A Generational Challenge to Repower America

This speech was given today at the D.A.R. Constitutional Hall

Ladies and gentlemen:

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more -- if more should be required -- the future of human civilization is at stake.

I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse -- much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.

Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.

Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me.

I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately -- without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges -- the economic, environmental and national security crises.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.

The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.

In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?

We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.

And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.

That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans -- in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal -- have radically changed the economics of energy.

When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

You know, the same thing happened with computer chips -- also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months -- year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row.

To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.

When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.

Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo -- the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."

To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change.

I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.

What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.

When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.

To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.

At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.

America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.

Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.

In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.

Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.

It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.

If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.

However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.

Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.

We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.

So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge -- for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.

This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org. We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.

On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.

I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.

We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.

Comments

[FogBelter]

Mr. Vice President, in the spirit of "Trust but Verify", would you be willing to consider promoting, on National Security grounds, a complete audit of the US Patent Office, in order to verify that the technologies that we need to move the Nation forward don't already exist?

I have always found it amazing how we have made such tremendous technological strides in virtually all areas of Science, Medicine, Engineering, what have you, but for some reason we are still saddled with the Internal Combustion Engine to power our vehicles ... a 19th Century Technology ...

Could we at least check and see if something interesting may be mouldering in a forgotten Manila Folder?

Just a though.

[Mort]

Those technologies have existed for decades, but you won't find them in the patent office. The oil and auto industries have gobbled up every good idea and packed them away. My dad worked on a carburetor in the 70's that got 75 mpg. They were offered 3 mil by Standard Oil but wouldn't sell. The owner of the company ended up being bribed and folded the project. What should have been a wonderful and profitable venture was conveniently deep sixed. There are tons of stories just like that across the country.

For this goal to be reached, big oil will have to be emasculated and the lobby outlawed.

[cathleen]

With you all the way Al. Thanks for all you do. Some of us are pushing hard.

Hey go check out Antioch in Yellow Springs Ohio...this college needs a buyer, it just closed down. I thought of your efforts when I was visiting the campus this spring. This small and beautiful campus would be a perfect setting for you to operate out of. Or how about turning that small college into a alternative energy outlet ..or a new green college.

[markie1111]

the guys at M.I.T., etc are guys we need to be listening to and watching. the knowledge is there and the will to tap it is paramount. just one little current example. geothermal in wyoming. imagine a system of underground powerplants spitting out DC in volumes and where the elk and wolves roam above. total cost and total benefit are sweet.

[research]

Geothermal CAUSES earth quakes, and could eventually solidify the Earth, killing the magnetic field and all life. total deep geothermal reserves are less then 1 years sunlight on earth. Solar and wind. See my profile.

[markie1111]

it's more than obvious, to some, that the e-economy is the substainable future. it is also obvious, to some, that without a dramatic reduction in human population, the nature of the planet is going to be boring, with millions of years of dna-rna complilation being squandered. it always amazes me, that as smart as we are, we discuss symtpoms but not the cure.

[Mort]

Cure? Are you talking genocide?

[cathleen]

With you all the way Al. Pushing hard. Thanks for all that you are doing. Hey we just had a small college in Ohio go under. Antioch in Yellow Springs Ohio. Perfect site for you to operate out of. Turn that small college into an alternative center in central Ohio. The place needs a buyer.

[worldsforgottenboy]

Mr. Vice President,

Comparing this proposal to Kennedy's Moon travel proposal is useful to inspire, but not to draw technical comparisons.

What you propose is a far easier task technically, but trickier politically. The key is to avoid elitist judgments on what specific technology should lead the way, and instead try to create a market environment where clean technologies can compete fairly.

To succeed, this plan also has to involve the following.

A major overhaul of the US utility sector, which has proven to be unable to bring its customers the benefits of open competition or even maintain reliable electricity delivery. Utilities have been able to pass the costs of their own mistakes and complacency on to customers, and can not be a part of the solution in their current form.

A project of equal scale to grab control of the global oil market, because we can not continue to bleed half a trillion dollars per year on oil imports. The US, not Saudi Arabia, must hold the excess capacity to control daily oil production rates and prices, while the economy transitions away from fossil fuels. This can be done, and needs to be done if the American people are going to have faith in this endeavor.

Yes we can.

[JRandomPoster]

"A project of equal scale to grab control of the global oil market, because we can not continue to bleed half a trillion dollars per year on oil imports. The US, not Saudi Arabia, must hold the excess capacity to control daily oil production rates and prices, while the economy transitions away from fossil fuels. This can be done, and needs to be done if the American people are going to have faith in this endeavor."

I think we've been trying that plan since the day we went into Iraq.

Can't say I think much of the results.

[worldsforgottenboy]

You could very well be right. We just happen to have an administration that likes high prices, not low prices. That's why Iraq is producing less oil than it used to, now that the US controls the oil fields.

What I am proposing is a government entity which throws oil on the market when the price exceeds X-dollars per barrel, and takes capacity off the market when the price drops below the target price. This is exactly what it looks like, blatant market manipulation to keep prices stable, and a lot lower than they are now. Oil is a manipulated commodity market and has been for a long time, and the suppliers are playing us more successfully than ever.

[obamanation31]

Great Speech. I really hope we can free ourselves from dependence on oil.

[nitram0244]

I'm calling my congressman and his opponent (everyone should), who is of course up for [re] election. Rob Whitman, 1st VA. He recently made the rounds advocating offshore drilling and opening anwar. Not even a word about conservation. Just think how much electricity we could produce if every house in the US had some solar panels or wind turbines. Check out Ed Begley. Everyone needs to be on board. Thanks Mr. Gore. Ya' should've won in 2000. The world would be a better place.

[JRandomPoster]

Dear Mr. Gore:

Very well said. I laud and appreciate your efforts.

[taoist]

I do not know if we are causeing climate change or not. But this man has vision in a world that is lacking it. All i know that if we sit around on our hands and think that the energy problem is going away we will be all sitting in the dark. When we will realize that oil is FINITE, and we are held hostage by oil states? When Mcsame said he was sorry to tell us that there are going to be more wars he wasn't sh##ing. Where there is oil there is going to be war. You cannot drill or refine you way out. We must act now! I have 3 grand kids and am scared to think what kind of world i have helped create. The time to put politics aside is NOW. Thanks for letting me express my view.

[JRandomPoster]

A good friend of mine works as a LEED certifier. His job is twofold: to run the engineering checks on buildings that are seeking to be certified, and to sell his services as a LEED certifier.

When the topic of global warming comes up from a potential customer, his response is of the form, "Look. There are finite amounts non-renewable energy sources out there, and nuclear isn't going anywhere. Your energy costs are just going to keep going up. If you take the conservation steps here, they will pay for themselves in 5 years or less."

Interestingly, he has told me that when they run the numbers, the LEED based tax breaks are less dollars than the savings in energy.

For more information on the LEED program:

www.usgbc.org/leed/

[mamacat]

Dear Mr. Gore,

thank you so much for all that you have done, and for all that you are doing.

[mark227]

No thanks Al....I'll pass.

[southernmamma]

Yes, Al, we can't afford to pass. But your ten year proposal needs to be decentralized to work. In fact, earlier this week on Huffington Post, a group of Appalachians announced their plan to do away with coal and go with wind, IF THEY CAN CONVINCE SOMEONE TO INVEST IN THEIR WIND PROJECT. This is big news. And they need Al Gore's help--and the help of everyone in the country-- to make this a reality. See the article--A Mighty Wind Awaits on Coal River Mountain:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/obama-a-mighty-wind-await_b_111563.html

[CascadianPDX]

You got a rocketship to another planet? Go for it dude. Don't let the door hit ya.....

[philobama]

We face a serious disconnect on the discussion of climate change. On the one hand, we talk about the impending calamity should we wait too long. We don't know what too long is given the scientific complexity, the ethical care of the scientific communtiy and the scare mongering by those who either won't or can't bear to listen to this communtiy. On the hand, renewable energy and other remedies are couched in terms of the costs and whether financially it is now ever more feasible. We must end this babble about only if the kw/$ is sound will we seek this or that form of renewable energy. This is a dialogue about the viability of humanity and what risk we are willing to run to wait and sacrifice. We did not have totalitarian/$ discussion about WWII, nor did we have a racist act/$ discussion about the civil rights or suffrage movement. George Bush and Jimmy Imhofe have laid down the gauntlet: there is no problem. The world's responsible community, including many here such as Al Gore and James Hansen, have said otherwise. So Congress and the next president have their options. That that cannot be done for whatever reason by the private sector, must be done by all of us together. Al Gore is right, it is time for some to step aside.

[CascadianPDX]

The relevance of cost is a good point, and one that is usually overlooked. Ironically, the costs ARE coming down for renewables, so why is it even an issue any more? Companies like Nanosolar have me really pumped that I'll have a good sized PV array and probably a plug-in hybrid in just a few years without destroying my savings account.

My main fear is that we'll get serious about Mr. Gore's 10 yr plan on the day that Greenland looses its last glacier... and the pleasure that I'll get when Rush Limbaugh's fancy Versailles-like mansion in Florida has a nice slick of oil floating 10 ft over its roof will indeed be a hollow one.

[philobama]

Gore said about this time last year that climate change would be on everbody's front burner within 565 days. At the time I wondered what scientific study does he have in mind or is there something else. I now wonder about the data coming out on Antartica regarding how unstable ice on the land might be.

Gore spoke at TED in March where he released disheartening numbers on the media questions during the primary debates (8/~3400) and the public's listing of climate change importance (~26/~30). If climate change will be driven by popular demand, I fear we have little hope. In this regard, I'm concerned about what will make Obama tick. I'm very grateful for Gore's continuing efforts, but like others, I wish he would engage the other side in an effort to capture the American public's attention. I just think that it is imperative that he assume a position with authoritiy and influence. He seems to be the only person with sufficient political stature to move forces.

[LITU]

Please Mr. Vice President, show the leadership to address the real issue at hand, overpopulation. Until that issue is broached with meaningful dialogue, and right quickly, no amount of green stewardship can stay the current trend.

[NoBo08]

That's right.

What is it that humans expel? CO2

I wonder if the population accounts for all the excess CO2 since the industrial revolution?

[worldsforgottenboy]

Nope. 6 billion humans on 2000 calories/day equal about 600GW, pumping out a little over half a billion tons of carbon per year. Significant, but less than 10% of the total. We also eat vegetables, so some of this is offset by agriculture (accept for those of us who love beef steaks...)

Good question, though..

[LITU]

Well, that's a good point except for the fact that we're not the only things on this planet breathing oxygen, and in nature there is always balance. In your postulate one must factor in all of the other life forms who expel CO2, offset by the phytoplankton who counter that production. That creates balance except for the fact that humans have deforested the planet, and are on the brink of destroying the soup of life in our oceans, which results in a lowering of potential to absorb the excess.

IMHO if the human population growth isn't brought under IMMEDIATE control, there is no tomorrow as we know it. Nature will void out the excess (Nature always does), which in turn will reduce the remaining humans to an agronomic culture, and the problem of techno-pollution will be solved (until the next round).

[CascadianPDX]

We're a technological society, and somehow, I think we're only capable of a technological solution. Perhaps if we succeed in a 10 yr plan and end up with a near zero carbon, non-centralized, profit sharing, more democratic energy system, then we'll be more likely to look at population issues objectively.

[LITU]

I find your argument plausible.

[whatsthatsound]

Mr. Gore is an American, so he is addressing an area where the United States has the potential to make the most difference. Overpopulation is not our major problem in the way it is in other parts of the world. On the other hand, our energy policies, the way we use energy, the power that special interests in this country hold to prevent real change from happening, etc.; these are problems specifically related to the United States more than any other country. It makes perfect sense for Mr. Gore to focus on this issue first and foremost.

[LITU]

Be that as it may, Mr. Gore has always included the global community in his exposés, and as such, the condition of overpopulation is a valid argument for him to address. And I am surprised that you don't even consider population as a primary cause of the problem, since there is no place to hide from that reality.

Like I said, we either deal with it immediately, or we lose the battle. This is not rocket science.

[nirek]

My solar panels will be installed in August and I am glad I spent the money wisely. Hope everyone else does it too. Go Gore, GO SOLA.R

[meanguy]

cost for the system?

[NoBo08]

I wonder what Al has to say about 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.

[johnavery237]

Yeah, except they didn't reverse their stance.

http://www.aps.org/

Right on the front page.

[NoBo08]

Not yet. But......

"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."

[BUMbO]

http://www.aps.org/

APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

[NoBo08]

A little out of date. My statement is from today....

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

[JRandomPoster]

From reading over your comments in this thread, I have to ask, do you understand the peer review process?

[fredpferr]

I don't know about NoBoo8, but I understand it:
Peer review = Circle Jerk.
In politically polluted scientific circles, peer review has zero-to-negative value.

[MGhamma]

Why is it that it's NEVER climate scientists that reverse their stance? It's always physicists, or astronomers, or mathematicians, or biologists, or Miss Cleo, or the limborgh,etc,etc,etc!