Gore Testifies on Climate Change Before Senate Committee
Al Gore testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday about climate change. (Link to full video list.) Gore noted that we are in a dire situation and fundamental change needs to occur as soon as possible. Gore repeated his warning that “clean” coal may not be a feasible solution in the near-term, noting “We must avoid becoming vulnerable to the illusion that this is near at hand. It is not.”
Gore said that the most promising sources of clean energy are wind and solar, and that while he is not against nuclear power, the costs are just too unpredictably high.
“Our home – Earth – is in grave danger,” Gore noted. “What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.” READ MORE
Gore to meet with Obama on Tuesday
Although Al Gore has made it clear that he is not interested in an Obama cabinet position, he will be meeting with the President-elect on Tuesday morning. While it doesn’t appear that Gore will be reconsidering his position, Obama has made it clear that he wants Gore to have a strong voice in shaping climate policy.
With Obama still needing to name a pick for his top energy and environmental cabinet positions, Gore could provide some valuable guidance.
‘In reality, there is no such thing as clean coal’
From Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection.
If not Secretary Gore, how about Secretary Schmidt?
With it appearing that Gore will not be taking an official position in the Obama administration, there is plenty of room to speculate about other potential all-star nominations. Grist makes the fascinating suggestion of Google’s chairman and CEO, Eric Schmidt.
Although Schmidt, like Gore, has indicated he does not want a cabinet position, Grist argues that he would be perfect for the role of energy secretary. Grist notes that Schmidt is clearly a skilled manager, knows how to grow, finance, and market an organization, and has a ton of experience with energy management due to the Google servers enormous need for electricity. READ MORE
Gore won’t play official role in Obama’s administration
Pundits have been speculating whether Al Gore would be taking a place in the Obama administration. We wondered this week if Gore might be in line to be Obama’s secretary of state? Others have speculated that Obama might create a new position of “climate czar” and name Gore to the role. This was further supported by the fact that Obama’s transition chief, John Podesta, has advocated such a position, and Obama has previously indicated he would like to put Gore in his government. READ MORE
Gore as Obama’s Secretary of State?
The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen would like to see Obama name Al Gore as his new secretary of state. Cohen ponders, “Can you imagine a bolder statement about a new direction when it comes to global warming and the general care of our abused planet?”
Personally, I can’t see why Gore would want to give up the freedom he currently has working in the private sector in order to return to government. And more importantly, it may be the case that Gore can effect greater change from the private sector than the public.
Gore lays out a five step solution to our environmental and energy crisis
This is the second of two posts about Al Gore’s op-ed in the NYTimes regarding our energy policy and the environment. In our previous post we looked at Gore’s description of the problem, in this one we will look at his five point plan to completely eliminate fossil fuels from our electricity generation within 10 years. The following are Gore’s five steps: READ MORE
Gore explains the dangers of our current energy path
This is the first of two posts on Gore’s op-ed in the NYTimes.
On the right hand side of this website is a list of “private leaders.” Al Gore is sitting at the top of that list for a reason. In today’s NYTimes, Gore has a tremendous op-ed where he describes the existential dangers to both our environment and national security resulting from our dependence on fossil fuels, and lays out a clear path to solve the crisis. While we suggest you read the op-ed yourself, here is the first of two posts that will give a general overview:
Gore begins by noting that the “world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence [of climate change] is ‘unequivocal.’” READ MORE
Now What? Commercial
Now What? How about: Efficiency, Generation and Transmission.
Now What?
Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection released a media campaign yesterday putting forth a three-step plan to achieve the goal of making our electric grid fossil fuel free within 10 years.
The campaign, in responding to the election of our new president asks the country: “Now what?” And answers with the goals of efficiency, generation and transmission: READ MORE
ABC refuses to air WeCanSolveIt climate change ad
Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection recently produced an ad about climate change that blames “Big Oil” for lobbying Congress to block clean energy. However, ABC refused to air the ad, asserting that photos of D.C. monuments, like the one used in the ad of the Capitol Building, are against network policy. The public can write letters to ABC protesting their decision here.
Gore calls for ‘civil disobedience’
Al Gore, in speaking at the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting in New York yesterday, said, “If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.”
Currently, there are 28 coal plants under construction in the United States, and another 20 have been approved. None of these new plants have carbon capture and storage (CCS) capabilities, as the technology is not yet available on a commercial scale. However, once implemented, CCS should mitigate carbon emissions by liquefying them and then storing them underground.
Unfortunately for the health of the planet, the World Coal Institute estimates there is enough coal left in the ground to last at least 150 years.
Gore also noted that, “Clean coal is like healthy cigarettes – it does not exist.”
Saudis: “Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!”
The world’s petro-states must be so torn right now. On the one hand, the slowing global economy is decreasing the demand for oil, thereby causing its price to drop. This, in turn, is taking a big chunk of revenue out of those country’s coffers, and causing dramatic economic turmoil in places like Russia. These states, including Russia, Venezuela and Iran, among others, have built much of their economy upon extractionist policies and are quite vulnerable to the declining market price of oil. Consequently, in the short-term they see this as a catastrophe and look for ways to re-establish the high prices.
However, on the other hand, sophisticated players in the oil game realize that it was the rapid spike in gas prices in the United States that caused the first material and widespread shift in conservationist policies and social norms in over thirty years. What the threat of climate change and terrorism could not achieve, an increase in prices at the pump quickly accomplished. That is, namely, a fundamental change in people’s behavior and thinking towards oil consumption.
As The Mustache often notes, every time a petro-state elite hears us chanting “drill, baby, drill” or sees us failing in other ways to develop alternative energy sources, they must jump out of their seats and yell “‘Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!” because, as Friedman notes, “an America that is focused first and foremost on drilling for oil is an America more focused on feeding its oil habit than kicking it.”
Now, the real challenge for reform leaders like T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore, will be to inspire and lead the public in light of lower gas prices. As we’ve seen with the recent financial crisis, in our free-market society, imminent risks are often ignored until they’ve already passed the point of no-return. Whether the threat is to our national security or environmental interests, we allowed our oil dependency to continue far too long. We cannot allow this temporary drop in gas prices to lull us back into complacency again.
Critique of Pickens Plan misses the point
On the Internet, it is especially easy to be a critic from afar, breaking down or building up different things with emotions and imagery rather than critical thought and analysis. This seems to be the case with recent allegations that the Pickens Plan is merely an elaborate attempt by T. Boone to distract people from his real goal of “drain[ing] the Ogallala Aquifer.”
It is no secret that Pickens has had a controversial plan to pump water out of the Ogallala Aquifer and transport it to population centers in Texas, such as Dallas. While we are opposed to recklessly drawing down limited resources, like the Ogallala Aquifer, for short-term development, this fact alone does not mean the Pickens Plan (the proposal to shift 20% of our energy generation to wind) is some sort of massive bait-and-switch.
The main problem with their argument is that the Ogallala Aquifer plan is related to the $10 billion wind farm project that Pickens is currently developing in the Texas Panhandle, which is going forward regardless of whether the Pickens Plan is implemented. Pickens’ local wind and water projects are related because recent changes to the state law in Texas (advocated by Pickens) allows for alternative energy and water transmission to share the same right-of-way. The water issue, that some websites and bloggers are wringing their hands over, is a discrete issue within Texas that is not directly related to the overarching policy shift the Pickens Plan proposes.
With that said, we really have no idea what is truly in Pickens’ heart with respect to the Pickens Plan. Like all people, only an individual can know their true intentions. But an objective look at the evidence indicates Pickens is being sincere. As we noted yesterday, Pickens doesn’t even claim that his plan is primarily intended to save the environment. Instead, his stated purpose is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. And the fact that he is “rich” and a “Bush supporter” is not evidence of duplicity. Will he make a profit if his plan is enacted? Of course, since he is the biggest developer of wind power in the country. But there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Rather, it is the very alignment of profit and national interest that has created the current environment where a proposal like the Pickens Plan or Gore’s 10 Year Plan are actually contemplated. It’s not like we just realized this year that global warming and dependence on foreign oil is a bad thing. Instead, it is that fuel prices have finally gone up enough to make it profitable to pursue alternative sources. This alignment of profit and public interest is our best chance to make a real shift in the way we power our country. To dismiss attempts at change because they have a profit interest related to them is to miss the biggest opportunity we’ve had in a generation to improve the environment and our country. Not to mention, those criticizing the Pickens Plan based on the Ogallala Aquifer issue are making a moot argument since these are two distinct issues.
Analysis of T. Boone Pickens’ interview with the LA Times
Our favorite wind farmer, T. Boone Pickens sat down with the LA Times last week for a great interview. We will paraphrase some of the highlights of that chat and add our own analysis here:
- Regarding the source of our high gas prices:
Pickens says, of the 85 million barrels of oil used by the world each day, the U.S. accounts for 21 million. Quoting him, “that’s 25% we’re using, with [only] 4% of the population and 3% of the reserves.” Pickens uses this fact to illustrate that it is not Exxon-Mobile or speculators to blame, but instead simply a situation where demand is outweighing available supply.
Regardless, the wildly disproportionate consumption of oil by the U.S. compared to our reserves further indicates the silliness of thinking we can drill our way out of this problem, as Pickens often notes, despite our politicians’ pandering on this issue.
- Regarding Al Gore and climate change:
Pickens indicates that while he believes that human caused climate change is occurring, that issue is on “page 2.” For Pickens, our dependence on foreign oil, to the tune of $700 billion per year, is on “page 1.”
Fortunately for good environmentalists and good patriots alike, for the most part, these two interests remain generally aligned, thereby permitting a win-win situation where we could both get off foreign oil and decrease the effects of climate change with the same plan.
- Regarding how we can enact the solution:
Pickens states, “I think that if Congress would do something like Eisenhower did in the Interstate highways – that is to say, an emergency, which it is. It’s like war, and we need to address it in a non-partisan way…. We have the vast resources of wind and solar, but the naysayers say wait a minute, solar isn’t there yet. Don’t worry about it; I have enough faith in America….”
This is where Pickens exhibits his most optimism, and we, and others, have the most apprehension. Congress has shown a complete inability to move towards a solution and there is a little indication that they are getting their act together.
- Regarding the development of the transmission lines and infrastructure necessary to move wind energy generated in the middle of the country to the east and west coasts:
Pickens says, “let the government do it. If they don’t want to, industry will do it. Industry will be quicker; you know that. We can get it done a lot faster…. You would be surprised how much you can get done in 10 years.”
However, if the task does fall on the private sector, the federal government would still be required to create the regulatory environment necessary to make the project economically feasible.
- Regarding people who say we should shift our vehicles to electricity instead of natural gas, as Pickens proposes:
Pickens indicates that he is in favor of the electric car, however the technology is not there yet to allow it to be a real solution. Instead, natural gas should be the bridge that we use in the short-term to get to a point where we can find a real lasting solution for clean cars. Basically, Pickens is saying we have a present danger, and need an immediate solution. In the long-term, he thinks we will transition our cars off of natural gas.
Describing this, he states, “You have to kind of accept that. You get people that say, well, I want to go to the electric car quicker. Well, the 700 [billion dollars per year] keeps ticking on you on the electric car. We’re not there on the electric car. Am I opposed? No I’m not opposed. I’m for electric; I’m for anything that gets that number down.”
- And regarding leadership:
“What’s been missing for 40 years is a plan. We’ve never had a plan; there’s no energy plan. And it all comes to the fact that it’s a leadership problem.”
Exactly.
