CARROLL: Gore shoots the moon
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
The single most abused argument in the English language? "If America could land a man on the moon in 10 years, why can't it . . ."
Just fill in the blank with your pet megaproject and you have an airtight case. Or at least that's what many Americans seem to believe. A depressing number of readers brandished this phrase - or some close cousin of it - in e-mails after a recent column in which I described Al Gore's call for the U.S. to produce 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years as irresponsible, disruptive and economically dangerous.
I didn't actually say impossible, but I probably should have.
Readers not happy with my critique of Gore's plan often insisted that the moon program provided evidence of my lack of vision. Maybe, but I'm dubious.
The moon program was a spectacular but narrow engineering feat whose success or failure did not put the entire economy at risk, as would the scrapping nearly overnight of hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure (every coal and natural gas plant), which Gore proposes.
Going to the moon was a much more modest project in terms of price tag, too. As Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine notes, "The Apollo program cost $25.4 billion (about $150 billion in current dollars) to land just 12 astronauts on the moon."
The nearest analogy to the Gore Fantasy might be construction of our interstates. "The interstate highway system was originally estimated to take 12 years and cost $25 billion to construct," Bailey recounts. "It actually took 35 years and cost $114 billion (over $800 billion in current dollars)." But notice: Gore's project would cost even more - tremendously more, in fact - and be infinitely more complex to orchestrate than laying ribbons of asphalt.
It would involve technologies (mainly wind power and solar) that have not been scaled up to anything close to such massive use (and which are evolving rapidly), let alone proved themselves as 2 4/7 baseload power sources. It would require tens of thousands of siting, permitting, safety and environmental issues far stickier, in the aggregate, than those routinely faced by the architects of the interstates.
Does even Gore, a highly intelligent, worldly man, believe such a crash program could be completed in 10 years or should even be tried, given the incredible risks? And if, as I suspect, he doesn't, why does he play the Pied Piper for others?
Our vision of FasTracks
"FasTracks is an overly ambitious, bloated proposal that would raise the sales tax in many metro communities to near the limits of voter tolerance."
Thus spoke this newspaper four years ago, less than two months before a majority of metro voters disagreed and approved a massive project that is nearly on its knees today financially.
It's not that the Rocky editorial page predicted the rapid inflation of construction costs that followed. What we did see, however, was an enormous proposal operating on so many fronts and with so many moving parts that it was a setup for trouble. We also saw a transit board and regional civic leadership so focused on passage of the transit package that few were willing to take a careful look at the assumptions behind it.
We saw a plan crafted for political reasons as much as for legitimate commuter needs, with the result that some routes were scandalously expensive based on the projected subsidy for each new rider. That's why we backed a scaled-back transit plan including a few key routes coupled with highway improvements.
Even in our darkest moments, however, there was one thing we did not foresee. We did not foresee this: "RTD might just have to go for more money," Longmont Mayor Roger Lange told a Rocky reporter this week, while other metro mayors refused to rule out the idea.
In short, we did not foresee that the same civic leadership who once led the cheers for FasTracks would be openly, shamelessly entertaining the possibility of another tax hike to pay for it just four years later.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
DPS improvements
This interactive shows you how schools will benefit under the bond proposal.
-
2008 Voter’s Guide
Use our Ballot Builder tool to compare your viewpoints to the candidates.
-
Broncos Game Action
Slide shows of the Broncos-Jags quarter-by-quarter photos from Invesco.
-
Rocky Truth Patrol
Rocky Truth Patrol investigates a claim about Colorado Sen. Shawn Mitchell
-
A Dozen on Denver
Manuel Ramos' story is featured this week on 'A Dozen on Denver.' Check it out!
-
Peak Picks
Submit your fall foliage photos to our contest and vote on other submissions.
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
July 25, 2008
6:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Vince, have you ever seen ANY "public" project around here that took less time and less dollars than projected? These politicians pick some project that suits their vision of "utopia" and political agenda, then go hell-bent to push it without having any expertise to determine its viability, costs, utility or necessity. Reality be damned! The PEOPLE want this! No...who "wants it" are the politicians to feather their own political and financial nests. Sooner or later taxpayers are going to rebel and you won't be able to pass a bond issue for ANYTHING. You're right on. Mike
July 25, 2008
7:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Miseslover writes:
Does Gore, the man famous for holding up the $500 toilet seat on Jay Leno, really believe his own delusions?
Could these two items be any more closely related to one another. Government might be able to put a man on the moon, but it can't manage a light rail system---what in the name of all that is good makes us think it can revamp the entire energy infrastructure of this country?
Oh--the money is no problem, the Fed will just print more.
July 25, 2008
7:20 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 25, 2008
7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Froward, what do you think envirosocialism...rule by fear. Three kinds of Democrats. 1. The kind that want the rich to give to them. 2. The kind that are scared of environmental stuff so vote democrat. 3. The ones that are straight socialists who benefit from the former two.
And with the exception of Nixon, Republicans don't grow the government. They hold it at bay or shrink it.
And you just cited three liberal sources twisting the facts with their fuzzy, envirosocialist friendly propaganda.
Renewables running our power plants are far more expensive than nuclear and fossil fuels. If renewables take over before they are viable, the poor will suffer most (but everyone will suffer). Your ilk will blame the rich and redistribute income to a greater extent, and my point will be vindicated (and I will be sad).
July 25, 2008
7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Froward, after a quick look at your links, this is what I think; link 1 supports my point, that Obama is a da$% socialist.
link 2 - if switchgrass ethanol is really that much better than corn ethanol (and gasoline), then production should begin, but I doubt there is refining capacity for it yet. It may be part of the solution, but I doubt it is a magic bullet. Other renewables such as sun and wind are more expensive by far than fossil fuels.
link 3 - fossil fuels in America still come from the world market. We could regress a hundred years or so, and put export quotas and other protectionist programs into place, but it will cause more damage than good. Comparative advantage my friend. The article is silly propaganda.
July 25, 2008
7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
The thoroughly discredited Gore is only interested in selling carbon credits to and from one of his carbon trading companies. He will make $ millions while our economy tanks! Speak Chinese anyone?
July 25, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
Mike846 writes:
"Vince, have you ever seen ANY "public" project around here that took less time and less dollars than projected?"
My answer is that there are two in Colorado. One is Fastracks which came in under budget and ahead of schedule.
The second is much older. The Boulder Denver Turnpike (US 36) originally had a toll booth at Broomfield to pay for it. It paid for itself early. Colorado made history by figuring out exactly how many tolls were needed. The surprised driver, who was the final toll payer, got a memorial plaque at 10 p.m. from Governor Love who was in the toll booth. The toll booth was taken down that very night. (The only remnant of the toll booth is the burial marker for the dog whom the toll workers had adopted. It still can be seen on the west side of the road near the old toll booth site.) It remains the only toll booth in the US to be taken down as originally promised. It is a tribute to the integrity of Colorado that our elected officials (who were just as money hungry then as now) kept their promise and did not simply find other uses for the tolls.
July 25, 2008
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
yaakovwatkins I think you meant T-Rex rather than Fastracks, which is in financial ruin and way behind schedule as we speak. TREX definitely came in early and under budget. That's because they allowed the free market to work, giving bonuses for the contractors to do so.
July 25, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
The space program that took us to the moon was a chancy thing that could very well have ended in disaster. The space shuttles were a great idea that turned out to be impractical, and the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) project was cancelled because we lack the technologies, as yet, to make it work. Lockheed's Skunk Works made the SR-71 work, but at horrendous costs in operations and maintenance. The simple fact is that it is much easier to imagine something than to make it practical, be it FasTracks, or alternative energy. Fixing things will be an evolutionary process, not revolutionary, unless a breakthrough happens. There needs to be a lot more effort made, but let's not bankrupt everyone, in the process.
July 25, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Abu Dhabi has announced that it will switch to coal-fired generation. They plan to install 4,000 MW of coal fired generation in phase 1, Russia plans to build 30 new coal plants by 2011. China connects a new coal plant to the grid every 10 days. Germany's environmental community wants coal in the mix.
The USA must be making the wrong kind of CO2 in our coal plants. BTW, Abu Dhabi, China and India are developing countries under Al Gores' Kyoto Protocol. They aren't required to battle Global Warming sorry Climate Change.
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servl...
July 25, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Trythinking, our kind of CO2, at least for new plants that are constructed, is nearly devoid of sulfur and other pollutants that are also emitted by power plants (scrubbers). Furthermore, we have superpulvarized and gasified technologies which make coal nearly as clean as natural gas.
The difference between their emissions and our emissions is that ours are clean (except CO2). Libs still don't like it.
July 25, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Gore is so dumb he is beginning to believe his own press releases. From what I see he is the only person that has made that rediculous statement. The jerk is becoming delusional and thinks anything he now says is fact. The fawning liberal media promoting one of their own has gone to this guys head and he thinks he is a prophet. Gore the Bore is laughing stock and it is hilarious he is the only one not to recognize it Vince.
July 25, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
spencerr,
The other difference is that we let evil corporations produce CO2 for even more evil profits. The coal based CO2 produced in China is for the good of the people. It allows us to buy socks at Wal Mart for a few cents each. It is better to let the communist burn coal for the greater good than allow such a practice in the evil capitalist system.
July 25, 2008
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Trythinking,
It makes no difference that evil capitalism, becasue of its inherent competition, allows Americans to have their current HIGH level of economic well-being??? It functions to the same purpose as communism, but it works better. And because American's are the world's fat cats because they capitalize on capitalism rather than wither on socialism, Americans are evil when they use coal.
Not to mention, China's brand of communism is completely dependant on world market's for its goods...something also known as capitalism.
July 25, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
Al why don't you follow suit with other VP's & past VP's... Improve you golf game. You make a very poor advocate for anything involving science.
July 25, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
Fro - I just have to ask what you intended us to gleen from the links you posted?
The link you posted makes switchgrass sound like the neatest thing since sliced bread. It does indeed have the qualities described in the article. It's not a case of refining capacity.The bond in switchgrass is harder to break. It consumes much, much more energy to break than the bond in small grains and thus is not a viable choice because production costs are too much at this time.
I'm with spencerr, I'm not exactly what you were trying to point out in the other two links.
July 25, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Capitalism works for the benefit of the smart, hardworking and strong. Those are exactly the efforts that the left want to discourage. “From each according to ability – to each according to need”. The democrats want to punish producers and subsidize users.
Coal is our one totally reliable, abundant and cheap fuel source. It doesn't require any new technology to harness. (Note to the uninformed. Wind and solar are free resources. But it costs a fortune to harness it.) The technology has come so far from the coal-fired power of even 30 years ago that is almost a completely new concept. It is any wonder the liberals in this country have gone after coal-fired power with such fervor? The mantra of the Liberals is "The USA must become energy independent!". Here is a clue to Ritter, Salazar, Udall, Polis and the other "New Energy Economy Folks". For electric power, we are already 96.8 % energy independent. We get approximately 3.2 oil for electric power generation. If you folks, Al Gore and the Sierra Club would get out of the way we can grow this home grow resource and power electric cars, truly eliminate foreign oil and reduce the cost to consumers.
July 25, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Canyonboy writes:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone out there seriously believe that attaining energy self sufficiency is not a issue critical to the survival of this country?
July 25, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Trystereotyping states: "Capitalism works for the benefit of the smart, hardworking and strong. Those are exactly the efforts that the left want to discourage."
So are all the smart, hardworking, strong people you know wealthy? Just curious.
July 25, 2008
5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
I think I finally found the solution to so many of the world's problems: global thermonuclear war! Global warming? Gone (nuclear winter will fix it)! Overpopulation? Gone! Crowded freeways? Gone! Inflation? Gone! Dependency on foreign oil? Gone! Even gun control- gone! A bit drastic, perhaps...
July 25, 2008
5:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
One thing missing from the editorial is that the space program was socialist. Government used our tax money to pay for it. We did not see competing companies trying to get to the moon, only competing to get on the government payroll.
Space has not been a wild open free for all area of technology, except for satellites. Nations go into space, we are only at the beginning of private enterprise trying to go into space.
So the canard should be, "If we can socalize a program and put a man on the moon, why can`t we?....)
July 27, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Trythinking, you really ought to some time. You also ought to "tryreading" the Book you like to quote. The policy of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" did not spring, totally formed ex nihilo, from the Commies. The concept can be found in the Acts of the Apostles to desribe the early Church (in Jerusalem, I believe) and how it operated its treasury. Decry it all you want, but it has been used by communities and organizations for quite some time. I would argue charitable organizations depend on it. All societies use it to some extent. Even the original Adam Smith, and his concept of "enlightened self-interest" makes use of it. It you want to avoid it, try Ayn Rand and "I've got mine, you go to Hell!"
Vincent Carroll can score all the points he wants to off Al Gore, but what Vincent wants is the status quo. He wants no change. His answer is more sprawl, more suburbs, more highways, more cars.
Anything other than the status quo, he will find arguments not to do anything. His favorite tactic against the US trying to reduce its carbon footprint to any degree to alleviate the effects of climate change (which he does not dispute as a possibility) is to point out that any reduction the US makes, even reduction to no CO2 emissions whatsoever, will eventually be overcome by China's and India's growing CO2 foot print, so therefore we should do nothing.
Solar? Experimental, and only available part time, so don't bother.
Wind? A feasible but unrealistic technology only available part time, so don't bother.
Nuclear fusion? What's "fusion"?
Oil shale? Has water use, land use, and environmental problems, but go for it if it'll keep SUVs and suburbs thriving.
Coal? Yes.
Oil? Yes. Drill away.
Keep the US as it's currently burning energy, forever, world without end? Yes.
Besides, if global warming is real, the drastic effect will happen after he's dead, so why bother?
July 28, 2008
6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
carlindenver writes:
Al Gore's Rhythm: aka Algorerhythm (apologies to algorithm) usually goes somethin' along these and similar lines. "Panic and Fear, CO2 and Demagoguery. The sky is falling, it's too hot, it's too rainy. Really big hurricanes and more storms and tornadoes and lightning. 'America...awaken, cease your evil ways and lift your eyes and arms and wallets to the Man From Tennessee.' Heal, Oh Mother Earth. Heal! Heal! Heal! Please write for Special Carbon Dispensation Healing Credits. Hurry! Calamity is knocking at the door already."
July 29, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Coco writes:
We've (the US) has been the world's technological leader since the industrial revolution. We've kind of had things to ourselves with most of the world in a developing stage. Now that is changing. China, India, etc are moving on up - trying to get their piece of the pie. The US has a choice. We can keep on keepin' on with old school technology and buy the new innovative energy technology from countries like China, India, and Japan, because, make no mistake, plenty of people see money to be made, or we can develop it, create good new jobs and a vibrant economy for our people, and sell it to them. Times are changing, what's so wrong with thinking in a 21st century mode rather than a 19th century mode?
July 29, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
coloradovet writes:
I'm getting so sick and tired of these right wing nuts painting any sort of social reform as "socialism." Quit freaking out. No ones going to come take control of your business or land. America is great as a result of social reform (ie New Deal, GI Bill, soil conservation, ect.) and we need it more than ever right now. Under Clinton, our deficit shrunk and our economy grew. Bush is about to hand the next president the greatest deficit in history. How is that "keeping government at bay?"
July 29, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
The new deal was the worst thing that happened to this nation via the hands of a president.
And anything that allows government, which is inefficient and highly political (with an agenda), out is good in my book.
July 29, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Us Right Wing-nuts actually like to refer to it as the raw deal. Grew government exponentially. We paid and are still paying for it.
July 29, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
coloradovet writes:
Right, it only got us out of the depression and raised the GDP, as well as helping to prevent a future depression. The economy left in the hands of right-wing nuts is a recipe for disaster.
July 30, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Coco writes:
We should leave it all up to private enterprise. We have many examples of how well that always works: Enron, Adelphia, Qwest, Tyco, Chrysler, Frontier, Morningside, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac . . . . . . . . . , and isn't it just hilarious how private enterprise is more than willing to accept a govt bailout?