Gore Sets 10-Year Clean Energy Goal

Former VP Challenges Next President To Produce All Electricity Through Earth-Friendly Sources

(CBS/ AP)  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.

"We've got to end our dependence on oil and coal," Gore told CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric. "They're rising rapidly in price. That's why gasoline prices are going up, and that's why electricity rates are going up. But the new demand for oil and coal from China and these other fast-growing countries means that only way we're going to escape the rising prices, and the dependence on foreign sources is by switching to renewable sources."

---

To watch Couric's full interview with Gore, click here

For a complete transcript of Couric's interview with Gore, click here

---

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.

This afternoon, both Obama and Mccain accepted Gore's challenge, reports CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes. As Mccain put it, "If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable."

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.

"One of the reasons why our country's had such a hard time dealing with this, is it does involve national security, energy, the economy and the environment," Gore told Couric. "But there's a common thread that runs through all of them. The key is ending our dependence on carbon-based fuels. And if we grab hold of that thread and pull it, the other problems begin to unravel, and we got the answer right in our hands. It's the the switch over from carbon-based fuel to renewable energy."

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."

[oldwisdom]

Al Gore, big Tennessee polluter?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17685

[oldwisdom]

Here is more info on the zinc and lead mine Al Gore has profited from. Yea, he is SO worried about the environment,...what a load of BS talk.


http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/campaign2k/gorepollution.htm

[oldwisdom]

Here is the link to Al Gore''s zinc and lead mine pollution info.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-18-goremine_n.htm

[oldwisdom]

Gore''s mansions and lead mine leave extremely high carbon foot prints and pollution. He should clean up his own back yard before lecturing the rest of the planet,...or didn''t you know about his lead mine?

[louiville2]

Loony left Environmentalists are the reason we are in this mess. They blocked drilling, blocked new power plants, they are even working on blocking alternative energy example: There is a proposed solar energy project in California near El Centro, CA. where it routinely reaches 120 beg F. The planning is being blocked by environmentalist, who are fighting the power transmission line needed to bring the power to where it is needed! They are also working hard to halt existing hydro electric plants in the north west. 10 years, LOL, when every wind mill, solar plant, tide generator will be contested and fought over in the courts? In the 70s it was ''split wood not atoms'' and not in my backyard. Maybe 40 years.

[alphaa10-2009]

libsluv2spit said, "as soon as al gore STARTS using clean energy is the day i start.. DEAL AL?"
---
Gore installed solar panels and other green measures in his home.

Gore also invests many times more than most people in green energy-- actually paying out of pocket over $400 monthly to subsidize alternative power sources (energy offsets) through purchase of blocks of "green energy".

Most people who pass along the criticism of Gore do not know that, or have only a hazy conception of what an "energy offset" means.

Ultimately, for all of us, the issue is balancing the cost of our energy usage with reducing costs to the ecosystem (offset costs). This balance is a matter of verifiable numbers on a balance sheet. All to maintain, Gore says, a neutral carbon footprint-- despite his large home-- by his offsetting input into solar, wind and other power generation.

This is similar to the carbon credits used by many industries to balance their own use of conventional, inefficient power sources by investing in a cleaner future.

(See " IF ALL DOES IT, I WILL "-- 2)

[alphaa10-2009]

IF ALL DOES IT, I WILL-- 2

In effect, if industry listens to environmental concerns and tries to neutralize its own carbon footprint, it is only following the same ethic.

This is not to say Gore uses no kilowatts-- none of us can say that. Gore uses far more than most, and some do not like him for that. But Gore attempts to do the personally responsible thing, and pay for the actual burden on the environment he imposes.

Now, consider the typical SUV driver. If that driver voluntarily pays for the inefficiency of his monster vehicle-- essentially, a truck, under federal regulations-- by contributing to cleaner energy source development and operations, then he follows the same ethic.

My question is, how many drivers who chose an SUV to drive do even that much?

It is worth noting the person who began the Gore story is a graduate of the American Enterprise Institute, a very partisan GOP lobby whose leaders still reject the scientific consensus about global warming.

[alphaa10-2009]

Ever since Gore ran for president in 1988, coinciding with publication of his book, "Earth in the Balance", he retained focus on raising awareness of earth issues.

In contrast, Bush allies in polluting, backward and energy-wasteful industry initialy heaped scorn on Gore as an impractical visionary.

Not surprisingly, so did George Bush, appointed president despite Gore''s victory with the popular vote in 2000.

Even in the face of his controversial political setback, Gore quietly and effectively continued his work on earth issues, and his achievements followed upon one another.

As Bush''s own star wanes and falls-- largely through his own misdeeds-- Gore''s has become stronger and steadier. Clearly, the good guys often win.

[soloman6]

People are so angry. Did anyone realize we virtually destroy our own place that we all call home- the earth? It doesn''t matter what''s your skin color, race, or political agenda is, disasters have no sense of discrimination. We have to stop fighting with each other and agree that at least on one thing that we have in common is to make this planet a better home. It is time.

[soloman6]

People will never change unless something traumatic happen to their lives and their family. Just wait, bad things already happen. Did you guys read the news about lives around the globe lately? I guess not.

[bptdude]

Well, Mr. Gore is a lot closer than the other people running for the highet office. It is astonishingly hard to explain to people that this country needs to recreate the production and use of energy, and this will changet the world, for the better. If Al Gore can do it, good for him. He misses the most important item, however.

We should not pick this energy source or that, but provide a level playing field for all types, with the exception of rewarding green and renewable types. People on the consumer end of the chain just need a simple to use, totally clean fuel, that is the only one they will use, no matter what raw fuel is used to create it.

This fuel is hydrogen. Any and all means to create it can be deployed. If coal people can figure out how ot make it clean, good for them. If nuclear people can relocate far from cities and make hydrogen, good for them. If sunshine people, given special incentive from the government, can compete and make hydrogen, good for them. Over time, the problem will mostly solve itself.

[libsluv2spit]

as soon as al gore STARTS using clean energy is the day i start..

DEAL AL?

[flysky06]

I saw many hot video at a black dating site called ukblackfriends.c om. You can

even check out more *** and beautiful photos, videos and blogs there.

[robaldrich]

ubrew12 says: ''that the only reason many companies and the Republican Party promote nuclear is because nuclear fission requires a FUEL (i.e. it comes with a means to monopolize its use and make unseamly profits at the expense of rate-payers - unlike most renewable energy technologies for whom the FUEL is free).

I agree with your general proposition concerning the motivation of OTHERS for supporting nuclear power. That, however, should never be attributed to all nuclear supporters. I support nuclear power because it kills less people than any other reliable large scale power production system.

I have no problem with eliminating nuclear reactors if a more cost effective alternative large scale energy source is developed. But there is none. Pipe dreams of wind and solar power being workable at our current technological level should not be considered. Nobody will give up enough land to generate enough wind power, and the Greenies will file lawsuits for disrupting the natural habitat. Solar is only feasible, now, at a small scale. Let''s forget back side environmental analysis and determine what the real environmental impact is of making, transporting, and installing enough solar cells to power a home to every rooftop in American (or world?). Don''t forget building structures for home whose roofs are not properly oriented for solar panel use.

Rob

[louiville2]

ubrew wrote: "1. that nuclear should be increased in the U.S., perhaps by 100%"____

Bravo

ubrew12 wrote- "2. that a nuclear power plant is God''''''''s Gift to terrorists (can''''''''t think of a more permanent target)"______

I wrote Hmmmm you mean like splatting a piper cub into the side of the reinforced dome and then as it slides down? Europe has more terrorists then we have and they are building MORE NPP HMMM. Maybe what you need is a little backbone HUH.

Ubrew wrote- "3. that nuclear has serious unresolved issues with waste that need ALOT more work to resolve."_____

I wrote Hmmm And what''''s that? A natural occurring reactor waste only moved 10 feet in 2 billion years, which was by chance I''''m sure we can match that. (See backbone)
Ubrew wrote "4. that the only reason many companies and the Republican Party promote nuclear is because nuclear fission requires a FUEL (i.e. it comes with a means to monopolize its use and make unseamly profits at the expense of rate-payers - unlike most renewable energy technologies for whom the FUEL is free)"_____

Like they don''''t have a lock on the resources for wind farms etc... Or do you think those grow on trees or are magically made? And like Gore doesn%u2019t plan to make millions
Ubrew12 wrote "5. that you should put on some pants (speaking of teleportation)"

It%u2019s time to put away your toys and join us grown-ups.

[robaldrich]

louiville2

OK, Thanks. I guess I was writing to someone else. Sorry.

Rob

[louiville2]

repost_Al Gore didn''''t create/invent the internet he fostered it. Big differnce.

[robaldrich]

louiville2 says, ''that nuclear has serious unresolved issues with waste that need ALOT more work to resolve.''

-----

Wrong again. Numerous safe methods of permanent, safe, nuclear waste disposal have existed since 1968 (I don''t feel like googling before the year that I have personal knowledge). The disposal problem is not technical, its POLITICAL.

Federal law (Congress) requires federal approval of nuclear waste disposal. Every election, the President''s nuclear advisers have their own pet plan for disposal or are against nuclear power. So, all the work toward the last President''s plans for safe disposal are wasted.

This process has continued for at least forty years.

Rob

[louiville2]

robaldrich4-my mistake I should have been clear this is a reference to ''ubrews12" 5:56 post

[robaldrich]

louiville2 say ''that a nuclear power plant is God''s Gift to terrorists (can''t think of a more permanent target), Hmmmm you mean like splatting a piper cub into the side of the reinforced dome and then as it slides down?''

----

What''s your point? That would do nothing to the integrity of the reactor core; neither would a 747. You need a nuclear bomb to breach a nuclear reactor core. Then the core exposure would be rather irrelevant.

Rob