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.

Text size

Al Gore

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

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

9:50 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

jay 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?"---fantasyisland

i had no clue that there were still people out there who didn't know this.

always glad to help start the conversion.

here's some info from the conservative brookings institution:

"The tax cuts enacted during George W. Bush's presidency shift the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."

"these tax cuts would continue beyond their official expiration dates. If they are extended, they would reduce revenue by $3.6 trillion between 2001 and 2014 and cost a whopping $4.8 trillion when the additional debt service is included"

"Without a doubt, and despite White House rhetoric to the contrary, the direct effect of the tax cuts is to widen after-tax income inequality."

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/200...

you might also see the Congressional Budget Office study done on republican tax cuts that confirmed that these cuts shifted a portion of the tax burden from the upper to the middle class.

not exactly breaking news here...like i said...i can't believe we still have folks out there who don't know this stuff and are still presumably voting (yikes). while you're at it...why don't you do some research and familiarize yourself with mcsame's tax plan...which is even more expensive and shifts yet MORE tax burden to the middle class.

"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."

actually the point stands. getrealtruthy says he doesn't want his money spent on stuff he doesn't agree with....fair enough...and please tell that to the 7 out of 10 americans that don't want their money spent on the needless war in iraq.

ENS...we don't have to...as nearly every single field appropriate, peer-reviewed scientist on the planet is on one side...and you and resin and your ilk are on the other.

pardon me...but i think i'll go with the scientific consensus on this one.

and before you start with the myths...there IS a global scientific consensus on this issue among field appropriate, peer-reviewed scientists.
July 22, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

jay

I also agree we need to "do something" about energy. I hate being dependent on foreign oil. There are lots of viable alternatives, many of them discussed on this thread.

But I am a slow-and-steady-wins-the-race kind of guy. I'm not a fan of "let's scrap everything that works and change it in a hurry 'cause I said so". ESPECIALLY if it's Idiot Al Gore.

We need to change our source of energy. We should do it sooner rather than later. But we should not put ourselves in economic jeopardy doing so.
July 22, 2008

11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

ready123 writes:

Wind power is a scam!

Wind tubines do not run on wind. They run on subsidies. There is not one windmill in the entire world that runs in the black. They are all a net drain on the economy.

For example, with more wind power per capita than any other country why does Denmark still operate all of its conventional coal-fired power plants? Wildly fluctuating wind power! On data from a single year (2002), wind power produced less than 1 per cent of the country’s electricity supply on 54 different days. Not a single conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants have had to be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity and to provide backup. It is not practical to turn coal-fired plants off and on as winds rise and fall - because ramping them up consumes more fuel (and emits more carbon dioxide) than running them at a constant rate.

Store in the energy in batteries? Sorry but no. Without an energy storage battery the size of Mount Everest, most wind-powered electricity will be wasted and will almost certainly increase carbon emissions.

When your power plant operates at only 20 per cent capacity (or less), you have to build four or five times as many plants as you need. For reliable backup, you still need either coal, gas or nuclear power – all of which are cheaper than wind. The conclusion seems self-evident. Tell Pickens and Gore that they are either ignorant or liars.
July 22, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

frazierdog writes:

If global warming, or the new catch phrase "Climate crisis", was actually caused by man made carbon emissions, it would be such a shame to have such a deceptive huckster as al gore as the spokesman. The man is an elitist, and a liar. You true believers better wake up and get rid of this guy, or your credibility will go to the same place that al gore's has.
July 22, 2008

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

LuvAmerica writes:

The power distribution grid in this country is an antiquated mess, and alternative energy sources or not, it's STILL going to need billions of dollars pumped into it.

Don't act like conventional energy sources are free of this expense.
July 22, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

LuvAmerica

You are correct, and the antiquated distribution system is a cost element that has been sparsely addressed by this thread (and totally ignored by Idiot Al Gore).

The distrubution system was initially designed as a REGIONAL structure, to deliver electricity to a few close by cities and few thousand square miles of countryside. Later, the smaller systems were linked by their owners (the power generators) as "emergency backup" sources, just in case.

Much later, the giant utilities patched them together into what is laughingly known as a national power grid. It's a joke, folks. Electricity from California can't effectively get to New York. It's still a super-regional grid. And, as the northeastern US found out, even small outages can still bring it down.

So, don't forget to add in another trillion or so in updating the power distribution system.
July 22, 2008

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I'm not a fan of "let's scrap everything that works and change it in a hurry 'cause I said so"."---p-denver

and no one is...even al gore...
July 22, 2008

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

How's the new family coming?
July 22, 2008

12:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

DAS08 writes:

Jay

Let's not be naive about the Brookings - it severly undermines your creditability. Supportive of Bush on some topics is not the same as conservative.

"Media descriptions of Brookings range from liberal to centrist;^ however, despite its left-of-center reputation, some U.S. pundits have criticized the work of Brookings' foreign policy scholars for being too supportive of Bush administration positions.[5][6]"

To the topic at hand, I would ask those from both sides of the argument to compare this to the ethanol discussion. By all accounts ethanol is more expensive than traditional gasoline, especially when you consider the government subsidy, but does reduce dependence on foriegn oil (albeit very small at this point) and is a cleaner alternative. In reading over past threads on this topic, I've found that many conservatives to not like this program because it is government subsidized inefficiency, and liberals do not like this program because of the businesses running the programs getting large subsidies from perceived republican friends. How will these programs for wind, solar, clean energy etc... be different?

Secondly, how much greater of a trade gap will we have due to the increased operating expense taken on by our companies? By that I mean how many jobs have gone overseas because of the difference in labor costs, and how much greater will that be if we operate a significantly more expensive energy program? We can only legislate ourselves into economic isolation so far before the global economy discards us.

Before the "so do nothing..." sarcasm starts (just because someone doesn't agree with your solution, don't give up on acting intellectually) face the simple truth that alternative energy will be viable once it is economically prudent. Protecting foreign interests does come at a cost, but not one that is currently being outdone by the benefits of alternative exploration (read it is not economically feasible). The government can help in the way they do medical research - help fund and create incentive for the research. That's not an endorsement of the McCain plan which I think is counter productive, but let's not subsidize a long-term plan that doesn't provide a long-term solution.
July 22, 2008

12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

zephyr writes:

A Bad Idea has a lot in common with a misplayed note on a musical instrument. Neither one of of them will be corrected or inproved by Age, Repitition or Increased Volume.
1. Age will only improve whiskey, beer, wine, bread, cheese and concrete.
2. Repitition becomes boring and causes captives to lose focus.
3. Increased Volume is no substitute for Sound Reasoning or Proper Musicianship,
The pitch will still be wrong.
The Idea will still be Bad.
July 22, 2008

12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

Well, if you weren't such a miserable puke who cannot refrain from name calling (I know, I've just done the same, but not un-provoked), I might question, again, how the immediate burden "shifted" to the middle class without their actual taxes (total dollars taxed) increasing.

Now if we're talking about possible long term effects of the tax cuts, I would agree that if the federal government does not reduce spending then we'll have a problem. Of course, we should never expect the government to reduce spending, so we can place blame for all government financial woes on a tax cut. Convenient cop-out.
July 22, 2008

12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

zephyr writes:

A Bad Idea has a lot in common with a misplayed note on a musical instrument. Neither one of them will be corrected or inproved by Age, Repitition or Increased Volume.
1. Age will only improve whiskey, beer, wine, bread, cheese and concrete.
2. Repitition becomes boring and causes captives to lose focus.
3. Increased Volume is no substitute for Sound Reasoning or Proper Musicianship,
The pitch will still be wrong.
The Idea will still be Bad.
July 22, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

Personally, I think we should embrace this stupidity. We need to inflict absolute misery on ourselves; perhaps then we can welcome reality.
July 22, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

reismc1 writes:

Jay,

You might want to actually check the facts instead of conjecture. Here is the start of a recent article in the WSJ, using actual facts. "Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history."

The "rich, after the "tax cuts for the rich" actually are paying a larger portion of the total taxes paid. There actually was a shift FROM the middle class to the "rich".

And, to answer your next "question"..."Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive."

Also, there is absolutely NO consensus, none. 1) Dr David Evans, who was one of the first scientists to run with CO2 causes GW has since found new data, in 2005, that shows that the warming comes first and CO2 trail by about 800 to 2000 years. 31,000 scientists have signed a petetion against AGW and the Society of Pysiscists has now reversed course as well. So I'm sure that the Society of Physicists, an original climatologist, and 31,000 other scientists don't count.

You are free to worship at whatever alter you choose, but AGW is a hoax, predicated on the global redistribution of wealth, and a bunch of "scientists" trying to keep their grant money coming.
July 22, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

again kids, you can pout about it...but republican fiscal policies shifted a portion of the tax burden from the upper to the middle class. that is an undeniable fact.

vote accordingly.

secondly...we've debunked the right wing myths you keep spouting about gw...let's not rehash the same ground okay?
July 22, 2008

12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

P_Denver: "We need to change our source of energy. We should do it sooner rather than later. But we should not put ourselves in economic jeopardy doing so."

It should be obvious by now that because we've tied ourselves too tightly to fossil fuel-based energy, we're already in economic jeopardy. That is one of the main factors driving the alternative energy movement.

I don't know if Gore's admittedly huge challenge is actually doable in ten years, but at least he's not recommending we keep feeding this same expensive system we're mired in now. And there's an awful lot going on in the commercial alternative energy sector. One good source for info, latest industry and company news, etc. is www.greentechmedia.com
July 22, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

reismc1 writes:

So Jay, actual facts do not matter to you. The tax data is from 2006, the rich paid more, the middle class paid less.

You've debunked nothing. Every day the AGW is being exposed.

Worship as you see fit.
July 22, 2008

12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

now that's funny ... the six year old, name calling, jay, calls other posters kids ... that's worth it's weight in carbon credits.
July 22, 2008

1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

marine2722 writes:

I have just started reading comments to articles published on the Internet and have infrequently posted a comment. However this is one that I find interesting concerning Mr. Gore's proposal to become energy independent in one decade. Several posters made comment that wind and solar power are free, yes they are however getting the end product electricity to the consumer is not. I also am amazed that so many posters exhibit a IQ at least their shoe or hat size. Name calling, slurs, never are appropriate regardless how you feel, frustration is a wonderful trait it makes one either do the right thing or show their lack of intelligence and vocabulary.
July 22, 2008

1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

If you want bold thinking how about:

1. Perpetual motion machines. They produce more power than they consume. You need a light bulb that produces solar energy and a solar cell that captures it. This would work equally well with hydropower. Pump water up hill and run it thru a hydro turbine. Free energy forever.

2. Suspend gravity. Rather than waste fuel lifting a 400-ton jet to 25,000 feet, you allow it to float up by switching off gravity. Then you use the engine power to go forward. This also works with tractor-trailers. They float up to the Eisenhower tunnel and then roll down hill. You shut off gravity when you go up and turn it on to get back down.

3. Eliminate friction and wind resistance. MPG will skyrocket.

4. Control climate more locally and more carefully. I'd like the climate around my house to be about 62 at night and about 70 during the day. Ski resorts should be very cold and snowy at night but bright and sunny during the day. Farmers should get just enough rain at night and long sunny days. The crops should grow bigger with less water and no fertilizer or pesticides.

The Republicans and big oil have been suppressing these technologies for too long. When the Democrats are in charge they can legislate away, fiction, gravity and the laws of physics & economics. We need big thinkers and bold plans. This is the type of Hope and Change I crave. This is all possible with the Messiah Obama and the Profit Gore.
July 22, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

PookyBear writes:

Dividing T. Boone Pickens' $1 trillion by current population 300 million gives us about an extra $3,300 in taxes per year per person. Since I have six people in my family, that would be $19,800 above what we already pay--$198,000 over 10 years. I don't think there are enough rich people in the U.S. to soak for this fool's errand. Productivity and investment would tank. It would be a second great depression.
July 22, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

mytwosense

Which part of "We need to change our source of energy" was unclear?

I agree -- we need to get off fossil fuel. It is a finite resource. But we are not courting economic disaster with a lousy $4.00 a gallon charge for gas. We would be if Idiot Al Gore has any influence with his idiot plan.

People talk about getting away from gas for cars. Fine. The generally-accepted alternative is an electric car. Guess what? We'll have to charge those batteries -- most likely, via the electric grid. More generation requirements; more maintenance on the distribution grid.

Even if we came up with an all-electric, solar-recharged car TOMORROW, how many of you would be able (financially) to instantly trade in your old gas-guzzler and plunk down $30K (or more) for a new vehicle? Percentage-wise, not too many.

I want a fuel cell vehicle. Heck, I want a fuel-cell-powered HOME! Fuel cells would be smaller than a solar array, and work all day and all night.

Anyone have one for sale?
July 22, 2008

1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

p_denver, yes, I caught what you said about changing our source of energy, however, I was addressing your concerns that a switch would put us in economic jeopardy. Although you may not be feeling the crunch from $4 gallon gas right now, millions of other Americans are.

And you neglect to mention other ways to reduce our auto gas usage. I've said on several threads that if gas prices keep up, business will eventually adopt telecommuting on a mass level. For workers who can't work offsite, one solution is for businesses to pay them transportation allowances (and I'd certainly support additional tax breaks for businesses who do this).

I personally think the above initiative is a far more effective and doable solution during the interim we can expect between folks driving what they do now and switching to electric and hybrid vehicles.

I also think telecommuting is an attractive alternative to solely relying on mass transportation. It may not be very "Green" of me to admit the following statement, but I rather empathized with a poster on another thread who said "I don't want to take the bus. I went to college so I wouldn't have to take the bus!"

At any rate, alternative energies will play a huge role in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, but behavioral changes on the part of the public and the business sector will too. I feel this gets little attention in the current national dialog about our energy crisis and what to do about it. I also believe more businesses would be ready to adopt telecommuting if they saw the subject get increasing national attention in the media.
July 22, 2008

2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

ready123: It seems that nuclear and wind would be a better pairing because a nuclear reaction can be easily increased or decreased at will to compensate for the variable power output generated by wind.

If what you say is true (I wish you had cited a source) then yes it would be a waste to leave all the coal plants running at full capacity all the time. I don't think you're completely right but I bet they do leave the fires going at the coal plants all the time -- I just think they can increase or decrease this power to some extent with more or less fuel. There would be a delay of course, but probably a reasonable one (hours rather than days). I'm sure they can't turn them all the way off for the reason you stated, it would take too long for them to get back up again (that would be on the order of days).
July 22, 2008

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

AmateurAngler writes:

"wdr writes:

Also... stop watching Fox News. It is not a source of factual information. Ever."

As one without a dog in this particular hunt (I get ZERO news from television), wdr and anyone who agrees with him/her should read this from the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University: http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21...

Note the subheading: "FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)
July 22, 2008

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Easyliving, not only does the sun shine somewhere 24 hours a day, but the waves hit the shore, and the rivers run on the same time schedule.

We could spend money on the electric grid, but we seem to have decided war is a better expenditure.

One little judge in Britain doesn`t like the Gore movie, not the entire English court system.

If someone posts a list, no matter how nonsensical, do we have to pick apart each item?

When a political column starts with (fill in the blank)`s ideas are nutty, or so and so is nuts, well that tells us right there that we are in for a reasoned discourse.
July 22, 2008

3 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

I, at first, thought you were suggesting that the scientists working on some of these items need "think-out-of -the-box, but came to find that you are making it a dem/rep issue.

I think someone needs to put you in a box. Better hope that doesn't happen in a third world country or you'll end up out on your ear & they'll have a new home!

After reading through the posts I'm pretty convinced that about 2% have a clue as far as what can be done to meet our energy needs. And al gore has the least clue of all but he sure is fueling the propaganda machine. To what end I can't figure out unless he just likes to look and sound really, really, really, stupid. Congrats Al, you accomplished your goal...
July 22, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

mytwosense

Run for office. I'd vote for you on the basis of telecommuting alone.

(Just kidding, folks -- before I get hammered by "one-issue" hate mail).

I like the idea of telecommuting for the small percentage of the population that could effectively do it. It's hard to make it work for a factory, or a barber shop, or countless other workplaces. But those that could use it would make an impact.

I don't dismiss the $4.00 gas crunch. I don't like paying it any more than you do. But most people are coping.

I, too, think the trillions being spent on the war are dumb, and wasted. Let's hope it ends soon. I would much rather invest the money in the US infrastructure.

..... still no fuel cells for sale?
July 22, 2008

3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

woodwose writes:

While there is a place for renewable energy electric generating plants in the mix of our electrical grid, it's got to be approached rationally. Large solar thermal stations for instance generate most of their electricity during the heat of the day and can be used to meet peak demand, especially in the summer. But neither solar nor wind will ever be robust or reliable enough to handle the baseline load. The only renewable source that is that robust and reliable is hydropower, but the enviro-nazis haven't let us build a large dam in the last 40 years, and they are busily beavering away at tearing down the ones we do have.

Nuclear energy looks better and better.
July 22, 2008

3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

Yeah, we'll sell you fuel cells... How many? Send $125 each to PO Box B9, Ward, Co, include your address & we'll deliver as soon as we can get the '61 ford truck started & put tires on it & put in a windshield & find an engine to replace the one we took out a few years ago. But after we do all that we'll get them right to you. By the way, what kind of fuel cell were you looking for? We can make just about anything that we can find in the anarchist's cookbook.
July 22, 2008

3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"So Jay, actual facts do not matter to you. The tax data is from 2006, the rich paid more, the middle class paid less"

you're apparently in need of an economics class.

do you understand what "tax burden" means, resin?
July 22, 2008

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

FlyfishDude52

You've been sniffing those chemicals they sell to enhance the fragrance of the dry flies again, haven't you?

Signed,

A spin-cast guy
July 22, 2008

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

NetResearchMan writes:

SteveM writes:

>> 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.

This is ignoring maintenance costs and lifespan of the power generation equipment. According to information on the web (windpower.org), the typical maintenance cost of wind turbines is around 1.5% to 2% of the initial investment annually. That's not "FREE". Also, the engineered lifespan for the turbines is 20 years. You can refurbish them for less than the original full cost (20%), but that's still also not "FREE", and can only go so far before the entire unit needs to be replaced (let's say it doubles the lifespan). The upshot is that 100% of the cost of the generating equipment has to be repaid between two and four times per century, depending on durability.

Despite all that, wind power remains the cheapest renewable energy source, but it's ridiculous to claim that once you install a windmill that it runs with zero maintenance cost, and never needs to be replaced for over 100 years! Nothing man makes is that durable.
July 22, 2008

3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

woodwose: Where would you propose to build a dam? Practically all of the good spots in the lower 48 already have dams.

I'm also not aware of any threat of any major dam being removed. The only dams that have been removed in recent years are extremely tiny ones that were no longer needed.
July 22, 2008

3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ogemaniac writes:

Gore is mostly right, but wrong on one important element: how to pay for it. The answer is obvious, but goes against his oh-so-green thinking: pay for it with the oil in ANWR and the gulf.

The estimates I have seen place both ANWR and the gulf at ~10 billion barrels. Unlike the past, we should put the screws to whichever company we hire to drill OUR oil. They should be able to drill it and pipe/ship it for $25/barrel or so at a fair profit, leaving us with a hundred bucks per barrel or. So 20 billion barrels at a hundred bucks each? Say hello to two trillion dollars - more than enough to pay for 100% renewable electricity and pump hundreds of billions into R&D, and environmental cleanup, land conservation, etc.

So here is what I say. Drill drill drill - and use 100% of the profits to fix this problem for once and forever.
July 22, 2008

3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

P_Denver - Yeah, man. It's whatever is in the air here...

PS - Do you want any fuel cells?
July 22, 2008

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jones writes:

Why not tell the truth. The change many want is an end to the country as it is . How in the world can someone take a road trip from Florida to California in an electric golf cart. The answer is , it can't be done. The greens want to usher in a era of no USA, everyone wears ragged jeans, smokes pot, and plays video games.
July 22, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

FFD52: I'll wait 'till your truck is fixed.

Jones: You are exaggerating only slightly. Very slightly.

The "no USA" part = we live under the benign auspices of the United Nations. After all, the rest of the world is better than us, so, through the UN, they should rule us.

UN environmental laws. UN legal system (World Court). UN Currency (probably the euro). UN language (probably something from Europe -- or maybe Mandarin). UN tax structure (socialist).

They will take good care of us. No more worries!

Obama 08!

Change you can believe in
July 22, 2008

4:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

denverinfidel writes:

Its hilarious to read the gw'ing kool-aid drinkers cry about the impending disaster while using their high-powered, energy consuming computers to cry wolf. Once again, talk is cheap and words are empty. Just like Gore. If you truly believed this crap, you would get yourself off the grid, send your auto to the crusher and give up your standard of living. But none of you do?

Proof again that this is not about the environment, its about finding any way possible to control the economy and others lives. Those who are red in the middle have painted themselves green and come back to haunt us as "environmentalists".

On a side note: I'm just curious how Gore got so fat? Was he eating locally grown organic foods to go along with that carbon-neutral lifestyle? My money says no.
July 22, 2008

5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

It's interesting how when jay is offered with facts regarding 2006 tax data, he offers no rebuttal. Rather, he hints that reismc1 is uneducated on economics.
This is typically what people do when they have no rebuttal- they resort to an attempt at discrediting the individual they are debating with. Not a very respectable way to go, jay.
July 22, 2008

5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"It's interesting how when jay is offered with facts regarding 2006 tax data, he offers no rebuttal."

there have been no facts whatsoever that prove that the republicans didn't shift a portion of the TAX BURDEN from the upper to the middle class. i've presented the facts to support this a number of times and it has yet to be refuted.

try again, eli...or at least add something to the discussion besides being that guy that follows me around like a little dog nipping at my heels instead of refuting the facts i post.
July 22, 2008

7:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

halfscot writes:

The author is not saying 'no' to alternative energy, he's asking us to be more realistic in setting goals. It's Pollyannaish to expect we could replace ALL of our energy needs with 'clean' sources. It will happen, eventually, but it will take time, much longer than 10 years by all knowledgeable accounts. Unfortunately those who are immature want it 'now' and won't take any other reason for an answer. Thus, the name-calling to shut down debate. It doesn't work with adults.

I'm continually reminded of the fact that people today have lost all ability to think critically or with reason or even just plain common sense. Nor can people, once they've got their minds made up, seem to change their views even in the face of ever mounting evidence to the contrary. I love Keynes' quote... "When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir?" There is now so much hysteria re AGW it seems no matter how much data is now coming forth refuting such that it doesn't matter to those "true believers" who are determined to believe we humans are destroying the planet. They will revert to juvenile tactics of name-calling and over-the-top hyperbole to attempt to shut down any reasonable debate. Consider that: 32,000 scientists, 9000 of which are PhDs, just submitted a petition either questioning or downright refuting AGW (all the names have been vetted), that while the 'official' American Physical Society website says they still support AGW there is a considerable movement within the association's members to debate the topic. To those who say follow the money, Al Gore has made over $100 M, so far, with his AGW campaign and he refuses to debate anyone on the topic. He once canceled a radio interview when he learned Bjorn Lomborg, a former Greenpeace member, would be there to discuss the topic, and question his claims, with him.

It's amazing to me that anyone could think that a gas, CO2, that only comprises .035% of our total of all atmospheric gases, could cause so much 'damage'. Add to that the fact that humans' contribution to the total CO2 concentration is all of 3% while nature, or 'natural' causes, comprises 97% of all CO2 then one has to ask the critical question... How is it that our 3% contribution of CO2, and half of that comes from our buildings, is what is causing all this ensuing catastrophe? Throughout history CO2 has gone up and down... it's been much higher than now, usually when the earth is warmer because there's more life with warmth, thus, more CO2... and it is a 'trailing' indicator of warmth, not leading as one would find in a causal capacity. AGW will be proven another of the left's many myths attempting to pass more controls over our 'capitalist pig' behavior. Once proven though they will just move on to the next chimera without apology as they have so many times before.
July 22, 2008

7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"a portion of the TAX BURDEN from the upper to the middle class."

You mean like Hickens&#*$% granting Democrat fatcats with a gasoline tax credit by enabling them to use CITY OWNED gasoline sources, while requiring that the average citizen (aka middle class and low class) PAY the taxes. Corrupt Democrats allows their billionaire fatcats to STEAL from average people.

Typical Democrat scumbags. Let their corrupt Democrat fatcats get a free ride on the backs of average Americans.

And then send their mindless moron minions out to try to cover up for Democraps and point the finger at other people. Corrupt morons..... that is another phrase for Democrats.
July 22, 2008

7:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

millenimum writes:

Very good halfscot, could not agree more. Especially the CO2
part. People might want to check out this site... http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html For the scientific fact on "Global Warming farce" By the way what model of Lear Jet does Al Gore take all over the World??
July 22, 2008

8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Tiger01 writes:

Good job Vincent. Al Gore is perhaps the most successful snake oil salesman in human history. He makes a movie with his inherited money and gets a Nobel Peace Prize for it. (I guess that woman who saved 2000 Jewish kids from the Holocaust didn't really deserve it anyway.) With his lavish lifestyle and gargantuan carbon footprint (about 20X the size of the average American's), he obviously doesn't really believe his own BS. Nothing will come of this "big idea", guaranteed. Despite Gore's "flat earth" insults and ludicrous moral equivalence of comparing GW skeptics to holocaust deniers, more and more scientists are joining the ranks of the skeptics every day. Notice how global warming is a non-issue in the presidential campaigns? In a few years, we'll look back on all this global warming hysteria and laugh about it. Al Gore will be seen as a curious oddity of a bygone era, sort of like John Harvey Kellogg, but without the enemas.
July 22, 2008

8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

chicagoprof writes:

The author quotes Stanley Lewandowski on the impossibility of Al Gore's plan: "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."

Nice quote. There is just one teeny, tiny little issue. Um, Stanley, you may not know this but...large portions of the Earth (north of the Arctic and south of the Antarctic Circles) receive...now get this...24 hours of sunlight for periods ranging from one day (at the circles) to six full months at the poles.

I think there is more than a little irony in this; in attempting to ridicule Mr. Gore's plan for conserving planetary resources, Mr. Lewandowski and Mr. Carroll show a lack of understanding some very basic properties of the Earth.

How about pundits like Mr. Carroll take some time to get basic facts straight; then maybe they can ridicule others' ideas.
July 22, 2008

9:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

goldfinch writes:

Scanning the comments, it seems like most people who favor Gore's plan come up with two arguments to support it.

The first is that getting 100% of our electricity from solar and wind power would increase national security by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. However, very few of the electrical plants in the US are oil based. We have lots of coal powered plants...and we have plenty of coal to power them for generations. Even if it were possible, converting all our electricity production to wind and solar would not decrease oil imports.

The second reason given to support Gore's plan is to decrease CO2 emmissions. Gore's plan certainly would do that...mostly by making the average US citizen poor enough that he would have to lower his thermostat in the winter, and raise it in the summer, and take public transportation everywhere for everything. And all the time the American standard of living is going down, down, down, the Chinese and Indian carbon-based economies will expand and will push more carbon into the air than shutting down the US power plants can compensate for. And don't think China and India will follow our example. Their citizens will not stand for it.

Now I am not opposed to solar and/or wind...or nuclear, for that matter. But Gore's plan will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And it will not decrease the world's CO2 output to any meaningful degree because the rest of the world will increase their CO2 output faster that the US can decrease ours.

IMO, the money that Gore would have us spend by converting to solar and wind power when they are not yet cost effective alternatives, would be better saved and used to combat the effects of global warming when/if it occurs.
July 22, 2008

9:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

dbosworth writes:

Hey ChicagoProf:

Lets run a power line from the north pole. Sun six months out of the year. Right? No problem. You think drilling on ANWAR is destructive to the enviroment, try something like, 20 power lines side by side running thousands of miles to power only one city.

The truth is, we do have to do something. However, as soon as someone questions the prophet Gore's solution, a lot of the rabid followers freak out.

Gore is wrong. The task is not doable in 10 years at any cost.

I think a better solution is to:
1. Increase nuclear power to provide 50% of our energy for the next 50 years.
2. Use up all the oil, coal and natural gas we have available. EFFICIENTLY
3. Require all new construction to utilizie energy saving appliances, heating and lighting.
4. Require all utilities to provide 15% renewable within 15 years.
5. All renewable within 50 years. The big catch - we will have to reduce our total energy consumption by at least 50% to do it. One solution - less people. Stop having children.
July 22, 2008

10:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Daniel_C writes:

Thanks for your article, Mr. Carroll. As usual, you are right on the money. Don't listen to the crackpots with their negative comments. As usual, they are oblivious to their own idiocy and lack of credibility. You are particularly correct that Mr. Gore's proposal shows no consideration for the average American, and the stupendous economic price the poor and middle class would pay to implement his proposal. Gore is such a moron -- and has become an embarrassment. As for other commentators, one even says that we Americans live in one of the most backward countries. Yeah, right -- we know what he means - he wants us to adopt Europe's suicidal policies. The fact that we Americans are freer, have greater mobility and opportunities, aren't committing demographic suicide, and in far better financial shape for the future, not to mention have a higher standard of living than in Europe - seems not to influence him at all. He'll probably just deny it -- that's what liberal wackos do.
July 22, 2008

10:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

OrionCA writes:

Old philosophy story with a moral: "Assume a Congress of Apes convened 1 Million years ago to decide the next stage of ape evolution. How many of them would have proposed 'Man' as their replacement? A hairless ape with bad eyesight, poor sense of smell, 1/3rd the physical strength of apes his size, and nails and teeth too weak to survive combat with any of the great carnivores of the day? Yet today we either hunt apes or throw peanuts at them in the zoo and no carnivore, no predator in all of nature is more feared than Man."

I think of Al Gore and Pickens as the modern equivalent of the "Congress of Apes". They've come up with Plans for the Future which are really just plans for the past. The future has not been written yet - I can see a dozen new technologies coming down the pike that could transform the world, and none of those may actually be what does it. Yeah, we're going to have solar. But we're also going to have nuclear. The first successful fusion reactor may have already been built. And we can make gasoline equivalents by the ton from algae farms. None of that will happen because of Al Gore - he's not going to "invent another Internet". He's yesterday's news and doesn't know it yet.
July 22, 2008

11:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Thunderwalker writes:

Look, the last person who we should be listening to is Captain Planet. Personally, I'm beginning to think he just might be the Anti-Christ.

One, man made global warming has not even come close to be proven. The earth has been much warmer than it is now. Volcanic activity spews out more greenhouse gasses that all of mankind in history. Mt. Pinotubo alone bleched out more carbon into the atmosphere that all of mankind and the associated activities in history.

Everything is carbon based. Why else is carbon dating used for age determination? If you really want an objective scientific opinion, I urge you all to look up Lord Monckton. He has issued challenges to Captain Planet to debate this issue, and Captain Planet will not engage in an honest discourse with anybody who disagrees with him. Sounds like a new type of fascism to me.
July 23, 2008

12:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

USAinEdmonton writes:

Thanks VC. Great column. I for one am doing all I can to keep the planet for sinking into a horrible cooling period that Gore and his wacko's are leading us into. I do NOT use CFL's. I drive a HUMMER. I own oil company stock and am grateful for the returns. I support drilling for every drop of oil we can get from mother earth so we can have a soaring economy to finance real research and conversion to better fuels. The economy matters. I oppose increasing taxes on oil companies. We better build more nuclear as part of the solution. Whew, I feel much better now.
Thanks.
July 23, 2008

2:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

jkuipers writes:

Gore’s challenge of 2018 may be ambitious, but there are some thoughtful, well reasoned, and frankly realistic scenarios out there for dramatically reducing our dependence on oil by, say, 2050.

The “Solar Grand Plan” published in the venerable Scientific American less than a year ago December 2007 is one of the best examples. The idea would be to create a vast array of solar PV cells and solar concentrators in the US Southwest, then transmit it nationwide via hi-efficiency DC cables across the US. The biggest challenge would not be the solar farm, but the transmission lines. It would require $420 billion in public subsidies over 30 years to make it cost efficient – nonetheless a bargain in comparison to what it cost to install cables nationwide for cable TV from 1980-2000, a bargain in relation to the Iraq war, a bargain in terms of the political and military gains reaped from energy independence.

Check it out:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a...

It’s also worth noting that the Europeans have the same idea, setting up a farm in North Africa and powering all of Europe with solar energy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment...
July 23, 2008

3:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

disizgawd writes:

I am who am.
Be kind to my world. Clean up the hundreds of years of coal and oil I have left buried all over the world. Would you not if it lay on Aspen?
Get to work. And I gave you the knowledge to split the atom and billion year old mountains to bury any molecules that you do not need.
The breath of God is to enjoy, not milk like a goat. My vistas are for all. Take down those whirling monstrosities!
Al Gore has had his 15 minutes.
July 23, 2008

6:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

bugmenot writes:

"...from the conservative brookings institution"

Conservative? Maybe you're confusing Brookings with the American Enterprise Institute. Brookings is generally regarded as left of center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooking...

On the other hand, if you're Chairman Mao, everyone else is conservative.
July 23, 2008

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

jkuipers: "but there are some thoughtful, well reasoned, and frankly realistic scenarios"

Then it has no place on this forum :P. Have you seen some of the bull on here? Well-reasoned? Thoughtful? Those would be a couple of the last adjectives I would apply to most of the posts here.

I haven't been inclined to respond because of the lack of thought expressed here -- I may as well be talking in Japanese if I were to try.
July 23, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

davis_x_machina writes:

Poster here talking about the Chinese. I recently saw a documentary on an archaeological expedition into the deserts of Eastern China, the medians of the highways the crews were driving on were filled with wind generators. I'd say the Chinese have, to a degree, learned from our mistakes.
Mr. Carroll also complains about bloated bureaucracies. I wonder if he's taken a look at Homeland Security and its idiot brother the Transportation Security Administration. If I recall correctly our supposed small government president in creating Homeland Security created the largest bureaucracy in the history of government any time any where. Bet you Mr. Carroll was dead silent on that development. At the very least Mr. Gore's proposals have stimulated this debate which we absolutely need to be having. This is more than anyone can say for the climate and energy troglodytes represented by Mr. Carroll.
July 23, 2008

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

navymom writes:

Patd265, "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."

Just what countries have you visited that are so much more progressive than the United States? I would love to here of your vast world travels that have led you to this belief. If it is Europe, then it is more than likely in socialist countries also.

I have done mission work in third world countries that are much more backward than the United States. Go visit some of them and then come home and you could be justified in saying that the United States has been blessed beyond belief, but backward?

I appreciate all that this country has to offer me. I know that there are areas in which we could do better, but, if I am not mistaken, so could all countries in the world. There is not one country in the world that is totally "green". The citizens of every "modern" country use products that, if not produced in their country, are produced somewhere with fossil fuels. Every "modern" country that has an airport for tourism or business customers condones the use of fossils fuels.

It is appropriate to begin to look at alternative sources of energy, but it needs to be cost effective for the American consumer and taxpayer.

It is ironic that so many are saying that we need to focus on the future and it's only ten years according to Al Gore. When we discuss oil and gas, the same people will say "we need solutions now, not ten years from now. Drilling more will not affect prices of gas for ten years so we shouldn't drill more at all."

People, we should be drilling, producing wind and solar energy, nuclear energy, hydro power and any new forms of energy technology that are developed. But we should also take a look at both long term and short term cost to do all this. We should be looking at reasonable times frames for development and implementation.

Finally, we should be relying on the private sector, not the government to lead the way. After all, the chance to make a buck is a much better incentive to get things done, hence T. Boone Pickens investment in wind energy. The United States government did not build the space program, American corporations using American workers and a team of very intelligent engineers built the space program, just as they built the oil and gas industry and will lead the way in the development and implementation of alternatives.
July 23, 2008

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

bobjohnson writes:

Gore won an Oscar for his voice over in a movie on global warming. Now this doesn't make up for his losing the presidency, but it moves things in that direction. Kirk Douglas never won an Oscar, except an honorary one, and that doesn't count.

But then Gore won a Nobel Prize, something Mark Twain and Nora Roberts never did. So I figure that has to put him over the top.

But then again, didn't Chita Rivera win an Oscar, a Tony, an Emmy and a Grammy.
July 23, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

ShadyGrady writes:

Two, maybe three windmills at the top of the Cannonball chair at Eldora would generate enough electricity for the whole nation. No joke.
July 23, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Careless writes:

"Reading these comments makes me think perhaps we've gone from a can-do nation to a bunch of can't-do whiners."

Didn't Mao say that in 1960?

Anyway, reasonable people can discuss the merits of investing in 100% carbon neutral electricity, but a 10 year timetable is the product of a madman, a con artist, or someone pathetically ignorant.
July 23, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

I vote madman. But Gore did invent the internet. And so, he's got that going for him.
July 23, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Canyonboy writes:

As Mr Carroll notes, we are living in an oil based economy and that's not going to change easily, quickly or even linearly ... we have a lot of trial and error ahead of us, but as I see it, if we don't start working toward sustainable, stable worldwide energy policies.. the list of opportunities for worldwide famine and war boggles the mind.

I guess each of us needs to decide which is more important, addressing the single largest issue with immense downside for everyone, or protecting our "right" to do whatever we want, whenever we want to do it and cheaply as well. Mr Gore has taken his position... and Mr Carroll has stated his .. what's your's?
July 23, 2008

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Al Gore and his plan for 100% renewable energy within 10 years is a joke. He doesn't get it. Just like his plan of making the United States subserviant to the United Nations with his idea for a New World Order if he became President. He wanted to give several national parks in the U.S. to the United Nations also.
July 23, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”
Well, Mr. Al Oscar-winner, Nobel-awardee, nearly president Gore, sprung into green alert and installed solar panels, a geothermal system, replaced light bulbs with those funny more-efficient types, and overhauled the windows and ductwork. Guess what.

Gore’s abode consumes more electricity now than before the “green” overhaul.

Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration,” reports the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

This is the guy, and this is the cause, that wants you to sacrifice (gasoline prices increasing $1.40 per gallon by 2050, millions of jobs lost or shipped overseas, an effective $3,700-a-year tax on families, a 33-percent increase in home energy costs by 2020, and the equivalent economic cost of 35 Hurricane Katrinas every year for two decades) to ward off about a one-degree increase in temperature over the next century - that is, if you even buy their ginned up computer projections.
July 23, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

goldfinch writes:

For david_x_michina who watched a documentary filmed in China and saw wind turbines in the background and leaped to the conclusion that China had learned from the United State's energy mistakes...

You do know what 'anecdotal evidence' is and why logical people do not use it to prove a point? Would your conclusion been different if you had been watching a documentary about Colorado and seen a wind farm in the background?

According to an April 2008 National Geographic article, China added 3,449 megawatts of wind power in 2007, bringing their total to 6,050 megawatts. The United States in 2007 added 5,224 megawatts, bring our total to 16,828 megawatts.

So not only is the United States' wind power capacity nearly 2 1/2 times that of China, it is also growing faster.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your negative opinions about your country.
July 23, 2008

1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

leatherneck, nice job shooting the messenger there! Now what about his actual message?
July 23, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

Yeah leatherneck! You scored a bullseye for smoking out the Bull$hip! I had to very some of the numbers you quoted but after a couple checked-out I figure the rest must be close to factual.

So aren't you idiots ashamed of yourselves for believing the B$ presented in inconvenient blowhard's presentation of the world as an idiot percieves it? How about those that gave him awards? I wonder how much they were paid? Nobel's gift to mankind, if placed properly, could repair the damamge caused by the duplicity and sactimonious bilge spewed forth from algore's lying teeth or pen or movie!!!
July 23, 2008

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Flyfish, I guess my irony was lost on you. By the way, do you also subscribe to the view that wealthy people and people who travel by airplanes aren't allowed to be environmentalists? Because that's going to cancel out a lot of public figures, and since you people call the rest of us "treehuggers and envirowackos," we're not going to be left with too many spokespeople.
July 23, 2008

1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

dustywingsnhalo writes:

My conundrum in regards to Gore's proposal is about the jobs: Given, jobs are going to be created by the new solar/wind/alternative renewable energy sources and the power plants that they necessitate, but it seems that a primary Democratic goal is to avoid unemployment at all costs--particularly unemployment caused by the government. You see extreme (borderline nonsensical) subsidies to farmers in the United States and import tariffs on agriculture in order to preserve jobs, despite lower world prices that would benefit the American consumer and benefit nations whose primary exports are agricultural, yet this would call for the displacement of equal numbers of people (who have paid for specialized degrees) in utilizing a resource that is needed in abundance all over the world. Even if we change our energy priorities, there's no guarantee that the rest of the world will follow suit.
What about finance? Intentionally creating unemployment and then unloading a hefty tax burden on every citizen (or a seemingly endless sale of bonds to foreign countries) seems to be irresponsible and ineffective governmental action, to me. Mr. Carroll, your point about the shock on the economy is right on. That is the last thing the citizens need to be burdened with, as banks are failing and people are losing their jobs and their homes left and right.
The goal of renewable energy sources is a great one. But ten years is an extremely short (and constraining) time frame. As the finite limits of the resources that the country consumes become more real to the American people, they will bring about the change themselves. There is no need to push this change in a strict timeframe--it will come. The movement has so much momentum of its own that a mandate seems like overkill.
July 23, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

mytwosense - Sorry if you took it that way. I tend to things a bit too literally. You probably would question my sincerity if I told you I was very environmentally concientious. Things, in most cases, must be taken, and dished-out, in moderation or we become a society of extremists & thereby negate so much of the good that can occur.
July 23, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Canyonboy writes:

A particularly appropriate quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald >>> The art of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in mind at the same time while still retaining the ability to function.

Given that we are all captives of a world that has evolved to it's current state, there are few out there (excluding aboriginals) that are not complicit in the state of affairs we find ourselves in. The trick is to accept that we are part of the problem and at the same time, be able to find ways to change the current situation and move forward.
July 23, 2008

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

flyfish, I understand, I'm just saying that no matter who speaks out for environmentalism, certain factions will always try to smear and discredit them, rather than engage in a thoughtful dialogue about the actual topic at hand. Al Gore has his flaws, and yeah, I pretty much think anyone who has more than one home has one more home than he or she needs...but he's not the hypocrite and liar his enemies have made him out to be.
July 23, 2008

2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

mytwosense: You didn't get the message? It's EWACKS like you that support the BS the Al Gore spews on a regular basis. I will accept the fact that he is rich, has a huge home, and that is why he pays more. But I won't accept that he wants every American to be “green” overhauled. When after he did the overhaul, he consumes more electricity now than before.
Did you get the message that time???
July 23, 2008

2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

I have to disagree "he's not the hypocrite and liar, etc." I don't perceive those that debunk his foolishly over-stated diatribe about climatology as enemies.

The enemies I see that all Americans, and most of the Western world, have are those responsible, and sponsors of, for senseless, world-wide acts of terrorism directed against "the infidel." Well folks, I AM the infidel and I despise those that refer to me as such!

Back to algore; since publishing a book (writen by others)and releasing a movie (writen and directed by others) we've had ample time to examine the facts (or B$) presented in those mockumentories and in nearly all instances they are sadly untrue. Even most of those world reknowned scientists who originally corroborated algore's science fiction stuff ( he'll never win a Hugo or Nebula Award ) have backed away & said their information was taken out of context or not exactly the topic we were speaking of, or one excuse or another. His presentations, simply put, are ficticious. Shame on him for being a scare-monger. Or just plain shame on him...
July 23, 2008

2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

leatherneck: Your information comes from a single source, The Tennessee Center for Policy Research (Drew Johnson). He claims he got the information on a public information request from the utility company but I know of no way for a citizen to get the power bill for another private citizen. Frankly, until I see a confirmation by the utility company or some other organization that is actually neutral I am not going to take that single guy's word for granted and I don't think you should either.

And if you somehow believe his little group is neutral, then check this interview with him: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shot...
July 23, 2008

2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

leatherneck and flyfish, I question your sources. I am almost positive the information you are spouting comes from extremely biased sources, very likely a "free market," or otherwise rightwing think tank. If I am wrong, my sincere apologies, but I would be most interested in learning where you are gleaning your so-called facts about Al Gore.

leatherneck's emotion-laden vitriol is certainly one clue that he/she doesn't seek out objective, non-biased sources.
July 23, 2008

2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

I wonder if Al Gore speaks Chinees.
He may want to learn.....
China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas
July 23, 2008

2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

joggle - it's easy to call power suppliers ( i.e. Xcel Energy ), probably Tennessee Valley P & L and request peak loads, average loads, etc. The only trick is you need the meter number. So one of you hardies sneak into the algore estate and write down the number that's on the meter, then call the power supplier & we'll all know once and for all the truth of the matter.

mytwosense - I spent quite a bit of time checking sources about the book, I would not stoop so low as to pay to see such a mockery of a movie. Get a copy of the book from the library, I know it's available in Boulder, but maybe not Broomfield. Peruse the book and check quotes by various scientists on google or yahoo or whatever. You will be sadly put out for "much to do about nothing" that has been created by this book by a very poor soothsayer.
July 23, 2008

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

flyfish, what book are you referring to? I am asking where you got your information about Gore's energy consumption. Is it from a book and is this the book you are referring to? If so, what is the name of it and who is the author?
July 23, 2008

3 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

I didn't quote anything about algore's energy consumption, that was someone else. Like a previous comment and my response the info is available but not without a meter number.

I was referring to the science fiction novel "An Inconvenient Truth."
July 23, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dionysus writes:

I suppose I should not be shocked by the anger, hatred, misquotes and inaccurracies in the discussion of this topic. Obviously, Gore is a touchy subject for conservatives and Carrol has hit a hot button. Now flyfishdude52 states that he is the infidel. Is he aware that the definition of infidel is:
Infidel (literally "one without faith") is an English word meaning "one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion or has no religious beliefs", especially in reference to Christianity or Islam.
So it is clear he has no faith - why would anyone expect him to have faith in Gore? He states he has no faith.
Also, leatherneck writes statistics on Gore's electric usage. I question his statistics - does he somehow have access to this information?
I think the real problem is that there appears to be one side that does not want to change from oil - their motives seem to be unclear.
The other side does see a future with alternative energy. Regardless of when that happens (we know this won't happen over night), I think that future with alternative sources is more positive than the continued pursuit of oil.
I am not saying that we can do without oil tomorrow. I am asking if it makes sense to start finding the alternatives. Oil was great for building our technologically advanced society and this is why everyone wants oil. However, facts are facts. Oil is dirty to extract, dirty to refine, dirty to transport and dirty when it burns. It is now time to lay down philosophical differences and work together to find all of the new energy sources available that will fuel us into the future.
For me, you can leave the politics, greed and fear mongering out. Who cares whether there is Global Warming? If you have a good case for continuing a pursuit of oil (and coal) as the main energy sources for the future of our nation and the world - make it. If not - shut up and let us who do have faith, find the new sources of energy that will lead us into the future.
July 23, 2008

3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

I just returned from a trip to Germany and Poland. The people I spoke to there believe strongly in global warming and speak highly of Al Gore. Germany, in fact, leads the world in solar energy and is also a world leader in wind power, recycling, green rooftops and other environmental concepts. They are enthusiastically taking a team approach to both our energy and environmental problems. I can't say that they have all of the answers, but their economy seems vibrant and people are proud of the contributions they are making to a new world energy economy.

I wish that I could have bottled their optimism and brought it home with me to generate better feelings in our own country.

As for Al Gore, I agree with some of the posters here who point out Gore's extravagant lifestle and apparent hypocrisy. I have problems with it as well. I wish we could get past the blaming and finger pointing and move forward as Americans to solve our problems as some in the "old world" are currently.

Unlike Al, I intend to offset my carbon footprint for trips such as this by employing projects such as increasing the insulation in my house and rental houses. By doing projects in our own homes, we help the local economy, the environment, our energy problems and our personal bottom lines in one effort.
July 23, 2008

3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations.
July 23, 2008

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

dionysis - my bad. Misused infidel. Unfortuneatly I used it in the vernacular of a fundamentalist muslim. I am, in no way with faith in God. To the radical muslims, those who do not believe in muhammed, I would be the infidel. Begging your pardon & thanks for the correction.

The info I presented about how to obtain energy useage is accurate.
July 23, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

I can't seem to get it right today. I mistated again. "I am in no way without faith in God," it should read.
July 23, 2008

3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

Carroll's mention of the Great Leap Forward reminds me of the Chairman's ill-conceived "Great Sparrow Campaign" but the "sparrow" in Gore's version is coal. The unintended and intended consequences and incumbent costs to consumers of "killing off coal" would be stupendous and would return us to the era of the Great Depression. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sp...
July 23, 2008

3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

greenleaf: Read much of Dr.Timothy Ball phd in Climatology
or Richard Lindzen Proffessor of Meteorolgy at MIT?
July 23, 2008

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dionysus writes:

Again, make a case for why our oil and coal should remain our primary energy sources into the future. The rhetoric that converting to alternative fuels is going to kill us economically does not make sense. Every technology that we develop and enhance for using alternative sources of energy will be sold to other energy hungry nations. Yes, in every great endeaver there are costs and there are benefits. If we start now, we can lead the world on getting off of the oil dependency and make a handy profit on the way. Even if I agreed with you that there is no Global Warming - you have not made a compelling argument for oil and coal as our future energy sources.
July 23, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

4gColoNative writes:

Nuclear.

I was in Nuclear Navy 1982-91 and until last week was a proponent of expanding Nuclear power in the US. But in a single Democracy Now television interview with Amory Lovins, he gave a convincing explanation how the economics can't pan out for the U.S. He didn't even get into safety or waste disposal issues (which I still think could be solved ... but not the economics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_B....
July 23, 2008

4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

leatherneck,

I can't say that I do. I spend most of my time reading research reports from those in my field of botany, while squeezing in some from other fields including climatologists and the occasional glaciologist. You have a point, I presume?
July 23, 2008

4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Tim Ball: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_... -- hardly an impressive resume and seems to be a liar, at least about his own resume (claiming for instance for being a professor for 32 years when he was actually only a professor for at most 12 years, including the 4 years he was actually an associate professor).

Richard Lindzen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_... -- another guy that gets quite a bit of money from the oil industry. Sharp, but has some funny ideas, including "He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette."

Let me guess. You watched 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (both of these guys were in it). That was a worthless documentary, but don't take my word for it. Check here and all of the article's references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grea...
July 24, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

gillpad writes:

I certainly want to applaud Vincent Carrol for having the fortitude to state what is certainly a very credible criticism of Gore's ongoing, elitist fantasy -- especially in what seems to be such a cauldron of very dubious leftist hostility. Its obvious that in such an environment, to criticize the high priest of the environment is to invite scathing rebukes, born from attitudes that test the very limits of reason. The future will show how religious and unscientific Gore's ideas are; to overreact to such incredible nonsense when hundreds of mostly ignored scientists wage an ongoing battle of refutation -- is really to trade in the present for the unknowable future! And "The great global warming swindle" mentioned above, certainly is a much more credible scientific piece than Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth", which really is a masterpiece at showing how easy it is to bring out the True believer" in those who have never learned how to critically think -- but only to ridicule and lable. I suggest that readers of this read some of Lindzen's works, along with many other climate warming skeptics, as well as those who aren't ready to impoverish the nation based on horrible false and cruel alarmism!
July 24, 2008

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

If you are a liberal and not a self-described socialist, then you are a pawn of the socialists, who are driving the Left machine.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the Left's answer to high oil prices is switching over to technologies (i.e. renewable energy) that are even more expensive than oil? High oil prices are most taxing to the poor, a majority portion of which is liberal as well. What will the answer be to the new oil burden on the poor (as well as everyone else)...more taxes for everyone, not just the rich.

So now we have government controlling what we can use for energy and (down the road) causing reason for raising taxes (aka redistributing more income).

Can you see how the environmentalists are being used by the socialists? MANMADE global warming is not even proven, and in fact, one of the key contributors to its theory has now turned against it because he claims that, if greenhouse gases were causing the globe to warm, we would be seeing hotspots at a certain level in our atmosphere. We are not. Not to mention (this very hot year aside), the globe has actually levelled off and even cooled slightly over the last ten years.

And it all plays into the socialists' hands. Grow government and nuts to the markets. They will tell us how to live and how to run (at least portions of) our economy. Universal welfar, renewable energies, most of the rest of liberal policies. Socialists using other liberals to take over and grow the American government.

It's all about their POWER.
July 24, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

And I would recommend that global warming skeptics read up on the ample amount of criticism of each and every one of their authorities on this matter. Most of you say "I won't watch that trash documentary" or something similar. Why don't you just step over to wikipedia at the very least and read about the pros and cons of each global warming related article and the major scientists involved.

The amount of evidence for human caused global warming is ample and you could spend weeks reading it online before even stepping foot into a library or trying to read journals.

Frankly there's about as much evidence against human-caused global warming as there is for the earth being 6000 years old. And if you believe that latter part then I have a bridge over in the Bronx I'd like to sell you.
July 24, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I repeat, joggle,

You are either a socialist or a pawn of the socialists.

And you are ignoring just as much data and analysis that says to the contrary of what you just wrote. You don't see it as much because a)the media ignores it and b)academics who stand by it get fired (the few who weren't socialists or pawns of socialists to begin with).
July 24, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

gillpad writes:

The ample amount of evidence that supports the global warming nonsense is just as easily refuted by evidence that denies it. Here's the problem: the issue is one of science, and not of dogma or orthodoxy -- yet to deny it, is to set yourself up for such lables as 'denier' -- hardly a way of arguing science. Those who disagree with the global warming advocates are apostates to the new religion. The major problem with most of the global warming pros in the scientific community is that they are on the gov't dole -- to prove the argument is wrong doesn't make much sense.
And how true it is, that the ultimate resolution to the defeat of socialism is greenism? Its so soft and healthy sounding -- and how many new laws and agencies and world bodies and powerfreaks like Al Gore can take a major hand in ruling mankind in order to protect the planet? I think people should be thinking more about their own freedom and individual rights, and less about the rights of the planet.
July 24, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

gillpad writes:

Lindzen, btw, expounds on the weak link between second hand smoke, and cancer...not actually lst person smoking -- this is one of the major problems with leftwing smears: they are usually extreme exaggerations -- and if no one checks them out, who knows better? Its just like global warming: if no one challenges them, who knows better? ANd did someone have the audacity to wonder if Vincent was an economist? Is Gore an atmospheric scientist, a climatologist, a scientist, a biologist, or just a blithering gasbag?
July 24, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Gasbag! But he got a Nobel prize; he must be right!
July 24, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

gillpad writes:

Spencerr -- the environmentalists are the socialists. Being a socialist won't cut it anymore, as has been proven. Being an environmentalist is so much easier, even if it is sneaky and underhanded...who, after all, doesn't love the environment? Only a fool could claim not too.
July 24, 2008

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

...I agree that there is overlap. But I call them socialists or pawns of socialists because I honestly believe that only a percentage of environmentalists and other libs are smart enough to know that they are being socialists. Many of them legitimately think that the environment is in danger and that environment trumps everything else. These are the pawns. Just like the person who goes out and votes for Obama because a gazillion kids don't have healthcare, and somehow, they have gotten it in their mind that healthcare is a constitutional right and no one else has the right to their own freedom to enjoy the fruits of their own work.

The ones who know what they are doing are insidious to the nth degree because they are using something that they know has holes in it in order to dupe others into picking a big, controlling, nannying government (who robs from everyone else to give to the poor) over the market. The worst part, socialism has empirically failed at every level, and when it does succeed, the success can be layed at the feet of the capitalism involved (China for instance). So why push for socialism if it is such a sorry paradigm for an economic system? POWER.
July 24, 2008

7:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

empirecookie writes:

The sun does shine 24 hours a day, numbnuts
August 18, 2008

9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

dagny24 writes:

Frankly, reading these comments is downright scary and makes me scared for the future of this country.

Great article Mr. Carroll. Balanced discussions on environmentalism and the effects it will have on our future and quality of life are sorely needed. Thanks for speaking up and calling a nut nutty.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

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.

Related Stories

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published July 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated July 22, 2008 at 6:09 p.m.