Al Gore, Political Visionary?

So says E.J. Dionne, arguing that Al Gore's speech yesterday showed the Democrats how they should talk about rising fuel prices - by offering voters a "bigger offer" on energy, a long-term vision rather than a short-term fix.

Well, that's one way to look at Gore's speech, which argued that "the survival of the United States of America as we know it" and indeed "the future of human civilization" are at risk, and the best way to avert disaster is to "commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years." Here's a slightly different take, from James Pethokoukis:

Gore's fantastic—in the truest sense of the word—proposal is almost unfathomably pricey and makes sense only if you think that not doing so almost immediately would result in an uninhabitable planet. Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens recently came out with a plan to generate 20 percent of America's power through wind. His estimate was that it would cost $1 trillion to build that capacity and another $200 billion to update our electrical grid to transmit that energy around the country ... By my math, using Pickens's numbers, converting the whole economy to renewable energy in a short period of time might cost $5 trillion—and that is if you assume that government-led projects come in on budget. (Remember, the current U.S. gross domestic product is $12 trillion.) That would be like creating another Japan. Or fighting World War II all over again. The latter analogy is especially apt since the Gore Plan would effectively transform our free-market economy into a command-and-control war economy full of rationing and scarcity ... Again, all this makes sense if you think we are doomed otherwise.

This isn't the first time Gore has made a proposal with jaw-dropping economic consequences. Environmental economist William Nordhaus ran the numbers on Gore's idea to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus found that while such a plan would indeed reduce the maximum increase in global temperatures to between 1.3 and 1.6 degrees Celsius, it did so "at very high cost" of between $17 trillion and $22 trillion over the long term, as opposed to doing nothing. (Again, just for comparative purposes, the entire global economy is about $50 trillion.)

So yes, there's a sense in which Gore is making Americans a "bigger offer" than the "drill here, drill now" crowd. The notion that it's a winning political offer seems a little more dubious.

Comments

So, $5 trillion.

What's the current deficit as opposed to what it was when Bush took office?

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 12:30 PM

Look at it this way. The existential threat posed by climate change is about a million times greater than any such threat posed by 'Islamofacism'. The GOP has successfully used the latter as a political cudgel for the past few years. Why shouldn't the Democrats use the former in the same way?

Of course, if you think climate change is just some sort of joke, then say so.

Posted by lampwick | July 18, 2008 12:33 PM

The man is truly insane. The thought of what foreign policy chips he would've traded-off for this megalomaniacal vision is truly frightening.

Thank god palm beach jews voted for Pat Buchanan.

Posted by Chris | July 18, 2008 12:50 PM

Mr. Gore's timing could not be worse. In today's news: "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. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming 'incontrovertible..'" http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm.

I guess the ice is melting beneath Mr. Gore's feet.

Posted by DBL | July 18, 2008 12:53 PM

Lampwick:

Use global warming as a threat all you like. The fact that Democrats are all a-quiver because the GOP's stance on drilling seems to be a political plus for them in our $4 per gallon world should tell you what a winner of an issue global warming is the second anyone proposes anything concrete to curb carbon emissions.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 18, 2008 12:59 PM

The fact that a handful of BlueDogs are making noises about drilling is hardly an indication that the Democratic party as a whole is "all a-quiver."

As for the APS, its supposed change of stance was just a publicity stunt on the part of one Viscount Monckton; the society as a whole has not changed its views one whit.

Updated 7/17/2008
After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

That said, I'm sure this won't cause any dropoff in the membership rolls at the GOP Flat Earth Society.

Posted by lampwick | July 18, 2008 1:09 PM

the current administration has already spent a couple of trillion dollars fighting the so-called War on Terror, to abysmal results.

Gore is a fanatic and his climate change crusade is crazy. But it is indeed *sane* compared to George Bush and John McCain's policy of endless war and tax cuts at the same time. not to mention that gore's program is legislative and could never have possibly passed congress. Sadly, congress displayed no such resistance when authorizing Bush's horrifyingly misguided war with iraq.

there's no doubt that under a President Gore the federal deficit would be at least a couple trillion dollars less than it currently is. same thing with obama vs. mccain, which of course shows self-styled "fiscal conservatives" for the hypocrites and hacks they really are. No person who actually cares about the state of our finances could vote for McBush in good conscience.

Posted by raft | July 18, 2008 1:32 PM

"The latter analogy is especially apt since the Gore Plan would effectively transform our free-market economy into a command-and-control war economy full of rationing and scarcity"

Hold up here, how exactly would building more solar, wind, etc. plants be any more or less command and control than our current system. Me thinks that once again conservatives are lying through their teeth in order to scare the peasants into voting against their own best interests. Either Ross is stupid or intellectually dishonest.

Posted by freddiemac | July 18, 2008 1:34 PM

careful freddiemac, the intern will be around shortly. Stating your opinion and exposing huge contradictions or hypocrisy seems to violate the terms nowadays.

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 1:41 PM

So, the Repub plan is to put oil wells in wildlife refuges, shore lines and refineries in everybodies backyard. Essentially we'll all live in a place like Baton Rougue. Every shore will be Galvestone Bay. And in the meanwhile we continue to send 2 Bn dollars a day to Vladimir Putin, the Saudi Royals and other charming people.

I'll take that to the voters.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 18, 2008 1:43 PM

DBL,

So the APS now claims "incontrovertibly" that global warming is not caused by human factors?

Because, that is what I would understand under the use of the word "reverse."

As it stands, it seems that the APS wants to open up the question for debate because there are people in the scientific community who disagree with global warming claims.

Wow.. sounds kinda scientific to me. Let's have a debate and allow people to present evidence.

I find no mention, however, that the APS is now actively attacking global warming science or that there default belief isn't that global warming exists and has human components to it.

You know.. I'm willing to bet the APS would also have a debate about the Big Bang Theory.. without it meaning that they have changed their minds that it is the correct theory...

As it is.. I'm not entirely convinced that Humans are primarily to blame for global warming. I think the evidence is quite clear that the planet has been getting hotter over the past couple hundred years, and that this trend has accellerated markedly quite recently.. but the planet has been significantly hotter in the past.. and we may just be contributing to a natural process that is going to be a bitch to deal with anyway...

I'd rather like to see more research into dealing with the consequences than a perhaps, a bit to simplified, focus on causes.

So the APC

Posted by tricstmr | July 18, 2008 1:44 PM

Freddiemac, it's more command and control than the existing system because Gore is calling for a replacement of roughly 94% of existing power sources in the next 10 years. Total replacement of non-renewable energy sources in 10 years isn't feasible under any circumstances, but it's not even imaginable absent massively increased Government intervention. And Gore's speech leaves no doubt that such intervention is precisely what he's calling for.

Posted by Alex | July 18, 2008 1:53 PM

The APS has the following on their front page:

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."

More can be read at www.aps.org

Posted by DA | July 18, 2008 1:59 PM

Conservatives are all for a command-and-control government whenever it's a matter of gearing up to fight a war.

Posted by lampwick | July 18, 2008 2:27 PM

I think they are all for command-and-control government when it's a conservative government.

It's a bit rich to suddenly be against big government now.

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 2:29 PM

Lampwick:

If Conservatives really had been "all for a command and cotrol government" to fight the stupid war in Iraq, we probably would have had an honest debate about the costs of Iraq, and not done the War.

Gore really does take a leaf from the Rove playbook on evironmental issues (though, since Earth in the Balance dates back to the early 90s -- he's actually been doing it longer). He gins up some ultra humongous big scary threat, and then kind of skips around the costs of fighting the thing. This is effective politics, but usually generates misguided or ineffective policies. And, I think, unless things start really getting warmer soon, Gore is going to run out of gas on this one. Because, the thing Americans hate worse than a beach house with a flooded basement is $4 a gallon gas.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 18, 2008 2:35 PM

Someone had to say what Al Gore is saying; someone has to be intellectually honest and willing to speak out loudly and clearly as Al Gore is doing.
Emergent and convergent global challenges, ominously looming before the family of humanity on the far horizon, threaten the future of human civilizations, life as know it and the efficacy of Earth as a fit place for human habitation:

the human overpopulation of Earth;

the pending loss of adequate fossil fuel reserves and other vital energy sources due to unrestrained international plundering;

the dissipation of limited resources due to reckless per-capita overconsumption;

the problems of global warming in particular and climate change more generally; and

the insufficiently bridled pollution of air, land and water as well as precipitating irreversible degradation of the planet's frangible ecosystems services due to relentless industrialization and unregulated economic globalization.

Who knows, perhaps necessary change is in the offing.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php

Posted by Steven Earl Salmony | July 18, 2008 2:47 PM

tricstmr - I agree, let's have a debate. Let's actually look at the data (which I believe, although I could be wrong, shows zero global warming over the past decade.) What a second, didn't Mr. Gore say that the debate was over? How can there be physicists who disagree with him? They must all be on the payroll of Big Oil.

Then of course there is Freeman Dyson. There's no way to impugn his integrity so I guess the best thing to do is just ignore him.

I am encouraged, though, by the fact that the society of physicists, and you, too, apparently, think that science is better served by reasoned debate over what the the observable facts mean versus ex cathedra pronouncements and ad hominem attacks.

Posted by DBL | July 18, 2008 2:54 PM

Steve,

Let's separate out the issues, shall we?

There is no shortage of fossil fuels. In the US alone, we have a 1,000 year supply of coal. That's not counting oil shale, offshore oil, etc., etc.

Now there may or may not be reasons not to use fossil fuels. You apparently believe that using them will result in some kind of global catastrophe. That is a separate issue from whether or not there is a shortage of fossil fuels.

Hope this helps.

Posted by DBL | July 18, 2008 2:58 PM

Conservative Gore-derangement syndrome makes me laugh.

Its first child was the fantasy that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet; he did not, and did not claim to have done so.

Its most recent creation is this idea that Gore has 'ginned up' the global warming threat. He hasn't; it's a real threat; it's completely rational to be scared by it.

I can't wait for the next act.

And is there anyone who can say with a straight face that drilling off the coast of the US or drilling in ANWR is going to have any meaningful effect on the price of gas? By the time it enters the system, gas is likely to be above five dollars a gallon anyway, and we're talking about a five to twenty cent discount from all the new drilling. Oh happy happy, joy joy! What a wonderful plan of action! Whereas if we follow Gore's vision, we end our enslavement to the price of petroleum and our addiction to oil.

Which course is more prudent? Which is more truly conservative? Or is there something essentially conservative about the burning of petroleum by-products?

Posted by lampwick | July 18, 2008 3:00 PM

" Gore is calling for a replacement of roughly 94% of existing power sources in the next 10 years"

And? As I see it, we have an energy grid that is regulated by the government, subsidized by the government, and under the daily operation of government sponsored monopolies. So again I ask, how is replacing 94% of existing power sources in 10 years going to be any more of a command economy than right now?

I don't necessarily agree with Al Gore on how to deal with the environment, but the sort of knee jerk hand wringing about communism is exactly as I called it: Dishonest or dumb.

Posted by freddiemac | July 18, 2008 3:16 PM

Lampwick, I think most of the conservatives here are of a sort that don't question the effects of greenhouse gas, just the relative human impact on Earth's temperatures and the cost of "doing something" about it.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts on Jim Manzi's assessment of the cost-benefit of something that is difficult to measure in the first place. It sounds cold, but there could be many bad unintended consequences to bankrupting ourselves for something that may not have a material impact, if any at all. And yes, a natural cooling or warming period would likely have much greater effect than anything we do.

Posted by Yama Be There | July 18, 2008 3:17 PM

well lampwick, since Bush announced the repeal of the executive order banning offshore drilling this week crude futures have dropped $15. Related? Maybe not, but it certainly lets someone argue with a straight face that offshore drilling is worth at least $15. Which is more than 10% of current prices - I'd say that's meaningful.

As for Gore's vision, you do realize that we'll then be slaves to price of wind, solar, or geothermal, right? Renewable and cheap aren't synonyms - if you think it'll be cheaper to convert our ecomony to renewables than to keep using oil, coal, and natural gas you ought to prepare yourself for disappointment. Climate change is the only plausible basis for a dramatic shift to renewables, not cost savings.

Posted by Alex | July 18, 2008 3:20 PM

Here is a post from the yourlyingeyes blog that typifies most the faulty logic in most the comments in this thread perfectly:

Get Ready for a Lot More of These Arguments
".....That's going to be the formula for the next however-many years. Everything, no matter how stupid, will be justified on the basis of it not being as stupid as invading Iraq. Worried about the budget and would like to cut back on spending? Here's Dean Baker suggesting that $50 billion over 5 years is chump change:

In comparative terms, it is less than what the United States spends in 3 weeks on the war in Iraq.

So nothing can ever cost too much ever again, because we wasted so much money on Iraq."
http://lyingeyes.blogspot.com/2007/03/get-ready-for-lot-more-of-these.html

Posted by scottynx | July 18, 2008 3:39 PM

lampwick:

if it's rational to be frightened by a threat; it is also prudent to take the threat's true measure, and then plan to deal with it. Gore succeeds at scaring people (a.k.a. raising awreness.) He is very bad at analyzing that threat's true measure. And economists -- as Ross indicates -- usually end up shaking their heads when the analyze the costs of the guy's visions.

Gore does not have the power of W to really foul things up by his fearmongering without regard to consequences. But they really are two sides of the same coin in their tactics.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 18, 2008 3:42 PM

scottynx,

It's more disgust that having hemorraged so much money under Bush, suddenly Republicans are discovering fiscal responsibility just in time for their presumed eviction in November.

Coincidental I'm sure.

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 3:48 PM

Al Gore : Climate Change :: John McCain : Middle East Foreign Policy

Thankfully, only one of them is running for POTUS.

Posted by Jeff | July 18, 2008 3:52 PM

Alex - Bush said at his presser this week that there was no such thing as a 'magic wand' to lower oil prices; you ought to take your president at his word.

Personally, I second Gore's goals, but not his plan for getting there. I think the article by Freeman Dyson in NYRB June 12 outlined the smartest and most effective overall approach: develop the technology for a 'low-cost backstop' (a technological breakthrough); negotiate an international treaty with a global carbon tax in case the first option doesn't pan out; steer clear of the Gore plan and the Kyoto protocols.

Renewables are expensive but the logic of their development says that the cost will only go down over time (assuming a finite population). The reverse is the case with non-renewables. Which is the better choice?

Posted by lampwick | July 18, 2008 3:52 PM

Jeff,

Thankfully only one of them would win the election to be POTUS.

And they won it in 2000.

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 3:55 PM

Lampwick, why on Earth would I take Bush at his word ? Or do you assume I'm a Bush-loving Republican because I don't think that an all-renewable approach to energy is likely to be cheaper that a balanced approach that provides energy from sources based on the cost of production? Bush makes a statement, the futures market immediately drops, while there's been no other notable change in either the fundamentals or the global marketplace. That hardly proves a causal connection, but given the possible impact of a speculative run-up on oil prices, it's hardly a laughable possibility that the projected shift in US drilling policy has had an impact.

On your broader point, its simply not likely that renewable energy will ever be so cheap as to completely eliminate the price rationale for natural gas use, for example - so why set an arbitrary goal of 100% renewable energy? I haven't read the NYRB article yet, but I hadn't heard Dyson argued that either the backstop or the carbon tax was supposed to or likely to result in 100% renewables use.

Posted by Alex | July 18, 2008 4:06 PM

If it will take $5 trillion to convert the whole economy to renewables in 10 years, but it will take $17 to $22 trillion to convert only 90% in 42 years (i.e., by 2050), then I say let's do the 10 year plan.

Posted by jwg | July 18, 2008 4:09 PM

Come on freddiemac, you really don't see a difference in the government's relative level of command and control when its granting local power company monopolies vs. banning the use of oil, natural gas, and coal - not just in power generation but in vehicles, etc. - and funding an entirely new energy infrastructure? Telling automanufacturers they can sell only battery-powered cars, and owners they have to get rid of any car running on gas, is no different than MPG standards and emissions inspections?

And that assumes the government's role could be limited to funding the new infrastructure. I could be wrong, but I'd imagine that to get it built out as needed to cover the country's needs fully in only 10 years would require the government to plan out the locations and specs of a fair amount of the network, not just float cash to private renewables companies.

The task is immense, it would mean command-and-control to an enormous degree, and that's a serious issue that has to be debated in the context of this kind of proposal. To point that out isn't a knee-jerk fear of communism. Maybe you're hear a lot of that, but its not present in this post.

Posted by Alex | July 18, 2008 4:18 PM

From an energy investment banker at The Oil Drum:

The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it's not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a LOT of sense economically.

Full post here.

Or you could believe a physicist who thinks that trees can be made to crap diamonds.

Posted by Francis | July 18, 2008 4:22 PM

$700 billion per year goes out of the US to oil producing countries, plus an additional $150 billion to occupy Iraq. Those costs will fluctuate over time but they're going up steadily over the long term and that fact is undeniable. The stuff is simply running out.
Climate change is an issue that conservatives refuse to accept - fine, be an jackass - but its your tax money too. Thats your money circling the drain along with mine. Why not keep some of our treasure and put it into re-usable, domestically produced fuels? Or are you so in love with Hugo Chavez, Iran and Saudi Arabia that you can't stand the idea of seeing your money going anywhere else but into their slush funds?
One more thing, are conservatives really so stupid that they believe a thousand year supply of coal exists in this country? Do they really believe oil is a renewable resource being generated anew deep in the Earth's surface (by Jesus?) to keep us riding in Hummers until judgment day? If conservatives are this stupid, there's no hope. The country needs these assholes to get it together, put down the bong and start taking our problems seriously for a change.

Posted by Nathan | July 18, 2008 4:23 PM

Let's not forget about the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System and the way it bankrupted the treasury and sank the U.S. economy back in the 50's.

And that's to say nothing of the Rural Electrification Administration, a costly boondoggle which succeded in turning millions of American farmers into godless Communits without providing them a single watt of energy.

Posted by lampwick | July 18, 2008 4:40 PM

That damn liberal dove Eisenhower!

Posted by James | July 18, 2008 4:42 PM

I'm surprised all the economic conservatives here (you're still out there, right?) aren't making the connection between what we spend yearly on oil and what we could be spending on removing ourselves from that dependency.

While the short term costs might be cringe-inducing, the long-term strategic and economic costs with/or without global warming are frightening.

There's another plus to this plan: our electrical infrastructure is aging, and aging fast. A shift to renewables would require (as T Boone has proposed) a reorg and redev of the entire system. Something that is sorely needed.

I'd also be willing to bet that the jobs/economic development of this project would help pay for some of the massive expenditures--I mean you're talking about launching an entirely new sector of the economy here, almost from scratch.

Posted by Geoff | July 18, 2008 4:58 PM

Ross,

You make a common mistake in writing about the economic impacts of tackling climate change.

While it is true that it will take many trillions of dollars to transition us away from carbon fuel sources, this does not matter as long as its a good investment. If a business invests in a new factory, they don't judge it by the total cost of investment, but rather the RETURN on the investment.

Gore's point is that by investing in renewables and efficiency, we will SAVE money in the long run because of the favorable economics in the world of expensive fossil fuel energy we're in (local investment, no supply interruptions, greater efficiency).

And yes, it will take a big effort and trillions of dollars to do this (the WWII analogy is apt), but its a good investment. Simply hoping that these problems will be solved at no cost or effort is not a strategy nor responsible.

Posted by Andy | July 18, 2008 5:40 PM

James, I can call stupidity whenever I see it.

Iraq war= Stupid
Al Gore's plan= Stupid

Can you call stupidity whenever you see it, or only half the time?

Posted by scottynx | July 18, 2008 6:08 PM

Yo, yo, good point, dog.

Posted by Michael Rapaport | July 18, 2008 7:50 PM

Andy,

How do you calculate the return on the investment? What discount rate are you using? Jim Manzi has written pretty extensively about the economic return on climate change avoidance, and his conclusions do not support Al Gore's proposal, to say the least. I'd be interested in seeing similar analysis that comes to the opposite conclusion, and what assumptions it is based on.

raft and calipygian,

Where do your "trillions" of dollar cost estimates for the Iraq war come from? My understanding is that the total cost so far is somewhere in the $500-$600 billion range. Hardly peanuts, but not $5 trillion, either.

Posted by right | July 18, 2008 8:58 PM

Iraq war cost: up to $5 trillion.
Source: Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Winning Economist

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acXcm.yk56Ko&refer=home

Posted by lampwick | July 18, 2008 9:13 PM

lampwick = namedropper

Well, that settles it. Of course, I'm sure no Nobel laureates disagree w/ Stiglitz. On anything.

Posted by Yama Be There | July 18, 2008 11:31 PM

Scotty,

My post to you was specifically about hypocrisy. Not about the validity of two things which I didn't compare, but of fiscal discipline becoming vital just as the GOP is app. about to leave the building.

Posted by James | July 19, 2008 3:10 AM

And, assuming this is also yourself, this is not the first time you've used the argument, so it's not exclusive to Gore's plan.

scottynx (6 months ago) Show Hide
0 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply
oswald1973, the Iraq war has nothing to do with the issue of poor immigrants costing taxpayers. Your attitude shows that the Iraq war was a disaster, not just fiscally, but for our very thought processes. Any waste of money can now be justified by saying "But the Iraq war wasted even more money!!!". That doesn't make much sense, but unfortunately I bet we will hear it a lot. But long after we close our bases and Iraq is over, poor immigrants will still be here costing taxpayers.

Posted by James | July 19, 2008 3:37 AM

Let's leave global warming to the side for a moment. Here's my question:

Open up national parks and offshore areas to drilling, and then what? In a few years, more oil comes on the market. After a while, it, too, goes away.

We've managed to burn through all the oil ever extracted in, what, a little over 100 years? Is demand going down? Does anyone think that if the oil is available, we won't just continue to burn it as fast as we can pump it? How many years are these new fields going to buy us?

Expanding drilling does nothing more than kick the can down the road to our grandkids. It's stupid.

We need to change the way we live, and use less fossil fuels. It's not rocket science, it's not out of our grasp technically or any other way.

It's time to quit being lazy and get on with it.

Thanks -

Posted by russell | July 19, 2008 4:05 PM

All too many people are locked in a mindset that we cannot continue to access and use ANY non-renewable sources because eventually they will run out - ergo - we must ban any new use of those resources now because just banning it means we will have a magic renewable alternative in short order.

We must stop mining copper and phosphorus fertilizer and potash and gold because the supply is finite and much is not recycled, but consumed.

Any attempt to boost mining or drilling to face a shortage now and all but certain to still exist years later must also not be done because there is no immediate gratification.

And of course, these are the Boomers that grew up demanding the tasty freeze ice cream snack and demanding it NOW and getting it and much of that generation and the liberal echos of generations subsequent to Algore's were built arount that immediate gratification.
So rather than say Global Warming is a problem we must work on and perhaps make a complete considered transition away from 22 trillion globally sunk into cars, oil furnaces, coal plants etc. and seeing what we can make economical and scale up enough to replace hydrocarbons or reduce global population over time back down to a sustainable 2-3 billion people...the infantile side of the Boomers and their followers comes out.

No! We want it all solved NOW! We are upset with Global Warming Fear!! We can't wait, we can't be deliberate! We want the CO2-free economy NOW! And no nukes on our tasty freeze please!

All I can think is thank God the Goracle and his true-believer "only Government can make wind and solar economical and give us all we need" Lefty, netroot base didn't fixate on human overpopulation as the main driver (which it is) of AGW.

Al would be frothing at the mouth and jetting to Aspen and Davos and saying the only answer is for humans outside the wise Ruling Elites he is in to draw straws and for the excess 4 billion to report to euthanization chambers. To save the Planet! To save the Planet! Now!

Again, with wind at 0.5% of net electric power and solar at 0.03% (hydro and forestry biomass are 92% of renewable energy) - Gores claim that he can get 100% renewable in 10 years on just wind, solar, geothermal with no new fossil or nuclear when we also add 23 million people a decade from unchecked immigration that Goracle supports - is batshit insane.
Wind and solar also, since there is no storage, and whole regions can go without wind or direct sunlight for weeks on end, needs 100% backup generation infrastructure built. Unlike nukes, fossil.

The 5 trillion to build replacement CO2 free is hugely underestimating the cost. Homeowners and ratepayers and businesses would lose all sunk costs into hydrocarbon equipment, rather than see the investment used and recouped over - say, a 40 year transition period. Add 5 trillion in replacement cost losses to US citizens. Add 1 trillion in backup generation construction. Add up to 12 trillion in citizen's losses over 25 years if solar and wind remain 10 to 90 times as costly as the electricity we get now.
And the cost in taxes if the market concludes not only are wind and solar uneconomical, but they won't finance on risk that solar and wind are not scalable to meet our immense power needs, people will refuse to buy it...then the Government taxes to finance the true believers "Green Solution"

Posted by chris ford | July 19, 2008 7:06 PM

Al would be frothing at the mouth and jetting to Aspen and Davos and saying the only answer is for humans outside the wise Ruling Elites he is in to draw straws and for the excess 4 billion to report to euthanization chambers.

That's great. You want to start knitting dinner?

Posted by ed | July 19, 2008 11:56 PM

Discuss Energy Environment Issues :
Energy Environment Forum
Cheers

Posted by scotty | July 20, 2008 1:34 AM

"for the excess 4 billion to report to euthanization chambers. To save the Planet! To save the Planet! Now!"

Chris, what if instead of most, all of that 4 billion were brown/black?

Now it's starting to tempt you.

Posted by James | July 20, 2008 8:51 AM

Right,

Good question on the discount rate, but I think this issue gets more ink than its worth. Economists have legitimate differences on the correct discount rate to use (Nicholas Stern is of course on the other side of the debate).

But discussions of the discount rate sort of miss the point. Many of the analyses that forecast large costs underestimate energy prices (although this is changing) and they massively underestimate innovation.

It does NOT make economic sense today to build a new coal-fired power plant, which is one reason you see so many of these losing financing. Wind and thermal solar are growing massively, and energy efficiency has a negative cost (which means you make money from it).

The reason this hasn't happened yet (again, things changing quickly) is because our energy economy is highly dependent on legislation/regulation since energy delivery is a natural monopoly. What this means is that the market can't work right now, and you need politicians and regulators to change the rules to account for the market changes.

Frankly, conservatives are pretty behind the ball on this stuff. In the business community, its already a done deal. Smart businessmen know that big changes are coming and they're positioning themselves accordingly.

For more info on the "costs" I'd recommend you read this analysis by McKinsey which lays out the issues pretty well (they say there will be small net cost using conservative assumptions but that it will provide a short-term stimulus which is what we need).

http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/Carbon_Productivity/index.asp

Posted by Andy | July 20, 2008 12:48 PM

Yes, Al Gore is a political visionary (in a positive sense). Next question.

Posted by ed | July 20, 2008 2:33 PM

"since Bush announced the repeal of the executive order banning offshore drilling this week crude futures have dropped $15. Related? Maybe not, but it certainly lets someone argue with a straight face that offshore drilling is worth at least $15. Which is more than 10% of current prices - I'd say that's meaningful."

It is the lack of understanding of basic finance that identifies the conservative.

Posted by mickslam | July 20, 2008 10:17 PM

Nothing visionary about announcing a government initiative that instead of fixing a problem will make it worse.

This is what gore has done and there is no doubt that if enacted his ideas would cause a massive increase in environmental destruction, carbon emissions and habitat loss.

We could use less of that vision thank you very much.

Posted by TJIT | July 20, 2008 10:35 PM

gore's proposal for increased biofuel usage is a very good indicator of just how ignorant he is and just how environmentally destructive his plan is.

His biofuel policy will cause ever increasing amounts of destruction of absolutely irreplaceable habitat.

What About the Land?

The hype over biofuels in the U.S. and Europe has had wide-ranging effects perhaps not envisioned by the environmental advocates who promote their use.

Throughout tropical countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia, rainforests and grasslands are being cleared for soybean and oil-palm plantations to make biodiesel, a product that is then marketed halfway across the world as a "green" fuel.

Posted by TJIT | July 20, 2008 10:44 PM

In an rather disgusting bit of irony gore's plan, if enacted, is going to increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Ethanol appears to come with a higher greenhouse-gas price tag than previously thought — higher, indeed, than fossil fuel.

“Simply said, ethanol production today using U.S. corn contributes to the conversion of grasslands and rainforest to agriculture, causing very large GHG emissions,” wrote Berkeley profs Alex Farrell and Michael O’Hare in a January 12 memo to California regulators.

“Even if only a small fraction of the emissions calculated in this crude way [through land use change] are added to estimates of direct emissions for corn ethanol, total emissions for corn ethanol are higher than for fossil fuels.

Gore's plan is not visionary, it is criminally stupid.

Posted by TJIT | July 20, 2008 10:57 PM

TJIT,

Care to show me where in the speech that Ross links to are the words 'ethanol' or 'biofuel'?

You have read it, of course, otherwise that might mean you could be spreading misinformation.

And i'd hate to think of it being slated as a result of your economics alone - you sound a reasonable guy, given your description of recently shot Brian Beutler as "a welfare cheating bum".

Posted by James | July 21, 2008 6:40 AM

One thing to remember - there is a good chance that nanotechnology solar will scale in price and power with time as other information technologies have. If this were so, we could generate all electricity from solar in 20 years.

Completely getting off carbon for electricity is not crazy.

Posted by Chris J. | July 21, 2008 10:40 AM

James,

Could you point out where, as you say,

I described recently shot Brian Beutler as "a welfare cheating bum".

Because I never said that.

Thanks,

TJIT

Posted by TJIT | July 21, 2008 10:17 PM

James,

I heard either excerpts from Gore's speech or an interview with him on NPR. That is where I believe he specifically mentioned biofuels as a way of getting one dollar per gallon gasoline.

I am pretty sure he said it because I had some rather strong comments at the time on just how idiotic that particular policy was.

In the transcript of the speech Ross linked to you will find the following passage

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.

The only form of alternative liquid fuels available to replace gasoline are biofuels. . He is advocating increased biofuel use and he is saying that it will reduce the cost to $1 per gallon in ten years time.

Posted by TJIT | July 21, 2008 10:33 PM

@TJIT: Bacterial biomass degradation and the use of algae are two viable means to produce liquid alternative fuels.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by really? | July 23, 2008 3:52 PM

Really,

I see you are proposing the use of vaporware to supply liquid fuels for transport purposes..

How many commercial scale plants exist using your proposed technology? Unless things have changed in the past couple of months I do believe the answer you will find is zero.

Algae is a very intriguing technology but it faces non trivial obstacles to commercialization.

Biomass has huge problems to overcome just in the area of energy required to transport biomass from where it is grown to where it is processed.

Not to mention the considerable risk for environmental destruction and increased carbon emissions from land use changes to produce biomass.

I worked in habitat preservation for years and the single largest driver of habitat destruction was government policy.

The biofuel debacle has given everyone another course in just how environmentally destructive bad government policy can cause.

many people warned of the destruction biofuel policy would cause. These warnings were blown off by enthusiastic but technically ignorant folks like yourself.

Thanks for playing, please come back when your technical knowledge matches your enthusiasm.

That will be a big help to preserving the environment.

Posted by TJIT | July 23, 2008 7:35 PM