it would be done before 1970. Rather it was about thinking in a bolder vision. It was thinking beyond the current state of thinking. If ten years from now we only derived 75% of out power from solar, wind, and geothermal can anybody dispute that would not be a wonderful thing?
We simply need to rid ourselves of the "stinking thinking" that leaves us paying $4 a gallon while our planet becomes less and less livable.
July 22, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
enginerd writes:
Wow! We are in big trouble if the responses to this editorial are indicative of the voting public's understanding of energy issues.
Vincent presented a very rational argument, but most of the responders would rather believe the utter nonsense spewing from Al Gore's mouth. Chicken Little Gore is a demagogue appealing to the ignorant masses. He is a hypocrite calling on others to reduce their carbon footprint, while his ivory tower consumes 10 times as much energy as the average American home.
We should be pursuing all reasonable potential energy technologies and using the most viable. The free market will tend to sort out which are best. The market is not perfect, but it is far, far better than government mandates created by political demagogues who play to the public's emotions rather than rational thought.
And by the way, why is it that so many people captivated by the Obama mantra of "Change" are so terrified of climate change? Change can be for better or worse. If the global climate were in a cooling trend instead of a warming trend, the demagogues would surely be predicting mass starvation. Have you ever considered that the benefits of global warming could outweigh the costs? Think in terms of longer growing seasons and increased plant growth. Ice ages have come and gone many times (without any help from man), and yet somehow life goes on.
July 22, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Truth writes:
Forget wind and solar, it cannot yield the production volume we need. Fusion is the future. Look into the work pioneered by Dr. Robert Bussard and his Polywell reactor. Dr. Robert Bussard was a former assistant director of the Atomic Energy Commission and has vast credentials in fusion research.
His funding was cut by the Navy ostensibly for the War on Terror, but his groups claim is that with 200 million dollars (That's right, million with an 'M': A drop in the bucket in the national budget), his group can have a working and scalable net power fusion reactor in 4-6 years. Compare that to the DOE's ITER where for the past 50 years they have claimed it will take 50 billion dollars and 20 years to get a working fusion reactor.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
July 22, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Obama! will make the sun shine 24/7. All you people who don't believe in Al the Prophet are just haters.
July 22, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
60s4ever writes:
Some companies are going virtual. Employees that do not have to be at the office, can work from home. We've got the technology to do this now. This would reduce gasoline consumption, traffic and pollution which would help those that have to commute. We have to get more companies to do this in order to have a major impact. The companies that let employees work from home report that employees are not only more productive, but they're healthier and happier. The biggest obstacle is changing the managers that like to micromanage their employees.
July 22, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
It sounds cheaper than the Iraq War lasting 100 years to me. Maybe both sides should thing about finding middle ground.
July 22, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
trueblue55 writes:
Maryellen,
What problem do you have with an 8% profit margin? Sounds reasonable to me. Consider what is really happening before jumping on the hype bandwagon.
July 22, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
texan1953 writes:
Mr. Gore has snapped. He actually believes the myth and those who follow him will reap the benefits of his insanity. I pity him and his followers. He will be exposed.
July 22, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
Al Gore's entire fantasy is based on the Global Warming Catastrophe, which is a FRAUD. Here's a very scientific article which came out this month:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslett...
Simply amazing that this has had virtually NO COVERAGE isn't it?
I'm looking out my window and something strange is going on. The sky is not red, orange, brown, or green. It's blue, and seems to be the same blue as it was when I was a child several decades ago.
And, am I going to be the first one to point out that millions of gigantic windmills everywhere have more chance of upsetting the natural balance than any 0.1 degree temperature change over 100 years? Does no one else realize that many species of plants and animals use and depend on the wind? If the ultimate goal was reached reached and ALL the wind was harnessed, would there not be a degree of stagnation? Is that really the "harmonious balance" with nature that we are looking for? And aside from that I actually LIKE a little wind once in a while. But of course, I'm an Idiot, and in reality ANY cost is well worth chasing a fantasy of reducing the global temperature by 0.1 degrees.
Does anyone else realize that that oil IS solar energy deposited and stored in the earth millions of years ago? Just waiting for someone to come along smart enough to be able to use it?
Last week the oil market took a dip. Some speculated it was due to the possibility that we might actually DRILL AND USE some of the massive oil deposits in this country. Maybe that's what's happened with the global temperature in the last 7 years. After Gore's ridiculous movie and his massive army of lemmings, maybe the earth thought twice and decided to cool itself?
A wise man can change his mind, A fool never does.
July 22, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
wdr writes:
Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, Tennessee Valley Authority... any of this ring a bell? All of these "centralized" solutions accomplished wildly ambitious projects in less than a decade.
And has anyone thought to mention that Gore may have presented an outrageous notion intending to shock people -- and that the ten year or 100% goals are up for debate? (Looking back, I see that one or two have made the point as well.)
By the way, it seems to me that the Republican/conservative element on this (and other) threads are just as vitriolic and vile as their leftist counterparts. Whenever I see a reasoned debate devolve into name-calling, I shrug and tell myself to consider the source. Go ahead... pander to the lowest common denominator. That will help.
July 22, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
wdr writes:
Also... stop watching Fox News. It is not a source of factual information. Ever.
July 22, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
reismc1 writes:
First of all, the AGW hoax is being exposed more and more every day. The Society Of Physicists, who first supported AGW, have now reversed course 180 degrees. Along with another 30,000 scientists, and, many not so easily fooled intelligent people now see through this complete hoax.
Second, Carter and Arafat also won an award. The award has become a joke, Gore as a case in point.
Finally, consevation, and being more environmentally consious, are good things. Getting "off" of oil in ten years is ludicrous. Use what we have now, as cleanly as possible, and build alternative sources as we go. But stop tis "the sky is falling" nonsense. It only serves to widden the gap between people and ideas, and does not lead to solutions.
And, to the poster requesting "degrees" I earned a degree in economics and biology.
July 22, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
You know, at $3 trillion (the high-side long term estimated cost of Gore's proposal) the cost per living American comes out to be about $10,000. That's not that much money, is it?
I think the American worker can afford to finance the plan as long as we all equally contribute to it. That's only $1000 per person per year. If we equally distribute the cost to every American, the cost is quite small.
July 22, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Gore is an idiot. He was born an idiot. He will die an idiot.
Idiots voted for him -- both in politics and for the Nobel prize.
If you believe anything that comes out of his mouth YOU are an idiot"====p-denver
"Al Gore's entire fantasy is based on the Global Warming Catastrophe, which is a FRAUD."---Denier #302
"Chicken Little Gore is a demagogue appealing to the ignorant masses"---uneducanerd
"He indulges too much in his own Al-Gore-ithms for creating a better world."===sqirrelly
"I would no more listen to Al Gore on Global Warming than I would Halliburton on defense. He's a profiteer. Plain and simple."---librarian
again people. it's not AL GORE.
it is nearly every single, field appropriate, peer-reviewed scientist on the PLANET.
there is no conspiracy. take off your tinfoil hats.
not everyone agrees on what should/could be done...but let's not shun the science on yet another issue.
July 22, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
wdr:
Oh, really? And what, in your illustrious, informed, superior opinion, IS a "factual" source of news that you would deign to align yourself with?
July 22, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
What's your alternative to Fox News for a source of factual information, wdr?
July 22, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
reismc1 writes:
Let's keep it scientific then: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let's see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than "normal" (whatever that is)
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)
7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather "sublimation"
8) The Antarctic is not "melting", it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below "normal" (again, whatever that is)
10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below "normal" temperatures
11) Al Gores film was just deemed "propaganda" in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just reveled that some of the footage in Al’s film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” (ABC)
13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
14) Storms have become less frequent and less severe (many GW alarmists are now backtracking these earlier "theories")
15) Droughts have always happened and always will
16) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured
17) Several publications, including those that are “warmist” have recently written that the “natural” cycles of the earth may “mask” AGW. Give me a break.
18) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!
With China (1 new coal fired plant coming on line each week) and India spewing millions of tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere, along with the rest of the world increasing their CO2 “production” over the last ten years, these results should be impossible.
Now, please be so kind to give me one piece of observable evidence that man is causing "global warming".
July 22, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
jay
IT IS Al Gore
None of those other scientists came out and said it was possible for the USA to COMPLETELY REVAMP our electrical generation AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM in 10 years! Just HIM!!!
He's an idiot!
July 22, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
tarhill writes:
Gore is in bed with the oil companies and owns many oil stocks. Why else would he go running his mouth once the oil priced dropped $10 a barrel last week? The guy is not a true environmentalist rather a greedy scrub wanting more money. He doesn't care about the little guy making 40K per year trying to make ends meat and neither do most of you. The reality is we need a comprehensive approach ala Brazil to get off of foreign sources of power and become self reliant via a long term strategy. That includes all forms of local energy sources, oil, gas, coal, solar, wind, and hydrogen. Its disgusting that we only have 20% nuclear power in the country. This is what you get when you have BS enviro guys like Gore leading the argument.
July 22, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
SoCalAL writes:
Being a conservative, I like to follow the conservative model, which is conservation of resources. That includes finances and well as energy. However, it must also follow BASIC economics. We have solar panels at our residence. We generate about 60% of our own power and the rest comes from the grid. The payback for such an investment is about 12 years. Not that attractive, but surely a solid long term investment.
A radical change such as Gore suggests would probably not be achieved, but some of the thought [I must admit I have a hard time agreeing with Gore] is appropriate, which is get off of foreign supplied energy. We need to build clean nuclear power facilities as soon as possible. I've read the report that replacing old fule oil power plants with nuc's would reduce our dependency by 30% alone! That's not rocket science, but basic common sense. What has happened to American common sense? I think solar has limits as does wind due to previously mention limits. Finally, we need to drill for natural gas and oil, off shore, out of site. Period. Our country can over come this current problem, but we need to set aside the extremism that has tied us up in knots. It's time to move forward and become as energy independent as possible. Just think how good it will feel to tell Chavez, the Arabs, and other two bit dictators to take a hike
July 22, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
atta boy WDR,
Attack the messenger not the message. Where have I heard that before?
Beyond that I disagree, the largest part of the vitriol comes from the left. But here is the real difference. The left wants to take wealth away from people to use as they see fit. Where as the right wants each person to use his own money as he sees fit. Knowing that if each of us maximizes himself individually we will all be lifted even higher, that is after-all how we became the greatest nation on earth. So the vitriol from the right is a protest against the theft of individual treasure for the use of the elitist left without input from the previous owner of that treasure.
If the left believes the message from Mr Gore then let them lend their wealth to him and they may do as they wish. I protest, However, any attempt by the left to appropriate my treasure for use in an effort with which I disagree
July 22, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"None of those other scientists came out and said it was possible for the USA to COMPLETELY REVAMP our electrical generation AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM in 10 years!"---p-denver
like i said...not everyone agrees about what we should do. what is counterproductive, however, is to imply that it is al gore, and not the scientists who have found that climate change is real and agree we need to do what we can curb the contributing factors without nuking the economy.
July 22, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
bmack500 writes:
Of course we can! We can uselessly kill lots of people overseas, worst of all our own soldiers - but we can't do something to free ourselves from the Toxic Tyranny of Oil?
Get an imagination, people. We WILL reap the benefits of such a program for many, many decades. And remember, he's talking about the electrical infrastructure, not the oil infrastructure.
July 22, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The left wants to take wealth away from people to use as they see fit. Where as the right wants each person to use his own money as he sees fit."
lol...this kind of rhetoric is just laughably ignorant considering that the republicans actively shifted a portion of the tax burden FROM the upper class TO the middle class.
"So the vitriol from the right is a protest against the theft of individual treasure for the use of the elitist left without input from the previous owner of that treasure."
and thus the hypocrisy.
"I protest, However, any attempt by the left to appropriate my treasure for use in an effort with which I disagree"
well...that's a nice sentiment...maybe you should tell that to the 7 out of 10 americans who oppose the blood and treasure we've spent needlessly in iraq.
July 22, 2008
10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
boston9876 writes:
I use to be a fan of VP Gore. Up until the past year or so I even loved how he called attention to pollution issues even though he used something scientifically unsure like global warming to get his point across. Now, he just makes stuff up our of thin air without anyone challenging him. Telling us to do this plan in 10 years is just the latest stupid statement. He told us a few months ago that the hurricane in Burma was caused by warmer ocean temperatures...FACT: the ocean at the time was colder than average. He tells us more fires in the west are caused by Global Warming. FACT: there are no more fires, just more people building in fire zones. he tells us there are more hurricanes because of global warming FACT: there are no more hurricanes now than there has been in the past. The criteria for naming storms has changed to make naming storms easier and we have satellites so we see storms we could never see. He tells us the planet is warming. FACT: no record hi temperature for any continent on the plantet has been broken since 1974 and most records were set decades earlier. He tells us CO2 is the cause of the current warming. FACT: Co2 levels continue to rise but global temperatues peaked in 1998 and have been cooling since. It great to be an environmentalist, conserve and get us off foreign oil, especially that of our enemies in the middle east...but stop worshiping gore and get your FACTS straight. He is a nut case.
July 22, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
bookwerm writes:
Trust me, Pickens is no "Greenie".. He is just a realist. We are bleeding money out to the Oil Nations/Companies, and renewable energy developed IN the US keeps that money in the US economy. Spending 2 or 3 times MORE for DOMESTIC energy is actually BETTER economically than "cheap" energy sending money abroad. Really.
Secondly, Nuclear IS a viable option.. but we need to rethink it.. Vitrefying waste (making it into glass) prevents it from every leaking out of a barrel.. sure it is more expensive but it is PERMANENTLY safer. Combine that with Pebble Bed reactors, which are MELT DOWN PROOF, we have an option. We judge nuclear power today based on 1950s tech.. we need a massive upgrade from that. WE DO have a shortage of "yellowcake".. there needs to be MUCH more Uranium mining, AND a conversion of systems so that at least SOME reactors are breeder reactors, making more fuel.. instead of the STUPID single pass system we have now.. the US government was worried about proliferation of nuclear material and came up with a bone headed way to eliminate that, but it uses HUGELY more Uranium.. we can't afford that luxury of inefficiency. So, vitrefy the waste, use melt down proof pebble bed or similar, use breeder reactors, and bing bang boom, we have a solid system.
IN terms of massive investment in wind, solar, and geothermal, YES it makes sense economically.. not in 10 years mind you, but in our life times, and it MUST happen. Oil IS a dead end.. like getting on a slowing bus, you don't go anywhere.. it is coming to a stop.. DISREGARDING global warming and the like, it is a diminishing resource, WILL run out, is NOT economically feasible long term, and arguing otherwise only makes you look stupid. Look up the numbers, do a search on "peak oil", and you will see CONSERVATIVES say the same thing..
Our government needs to be wise, enable directions that are sensible via tax breaks and funding, disable directions (oil etc.) that are long term dead ends.. and short term economic vampires.
July 22, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
Jay, please show your numbers or sources for statements like "... the republicans actively shifted a portion of the tax burden FROM the upper class TO the middle class". What do you mean?
And GetaReal was not referring to "7 out of 10" Americans in his protest, he was talking about what he agrees with. Your point about the war effort is meaningless within the context of GetaReal's position, perhaps he agrees with the war.
July 22, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
DavidE writes:
The project is not similar to landing on the moon. It is trying to land on Jupiter before trying to land on the moon. The problem with Gore's plan is that by trying to take steps to cut emissions by 90%, you may not only fail to reach the 90%, you may fail to take the necessary steps that would cut emissions by 40%.
July 22, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
ropati writes:
Can any of you list one accomplishment of Mr. Gore? He got a Nobel prize for what? The global warming is coming from his mouth.
July 22, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
ENS writes:
Psst! reismc1
Did you notice no one responded to your responsible and well-reasoned list of facts? Facts are not what the little kiddies and old hippie coots want to discuss.
I appreciated them. Many thanks.
July 22, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
reismc1 writes:
Thanks ENS. I need to add that the Society of Physicists has just reversed course as well. They are now "against" AGW. As you can see the list continues to grow as more facts shoot holes in the AGW hoax.
July 22, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Another example of how Al Gore is completely out of touch with reality. Anyone still saying he should've been President? I think he talks because he's in love with listening to himself talk.
July 22, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
bootslack writes:
I am honestly terrified at how few people on either side of this argument made any reference at all to any of the widely available statistics on energy consumption and cost. Most of the arguments here are stupid and banal -- and they don't have to be. This is a serious issue -- and Bush clearly has his head in the sand, but Gore's suggestion is, frankly, insane.
I don't care if you are liberal or conservative (I'm an Obama supporter, if it matters to you.) you can't afford to be this ignorant of the economics and science of energy. It is not enough to vote, you also have to be able to read and add.
If you think Iraq was expensive...
July 22, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal