Gore Makes "Moon Shot" Environmental Challenge

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Gore Makes "Moon Shot" Environmental Challenge stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 07-17-08 10:17 AM   |   Updated: 07-25-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Gore

**UPDATE** Seth Colter Walls was on the scene for HuffPost. Read his story here, including mentions of Gore's shout-outs to Bob Barr, will.i.am and more.

FULL TEXT of the Gore environment speech is available here.

AP copy below:

WASHINGTON -- Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by U.S. dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create "a new political environment" that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels.

"I have never seen an opportunity for the country like the one that's emerging now," Gore told The Associated Press in an interview previewing a speech on global warming he planned to give Thursday in Washington.

In his speech, Gore said some of the nation's biggest success stories have come from making commitments to goals well beyond the next election, citing the Marshall plan for rebuilding Europe, Social Security and the interstate highway system, in addition to putting a man on the moon.

Story continues below
advertisement

"A political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that's meaningless," he said. "Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit the target."

He said it also coincides with experts' predictions that unless dramatic changes to reduce global warming pollution are made within the next decade, "our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis" may be lost.

Gore said the single most important policy change would be placing a carbon tax on burning oil and coal.

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group he leads, estimates the cost of transforming the U.S. to clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build greenhouse gas-polluting coal plants to satisfy current demand.

"This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over," Gore said. "It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels."

Called an alarmist by conservatives, Gore has made global warming his signature issue. He portrayed Thursday's speech as the latest and most important phase in his effort to build public opinion in favor of alternative fuels.

Gore knows politicians fear action unless voters are willing to sacrifice _ and demand new fuels.

"I hope to contribute to a new political environment in this country that will allow the next president to do what I think the next president is going to think is the right thing to do," Gore said. "But the people have to play a part." He compared his challenge to Kennedy's pledge in May 1961 to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade.

Gore narrowly lost the presidential race in 2000 to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush after a campaign in which his prescient views on climate change took a back seat to other issues. In the 2008 presidential race, both the Republican and Democrat candidates support action to curb the gases blamed for global warming.

While dismissing a suggestion that he pulled his punches eight years ago, Gore said his goal now is to "enlarge the political space" within which politicians can "deal with the climate challenge."

To meet his 10-year goal, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the U.S. dramatically increases its use of solar, wind, geothermal and clean coal energy. Huge investments must also be made in technologies that reduce energy waste and link existing power grids, he said.

Gore's proposal would represent a significant shift in where the U.S. gets its power. In 2005, the United States produced nearly 3.7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, with coal providing slightly more than half of that energy, according to government statistics. Nuclear power accounted for 21 percent, natural gas 15 percent and renewable sources, including wind and solar, about 8.6 percent.

Coal's share of electricity generation is only expected to grow come 2030, according to Energy Department forecasts, while renewable energy would still only provide 11 percent of the nation's power.

Without action, the cost of oil will continue to rise as fast-growing China and India increase demand, Gore said. Sustained addiction to oil also will place the U.S. at the mercy of oil-producing governments, he said, and the globe would suffer irreparable harm.

Government experts recently predicted that, at the current rate and without an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, world energy demand will grow 50 percent over the next two decades. The Energy Information Administration also said in its long-range forecast to 2030 that the world is not close to abandoning fossil fuels despite their role in global warming.

While electricity production is only part of the nation's energy and climate change problem, Gore said, "If we meet this challenge we will solve the rest of it."

Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by U.S. dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create "a new political environment" that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels.

"I have never seen an opportunity for the country like the one that's emerging now," Gore told The Associated Press in an interview previewing a speech on global warming he planned to give Thursday in Washington.

In his speech, Gore said some of the nation's biggest success stories have come from making commitments to goals well beyond the next election, citing the Marshall plan for rebuilding Europe, Social Security and the interstate highway system, in addition to putting a man on the moon.

"A political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that's meaningless," he said. "Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit the target."

He said it also coincides with experts' predictions that unless dramatic changes to reduce global warming pollution are made within the next decade, "our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis" may be lost.

Gore said the single most important policy change would be placing a carbon tax on burning oil and coal.

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group he leads, estimates the cost of transforming the U.S. to clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build greenhouse gas-polluting coal plants to satisfy current demand.

"This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over," Gore said. "It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels."

Called an alarmist by conservatives, Gore has made global warming his signature issue. He portrayed Thursday's speech as the latest and most important phase in his effort to build public opinion in favor of alternative fuels.

Gore knows politicians fear action unless voters are willing to sacrifice _ and demand new fuels.

"I hope to contribute to a new political environment in this country that will allow the next president to do what I think the next president is going to think is the right thing to do," Gore said. "But the people have to play a part." He compared his challenge to Kennedy's pledge in May 1961 to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade.

Gore narrowly lost the presidential race in 2000 to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush after a campaign in which his prescient views on climate change took a back seat to other issues. In the 2008 presidential race, both the Republican and Democrat candidates support action to curb the gases blamed for global warming.

While dismissing a suggestion that he pulled his punches eight years ago, Gore said his goal now is to "enlarge the political space" within which politicians can "deal with the climate challenge."

To meet his 10-year goal, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the U.S. dramatically increases its use of solar, wind, geothermal and clean coal energy. Huge investments must also be made in technologies that reduce energy waste and link existing power grids, he said.

Gore's proposal would represent a significant shift in where the U.S. gets its power. In 2005, the United States produced nearly 3.7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, with coal providing slightly more than half of that energy, according to government statistics. Nuclear power accounted for 21 percent, natural gas 15 percent and renewable sources, including wind and solar, about 8.6 percent.

Coal's share of electricity generation is only expected to grow come 2030, according to Energy Department forecasts, while renewable energy would still only provide 11 percent of the nation's power.

Without action, the cost of oil will continue to rise as fast-growing China and India increase demand, Gore said. Sustained addiction to oil also will place the U.S. at the mercy of oil-producing governments, he said, and the globe would suffer irreparable harm.

Government experts recently predicted that, at the current rate and without an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, world energy demand will grow 50 percent over the next two decades. The Energy Information Administration also said in its long-range forecast to 2030 that the world is not close to abandoning fossil fuels despite their role in global warming.

While electricity production is only part of the nation's energy and climate change problem, Gore said, "If we meet this challenge we will solve the rest of it."

___

On the Net:

Al Gore: http://www.algore.com/

**UPDATE** Seth Colter Walls was on the scene for HuffPost. Read his story here, including mentions of Gore's shout-outs to Bob Barr, will.i.am and more. FULL TEXT of the Gore environment speech is ...
**UPDATE** Seth Colter Walls was on the scene for HuffPost. Read his story here, including mentions of Gore's shout-outs to Bob Barr, will.i.am and more. FULL TEXT of the Gore environment speech is ...
Filed by Rachel Weiner  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
229
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

I cant believe how little coverage this is gettig in the mainstream media :(

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 PM on 07/18/2008
- ella52 I'm a Fan of ella52 7 fans permalink

Hey everybody, buy, rent or just watch Crude Impact on their website. CO2 may be only part of the problem, but it is still a big part.
And why oh why do we need to have a climate catastrophe for people to get onboard for a healthier economy, cleaner air and new educational and job opportunities for our young people (which I believe new technologies will offer). Gore has his eye on the future, has suggestions for how to achieve a world we can feel good about children inheriting.
If going green costs too much money, people complain that it will be too much of a sacrifice. If it makes money then going green is just another conspiracy to pad the pockets of the wealthy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:50 PM on 07/18/2008
- rivrgrrl I'm a Fan of rivrgrrl 119 fans permalink
photo

The sheeples have been conditioned to ignore anything with out a Britney or a Springer or Survivor in it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 AM on 07/19/2008
- mouselion I'm a Fan of mouselion 121 fans permalink
photo

Apparently human nature is largely reactionary and not proactive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 07/19/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 251 fans permalink

Kill, you may be right, but you fail to provide any links to back up your claim 1$W installation costs. It's absurd to add financing cost, since you don't know how it's paid for and the same financing charges apply to any other energy you get a loan for. What if you pay cash and put it up yourself? Plenty of people will.

I Guess I need a preamble to my profile. All predictions about the future are necessarily approximate, no matter how many spread sheet pages you use. The dollar could go lower, the high cost of energy could increase the cost, new breakthrough can completely change the technological landscape.

I said it's "possible" and I mean reasonably possible, but probably will cost more, and as in any venture, there are unforeseen hiccups and occasion lucky breaks. I would have though it was obvious that I was take best case scenarios where they had a good chance.

Back of the envelope sanity check. That's it. Now you want to argue 5-20% that's irrelevant. Even +100% is impossible to predict on any venture over a 10 years span.

Is it possible to convert to solar and wind in 10 years for 1T$, I think I have shown that. Is it likely to cost more? Maybe. But general price trends are towards lower prices.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 07/18/2008
- Tator I'm a Fan of Tator 9 fans permalink

DANG...Algore just can not pick a good day to try and launch a scam....one of the High Bishops has now looked at the latest data and my, my, my he is no longer part of the "fake consensus"......

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 07/18/2008
photo

Wow- you found a doctor who has changed his mind. This is not conculsive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:10 PM on 07/18/2008

Gee, what a shocker, you found a scientist to disagree. I mean really, some of these guys don't believe in evolution.

I guess that we only solve our foreign dependence on oil and create the foundation for a sound new American economy, but we don't 'fix' global climate change. We still kill two birds with one stone, rather than three.

Or, we could follow your advice and wait for everyone in the world to agree before we do anything. Why are wingnuts such cowards?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 07/18/2008
- KaAp I'm a Fan of KaAp 21 fans permalink

Dr David Evans finished his Phd at Stanford and accused many in the department of Electrical Engineering (the department from which he graduated) of reacting "very strongly and negatively against it, perhaps because it undermined their knowledge and thus their status. So much for science gracefully accepting and using better ideas as they arise!"
So, he began to invest in the stock market since he could not find a job in a university (he said he was pursuing his own research) and doing odd programming jobs... He worked as a consultant creating software that the scientists used he was not one of the scientists himself ... again get your facts straight PLEASE ...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 PM on 07/18/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 74 fans permalink
photo

yay! i agree! co2 can't compete with water vapor when it comes to inversion layers, aka ''greenhouse effect''. cold desert nights are the ''models'' proving this. the globe is warming and our war on co2 is an iraq-like distraction to solving this problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 07/19/2008
- darthdarcy I'm a Fan of darthdarcy 48 fans permalink
photo

Let's get to it...

Solar there is new technology that will facilitate that, also Windmills wind turbines to be exact and then also Grow Industrial Hemp is renews every 4 months and we can get bio diesel from the seeds and a type of ethanol from the stalks 10 tons of Bio Mass per acre, it is the #1 bio mass plant on Earth..

If we grew industrial Hemp on 6% of our land in the contiguous 48 states that would run all the energy for our nation from electric to vehicles...

Also it eats up CO2 like crazy and spits out oxygen, tons of it...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 PM on 07/18/2008
- NL207 I'm a Fan of NL207 8 fans permalink

This has been thought of before, and has not been particularly successful or beneficial to the people who have supported it.

The Ministry of Jute: www.motj.gov.bd/


The above organization is so singularly successful that it became the butt of P.J. O'Rourke's "All the Trouble in the World"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 PM on 07/18/2008
- darthdarcy I'm a Fan of darthdarcy 48 fans permalink
photo

Go to Hemphasis.net

or try this link if it works...

http://www.hemphasis.net/fuel-energy/fuel.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:30 PM on 07/20/2008
- rivrgrrl I'm a Fan of rivrgrrl 119 fans permalink
photo

Hemp is one of the greatest resources that has such multiple uses. Huge potential there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 AM on 07/19/2008
- OldKnute I'm a Fan of OldKnute 101 fans permalink

Yeeeeeee!!!!

YEEESS Darthdarcy. You are a champion!!!!

That is the attitude. Darcy, have you ever looked into the Jerusalem artichoke? Sun Choke, as it is now in the Southeastern United States.

Farmers tend to dislike this plant because it grows like a weed. It will propagate from its own root. Troublesome at times, as an infestation. A sun flower.

BUT the plant is awesome.

It grows a subterranean tuber and a stalk and flowering parts above ground. Arid soils, low water needs. It produces a tuber rich in sucrose-based starches, Better for diabetics. The stalk and flower head is a wonderful cattle and animal feed. The starch can be turned into ethanol over 8 times better per acre than corn.

Ethanol Production:

Corn = 200 gallons per acre.

Jerusalem Artichoke = 1700 to 1800 gallons

Marginal lands, DRY, sandy and poor soils, under orchards as duel use of lands. The residue of alcohol is a high protein cattle feed.

The plant is wonderful.

Gives FLOWER POWER a whole new meaning.

Look guys.

This is leadership. What Al Gore is suggesting is that WE can make a difference. YOU,,, ME,,, Everyone of us.

Farmers, Engineers, Scientists, School Kids, Teachers, Farmers wives researching, Truckers using Hydrogen fuel enhancers, Contractors designing GREEN, Secretaries buying at a local farmers market. Senior Citizen Gardeners teaching neighborhood classes.

That kinda WE.

WE the people.

That is what,,, WE,,, means.

And I agree, it need come from America.

WE CAN!!!!!

All the best

Knute Neo-Lib.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 07/19/2008
photo

Yeeeee! indeed.

I hope more American catch your "can do" fever.

Bravo.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 PM on 07/19/2008
- rivrgrrl I'm a Fan of rivrgrrl 119 fans permalink
photo

Well, well, well said.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 07/19/2008
- darthdarcy I'm a Fan of darthdarcy 48 fans permalink
photo

Thanks for the info great reply Industrial Hemp is less of a menace easier to control and grows just about anywhere and we can have regional localize refineries actually distilleries but that has national security and disaster prevention aspects also worth considering and again it eats CO2 like crazy and produces loads of oxygen...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 07/19/2008
photo

"Gore has given an almost pitch-perfect fascist speech. It hits every important element: a concocted existential crisis to mobilize the entire nation, a demand to subsume the will of the individual to the will of the State, a call to cast out dissenters as dangerous, and appeals to speedy action and change.

It also, like fascism, aggregates power to the elites, who stand to profit quite handsomely from the arrangement. "

http://www.sundriesshack.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 AM on 07/18/2008
photo

Jimmie has one scientist refuting the entire GW theory- there's consensus.

As far as aggregating power to the elites, you should look at recent history, ie- the last 7 years- you will be hard pressed to find another equal period in our history where the wealth has been aggregated by so few.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 07/18/2008
- Mogamboguru I'm a Fan of Mogamboguru 316 fans permalink
photo

From Canada:
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Read the sunspots

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

From Australia: http://www.dailytech.com/Australian+Researchers+Warn+of+Global+Cooling/article12250.htm

Australian Researchers Warn of Global Cooling

From the USA:
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 07/18/2008
photo

". . . aggregates power to the elites, who stand to profit quite handsomely from the arrangement. "

Besides the fact that you've offered nothing to back up this statement, I'm perfectly happy if green power innovators make money if it makes the world a better place for my daughter. Maybe I'll throw some of my money behind them and profit as well.

I do, however, read (and my daughter does, too) - probably qualifies us as elites.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 PM on 07/18/2008
- rivrgrrl I'm a Fan of rivrgrrl 119 fans permalink
photo

"Gore has given an almost pitch-perfect fascist speech. It hits every important element: a concocted existential crisis to mobilize the entire nation, a demand to subsume the will of the individual to the will of the State, a call to cast out dissenters as dangerous, and appeals to speedy action and change.

Really? Gore and fascism? Now there are two words I never thought I would see next to each other. LoL

As opposed to the shrub's concocted stories to get us into war, subsuming the individual with the Patriot Act, illegal spying and tortue AND the call to arrest and remove people from public appearances who exhibit or voice dissenting opinions.

People who believe the above drivel are either fools or tools. Shrubya has shown us his face of fascism for the last eight years.

Gore has never even come close to exhibiting such behavior. He was too busy winning a Nobel Peace Prize and alerting the world to an impending dramatic change that we need to prepare for.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 AM on 07/19/2008
- DallasMike I'm a Fan of DallasMike 11 fans permalink

I will go gren when Gore gives up 2 of his muli thousand sqaure feet houses and starts to sacrafice like he wants me to do.
he needs to lead by example.
How many SUVs did he drive up in? I heard it was 3 and 1 was left running for 20 min with the AC on.
How can he expect me to sacrafice when he lives his anti-green life style?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 07/18/2008
photo

Do you make this up as you go along?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 07/18/2008
- tjntn I'm a Fan of tjntn 3 fans permalink
photo

*sigh* Such a specious argument! A more valid question is, is Gore trying to reduce his carbon footprint. I know this won't make any difference to people like DallasMike, but just to set the record straight, this is from Scopes.com:
"... the gist of the claim — that the Gores' Nashville residence consumes a substantially larger proportion of energy than the average American home — is true. A spokesperson for the Gore family responded by noting some mitigating factors, such as the fact that the Gores' Nashville residence isn't an "average" house ...... it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home. The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources). Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area. The former vice-president maintained that comparing raw energy-usage figures is misleading and that he leads what he advocates, a "carbon-neutral lifestyle," by purchasing energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance out the carbon emissions produced in generating the electricity his home uses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 AM on 07/18/2008

Just so I am clear. According to you . . .

It is ok if I buy a large, multi thousand square foot home in a non-urban area, it is ok to have all that space if I practice conservation, even if it is not really necessary.

If my wife and I work from home, it is ok to use about 20 times the national average of power because we have a "home-based business" (even a large, thriving one).

If I live in an area that has a different climate (say unusually hot in summer, or unusually cold in winter), it is ok to use much more energy than the surrounding homes in the area, subject to the same conditions.

As long as I live a lifestyle which violates what I preach, it is ok because I buy carbon credits and buy some renewable energy.

This also means that I can live this way, instead of . . .

Moving to a smaller home, in an urban area, close to public transportation, and within walking distance of necessities, such as a grocery store, medical facilities and other needed items and within walking or very short driving distance of entertainment. Not to mention an area where I can bike/skate/run to my hearts content. Which is, pretty much what Al Gore and environmentalists ask that we do.

Makes sense to me!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 PM on 07/18/2008

That pointing finger is still itchy, isn't it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 PM on 07/18/2008

If our electricity was produced by clean, renewable sources, then it wouldn't really matter too much how big Gores house is, or how much energy it uses, would it?

Gore has proposed just that; we need to convert our electricity supply over to clean, renewable sources. That IS what this thread is all about!

Gore also said we should convert our vehicles over to electric power, charged from that same clean, renewable electricity. So, tehn, driving as electric SUV wouldn't be such an environmental sin, would it? It also means we wouldn't need to buy so much foreign oil, and lose 700 billion of our currency every year. We also wouldn't have to invade Middle East countries to get control of their oil anymore.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:45 PM on 07/18/2008
- rivrgrrl I'm a Fan of rivrgrrl 119 fans permalink
photo

Hmmmmm.....let's see......whiney, defeatist attitude who won't do anything until someone else does more first......you are a Republican, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 07/19/2008

I hope that this country is waking up to Al Gore's message and taking it to heart. We must end the stranglehold that the oil industry has on this country, if we are to survive. I remember when I was a girl and we were using coal for heating, etc. Then everyone changed over to gas and oil because it was environmentally friendlier. But was it really? Alternatively, was it the oil industry manipulating, and starting to dominate our economy? Anyone, like Jimmy Carter, who comes out against this giant is crushed. Wind, sun, water are things we can harness to give us the power that we need now and in the future. Not to mention the new jobs that it will create, to replace the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Invading countries and stealing their natural resources is not the answer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:19 AM on 07/18/2008
- Warmglobe I'm a Fan of Warmglobe 9 fans permalink

I wil do it after Mr Gore leads by example..beginning with his own home. He could also reduce global warming greatly if he shut his cake hole.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:51 AM on 07/18/2008

So if Al Gore jumped off the Tallahassee bridge, you would jump, too?

What a poor argument you make. And speaking of people making hot air... do you own a mirror?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 07/18/2008
- Tator I'm a Fan of Tator 9 fans permalink

Besides that AlGore said the world would not exist by that time....remember moonbats AlGore issued a statement on January 27, 2006 we only had ten years left to save the planet, so in ten more years it will be too late by his own statement...unless he has recalculated his data since the movie Inconvenient Truth has been totally debunked....

Prediction: In two years AlGore will come out with another "we only have ten years left"....of course he will do this at the same time he is announcing another "milk the followers of their money scam".....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 AM on 07/18/2008
- KaAp I'm a Fan of KaAp 21 fans permalink

It would be nice Tator if you had facts and not hyperbole. If you go back to the text of Al Gore's inconvenient truth and/or to any of his speeches on global climate change his statements discussed the tipping point of no return based on the most current data available to him at the time. I have no idea what your problem is ... BUT it is important to use facts and verifiable scientific data because obviously you have no idea what you speak of ...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 AM on 07/18/2008
- Tator I'm a Fan of Tator 9 fans permalink

DON"T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. Just a few days ago, the University of Alabama, Huntsville came out with their global assessment and they reported the 22nd warmest in the 30 years of records in their data base (in other words the 9th coldest). In fact, their global mean was actually below the average (base period 1979-1998 ) with a value of -0.11C (-0.19F). This is a full 1.1F degrees colder than the NOAA guesstimate. The other NASA satellite source, RSS had June as the 13th coldest out of the last 30 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/latest-noaa-press-release-in-total-disagreement-with-nasa-satellite/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 AM on 07/18/2008
- tjntn I'm a Fan of tjntn 3 fans permalink
photo

And yet the Russian team had to abandon their research station built on an Arctic ice floe because "global warming has melted the ice to a fraction of its original size" (see link below). Even if you accept the U of AL numbers, the data for one year simply says NOTHING about long term trends. The preponderance of data says global warming is a fact. That really isn't in question anymore by unbiased scientists. There is still some valid arguments over the cause of the warming, but it the data increasing suggests that a significant portion of it is due to man-made events. A cool summer day won't change any of that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_re_as/russia_polar_station_1;_ylt=AvEbRTOqY_nXFSmKebTeUNRrAlMA

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 07/18/2008
- Tator I'm a Fan of Tator 9 fans permalink

Poor ole AlGore picked a bad day to come out with his next scam for the Followers of the Faith.....

The American Physical Society, which represents those 50,000 physicists, is actually showing a little humility in the face of accumulating evidence that they've been wrong about global warming....

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/18/a-bad-day-for-the-red-hots/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:22 AM on 07/18/2008
- KaAp I'm a Fan of KaAp 21 fans permalink

Here is what I mean if you bothered at all to go to the American Physical Society you can see that your statement is not true: http://www.aps.org/ the society's full statement is available ... and what you quote from the Washington Post was an opinion page ... Lord Monckton is not a scientist. The science and public policy institute can be traced through its conservative think tank to Exxon (who has more than a modicum of self interest) ...
Before you make allegations spend a bit of time doing your homework please
Dr. A

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:49 AM on 07/18/2008
- rivrgrrl I'm a Fan of rivrgrrl 119 fans permalink
photo

And that is exactly how they spread their misinformation and pass it off as 'fact'.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 07/19/2008
photo

Nice try Tator, but your linked article is hardly newsworthy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/18/02813/4300/1006/553277

Now, if you don't mind (and you shouldn't since you don't believe that there is a problem) we'll just get on with transforming our energy policy without you. . . or do you have some stake in the oil/gas/coal industry?

Personally, I'd rather have my energy dollars go to clean energy innovators than suppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 AM on 07/18/2008
- rivrgrrl I'm a Fan of rivrgrrl 119 fans permalink
photo

But Tator likes to see his der leader over there kneeling in front of the Saudi kings, begging them for more and cheaper oil.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 07/19/2008
- tjntn I'm a Fan of tjntn 3 fans permalink
photo

Let me explain in simple words so you can understand. Practically all reputable scientists agree that global warming is occurring. There is some disagreement now, as there has always been, whether the primary cause of this warming is pollution cause by man. Very few argue this pollution is not a contributing cause and I would love to see how many of those are directly or indirectly funded by the oil companies.

And by the way, the APS may have 50,000 members (and I know you were quoting someone else here; laughingly, the Washington Times) but it is just wrong to imply that a majority of APS members believe global warming is not caused my man-made events. Jeffrey Marque's posting (which is what is being touted in your link) said that "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." For the benefit of Tator, anthropogenic means caused by man. I would like to point out that there is also a considerable presence within the scientific community of people that are funded by grants from oil corporations. ;-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 07/18/2008

Yeah, here's what they have to say about that:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

From the APS statement on climate change/

They sound like the Al Gore fan club,

Thanks so much for being a big LIAR, tator.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 PM on 07/18/2008

If the sun is the cause of Global Warming, kindly explain why there are NO SUNSPOTS?

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/21jul08/midi512_blank.gif?PHPSESSID=bmuq9h2om6vd1ocmuss2it3mn5

In other words:

Few Sunspots equal fewer Solar Flares and Coronal Mass Ejections which are NORMAL explosions that spew out huge amounts of electromagnetic energy towards the Earth.
It's called Solar Minimum.

During Solar Maximum the reverse is true.

The difference is about 1/10 of 1 %.

Not much.

Not enough to cause Global Warming.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 AM on 07/21/2008
- Woodn88s I'm a Fan of Woodn88s 6 fans permalink
photo

VISION....­..........­...everyth­ing starts with a vision,,,,­,,,,,,,,,,­,,,,,,,,,,­,,Al's got a good one.....Americans can either support it or stay where we are.......­..........­...just where this oil administration wants us

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:03 AM on 07/18/2008
- OldKnute I'm a Fan of OldKnute 101 fans permalink

Oh please!!!!

The first MOON SHOT gave us every technology we need to solve all our problems. Technologies, fuel cell, electrolysis, hydrogen, oxygen, Hydroxy, Water fuels.

Umm???

OK!

Look at the back end of the next Space Shuttle launch. You see that big,, white,,, fluffy,,, cloud? That is WATER. Water; that takes your astronauts into space. WATER! It works!!! You went to the moon using it! Your astronauts breath it. They are warmed by it and it powered their entire spacecraft and provided,, ALL,, the energy needed to electrically power their craft.

Just Water. Nothing more, nothing less, and when burnt, it reduces BACK to water!

Technologies that existed 100 years previous to John Kennedy declaring our intent to conquer space.

LOOK AT OUR WORLD!

Water is what plants convert, separate, and use to produce carbohydrates and sugars. Carbohydrates and sugars that are then what are turned into Hydrocarbons under the earth. Crude Oils.

How long ago were these things known????

God,,,, gathered the waters together and moved to and fro over the surface waters and said,,,, “Let their be light! And BANG! ----- There was light!

Sheese!!!

Read people,, READ!

Sorry for the attitude, but my gosh people,,,, READ! It is simple, even to the understandings of a child!

Mr. Gore, all due respect, but this is high school chemistry. Although your rockets run on water, this is NOT,,, rocket science.

*sigh*

All the best

Knute (Neo-Lib)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 AM on 07/18/2008

Knute, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The cloud at a space shuttle launch is made of aluminum chloride and aluminum oxide particles. Aluminum is the fuel, ammonium perchlorate is the oxidizer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/oxidizing/aluminum.html

Trust me, you would not want to breath that cloud in before it washes out of the atmosphere. The liquid oxygen/hydrogen tank supplies only a minor amount of thrust before the boosters burn out.

The fuel cells used in the Apollo program worked, poorly, for a couple weeks, then they were basically useless. Which is OK. They did not need good efficiency because they only needed a couple of kW of electricity to run the systems and they had plenty of fuel, anyway. The missions were over after ten days or so. It was basically a throw away technology.

Your exuberance is great, your technological knowledge, sadly, is basically non-existent and you don't even take the time to research the things you are talking about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 07/18/2008
- OldKnute I'm a Fan of OldKnute 101 fans permalink

Killthemessenger.

Golly! I was speaking of the main engines. Not the dangerous, relics of the petrochemical demanded and included, Ming Dynasty, Roman Candle, murderous, outdated, needless, archaic, pollution belching, booster rockets.

It is my fault. I should have been clearer.

I MEANT NO HARM.

Forgive me.

By the way. Comon-Ducted HHO only weighs about one half that of pure hydrogen. Why don’t we build a huge launch pad at about 186,000 feet high and launch our rockets to the moon from up there. Well above the majority of the earths atmosphere. 90% of the Shuttles fuels are expended just getting through the heavy and thick AIR of earth. Yeah,, Balloons to the Moon!!!!!

I love IT!

Just a side note.

Did you know that it took the Hindnnburg, less fuel to cross the Atlantic, than it would take to drive a Volkswagen across the United States, coast to coast?

Them crafty old Germans. Gota love um.

Huggers,,,, Killthemessenger.

Killthemessenger, the primary product of all forms of combustion, is WATER. Michael Faraday, 1833.

No foul.

All the best

Knute Neo-Lib

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:31 PM on 07/18/2008
- Krikkit I'm a Fan of Krikkit 14 fans permalink

How nice. If only exhortations were enough.

I know of at least two inventors who have come up with economical solutions to our energy crisis through using the ocean's wave action like a spring to generate electricity. Problem is that even years of trying hasn't allowed them to get through all the red tape that prevents them from transporting that electricity from the waves to the shore.

As long as states can control their bits of coast through "potential environmental impacts" this won't be solved. Wind and solar don't produce enough energy alone. Thermal? Greate for Iceland, not so great for us. "Clean" coal? Right. The costs of sequestration are astronomical and the technology is entirely unproven. Nuclear? After all these decades we still can't figure out what to do with the waste. It's ironic that on this score, third world countries will be implementing wave power to solve their energy needs long before the Great Giant the United States because they don't have the impossible hurdle of red tape to bog them down.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 AM on 07/18/2008
- OldKnute I'm a Fan of OldKnute 101 fans permalink

Most kind Kirkkit,

Actually Geothermal makes more sense that you might believe.

The backside of the Sierra Nevada range runs for over 1000 miles,, ALL of which is Geothermal active and at shallow depths. Look at all the hot water mineral spas that dot the Nevada bordering of California, Western Oregon and Washington.

This is not deep, these spas exist because the hot water that feeds them comes above ground of its own force.

Clean Coal???

To sequester the CO2 would be expensive, this is true. This is why it should be captured and used, not sent into the atmosphere as waste. With a simple parking lot of rows with racks holding clear tubing, this former waste is turned into sourced OILS, captured by algae and recovered as a liquid. The profits from the manufacture of cattle feeds and sourcing or live nutrients for fertilizers would pay for the COAL and the electricity produced. Much like turning seaweeds into the soils.

Algae’s love CO2.

Wind?

A single vertical axis wind turbine can supply three homes with all the power they need.

Solar?

If you buy a single 400 watt for a child at birth, photovoltaic solar panel, you would have provided that child all the energy they would ever need for the next 25 years of life.

Nuclear waste?

That was solved that 20 years ago, reduced from Geiger counter readings of 1000,,, to 40.

All the best

Knute Neo-LIB

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 AM on 07/18/2008

OldKnute said: If you buy a single 400 watt for a child at birth, photovoltaic solar panel, you would have provided that child all the energy they would ever need for the next 25 years of life.

Can you find a reference for this number. I looked a little on Google for it.
Thanks!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 PM on 07/18/2008
- ohiomark I'm a Fan of ohiomark 117 fans permalink

Give it up Al. We are on to your scam. MoveOn to your next hoax. See if you can get more dummies to buy carbon credits for the upcoming "global cooling".

Get over yourself Al, you can't change or control the climate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 PM on 07/17/2008
photo

"Get over yourself Al, you can't change or control the climate."


I don't think he ever claimed he could Markie.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 PM on 07/17/2008
- ohiomark I'm a Fan of ohiomark 117 fans permalink

Yes he has, every time he claims that we have to "ACT NOW" to stop global warming or the new phrase "climate change", which will cover his backside no matter what the climate does in the future.

Al Gore is the P.T. Barnum of our time and you Libs are the ones buying tickets to his circus.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:23 AM on 07/18/2008
- MGhamma I'm a Fan of MGhamma 12 fans permalink

Thanx mark for reminding all of us once again that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 AM on 07/18/2008
- OldKnute I'm a Fan of OldKnute 101 fans permalink

Oh Dustbunnies!

Mark, all Al has suggested is that WE ALL can become part of the solution.

This includes Oil Companies too.

Do you think the heads of Exxon Mobile, Shell and the others, like paying 10 times the price for the raw material they turn into the fuels and plastics we all need? Why do you think they have been diversifying into alternative technologies for the last 50 years?

Read about Atlantic Richfield’s purchases of Photovoltaic technologies during the LAST Saudi oil embargo. (1970s) These folks are not dummies. Their children breathe too.

Exxon is now touting new films for the Lithium Ion battery. Do you think they began this research on September 11th of 2001?

Nope!

These people LIVE and breath and share the same earth we do.

To some that had run these companies in the past, control over gas, oils, energy, natural gas might have once seemed an important goal. War for oil has tainted their companies too, just as it has ALL of America. 700 Billion a year simply flows BACKWARD through these companies of refining and distribution. THEY DON’T GET TO KEEP IT.

Oh my GOSH!

I am defending Exxon Mobile!

Well, facts are facts! The money is just passed through these companies, and a hope to capture a profit in the process and return a yield on investment.

The other MASSIVE beneficiary of the oil/petrol flow, other than source, is the Government in TAXES.

All the best

Knute Neo-Lib

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 AM on 07/18/2008

Good trolling. Good hating. Poor anything else.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 07/18/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect